I think of smart, i think of decent, someone with integrity, someone who is honest, and someone who has provided myself much counsel. It has been very wise and also i want to do just thank you for your support on many of the provisions of this bill. Moment oft take a personal privilege to say to you one of my fondest memories was my visit to your district in gary, indiana and you were bringing me a bag of white castle hamburgers. I mean a bag. I will always be indebted to you, mr. Chairman. I value our friendship and look forward to visiting you again in gary, indiana and get two bags next time. [laughter] your leadership and expertise is going to be missed. Madam chair, my amendment is straightforward as i introduced it for several years and it has received support over the years from both sides. Three years ago it passed on a bipartisan basis under republican majority and i hope we can do that again. My amendment would sunset the eight broad 2001 aumf months after enactment of the act. While in place it gives congress and the administration plenty of time to vote and debate on a new aumf. This is not only timely, but necessary. From pulling out of the iran deal to moving u. S. Carriers to the region, we have issued fake threats of military action. It even floated the idea of using the 2001 authorization for the use of military force as a basis to go to war with iran. Congress cannot allow this to happen and it is a stark reminder the danger of leaving the 2001 aumf on the books indefinitely could cause another unfortunate war. Voteptember 14, 2001 i did against the 2001 aumf. It was a 60 word authorization i knew would provide a blank check to wage war anywhere, anytime for any length. In the last 19 years it has been increasingly clear the aumf has provided the president , any president , the authority to rage war against anyone, any nation, anywhere, at any time. As our brave servicemen and women are deployed congress is missing in action. Our failure to debate and vote on these is up a trail of the American People and our constitutional duty. A betrayal of the American People and our constitutional duty. I encourage my colleagues to read this report. It has beenlays out cited 41 times in 19 countries to rage war with little or no congressional oversight. Reported in it was 16 countries. This looks at unclassified incidents. How many other times it was it used without the knowledge of congress or the American People . Not only is this used to justify military action thousands of miles away, it has been used as legal justification for wiretaps, indefinite detention practices at gitmo, killing by drones including those of american citizens, and the open ended expansion of military operations. In addition to the activities i mentioned, this aumf has reportedly invoked it has been invoked to deploy troops in andanistan, syria, yemen, other places. Any president can unilaterally 2001war under the outdated authorization without congressional authority. This administration, like previous administrations, continues to be engaged in a proxy war in yemen despite the passing of a war powers resolution to end of the u. S. Role in that war. It has already been publicly floated the idea of use in the 2001 aumf go to war with iran. Congress did not debate or authorize. This is outrageous and dangerous. It is not just the wars. The administration has launched unauthorized strikes against syria twice without congressional authorization in violation of the constitution. I know that while we may not share a common position i what should replace the aumf, many agree the overly Broad Authority is a major and concerning deterioration of congressional oversight and warmaking authority. I think many of us can agree a robust debate and vote is necessary, long overdue, and must take place. We voted to adopt the same amendment eight months after the bill was signed into law, leaving congress to debate and vote on a new one. My amendment will not be inactive immediately. Our troops will not be exposed. Enacted immediately. Our troops will not be exposed. Three days is what it took. Only about 20 of congress was serving when we took that fall. 20 . This is an education of congress. We need to step up and do our job. Let me be clear, with the 2001 aumf still in the books with its current form, any administration can continue to rely on this to wage endless wars. That is why my amendment to prohibit funding for the 2001 aumf after eight months is so important. In the past it is far past time to bring almost two decades of nonstop war to an end. The forever wars have spammed wider and wider across the globe and prompt us kostas costmately 5 trillion trillion,mately 5 cost uss cost lives. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I support the gentlewomans amendment. It is overly broad. The world has changed in the last 19 years. Some of those 19 countries include not only syria, but yemen, the philippines, other parts of africa. I strongly support the amendment. I strongly oppose this amendment, which would repeal the Legal Authority used by armed forces to fight against al qaeda and isis. As we all know, the 2001 provides authority for the use of military force against al qaeda, the terrorists that committed the 9 11 attacks, as well as the taliban and provided sanctuary to al qaeda. It authorizes all necessary and appropriate force against not only these terrorist groups, but also associated forces, such as the islamic state. Isis. Al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. Interest toe u. S. s reveal the Authority Without having an adequate replacement. It will be signed into law. Degraded, both al qaeda and isis continue to pose a serious threat and remain committed to targeting the United States and our interests around the globe. Repeal theally would be a significant mistake am deeply harmful to our National Security. Urge the amendment. Thank you, madam chairwoman. I want to thank congresswoman lee on the fight to bring oversight and accountability to the executive military force. It is extremely frustrating that we are here, yet again, having this debate when congress should have long ago listened to congresswoman lee and inserted our constitutional power to determine when and with home our nation engages in military conflict. His is not a partisan issue no matter who wins the president ial election in november. It is critical that the 2001 aumf be repealed so we do not continue surrendering our powers to the executive branch. There are Many National security challenges around the world. We have seen repeatedly that president s have to often relied on military responses to the challenges. The American Public has made it clear that they want an end to our forever wars. Adopting this amendment would bring us closer to that. Supporty colleagues to the amendment. I yield back. Thank you, madam chair. Ms. Granger is recognized. Too, strongly oppose this amendment. It would repeal the 2001 authorization for the use of military force, 240 days after this bill is signed into law. Should beiority protecting the American People. However, this amendment would undermine our National Security by repealing the authority to continueed terrorist threats against the United States. Aumf combatsf Global Threats from al qaeda and associated forces such as al qaeda and isis in the arabian peninsula. These groups remain a continuing threat to the u. S. And to the safety of the American People. More are few things irresponsible than removing a critical Legal Authority for the u. S. Military operations without having an agreement on what will replace it. As secretary of defense mattis stall ourrepeal would operations, immediately reduce ally commitment and support, and create significant opportunities for our enemies to seize the initiative. This amendment would eliminate of the men and women of the armed forces to be safe. I urge a no vote. I rise in strong support of the amendment but forward by our colleague, barbara lee. Assesses the use of military force after 240 days of the signing of this act. It encourages the congress to follow their constitutional duty and debate the use of military force. President trump has stretched the aumf to its limits. Four american soldiers died years ago. When the news broke, it was the first to many members of congress or members of the public realized america was at war and northern africa. The justification for the deployment . The 2001 aumf. The 2001 aumf has become a blank check for war. The United States is deployed troops to afghanistan, iraq, somalia, libya and niger. We should not wage war unless we revisit the 2001 aumf. Congress cannot stand idly by. Some of the most fun metal issues facing our nation. Congress must make its voice heard. It is our responsability to debate the use of military force. I urge my colleagues to support congresswoman amendment. Weve done so repeatedly and in a bipartisan fashion. Lets do it again. Preserving our freedom and values and way of life. We owe them so much more. I yield back. Mr. Cole is recognized. Thank you very much, madam chair. I want to thank my friend for offering the amendment and i think it is on the topic we ought to be talking about. While i oppose this amendment i think she makes many good points. Im one of the people who do believe it needs to be replaced. I worked with my colleagues including my good friend in california on occasion to do that. I will add for the record im strangely more comfortable with this president not using military force than either the last two. Hes actually done more to reduce our presence and in more and been more cautious than either president obama or president bush. That ought to be noted for the record. He is not the problem here. The aumf is the problem. I am working with representative craft and others to something and get is beyond this. My friend makes a good point. At the end the day, you have to replace this with something. Because we do have troops deployed in the area. And its important if legal if they have legal justification and authorization from being there. Saying we get it done in 240 days is nice, the problem is we havent been able to get it done in 18 years. I think it flies in the face of our own experience. This is a very difficult thing. But it doesnt change the basic reality that we need to look at this particular document. We do need to reclaim our warmaking authority. My friend has been a leader in that. I look forward to working with her as we find a way to replace what i think is a flawed authorization that went further in scope than i think any intended. In terms of giving away congressional war power to the executive branch regardless of who the president is. But find a way to recapture it in a way thats responsible and does not jeopardize the lives and safety of american troops that are performing important tasks. So i am working with another group of members, thing we would should seewe something. It may or may not be the right way, but the debate is an important debate for us to have and the reclamation of authority to the congress of the u. S. Is an important thing for us to achieve. It should be accomplished in placing american troops in the field at risk and counting on us being able to come up with an appropriate authorization into hundred 40 days when we havent in 240 days when we havent been able to do it so far 19 years. So far in 19 years. I applaud my friend but i dont support the resolution and back my time. The chair has a personal plea. As the markup go along, i know the masks get uncomfortable, but i need all of you to wear them over your nose and mouth. As chair, it is my responsibility to keep you safe. If you remove the masks to speak, please put them back on. If there is no further debate, the member from california is recognized on the amendment for one minute. Thank you very much. I would like to thank all the members who spoke and those supporting this amendment and those who dont support. Let me just say one thing. As the daughter of a career military officer, i would never propose any amendment or any legislation that would put the lives and safety of american troops in jeopardy. Secondly, the authorization to use military force was written and passed in three days. Three days. Thirdly, congress has been missing in action for 19 years and eight months is plenty of time for this body to come up with a new authorization based upon what we believe constitutes the use of military force. While we may not agree on what the replacement should look like, many of us do agree any replacement should include the scope, size, objective, and duration of any military operation. The house adopted language last summer outlined boundaries of time, scope, and geography should be to any new aumf. Its time we sunsetted repeal sunset and repeal this and put congress back into ensuring we do our job, because we have not in 19 years, we have been totally missing in action. Vote. For an aye the questions on the amendment offered by the member from california. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed say no. No. I ask for recorded vote. A recorded vote is requested. In the opinion of the chair, and thes have it amendment is adopted. I ask for a recorded vote. A recorded vote has been requested. All those in favor, raise your hand. A sufficient number being supported of a recorded vote. The clerk will call the roll. [rollcall] on this vote, the yeas are 30, the nays are 22, the amendment is adopted. For what purpose does the member from florida rise . [indiscernible] on the desk. The clerk will read the amendment. I ask the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The reading of the amendment is dispensed with. Let me also add my words of respect and praise to the chairman. You mentioned you are in an appropriator. You are a model appropriator. Hadare one that all of us the privilege of working with you would do well to try and emulate and follow, i thank you for your service to your country and your loss here is the loss to the country. Is a loss to the country. Im glad you are going to be moving on in doing other things. Thank you for your service. Im offering this amendment to add several provisions to the bill related to our facility at Guantanamo Bay, cuba. Ry amendment would restore wa provisions on guantanamo that have been standard in this bill for many years. Bipartisan provisions which were not included in this. These provisions would put a limitation on the transfer of remaining detainees at Guantanamo Bay or a foreign country or to use the department of defense funds very domestic u. S. Facility or imprisonment of guantanamo detainees. Or again, to carry out the closure or realignment of the facility. Even though the last president planned to close the detention center, congress in a bipartisan way resisted those plans. Today, only 40 terrorist remain in gitmo, but they are the worst of the worst, and thats why this president has signed an executive order reversing the previous president s executive order issued in 2009 to try and close down that military prison. The executive order notes a number of the remaining individuals are being prosecuted in military commission while others must be detained to protect against continuing significant threats as security to the security of the United States. In addition, the population represents the most difficult and dangerous cases, but among those historically there, there is a significant reason for concern regarding their reengagement in hostilities should they get the opportunity. In fact, my understanding and i dont think anybody will doubt or correct me on this is that of those previously released, over 200 individuals resumed their hostility, their terrorist career. My understanding and i dont this is an amendment to bring back bipartisan language that has been in the bill to protect the American People from this group of individuals, this dangerous group of individuals that was there and i would ask for your favorable consideration. I yield back. The chair is recognized. I appreciate the gentlemans kind words and cant believe he would offer an amendment to the bill. [laughter] but reluctantly would express my opposition. I would simply note as he rightfully points out, the bill is silent on the issues that are very important to him. The Trump Administration was silent on this issue because they did not request that the committee include these provisions. Except for the request and amendment offered by the gentleman today, in markup of this legislation, we received no written request from any member of the house to include this language in the bill. I would also point out that the Trump Administration has not requested a move of the detainees were suggested they will shut down the prison. The committee has no indication the administration wants to work plans to do anything about these amendments to seek to stop. The committee does fund the prison and we do have asked for language seeking to bring down the extraordinary costs in future years. Each participant in guantanamo, each of those 40 individuals are costing the american taxpayers about 10 billion per year. It is a security issue, but there is a monetary issue, as well. So i would ask opposition to the gentlemans amendment. Mr. Calvert is recognized. I strongly support the amendment. We traveled to naval station Guantanamo Bay earlier this year and saw firsthand some of the challenges. And heard from the admiral and his staff, reviewing our base size and the number of personnel serving there. The detention facility opened in 2002 to hold detainees affiliated with al qaeda and the taliban. Now it only holds 40 remaining hardcore terrorists. Charged in connection with the september 11 terrorist attacks and the strike on the uss cole. I realize the administration did not request these revisions included in the bill. It did so not because it opposes not only opposes the language, but because all department of defense under every administration resists congressional limitations that reflexively seek maximum flexibility. President trump issued an executive order in 2018 reversing the prior administrations efforts to end u. S. Detention operations and close Guantanamo Bay facility. Close of the close the Guantanamo Bay facility. Its collected in a longstanding provision is my friend from florida seeks to put back in the bill, the executive order recognizes th