| The 
				Senate voted 61 to 36 to kill the measure, which six months 
				after it became law would have put an end to authorizations for 
				the use of military force (AUMF) passed in 2001 and 2002.
 The legislation was offered by Republican Senator Rand Paul as 
				an amendment to a must-pass annual defense policy bill, which 
				lawmakers are using as a vehicle to gain a greater say in 
				national security policy.
 
 Paul's measure was aimed at asserting the constitutional right 
				of Congress to approve military action, rather than the 
				president. Some of the other amendments address issues such as 
				sanctions on North Korea and President Donald Trump's ban on 
				transgender troops in the military.
 
 Many members of Congress are concerned the 2001 AUMF, passed 
				days after the Sept. 11 attacks to authorize the fight against 
				al Qaeda and affiliates, has been used too broadly as the legal 
				basis for a wide range of military action in too many countries.
 
 The majority of support for the amendment came from Democrats, 
				who joined Paul in arguing that it is long past time for 
				Congress to debate a new authorization for the use of force.
 
 "We should oppose unauthorized, undeclared, unconstitutional 
				war. At this particular time, there are no limits on war," Paul 
				said.
 
 Republicans control majorities in both the Senate and House of 
				Representatives. Only two other Republicans backed the 
				amendment.
 
 Opponents said it would endanger U.S. forces already deployed in 
				conflicts overseas by generating uncertainty about their 
				mission.
 
 "Repealing the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs without simultaneously 
				passing a new authorization would be premature, it would be 
				irresponsible," said Republican Senator John McCain, chairman of 
				the Senate Armed Services Committee.
 
 However, McCain and several other senators who spoke against the 
				amendment said they would back efforts to pass a new 
				authorization through so-called "regular order," including 
				hearings and debate.
 
 A growing number of lawmakers argue that using the 2001 
				authorization is especially questionable for the campaign 
				against Islamic State, which did not exist when it was passed, 
				and fights against al Qaeda in Syria and elsewhere.
 
 (Reporting by Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Andrew Hay and 
				Cynthia Osterman)
 
			[© 2017 Thomson Reuters. All rights 
				reserved.] Copyright 2017 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, 
			broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. 
				 |  |