>> My name is Marissa Bielick from Fairfax, Virginia. >> Hi, Marissa. >> And I want to thank you again, Senator, for coming here today. >> Mm-hm. >> And you mentioned the, the significant armed conflict, how that was a big change in terms of the definition >> Mm-hm. >> I believe the terminology before was hostilities in the original text. >> Mm-hm. >> But what, how does this consultation address the prospect of a future wherein war's more defined by drone attacks and hit list. >> Mm-hm. >> Than troops on the ground. >> Yeah, great, great question. So, the, the statue that we have introduced, and we frankly expect it's going to go through some sandpapering. And, you know, changing, as the normal legislative process would allow. Basically says that this use of combat troops for more than seven days. It would not include humanitarian efforts, obviously, it would also not include covert activities. Covert activities are covered by separate parts of the law that we don't propose to rewrite now. So there would be some instances where it would be, you know, kind of on the line. And yet even drone strikes. I mean just to use an example of drone strikes currently that are some of the most recent ones that have gotten a lot of attention are in Yemen. Those are being conducted pursuant to a war authorization. So, the 91801 authorization for war in the aftermath of 9/11. Empowered the President to take steps to defeat those who were culpable for 9/11, quote, or their affiliates. And that or their affiliates language has been interpreted very broadly both by the Bush and the Obama administration. So, the drone strikes in Yemen, even though it might seem like, well, that's just a singular operation, that's not a seven day operation. Those are being conducted at part of a larger campaign premised on a declaration of war that was put in place in 01 that is still valid. I have a sep, whole set of separate concerns about the validity of that authorization. Because when it was passed. Here we are 13 years later. There was no geographic limitation on it, and there was no limitation in time put on it. I think it's entirely too open ended. And the second thing we ought to be doing is, Congress is trying to put it into some more rational and limited framework. But, but there, even with the functional definition, combat troops more than seven days, there will be some, some challenging questions. But even those can be addressed in that dialogue between the executive and the consultation committee. Even if they don't rise to the level where the vote will be required. Having a permanent consultation mechanism would hopefully create a consensus about those actions as well. >> Jack Macnamara from Yorktown, Virginia. My question regards more politics and strategy, >> Hm-mm. >> Than policy. >> Yep. >> Bills as you may have noticed, don't have particularly high success rate. >> [LAUGH]. >> In particular bills about the War Powers resolution since the War Powers resolution itself have a 0% success rate. >> Hm-mm. >> What makes you think that this time is different, that this one- >> Yeah. >> Can go all the way. >> Yeah, no, fantastic question. th, there, there have been efforts, interestingly since the 1973 Act to begin, the Act isn't working, President's saying it's unconstitutional. There is at least a couple pieces of that 73 Act that are, I think, are clearly unconstitutional. And so I understand why presidents make the argument, Congress ducks it. There have been a couple efforts to begin to try to deal with it, that have usually kind of, just kind of petered out and stopped. Not even you know, major efforts that led to votes. Why now? because we've been at war for 13 years. because we're in the middle of a war that is open ended. because we had a meeting in May and I asked members of the Administration, under the current authorization where we're fighting. How long will this war go on? And they said, 25 or 30 years. And I said, well, I know this for certainty, not one member of Congress who voted in 01 for the authorization used for military force. Thought they were voting for 40 year open in a war. There's been a sloppiness about this that has had a huge cost. In the lives of Americans, in the lives of others, in budgetary red ink, in our relations with nations all around the world. And some of that consequence been because of the sloppiness with which we deal with these questions. And I think every member of Congress right now understands we need to do better at this. And I think the President, and the President has spoken to this, we've got to clean these procedures up. We might have different ideas about you might want to fix it one way, I might want to fix another way. But I think there is a uniform sense on the hill and in the executive branch now. And for what we've been through the last 13 years. We owe it to ourselves, we owe it to those who are asking to bear the burden of battle, we owe it to our public to try to improve this. >> Good afternoon, Senator Cain, my name is Michael Riley, from Ashburn, Virginia. >> Michael. >> How would the War Powers Constul, Consultation Act manage the increased flow of secret information related, related to national security. And how the Act determined how much information Congress is entitled to during a consultation? >> So, yeah, great question. And, and it is, there, there is no automatic answer to, that would connect the passage of this War Power's Consultation Act. To some of the controversies that are swirling around right now with the scope of the NSA programs or the Patriot Act. And the FISA courts and the collection of hyperdata. But I, I actually think getting clarity on these big picture points would actually help. So for example the, the controversies around NSA programs there are individual NSA programs the Patriot Act and others. And there's, there's valid proposals to reform them but, but most of these programs are premised upon we're at war. And even if you fix these programs within the bounds of the program completely. If the war is still the 91801 authorization that doesn't impose any temporal or geographic limitations on the war. I don't think we're going to be happy with our fixes to the program. If, if we want to fix some of these programs to get America's confidence that we're appropriately balancing, protecting our security with individual liberties. We've got to achieve a decision making process that leads us to consensus about military mission. When we undertake it and what the scope of it will be. And having an ongoing military action that is justified by an authorization that was passed by Congress with no end date. And no geographical limitation. To me almost guarantees that any reform effort in some of these other areas will not ever be satisfactory. If we don't go back upstream and solve those issues. The one piece of this Act that what I think probably more directly deals with some of this information. Is that consultate, the consultation committee that I mentioned earlier, it's composed of the Republican and Democratic leaders of each House. And then the Republican and Democratic lead members of each of the four key committees in each House. Appropriations, Armed Services, Foreign Relations and Intelligence. And so certainly the expectation would be within that consultation committee. The full range of information would be shared, between the executive and the legislative. So the consultation committee could you know offer advice and approval to a president contemplating the need to initiate military action.
