Congress has tried to solve this before. And I know, you know this, because you've grappled with it. 1973, closing days of the Vietnam War, not a declared war, but it was sort of ratified, acquiesced to by Congress, but President Nixon took the war into Cambodia and Laos without telling Congress. And Congress reacted very negatively. And so Congress put together a War Powers Resolution, to require a dialogue between the Legislative and Executive Branches and passed it, in that very contentious and challenging time. Congre Congress passed the War Powers Resolution 40 years ago this fall, this past fall. President Nixon vetoed it. Congress overrode his veto. President Nixon said, it doesn't matter, it's unconstitutional. And every President since, Democratic and Republican, has said it's unconstitutional. And Presidents haven't followed the Act, and Congress hasn't followed the Act. I got obsessed about this issue, in about 2002, around the debate. Concerning whether we should go to war in Iraq. Less so about the substance, about whether there was a justification for military force. But I didn't like the process. I didn't like that, it was being laid on the desk of Congress two weeks before midterm election. You shouldn't be having a debate. About war and making people vote, with a mid-term election staring 'em in the face. because that suggests that it's more about politic, than it is about substance. And I started to get really interested in this. And I became convinced when I read this Millerson report that there was a better alternative, to this failed war powers resolution in 1973. So, this summer I announced with Senator John McCain of Arizona an effort. To try to fix this. A bit challenging, hard but, but to fix it. And we introduced a bill, talked to the President in the White House about it, talked to other colleagues about it. And we want to try to establish a better process, to normalize a process of dialog and decision, between an executive and legislative branch, over the initiation of military action. The bill has three components, then we'll open it up for questions. Number one, what is war? What is military action? Is it a drone strike? Is it. What is it? Well we, we put a very functional definition in the statute that was recommended by the Miller Center. War is use of American troops in combat, for more than seven days. So, American troops going to the Philippines for typhoon relief, that's not war because it's not combat. American troops in combat behind a UN flag, well, they're still in combat. They're still American troops. So that is military action. American troops in combat, for more than seven days. That triggers this statute. That's piece one. Piece two. Consultation. What does it mean for a President to consult with Congress? In the past, Presidents have said, I consulted with Congress. Well, what do you mean? Well, I called a couple congressmen, told them I was thinking about doing this. That's consultation. You need to establish a norm. What is consultation? So the second part of the bill, establishes a consultation committee, bipartisan and bicameral, that would be a permanent committee in Congress. The President would be required on an ongoing basis, it's, it's ongoing dialogue to, to meet with that consultation committee through staff to talk about hot spots in world that may require use of American military force. So that the consultation committee is always kind of aware of the situation, and when a President determines we need to use military force, the President can go to the Consultation Committee, even on an emergency basis. Provide a report, here's why we need to do it. And then, initiate military action if it's an emergency. But, point three, members of Congress have to go on the board, they have to vote. And so in that instance that I just described, the Consultation Committee would be required to, to forward to the floor of each house through the Foreign Relations Committees, a, a, a recommendation of approval. The President has come to the Consultation Committee, and said we need to do this action in Syria, this military action. It's expected to take more than a week. A resolution of approval will be introduced in both Houses and debated, as a privileged motion, and an up or down vote. That would be voted on, and then we go to the White House for signature. But there would be a requirement that no member of Congress be able to duck or dodge or, or not be on the record in terms of whether. American military force should be committed. This is the basic proposal that Senator McCain and I have put on the table, and we're gathering sponsors. It's a very bipartisan issue, but both, both the, the legislative and executive have been culpable in the sloppiness, both parties, and members of both parties have been culpable in the sloppiness. But in a day, where these questions are coming at us with greater frequency, and in some more challenging context. It's not just nation against nation any more. It's, it's multi state actors, and fields of battle far removed from one another. And technologies like drones. Far from the main battlefield. In the, in these complex times, and especially after 13 years of war that is still open-ended and could go on for a very long time. It's important that we try to get this right, clean up the process, and establish that kind of a consultation process, so that the nation would never initiate military action. Without a political consensus that says this is a good idea. So that's what we're up to, and it will take a long time I'm sure and we'll go through many twists and turns getting there. But I'm, I'm very excited to be about this effort. And I'm very excited to spotlight some superb work that was done right here at the University of Virginia. And I'd love to open it up, and take questions.
