Those working online, we remind you as well as those joining us on cspan that you are welcome to send questions or comments at any time, simply emailing speaker at heritage. Org and of course we will post the program on the homepage following todays presentation for everyones future reference. Leading our discussion is mr. Stimson, manager of our law program and senior legal fellow in our center for National Defense. He is a National Recognized expert and Homeland Security crime control, drug control and immigration. He he writes and lectures on policy issues such as the law of Armed Conflict in interrogations, the geneva conventions, the patriot act and others. Before joining us here ten years ago, he served he served as Deputy Assistant secretary of defense for Detainee Affairs for Donald Rumsfeld and ronald gates. He has been a prosecutor about state local and federal levels. He is a navy officer and served as a milk terry prosecutor and recently served as deputy judge of the green core trial judiciary. Please join me in welcoming mr. Stinson. Thank you very much for that long but warm introduction. We will have have the air conditioning turned on so we will cool down the room a bit. It is a real pleasure to welcome a heritage intern and now senator young back to heritage. He represents this great state of indiana which i held my first job back in 86. He is a fifth generation hoosier and he grew up watching his parents work hard supporting their family pretty first jobs were delivering newspapers, mowing lawns and providing Janitorial Services at the family business. Adapter graduating from high school, he enlisted in our great United States navy, and one year later was offered an employment to the United States naval academy. Upon graduation he accepted commission in the United States marine corps where he served as an Intelligence Officer. While based in chicago with the navy, the the senator put himself through night school at the university of chicago where he earned his mba with a concentration in economics. He later received a masters from the school of advanced study in london before returning to the United States to work here and later as a legislative assistant in the u. S. Senate. In 2003, the senator returned home to indiana and soon met his wife jenny. He put himself through night school. This time earning his jd from indiana university. They married in 2005 and worked together at a Small Law Firm started by his wifes greatgrandfather. Did when he is not here attending to his responsibilities, he is spending time with his children. I will say at the point of personal privilege week. To know each other when he was a congressman and we played soccer together at a fundraiser. Todays topic is one theyve taken a keen interest in every now and then. That is the authorization of military force, one of the most awesome powers we have under the constitution, one that congress has authorized war in our nations history undeclared war five times and authorize the use of military force over 40 times in our nations history. What we are delving into is the fascinating and interesting concept of senator youngs proposal of isis specific authorization for military force. I would commend to your reading the paper that we just released and my coauthor is here on analyzing all of the cases out of guantanamo to see if President Trump brought isis members to guantanamo, whether the old amf would actually apply and if not what the litigation risks would apply. I hope you read that paper, we are not going to talk much about it, thats not the point. The point is to you from a senator who has some excellent prepared remarks. He has been kind enough to agree to answer a few questions after words and then we will think the senator who will go back to his duties in the senate and i will introduce our excellent panelists at that time. Please give a a warm welcome to senator todd young. [applause] is a privilege to be back here and i want to thank all those that made this possible. I want to thank him for inviting me to be part of this event and for your leadership with respect to the law of war , bouncing between all the things you produce and say to help inform our work. Today, as he said, i would like to offer some remarks about whether its time for congress to pass use of military force against isis. What you may not know is that my time here came at a historically significant moment because it gave me a taste of the fine scholarship here. My last day here at heritage was supposed to be september 1september 10, 2001. My successor in my administrative role here had not formally been trained and turnover didnt occur so i volunteered to come back on september 11, 2001. I was buying a bagel for breakfast at the corner bagel shop that is now closed and theres a Television Screen in the corner and i noted on that screen there was some breaking news, a plane had hit the World Trade Center tower. I arrived here at heritage, not certain certain what had occurred but i had some suspicions, and we were told the second plane had hit the World Trade Center tower. Not too much after that, as i recall events, we were looking out the window and saw a large plume of smoke which appeared to be rising from the mall right here in washington d. C. We later found out that was the plane that had struck the pentagon. If theres ever a full circle moment, i feel like i am in it with respect to my first realization with the war on terror, and our responsibility to make sure it is carried out in a responsible way. I come to this issue as someone who spent years in the marine corps. I spent two years in the house of representatives on Armed Services committee and i now sit on the Foreign Relations committee which has jurisdiction over authorizations for the use of military force. With that said, i realize this this debate has been going on for some time. There are a number of my colleagues who have shown real leadership with respect to this matter. Particularly, i would like to commend senator kaine of virginia, senator flake of arizona for their efforts to be champions when it comes to a ums and the need to make sure that congress not only does its Due Diligence and communicates the importance of this issue, but acts in the end. For those reasons, i come to this issue with strong opinions, but please know i understand i am not a law for expert. I have been trained in the law, but my opinions are leavened with a great dose of humility. You will be be hearing from some law experts momentarily. It is in that spirit that i offer the following comments. I believe it is long past time for congress to consider and pass in a ums. Let me give you three simple reasons why. We would send a clear message to our men and women in uniform that the American People have their back. As theyve done throughout her nations history, members of armed forces are once again bravely serving and fighting overseas to keep us safe and secure. On july 4, 2015, i attended a memorial service, just memorial service, just outside of memphis indiana. It was the hometown of the first marine who fell in our war against isis. Indiana now has thousands of our men and women in uniform who are directly engaged in one form of combat or another. We have have 266 members of our Indiana National guard directly supporting the fight against isis. I think we owe it to all of our Service Members and all of our branches, our airmen, our our marines, our soldiers and sailors, whether they are activeduty, guard or reserve. As they confront ices, they have to know americans are representatives here in washington d. C. Stand with them. There is a lot of talk in washington about supporting our troops. I support that talk. I think its important on a very regular basis to come in and celebrate and recognize the extraordinary sacrifices the men and women in uniform make on our behalf. We recognize their family sacrifices and their caregivers. In addition to to talk we need to provide resources and training to our service personnel, but we also need to put our rhetorical support into legal action by passing this. The second second reason i believe its time to consider and pass an authorization for use of military force against isis relates to the constitutional response abilities. As this audience well knows, article 11 section eight of the constitution clearly states that congress has the power to declare war, yet two and half years after the u. S. Began bombing isis, congress has failed to explicitly exercise this fundamental constitutional responsibility. The American People have the right to expect better. Many in congress including members of both parties, have introduced legislation, made goodfaith efforts to pass it focused on isis. Still, the simple fact remains that congress has failed to fully honor its constitutional responsibility. As students of history here know, the founders understood the decision to go to war represents one of the most grievous, serious responsibilities that any government faces. To avoid foolish, hasty, unnecessary in perpetual wars that accrue depth and e road liberty. The founders divided war powers between the legislative and executive branches. James madison who was rightly known as the father of our constitution for his role in drafting the supreme law of the land explained why the founders gave power to declare war to congress. Madison wrote, a declaration that there shall be war is not an execution of law. It is not in any respect and act merely executive. Madison continued, those who are to conduct a war cannot be proper or safe judges whether a war ought to be commenced, continued or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle and free government, and analysis that separates the sword from the purse. While the founders clearly intended the president to serve as commanderinchief, the founders granted to congress an impressive list of powers related to war, centering on the power to declare war. In my view the founders intended in the constitution demands that Congress Play a decisive role in the decision to go to war. Not to act as a rubberstamp or passive observer. For much of American HistoryCongress Took the responsibility seriously. According to my numbers, from the Congressional Research service, since our nations Founding Congress has passed 11 formal declarations of war against foreign nations and dozens of authorization for military force. Since world war ii, congress has seemed less inclined to fulfill its constitutional duty and assert itself war powers. Not surprisingly, this application has resulted of a consolidation of war powers in the executive branch. Madison would have found this concerning and unhealthy for our republic. Most agree the president has the authority to utilize military force in the shortterm. In the cases of Eminent National emergency, but no reasonable definition of such an instance should include the engagement of u. S. Military forces in protracted hostilities in Foreign Countries absent a declaration of war or authorization of use of military forced from congress. In short, i believe this this failure by congress to fulfill its Constitutional Responsibilities related to war powers isnt good for our country. Third, i share the concerns regarding the ability to detain isis fighters in guantanamo. In a well argued memorandum from last week that i encourage everyone to read they argue that its needed for legal ambiguity related to the team members of isis. Law of war detention is essential to keeping enemy combatants off the battlefield , and i say as a former Intelligence Officer to gathering intelligence that we need to protect our country. Yet, as the scholars argue, if they choose to retain detainees at guantanamo bay, they will likely challenge their detention in that it doesnt extend to isis. Its not to me how the courts would rule. We have a legal risk that needs to be addressed. Passage of an authorization for use of military force targeting isis could address this concern. I realize some very smart people disagree with me on whether or not 2001 au mf is sufficient to authorize use of force against isis, and this will continue to be something that people of great principle and high intellect will debate. Mr. Stinson, mr. Preston and mr. Savage will be able to share their views on this momentarily. I will leave that debate to the panel for today. I will simply say that for reasons related to supporting our troops, fulfilling Congress Constitutional responsibility, and lastly eliminating any doubt whatsoever related to law of war detention, i believe congress should act. I will conclude my thoughts by briefly summarizing my legislation. Rather than being a member who sat around and lamented the fact that congress failed to pass an au mf, i wanted wanted to put pen to paper and put out what i thought an optimal plan would look like. I introduced Senate Joint Resolution 31. This au mf would authorize the president to use all necessary and appropriate force against al qaeda, the taliban, the Islamic State of iraq and syria, successor organizations and associated forces. To eliminate any remaining legal uncertainty, i also included a section that makes clear that it includes the authority to detain members of al qaeda, the taliban and isis. Believing that congress should fulfill its oversight responsibilities fully and assertively, my legislation also would require the submission to congress of a comprehensive strategy to defeat isis. In conclusion, i made clear to my colleagues that i believe congress should act and have expressed an eagerness to work with them in a bipartisan manner as well as him willingness to make compromises and make tough votes. I think its too important to be mired in politics or inertia. As i wrote in an oped earlier this year, an au mf would incentivize greater scrutiny and oversight of the executive Branch Strategy to defeat isis , establish greater account ability to the American People and prevent a further dangerous erosion in the congressional war powers that undercuts the ability of the American People to influence our nations decisions related to war and peace. Thats why i believe its time, past time for congress to pass an aumf on isis. Thank you for having me and i look forward to your questions. [applause] thank you for those excellent remarks. The check is in the mail for the plug on our paper. Im kidding, obviously, but we appreciate that you and your staff have read it and we did put a lot of time into it, analyzing all this cases before the d. C. Circuit. A couple questions, is there any appetite on the hill for an aum aumf . President obama introduced an aumf on the hill. It didnt really get a full hearing. There were hearings in the year before. What is your general sense of whether theres an appetite today for that debate. Congress remains an institution that is driven by its numbers. Most recently we saw 46 members of the house of representatives and a letter to Speaker Paul Ryan that was a bipartisan letter encouraging consideration on the house side. I expect those numbers are a lot larger. On the senate side i noted a couple people who have been out front with respect to the need to pass an aumf and there are others in my private conversations. Leadership will respond to the concerns of their members. I can tell you, as i speak to hoosiers, they hoosiers, they are concerned about this. My suspicion is that americans from every state understand that the American People themselves need to have a say about this fundamental and consequential decision about whether or not we send our nations best in harms way. I do think there is a growing appetite. Now is the time to lean in on this as the world appears to be getting more dangerous on a number of fronts. You correctly pointed out obviously that the Congressional Research service noted there had been 11 specific declarations of war in congress history. We lay out those 11 in our paper in five major conflicts. Forty plus authorizations for use of military force, some of which were very narrow. This 2001 aumf is rather capacious compared to others. You seem a path forward on your committee . Is there an appetite to take this up and move forward. When i first brought this up in january, i wasnt certain, i saw some affirmative nods as i discussed the leaves. Let me re style that, i think everyone recognizes it would be optimal for congress to speak on this particular issue. , the other groups that we list and the authorization of military force, in in a manner required to actually defeat them and achieve our objectives so, there is tension here between those who. We have to do everything we can to sanction the use of military force and members who dont want to tie the hands of this for future president. Through compromise we could end up in a good spot and make sure that we dont just delegate the executive branch powers. I think theres Something Else i needs to be said. Merely going through the debate in a public forum requires us in congress to sell the need to go into battle to the American People. If we cant do that in a democratic republic, perhaps we ought not be going into battle. That responsibility of the president , but not t