There are hundreds or thousands of folks from your states involved as well. What i want to do is talk briefly about the threat which is a very real threat. I take it seriously and i know all who are here will take it seriously as well, and that threat is why i support the basic pillars of the president s fourpoint Initiative Announced two wednesdays ago. Im going to talk about that, the president s four points briefly. But whatever want to dig into with, i hope you will see my passion coming through my wonkiness because im going to dig into this in a significant way, is a series of six reasons why i think it is absolutely critical legally, or president reasons, for the reputation of our institution, and especially for the servicemen and women we are asking to risk their lives, i think it is critical that congress complete the authorization that it began last week when a boat on the army of moderate elements in syria. It is critical that congress do this. If were going to engage this mission, weve got to do it right or not do it. If we dont to coax on board with it, were not doing it right. If Congress Wont get on board then we should stop doing what we are doing. Finally i want to talk about not just what congress should do generally come that congress should involve, i want to talk about specific what im doing with my colleagues as we are tackling this issue legislatively. First in terms of the threat. The isil threat, and i used the phrase isil. Theres different terms. I use isil because their geographic ambitions extend beyond iraq and see to encompass a broader area of a lot so i tend to like the isil phrased better. They are engage in 19 that could be destabilizing in lebanon right now. The campaign that they are engaged in violates basic International Norms of human rights and subjugation of women, persecution religious minority, crimes that they could consider genocide, violations of national sovereignty, a whole series of significant violations of the most basic norms of human rights and they have carried out past atrocities against individuals. For them to claim to be the Islamic State that anything is a profanation of an important religion and that is a significant matter. They pose significant threat not only to iraq and syria but other nations in the region that we work closely with allies. They pose significant threats to allies in europe and africa. I traveled recently with members of the house and Senate Armed Services committee and intel and Foreign Relations committees to morocco and in very different ways. They expressed huge concerned about the foreign fighter issue. Tunisia and morocco and foreign fighters have joined the battle. With isil often come from europe, not even come from tunisia and morocco but funky stable destabilizing pockets. Im convinced they pose a significant threat, isil does, to the training. Its a significant threat, a growing threat. Recently testimony of counterterrorism official in the training have not said theres any credible evidence of any movement in an attack but that does not mean that theyre not a significant and growing threat and clearly they have been stating in words and demonstrating infactions whether its the beheading of american journalist in such a grisly way, the recruiting of American Foreign fighters are pledges to take action against the United States, that this threat is when we have to take their research led to in addition to having a desire to do harm and do a crime in the reason region that sources of funding. They have disciples capacity because of the power they been able to amass, weapons they been able to amass. Thats the reason, thats what the isil poses, thats the reason i believe United States needs to take action as part of a Multinational Coalition to include military action against isil. I believe that strongly and i frankly think that the steps the president has taken as he outlined are all steps that can be reason to justify. We need to get into the debate in congress and it sure some sandpaper we take into the nation and to be changed as we do but the four basic pillars of the present proposal i do not find controversial but the first one is not controversial. Humanitarian assistant at the president talked about that. U. S. Is the largest provider of humanitarian aid to sudan refugees in the world. I hear my colleagues on Foreign Relations says u. S. Doesnt have a strategy with respect to syria and the region. Being the largest provider of the managing aid in the world is not my accident. It doesnt just happen out of the ether. Its an intentional strategy that the u. S. Has chosen and was we have often chosen to the complete destruction of this unique chemical weapons stockpile did not happen by accident. It was a huge victory in a ship that was involved with the destruction of the chemical weapons that returned to virginia last wednesday. Thats a strategy. In humanitarian area that is until we can all support but we shouldnt be bashful about talk about what is being done in that area. The three military points the president presentation two wednesdays ago were Counterterrorism Operations against isil there should but i detect broad support for that amount members of congress. A targeted airstrike campaign in iraq and syria to blunt the momentum of isil and move them back. And to support Ground Forces battling isil on the ground. And then finally that pillar, the training and equipping of the Ground Forces that will carry the battle to isil on the ground. A piece of it thats gotten the attention is the training and equipping of syrian matters at thats not the entire bill. This is not the training and equipping of the iraqi secret forces, the training and equipping of the peshmerga, allies in the kurdish region, and also the front more difficult task of the training and equipping of Opposition Forces that will battle isolation. I think those four points, humanitarian, airstrikes, the train and equip missions and Counterterrorism Operations against isil there should are all very reasonable. And worthy of support with something conditions of the benefit of in a bit of the point i think is so critical is the president should be doing this without congress. May be more to the point, frankly is, if are going to set some culpability, congress shouldnt be allowing it to happen. Let me get into the reasons why i think it is so important that this mission has to be done right and what that means as the congress has to be on board with all of it. I want to talk about sort of six things. The constitution, the authorizations that Congress Passed in the 2000s that are being used by this administration as justification to his presence own words as actions and thats president. The reputation, the president assets for future president s and future congress, and finally the most important thing, and underlying value that really kind of is spread throughout all of the points that ill talk about, especially the constitutional allocation of power. Governor strickland stated it right with respect to the constitution. I think its extremely clear. The constitution is an interesting document that is composed of both complete precision, you cant be present if youre not 35 years old, and very carefully worded ambiguity. You cant take somebodys property without due process of law. What does that mean . Nobody can be subject to cruel and unusual punishment to the framers chose often to be specific individuals in of instances to be paid. Along the spectrum from specific debate, the war powers peace is among the most specific. You did a great job. Its congress to declare and the president to carry out the mission. President has article ii powers as commanderinchief to execute a mission once initiated because the last thing you need is 535 initiatives. The initiation of action is for congress to do. Not only is the language of the constitution provision clear, the purpose is also clear. The principal drafter of the constitution, james madison, you will forgive me, i use a lot of virginia references, but the principal drafter made very plain why the provision was drafted of congress as the declare of war. Madison wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson if years after the constitution was finalized and basically said this. Our constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates, that it is the executive that is the branch of power most interested in war and most prone to it. It is for this reason that we have with study care to the question of war in the legislature. Madison was me with executives, frankly monarchs, that had had the power of the declaration of war. And so in drafting the constitution, madison any other gases were very careful to pull the power away from where it traditionally been placed and to put in the legislative branch. The framers understood clearly that a president as commander in chief would have a solemn obligation to defend the nation immediately, especially when a congress in recess you to get every which right horseback. They would be a need for any action defend the nation and congress intended that the president should do it. But they had a very clear understanding of what that article to commanderinchief power was and that was to defend against imminent attack. The first real test of this came when Thomas Jefferson was president , and jefferson was seeing american ships both merchant and military subject to repeated attack by the Barbary Coast pirates in the mediterranean. Jefferson knew, i can order my commanders to repel attacks all the longer im the commanderinchief. I can defend our shipping interests. But at some point is that what are we going to do . Diskeeper about what attack after the next . It was almost the exact phrase that president obama used on meet the press two weeks ago. We need to go on offense against the barbary pirates. Not just repel attacks the Court Offense to eliminate the tax come and when jefferson made that decision that it was now time for an offensive mission, he said without sanction of congress i cannot go beyond the line of defense. He had to come to congress to get authority for the actions against the barbary pirates that were offensive in nature. That was the understand when the constitution was drafted but to give everybody their appropriate credit, beginning with the whigs and federalists and onto democrats or republicans initial understanding has often been violated. As the governor said, the executive overreach into powers has been made the particularly acute in the last 100 years but theres never been a really longstanding period of American History where we did it exactly according to hoyle. What madison made wasnt quick enough to see was legislators like to advocate. The symbiotic relation between legislative abdication and executive overreach has been the source of this problem up to today. But constitutionally the president does not have article ii power to go on offense against isil, and less they are involved in an actual ongoing, imminent threat against the United States. And theres no evidence that they are as indicated by other administrative testimony. Thats the constitution to the president and his team indicate that this mission, the four pillars, are justified by the 2001 and 2002 authorizations passed by congress. But beginning to that for a minute. I think that argument is an extremely creative stretch like extremely creative lawyers that even come a, i made some great bargains when i was a lawyer, and even given the ability to lawyers doesnt stand out. In the hours after the impact of 9 11, president bush brought an authorization to congress, and the authorizations said give me, the president , the ability go after groups in order to prevent terrorist attacks on the United States. That was what the original authorizations had essentially. Even in the aftermath of the attack on the pentagon and world trade center, with emotions were high and we had a righteous desire to even the scales, Congress Overwhelmingly rejected that authorization. That was the cheney preemptive war doctrine. Give the president the unilateral war power that he sees fit to wage war. Congress wouldnt give him that after instead congress insisted that the one authorization be narrowed and be near to those who perpetrated the attacks on 9 11. Isil did not perpetrate the attacks on 9 11 to isil was not formed until a few years after nine 9 11 so call the eiffel perpetrated of the 9 11 attacks is to basically do toward to the english lang which and i would do it is essentially falling back into the printer for doctor that congress rejected. The authorizations as he describes the perpetrators of 9 11 because both the bush and Obama Administrations sadly with the tacit acquiescence of congress have said also we can go after the perpetrators alqaeda, but you can also go after groups that associate with alqaeda can associated forces. That definition by both the bush and Obama Administration has been made so bad as to sweep in virtually anybody. I Ask Administration witnesses at a hearing before the Armed Service committee in may of 2013, okay, associate with alqaeda, so what if a young star is born in 2010, 2011, 10 years after 9 11, and in 2035 joins an organization in nigeria that claims to have a splinter relationship with alqaeda and that organization has just formed and that organization has no intent to do any harm to the United States, does the authorization cover it . And the Administration Official said that, absolutely. No sense of irony, married life, absolutely it covers it. Even in that instance to call isil and associated force with alqaeda when they have separated from alqaeda can win in separated from alqaeda can win in parts of c. They are battling with alqaeda can i get such torturous read of the language that i dont believe a clear reading of the original language or even the broadening lawsuit put out by the administration would allow isil to be fairly encompassed within the 01 aumf. Site leader to 2002 aumf the president has cited. That aumf was to authorize the war in iraq and is a war to topple a regime, the regime of Saddam Hussein to the regime is long gone. There been a number of governments since the the administrations claim that this own to authorization so justifies this action against isil at least in iraq. I think that argument is specious. The purpose of that authorization was not to engage in open ended war in the zip codes that happened to be iraq without limitation in terms of time. It was directed at the top of a particular regime. Both of the authorization cited by the white house for statutory support for its no to operation ivy as they dont provide support at all. Let me not go to my third argument to the president s own words and actions, the president understands precisely the constitutional argument i made when he was running for president in 2007. He said the president doesnt have unilateral power to wage war without congress. Absent an actual or imminent attack on the United States. Those were his exact words. He knows the limits of article ii power. Second, the president understands the limitations of the 2001 aumf. He gave a speech in may 2013 at the National Defense university where he said we shouldnt be broadening that aumf that was put together with no geographic limitation, we shouldnt be broadening it. We should be narrowing it. We should be refining it. We should ultimately on the path to repeal it. And with respect to the 2000 iraq authorization that administers now glance gives support for the mission, just a few months ago we had a hearing on it before the Foreign Relations committee, administration witnesses can prepared to be asked about it and when they were asked they said it is the position of this administration that the 2002 aumf is now obsolete and should be repealed. So i would argue that the president s own words as a candidate and as a present demonstrate the understanding, the no scope of article ii powers, and he understands that the authorizations are not to be stretched further but are instead to be narrowed in one instance and repealed in the next. I which is a parenthetically i know lawyers make broad arguments. Thats what lawyers do i dont think you so this particular president well by advancing an open ended and broadened interpretation of these authorizations when the president s own words and actions have suggested what he wants to do is narrow and repeal them. Let me go to my fourth argument about why its important for congress to win it is congress reputation. Theres a million reasons what our Approval Rating is so low. Theres a million of them but i would argue that kind of in big picture, the major reason that the Approval Rating of congress is low is the belief that we can easily, to quickly decide guys, its too complicated to come up with a funding for infrastructure so lets do another patch job for a few months. Its hard to grapple with fixes to this or that program so lets just do a patch job. Its too hard to do a budget or appropriations bill lets do a c. R. For a couple of months. I think the overall view that people have about congress is, i dont usually agree with Vice President cheney but ive got to be he had one good line. He said Congress Likes to kick the can down the road but the problem is they dont get very well and they dont get very far. I like that line and i think it speaks went to acknowledge looking in the mirror thats a challenge we have. Congress unwillingness to embrace the responsibility that we have constitutionally and the most somber thing that we do is