Before i speak about a war powers resolution that ive recently filed with senator, i would like to attend to it administrative matter. I asked unanimous consent for floor privileges be given to jc jane and to mark and navy fellow in my office for the duration. Without objection. I rise today to discuss the war powers that i submitted withto senator bourbon i spoke yesterday at some length about the painful history about relations in the United States. And the escalating tensions in the last three years that have brought us to the brink of war. As we stand at the brink with the militaryng actions by i iran and the United States, causing battlefield casualties on the other side, i believe that is imperative for congress to reassert itself that no president should have the ability to take the nation to war on his or her own. Let me talk about the constitution, about the value judgment underlying the allocation of war powers in the constitution, and then the resolution that is now pending having been filed in the senate. First the constitution, the constitution is drafted in 1787 has a series of provisions, some are somewhat vague in the bill of rights and what is an unreasonable search, and some extremely precise yet be 35 results of a president. And if you look at the constitution you will see a variety of provisions some more specific and some little more open ended. Actually the war powers part of the constitution, though not completely without ambiguity, is one of the clearest parts of the constitution. In article one, the power to declare wars given to congress not to the president , not to the judiciary, to congress. An article to the president is declared to be the unshaded he read the constitutional debates of the time what emerges is a clear understanding by those who are at the Constitutional Convention in philadelphia that was both clear but also quite unusual. The understanding was that for a war to start, congress should vote for it to be initiated, but then once started the lesson you need is a 535 commanders in chief so once they were starting a war the prosecution would become for the president and not the military demand not to be micromanaged by congress. This was fairly clear and it was very unusual. It was very unusual because at that. In history in 1787, war and the declaration k of war was not primarily legislative it was for the executive it was for the king the monarch the pope, the emperor, for the sultan, war had been throughout the history and executive function not, but framers and the constitutional debates claim that they were really trying to change Human History at lisa safar is the United States went and that in this country the initiation of war would be done by congress. Why was it done that way . Why was it done that way. Well, we have the virtue of virginian who is not only one of the drafters of the constitution but kept notes of the Constitutional Convention and then wrote letters about what they intended. And ten years after the constitution was written in 1787, james mattis wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson and directly addressed whyhy is it that the power to declare war is something forai congress. And he said this. Our constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrate. That is the executives most prone show war, and the executive most interested in it. So for this reason we have c this study care thus the ntestion of war with the legislature. They recognize that executives were prone show war and they wanted the legislature to have to sign off on the initiation of war. It was unusual then and its unusual now. At that the initiation of war is to be left to the legislature. Why isn that provision in the constitution . Why would we want to leave that question whether war should be started to Congress Rather than let the president do it as a be the case. Its about a value judgment. So as important as the constitutional provision is, i would argue that what is more important is the value judgment that underlies this requirement of congressional authorization. And the value judgment is about the men and women who serve in our military. Any war runs the risk that the young men and women who serve in our military could lose their lives. Or could be injured. Or could see their friends lose her life or be injured. Will we send troopsay into war they may salve a traumatic brain injury affect the entire remainder of their lives. If we affect their lives in that way we affect the lives of their families and friends. So the value judgment that sort of serves as the pillarf behind the provision that says authorized wars this. If we are going to force young men and women to risk their lives, it should be based on a considered and open debate, and the votes in full view of the american public. And then there should be about about whether a boar and if at the end of that debate with the questions that got asked in the trading emperor of perspectives. At the end of that the fates the legislature says this is in the National Interest and we should be at war, than those men and women who serve, yes they are going to go serve in risk their lives and their health and risk of what might happen to them for the rest of their lives. But we will only ask them to do that t if there is a considered judgment that war is in mutual interest. That is the value judgment that underlies the most unusual part of the constitution. That war cant be started except by congress. If we have that debate and votes, then its a fair request to ask of people like my boy in the marines, or the one plus Million People who serve in the military. Its a very request to deploy them and have them risk their lives. But how dare we, how dare we order troops into harms way when they could risk their lives and health, possibly for the rest of their life if we in congress are unwilling to have a debate and have a vote. And sadly, madam president throughout the history of this country and this is a completely nonpartisan statement, wigs, federalists, democrats republicans, the different parties and can stroll of the legislative bodies with different parties in the white house, congress has managed to figure out aid way to avoid debates and avoid voting if they can. War votes are tough. I have had to test to during my time in this senate with Foreign Relations committee. I have cast thousands of votes in my life as a councilman and senator. But war vote is categorically different than any other vote you will ever cast. They are hard. They can be unpopular. And so there may be an understandable human tradition in congress to try to avoid it. But its a responsibility that be avoided. How can we ord people to risk their lives and we are unwilling to risk the political challengest of a vote on war. Said that is the constitutional history. That is why the article one branch, the first among equals is charged with the responsibility of initiating war. And that is the value judgment that underlines that constitutional provision. So what is our resolution too . Our resolution is filed pursuant to the war powers act. The war powers act was t passed at the tail end of the vietnam war. Senator durbin did a good job yesterday going intors the history of the war powers act. The war powers act is trying to do two things but in the aftermathwh of the vietnam war ande theyre kind of analyzing what went wrong during it, there were a number of points the way where the a president did not Keep Congress informed there was a bombing happening in laos and they were i formed. Activities in cambodia were congress is not informed, and then the second thing we were trying to do is not just require president s to inform congress but to give congress the ability to have a debate and have it vote on the floor encase the president started hostilities without congress. The president should Keep Congress informed and Congress Needs a procedure to stop a war that is initiated by president who does not come to congress. So heres the procedure by which we have filed our resolution. If a president puts u. S. Troops in the hostilities without a congressional authorization, even if the president claims a legal right to do so, selfdefense, but if the president puts u. S. Troops into hostilities without a congressional authorization, any member of congress can file a resolution to remove the u. S. Troops from hostilities and force a vote on that resolution within a prompt period of time. That is a resolution that sender durbin and i i filed last friday. President trump has engaged the u. S. In hostilities with iran. He had different points of view whether thats a good thing or bad thing, but now there are battlefield casualties on both u. S. And iranian sites, it is clear that this provision ofng the statute as we are engaged in hostilities with iran. Not only are the u. S. On iran engaged in hostilities that have inflicted casualties on the other side, but the president has essentially acknowledging that we are in hostilities because he is sending war powers notices to congress one in november and one last saturday, reporting on his actions and saying the reports are consistent with the war powers act. He recognizes that hostilities are underway. The current hostilities are not pursuant to a previously passed congressional authorization. The 2001 authorization forli use of military force authorized military action against the perpetrators of the 911 attack. Ironic is not a perpetrator of the 911 attack and there is no argument that they are covered by that authorization. There is a separate authorization in 2002, that is the most recent one that is been passed in authorized action to topple the eye rocky government saddam hussein. That guy is long gone. Long gone and that does not aspermit a tax on ironic or the current iraqi leadership such as the individuals who were killed in the two sets of u. S. Strikes. So with these two threshold questions meant, hostilities are underway as defined by the war powers act, and they are not subject to a previous authorization, we have now filed a resolution to get congress to reassert its congressional role. The resolution demands of the u. S. Forces be withdrawn from hostilities against iran unless, unless congress affirmatively passes a declaration of war or authorization, or the United States needs to defend itself from an eminent attack. If my resolution passes, congress would still have the ability to pass an authorization if they chose to in the United States would still be able to defend itself against eminent attack. But the president could not act on his own to start a war with iran except in those circumstances. The resolution does not require the u. S. Troops withdraw from the region. We are doing many things in the region, thousands of americans are there, partaking inta missions that increase the security of the United State Center her allies. There is no reason we would work draw from the region this includes security cooperation, fighting against elements of al qaeda and isis and the taliban, ensuring the safe passage of commercial vehicles through freedom of nationalio geisha and. All those activities can continue, the resolution does not call those forces into question or question their mission. The only thing the resolution would accomplish if passed would be to back the United States troops away from hostilities with iran and less for eminent defense or pursuant to a separate authorization. I would hope to have the support of all my colleagues on this resolution. Its passage would preserve the option of u. S. Military action for selfdefense. It would preserve the ability of congress to declare war pass a. It would only prohibit this president , or any president , from taking us to war on his own. I heard one colleagues say the last c thing America Needs is 535 commanders in chief. I completely agree. Once Congress Authorizes war should be up to the commander and the military leadership to wage that war and make the tactical decisions on how to fight it. But the question of whether we should be at war at all is one that is specifically left to congress. Let me finish, madam president again focusing on her asi troop. So many members of the military were home for the holidays enjoying times with their families and then receive surprise notices that they must read deployed to the middle east yet again. Imagine the cost of two decades of war on these troops and their families. Some of these folks have deployed over, and over, and over again. Imagining home at christmas and receiving the notice you have to deploy getting into the middle east. We are living in a challenging time, Many Americans know nothing but permanent war. We have beenre at war since 2001 and there are americans including americans in the military that has been their whole life. That is all that they know. And yet at the same time, Many Americans know nothing about war because we have an all voluntary service, Many American families are completely untouched by the war. Only 1 ofat our Adult Population served in the military. So we have an interesting dynamic that may be kind of unique to our history, whether we have been at war for 20 years and some only no permanent war while many other American Families and know nothing about war because members of their families military. E in the we have put war on a footing or it cano on forever. Sort of like on executive autopilot, by president ial order and congress in my view, and again this is bipartisan has hidden from its responsibilities. At this moment, a very grave danger were both americans and iranians are losing their lives. Its time for congress to shoulder the burden about making the most important decision we will ever face. Hi and that is why i intend to bring this resolution to the floor of the senate and ask my colleagues to debate and vote on it in the coming weeks. And with that madam president i yield the floor.