poisonous that is trying to take over in their countries leads, i gather, to one argument for using indigenous national forces on the ground rather than outside and particularly western forces. >> yes. i said in my statement, mr. chairman, matt the most significant powerful force against extremism in the middle east are the people themselves who will not accept this kind of barbarity and brutality. the muslims of the world know that what isil represents in no way is what their religion, what their ethnicity, but that background represents. ..

now, how is that first of all going to match up against the tree and three numbers? let me just are without one. >> well, as i have said and as the president has said and as general dempsey has said, briefly and here is course i should with members of the senate, the house and our staff last week, this week.

5000 is the beginning, mr. chairman. this is part of the reason this effort is going to be a long-term effort. but we will do it right. we will be able to train and equip these forces through our ability to give them tactical, give them strategic guidance and leadership, the kind of equipment they need, where they could move not just as a band of a few people, but as legitimate forces. 5000 alone is not going to be able to turn the tide we recognize on this side. on the isil side, different estimates continue to come out. those estimates float, mr. chairman because it is hard to pinpoint at any one time

exactly what the strengths of isil is. we know it is significant. we know because of their successes over the last few months they have picked up significant support. we know a lot of that support is forced to support. you will either be part of this or you will be killed. so it is an imperfect process. the 5000 per year and we may be better. we might be able to do better. we don't want to overstate her of her process because want the right people. our part of the overall strategy that i articulated here is outlined. >> thank you very much, senator inhofe. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i ask you turn the mouse over. this is just for reference. we put this together with the help of the military, the colors represented their come of orange is what is under isil control right now.

the gray would he the kurdish controlled and that brown would be the ambitions of isil. do you look at that map and find any problem? >> actually senator, in terms of their ambition, i think that is probably understating. if left unaddressed, they would aspire to restore the agent kingdom of the schaub, which includes the current state of israel and runs all the way down to kuwait. >> we are trying to be conservative on this. it does people know this is a big area in secretary hagel, do you have a problem with this? >> know, general dempsey stated it exactly right. >> okay, according to the reports from u.s. intelligence agencies believe they isil does not represent the immediate threat to the united states.

daniel benjamin was the top counterterrorism adviser during his first or third numbers, of the cabinet and top military officers all over the place describing the threat in the returns that are just not justified. i appreciate secretary hagel the statement you made when you said isis pose this quote, an imminent threat to every interest we have whether it's in iraq or anyplace else. do you still agree with that statement? >> i do. >> to you, general dempsey? >> i do, senator. >> one thing i was glad to see if the american people, there is then a wake-up call. last week there was a cnn poll. 70% of the people in america believe it is a threat to our homeland. yesterday another one came out. this is a "wall street journal" poll, 50. 70% of the people. i think i wake-up call has

taken. now, when president obama in this gets back to the statements you made in your opening remarks. he said her objective is clear we would degrade and destroy isil three comprehensive abstain counter strategy. this is an army and i outlined in my opening statement the six basic differences between al qaeda and what we are facing right now. do you generally agree with? >> what i generally agree with, senator is they have been using conventional type takes until such time as we applied airpower. >> they are beginning to adapt now. >> you don't agree the strategy we would impose against these terrorists, some group is appropriate today with looking in terms of the giant army where facing? >> i agree we have to build the capability of the isf and the pasture to address while building a counterterrorism component in our strategy.

>> secretary hagel, a bike to get into who is in charge of the work is near lake ambassador beecroft in the state department same day i ran a lot of the control. if a centcom commander austin i feel better. if that is who in control of this? >> military? >> as i said in my opening statement, senator, i tried to find some of that up. for example, when i mentioned about to alan's role, initial role of record needing role. i also said i would work requiem is scored nation as a centcom commander. that is why president obama will be with the centcom commander in tampa tomorrow. >> mr. secretary, my concern is i don't want people to be under the delusion that this is just

another asked her, and other terrorist effort that we are going to be pursuing. asked by a reporter in september 11 to define victory against isil, the white house press secretary said i didn't bring my webster's dictionary appear. secretary hagel, you didn't bring your theater. can you define what victory looks like in the united states? >> well, i believe victory is when we complete the mission of degrading and destroying, feeding isil. just as the president laid out, that was the subject. >> i got a different interpretation when i listen to this speech when he said on the fight against isil would not involve american combat troops fighting on the soil. american forces do not have a combat mission. in your opinion with you to question scott general dempsey.

are the pilots dropping bombs in iraq? is their knowledge rights combat mission? and secondly, will u.s. forces be prepared to provide, search and rescue if a pilot gets shot down and put boots on the ground to make that successful? >> yes and yes. >> good. well, i appreciate that. lastly, the less question i have because i've gone beyond my time, we been complaining about the funding and now we are looking at the sequestration in all of this. in light of all of this has occurred since we originally started talking about the funding be necessary, do you think we are adequately funded now to take care of all of these things that i stated in my opening statement you have also agreed to? are we understanding? >> well, two answers to your questions here note to the first is the basic answer. the budget we will be coming up

here presenting, as you know in a few months, will contain what we believe is going to be required to carry forward for the longer-term disaster. but in the short-term, this is why we are asking for the $500 million authorities to train and equip your places you know, the president asked a few months ago for a $5 billion counterterrorism partnership fund plus a billion dollars european initiative fund as well. so i think what general dempsey said in his closing comments, in a statement probably some arrest pretty well, as you have noted, all of the different pressures are now coming down on this country, residing a good amount at the defense department. one of the things we've been warning about his sequestration

over the last year and a half. so we will come forward and our budget for the next fiscal year with the new request. >> could i just elaborate on behalf of the joint chiefs because we discussed this frequently about our ability to balance capability, capacity and readiness. last year we said that the size of the force that was projected over the course, over the future year defense program was adequate to the test. if the assumptions made were valid, and some of the assumptions we made were about commitments and some of the assumptions we made were about our ability to get pay compensation health care changes, infrastructure changes and weapons system. we didn't get any of those are very few of them and the commitments have increased. so we do have a problem and i think it will become clearer through the fall. and it is not a problem we can

solve with oco, the operational contingency funds. there is the base budget issue we have to get, too. >> that is true. the units of the chief said own year now and everyone who testified before us that even before the things about it, it was not adequate. the risk increased when adequacy is not met. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. we have a here now, so i'm going to mess the committee to consider the list of 2483 pending military nominations. they've been before the committee. the required link that time. is there a notion? is there a second? all in favor say aye. opposed nay. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your testimony. we have had a debate going on and on about no boots on the ground, some boots on the ground. no boots on the ground, but no personnel on the ground. it might help us all to clarify

precisely what our forces are doing in her back today. you all suggested that if the situation changes you might recommend or come to us with recommendations to enhance the mission was decommissioned. can you clarify what they're doing? >> icann. thank you brascan, senator. everyone should be aware when i talk about combat forces. that's how we grow. we bring the young men and women, they be a combat soldier or a combat marine. we don't bring them into be anything other than combat capable. but that's different than how we use them. in the case of our contributions in iraq right now, the air men as the ranking member mentioned are very much in a combat role. the folks on the ground aren't very much a combat of bias or a role. hair not participating in direct combat. there is no intention for them to do so. i've mentioned effect on the

circumstance involved in that it would of course change my recommendation. an example, if the iraqi security forces and the password for a soundbite ready to take mosul, a mission that i would find to be extraordinarily complex, it could very well be part of that particular mission to provide close combat advising or accompanying for that mission. before that day to day activities that i dissipate with all the overtime, i don't see it to be right now. >> one of the presumption and i will just raise it because we are using air power that there is sufficient capacity and iraqi forces to coordinate air power on the ground. is not an issue you are that cannot? >> we have, senator. i've used the mosul dam operation is a great example. on the ground we have the patchwork a and we had the counterterrorist service from the iraqi security forces. in an operations center in

someone, we have consistently called rovers to help the iraqis manage on the ground. incredibly complex. three languages. english, kurdish and arab and we worked through it. as we did we learn some things about how to use advisors from remote locations. i'm not saying this will work everyplace every time, but we pulled that mission often i think it is a good template for future operations. >> representative, one thing you are looking at as these capable iraqis who can communicate and coordinate on the ground, their special forces particularly. >> trained by us, that is right. >> mr. secretary, you are proposing to train about 5000 individuals a year, to go back into syria.

the saudis have agreed to host it in some manner. how do you integrate forces back into syria? will they go witnessed units? what is the plan after they are trained? that is part of the issue. >> senator, one of the points i made a couple minutes ago in answering senator inhofe's question was the point about training them as units so they can operate as units. which is as you know, with your military experience is critically important as you build an effect of opposition force. not just a hit and run group of rebels, but in effect it for us, command control. tactics, strategy. so yes that is the fundamental training principle of how we begin. the length of time here depends

on a number of things, but we'll probably talk about eight weeks per cycle that might move within a week or two. but that is the intent of how they would treat us. centcom leaders are already focused on that or already structure to do that or are preparing. one of the things the president will get tomorrow as he spends the day with general austin, the centcom planners and commanders in taking them through that entire structure. >> thank you. general dempsey, in your remarks are the secretary's remarks company suggested the median operations would most likely be in iraq simply because we have the iraqi national security forces. we just cannot date. but that will put isil in a position as we hopefully become more effect if of making a

decision to reinforce bush to respond in iraq were to pull back into theory. so i think your strategy is probably the most effective use of what we have at this time. but you like to comment on not? >> well, the strategy is to squeeze isil from multiple directions so they can't do what they've been doing, which is maneuver places where they're not under pressure. so we can get the government of iraq to reach out to these populations that have been disadvantaged or a leaky regime -- maliki regime. and if we can get the iss and in the 50 per grades around baghdad, we know which ones are capable of partnering and improving capabilities. we can get enough of them to go on the offensive both west and north, get this up to peshmerga

from north to south and disrupt air power and eventually pressure of moderate opposition. then i think we played isil in an untenable position and in the middle of that restored the borders so they can flow freely. >> thank you. senator reid -- senator mccain. >> thank you. i think the witnesses. i understand according to your testimony that we will be training and equipping nutley 5001 year. is that correct? >> yes. >> and is isil right now has 31 has been metastasizing and a very rapid fashion into a much larger force. too many of us, that seems like and in a quiet -- inadequate

response -- would you please be quiet? i'm asking you not to please remove them from the room. the disruptions are not going to be acceptable to anybody. >> i always appreciate special attention from this group, mr. chairman. >> senator mccain. >> and obviously this group of 5000 as you mentioned in unit size deployments will be back in theory a fighting against isil.

they will also be fighting against the shower aside, which they have been doing for a number of years before isil was a significant factor. now they will be fighting against bashar assad and bashar assad will attack them from the air, which she has done with significant success not only against them, but there's been 192,000 people slaughtered in the area since the onset. if one of the freeze. army is fighting against bashar assad and he is attacking them from the air, would we take action to prevent them from being attacked by bashar assad? >> senator, let me begin with the first part of your question of 5000. >> i dispense with that. i'd like you to answer the

question, will we comment the free syria and army units attacked from the air by bashar assad, woolly prevent those attacks from taking place and take out bashar assad's air assets both helicopter and fixed wing that will be attacking the free syrian army units? >> well, we are not there yet, but our focus is on isil. to our country and our interest and the region. so what we are training these units for is a stabilizing force in syria as an option. but the first focus is that they just sent us the president laid out in his statement to the country. >> i'm taking for granted that we are not recruiting these young men to go inside and syria against isil. but if they are attacked by bashar assad we are not going

to. >> will defend themselves, senator. >> we help them make an assad's air. >> will help them and support them. >> will we repair on isil pal bashar assad's assets? >> any attack on those we have trains that are forcing on us, - >> i'm not going to get an answer, but it seems to me you have to neutralize bashar assad's assets if you are going to protect these people that we are arming and training of an inning to fight. is that an accurate general dempsey? >> the coalition reform, senator, won't form -- if we were to take assad off the table, would have a much more difficult time forming a coalition. i don't think we'll find ourselves in a situation given

what we intend to do. >> you don't think that the free syrian army is going to fight against bashar assad who has been decimating them? you think these people you are training boldly go back to fight against isil? do you really believe that come the general? >> what i believe as we train and develop a command link to a political structure that we can establish object is that to further challenge into the future. we do not have to do with it now. >> that its fundamental misunderstanding of the entire concept and motivation of the free syrian army. it is bashar assad that has killed many more of them didn't isil highs. for us to say that we are going to go when and help them train and equip these people and only to fight against isil, you are not going to get many recruits to do that, general, i guarantee you that. that is a fundamental fallacy in everything you are presenting

this committee today. general -- secretary hagel, was the president right in 2012 when he overruled most of his national security team and refuse to train and equip the moderate opposition in syria at that time? >> senator, i was not there at the time, so i'm limited. >> i'll ask general dempsey then. he was there at the time. >> i'm sorry, senator. >> was the president right in 2012 when he overruled the secretary of defense, secretary of state of the cia to train and equip the modern opposition forces in syria, which according to your testimony we are doing today? >> senator, you know i recommend we train them in for policy reasons the decision was taken in another direction. >> thank you. >> are you concerned, secretary hagel, about our southern

border. we receive testimony from our homeland security people that our border is porous and the people who are now free to travel to the united states and also, other radical elements by cross our southern border to attack the united states? >> i am always concerned -- >> is that a serious concern of yours? >> we have to always look at these concerns. >> in other words, do you think we have to improve our border security? >> we can improve our border security. >> thank you. my time will expire. >> senator mccain, you are aware that there were published report of covert training.

>> i am aware of it. i'm also aware the feel of the training that was required and also the situation today and i'm also aware that 192,000 people have been slaughtered. a lot of them would be so-called barrel bombs and use of chlorine gas, which has caused a humanitarian disaster of incredible proportions. yes, i am aware of that. >> several dempsey, are you aware of the published reports of covert training? >> senator, we don't comment in public about any aspect of covert training. >> mr. secretary, as you know, i believe that the president has the constitutional authority to go on and attack isis. this is going to be for the long haul and eventually this issue

will have to come to congress for authorization for use of military force. and you will have an appropriations request right now. my question is if congress does not approve, and i have heard some members of congress say that they are not going to vote to approve this $500 million request, if they did that, and refused, before we adjourn to go home for the election, what kind of message do you think that sends? >> well, i think that message would be very, very seriously misunderstood and misinterpreted

by our allies, by her friends, our partners around the world and our adversaries. this is a clear, clear threat what the president has talked about, the threat to this country for a isil. and what his request is and reaching out to the congress or partnership as he has done in consultation with many, many members of the congress to be partners in this effort to protect this country. and if the congress would not agree to that request, it would be a pretty devastating message we send to the world. >> all right, all right. would you please not take advantage of the freedom of this place? and will you please remove this lady from the room.

the >> out of iraq, either theory! >> as you know, mr. secretary, i have taken this position that i think he has, he the president has the constitutional authority to no one and attack inside syria. the fact that you are making this request and as he testified here today that you'll train him 5000 over the course of the next year, does that basically mean any kind of coordinated effort on the ground in syria is delayed for a year? ..

>> what is your opinion? >> this is why the coalition, including out front publicly muslim arab countries is so critical to this. and i noted that and i think in one or two of my answers this morning as well as in my testimony. >> can you shed any more light as isis as one of the two of you have testified received into an urban area and take shelter there among the civilian population, how in iraq, for example, can be iraqi city forces be able to root them out

of that civilian territory? >> well, this again is why we need the people, why we need the people themselves in iraq, in syria, to support a unified unity inclusive representative government in iraq to help them do that. the sunni tribes are critical to this. what has allowed so much for this to happen, senator, as you know as you have visited there many times, is the last government in iraq over the last five years have actively exacerbated the effort and intentionally destroyed the capability of a unity government to bring in the sunni-shia kurdish populations to a government that they would trust, that they can have

confidence in, that they knew would work in everyone's interest. so your question cuts directly to the overall effort here of what the president talked about in a new, inclusive unity government, which with some confidence in, but we believe that a body will do, ma and so far in his appointments to his cabinet, we've seen evidence of that inclusiveness. >> thank you very much, senator nelson. senator wicker. >> thank you, gentlemen. thank you for your testimony today. here's how i view it. the surge in iraq ordered by president george w. bush worked. president obama rejected the advice of many of his top military leaders to leave a residual force. our administration did not make

every effort that it possibly could to gain status of forces agreement in iraq. and so we completely withdrew, and the isis is there controlling large parts of the territory and wreaking the havoc that the president is responding to. i am willing to help the president, and to help you gentlemen, take this hill again if i believe there is a plan that will work and be successful if training 5000 troops by the end of one year is going to help us be successful against something that's already that has to sized, and that 31,000, which is the size of isis now, i want to help if we can be convinced it will work. and also if we can have some assurance that we will not throw away our games -- gains, this

time as the search work. general dempsey, in answer by the chairman of this committee, do you support the strategy, you say that you do. the "washington post" reports that mr. obama has rejected the recommendation of his top military commanders, the u.s. special operations forces be deployed to assist iraqi army innocent fighting the rebels. is that report correct in the "washington post"? and where do you come down on that recommendation? >> no, that report is not correct. where i came down on the recommendation in terms of having advisors accompany -- this is the issuer describing, whether advisors who are already there and generally resident in

headquarters, whether they would accompany the iraqi city forces into combat. i have not come to an occasion where i believe that's necessary. they are doing fine. we are able to provide the airpower using full motion video and -- >> who is doing fine? >> the iraqi security forces and the peshmerga. they're moving back on the offensive as a significant to the point where for a particular mission i think they should company, i'll make that recommendation. >> i did you say that at least appreciate that. let me submit for the record a column in today's post, mr. chairman, by mark theissen wherein he talks about general lloyd austin, top commander of u.s. forces in the middle east, and to quote mr. theissen and 2010 general austin, vice president passionate advice

present about against withdrawing recommend that the president instead leave 24,000 u.s. troops to secure the military gains made in the surge and to prevent a terrorist resurgence. had obama listened to austins council, the rise of islamic state could have been stopped. where did you come down on that debate, general dempsey, at that point? >> well actually as you know we don't debate anything in the military. we provide -- >> a discussion. >> let our military leaders make their decision. all military leaders believe we need to leave some residual in iraq. there is a debate in which i am not able to spend about whether we tried as hard as we could to leave it there, and that's a debate that will continue i believe. but i thought we should've left forces there. i traveled to iraq and i was the chief step of the on at the time, discussed it with the prime minister.

look, i don't know what, how history will exactly describe this. let me describe nouri al-maliki as a very difficult partner most of the country and in particular on that issue spent on the issue of trying hard enough, i think anybody who is really absurd the situation would acknowledge that a government, a united states government that can go into iraq today and persuade the prime minister to step down could certainly have a mustard the skills to get them to sign a status of forces agreement. so it's obvious to me that we didn't try very hard. and let me just reiterate to you. i want us to win. i want is to defeat isis. but i want a plan that can be successful, and i'm not sure if 5000 trained india can be successful against 31,000. and i want to make sure that we don't make the same mistake again i throwing those games away. one quick question to you, secretary hagel.

been reading your testimony about what the coalition partners are going to do, i have no idea specifically what we are asking of them aren't what we can expect. they have expressed their willingness. it indicated their readiness. they want to help to do their share, begin making commitments, take measures to suppress the flow. i have no idea, based on your testimony, what our coalition partners are expected to do or even what we want them to do. >> senator, my intent was not to give you that inventory this morning and go through that, first of all -- >> are you able to? >> we can do that privately in closed session with a number of countries. that's what we are doing right now. we are in the process of doing that right now. as i mentioned over the last two

weeks we've been building the coalition. we have been organizing the coalition. general alan's main job as i noted in my testimony is doing that right now. he's meeting with the president this morning. we have all finalized that effort. we have a list of over 40 nations who we are talk to, most have come to us who have volunteered, specific areas of expertise what they would do. we will make specific requests, but that's ongoing right now. >> will saudi pilots and saudi jets be involved in air strikes? >> like i said, it's part of the plane and i don't want to get into the specifics of that in an open hearing. but as i said in my testimony, as the secretary has said as recently as yesterday, we have a middle eastern allies who have said that they will be involved in military operations with us. right now in an open hearing,

let me live that way but let me assure you that that is going on right now. it's a key part of what we need to do. >> and if i could assure the senator that when lloyd austin and i convened a chief of defense conference soon after the president approves the campaign plank an, we need to me the campaign plan the iraqi campaign plan, not sitcoms campaign plan. secondly, the contributions of particular the arab nations need to be real. this is military that the i'm not looking for political support. i'm looking for special forces advisors but i'm looking for trainers, looking for tankers, looking for isr and looking for strike aircraft. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> senator mccaskill. >> just to clarify a different set of circumstances. we maliki and the government of iraq told us to get out and

refused to do a status of forces agreement, i'm pretty sure iran was with him on that, correct? iran was a close to maliki that iran wanted us out of iraq as much as the iraqi government did at that point in time. is that a correct assessment, secretary hagel in general dempsey? >> i guess i'm stuck with this one because i was the one here, and european. i said i di didn't want to get o a debate and now i'm in a debate. you know what. who knows what was going on through prime minister maliki said at the time? i can tell you from personal contact with him, he had an almost obsessive notion of his sovereignty and wanting to establish it. was influenced by iran? undoubtedly. but it's very hard to say, send it to what i wanted was he was a very reluctant partner. >> it's a much different situation now in terms of getting maliki to step down. iran was very concerned up isolate taking over iraq and what that meant.

and clearly there was pressure being exerted from maliki to step down iran. so us getting, i think for us to take credit for getting maliki to step down is unrealistic in light of what the geopolitical forces were in their neck of the woods at that point in time. >> i was here on this episode, and i can tell you that it wasn't the united states that pushed maliki out. it was his own people. iran being part of that. so it wasn't the united states dictating that maliki stay or not state. let's not forget that iraq is a sovereign nation. it has elections. we may not like the outcomes but it is a sovereign country. that was the entire point when president bush signed the december 2008 agreement to leave iraq.

it was a sovereign nation. so the united states didn't force or push through some new system of influence maliki out. it was the people that made that decision. >> i want to touch on the issue of the shiite militia. as we look at the surge one of our success as was our to bring over moderate sunnis and that was noted at the time and talked about a great deal about our ability to finally get the cooperation of moderate sunnis. clearly they moderate sunnis have thrown in with isil because of the problems, political problems that they were confronted with in terms of exclusion from the iraqi government. so the clerics put out the call to tell isil to the shiite militias, and they been partially responsible for the successes that have occurred on the ground. what are we doing? this is one of many complex

problems that presents itself in this tangle we're in and one of the most complex is how are we going to do with the empowerment of the shi'a militia within the iraqi security forces moving forward as we tried to ultimate get a political solution which is a unified government and security forces that represent all parts of that country? >> a couple of things, senator. one is him a little reluctant, in fact i try not to ever talk about soon isn't as a monolithic bloc. if the senators chart were still up there, it looks like isil has geographic objectives. election has tribal objectives. it eats its way try to buy tried wherever it goes and the fact that it ends up in mosul is more happenstance of the tribe they're trying to pursue but if we showed the tribes on that slide they would probably be 48-54 different tribes the isil has in some ways coerced or co-opted or driven away.

so the sunni are not monolithic any sense and we have to remember that. the second thing is on your questions about the shi'a militia. look, i think our offer of support here should come is, will be conditional and that is what simple there were 50 iraqi brigades that we assess, 26 of them we assessed to be reputable partners. that is to say, they have renamed multi-confessional, well led, still other equipment. they seemed of a certain commission and a commitment to the central government. the other 24 concerned is a bit on the issue of infiltration and leadership and sectarianism. so we can apply our support conditionally and that's the way we influence the outcome i think you are discussing. >> finally, i'm assuming this is a contingency operations and

wanted to point out that the new provisions of the war contracting legislation that have been put into law should be applicable for these efforts. i know that there is some talk that you faster cost estimates, for security assistance, mentors and advisors and iraq through a contracting platform. and i don' don't know, rebuildig training facilities in saudi, the american government? and if so i just wanted to sound the alarm now before rather than after because usually i'm hollering about after. i want to sound the alarm before that all these contracting positions at work so hard to put in place but we don't go down the road of mistakes that we have traveled so frequently read this contracting space and contingency. >> i can assure you, senator, that any commitments we make in contracting or anything else we will follow the law clearly and consult with congress. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator mccaskill. senator ayotte? >> thank you, chairman. i want to thank both of you for

your service during these challenging times. i wanted to follow-up, general dempsey, on the question that senator wicker had asked you about, about providing our advisors or our special forces, embedding them with iraqi forces. and i believe you said that you don't believe that that is necessary right now. would you agree with me though that airstrikes are a much more effective with having our special forces or having a sort of jtac capability on the ground whether people? >> it depends on the kind of contact that the two forces are having. let me explain. when the two forces are separate, when the isil is that some geographic separation from the iraqi security forces, it's not very difficult at all to discriminate between the targets. >> sure, but isn't a problem when they're not out in open

space, when we have to distinguish between for examples of going targets and military targets that our people are very effective at that? >> absolutely, and that's where i was editor if we get into a circumstance where the forces are very intimate gold, then the target discrimination becomes more difficult. but i will say this isn't a light switch big either you do it or you don't. the art technologies that enable we didn't have available fighters ago that allows to apply force and to see the situation on the ground in ways we couldn't before. i'm not walking away from what i said that if we get to the point where i think we need the jtac with the iraqi secret forces, i will make the recommendations but i am not there. >> can ask you a question, general austin, what was his thought on this given that he's the centcom commander, his prior expense in iraq? >> on the mosul dam operation, the one i described earlier which was are complicated, as much by the introduction of the two different forces am speaking

two different languages, he did suggest that we should use the jtac in an accompanying role. as we discussed it and work through it he found a way to do it as i described to you. >> so he is not made -- so he is not made recommendations beyond the mosul dam operations that we should embed our special forces or certainly jtac capability of? >> not at this time. he shares my view that there will be circumstances when we think it will be necessary but we haven't encountered one yet. >> well, i think we've had experiences with this, happily, prior in iraq with having our forces embedded and also with afghanistan of our people being quite effective in terms of targeting the airstrikes? you a degreed? >> absolutely, we know how to do that. >> i survey, thinking about dealing with asked -- i'm not confident how this is going to happen or that the assistance of our train special operations on

the ground. what i appreciate that you said you have not ruled this out. >> i have not in terms of recommendations. >> thank you. has the president ruled it out? >> well, at this point his stated policy is that we will not have u.s. ground forces in direct combat, so yes. >> including operators in jtac embedded on the ground. >> that's correct. he is told as well to come back to him on a case-by-case basis. >> so let me ask you about the threat that we face, secretary hagel, general dempsey. so general allen library great respect for and in the both of you do as well, his been appointed a special presidential envoy for the global coalition to counter isil and we all know his experience. not only in iraq but in afghanistan. so he has described in august, isil as a clear and present danger to the united states.

do you agree with his characterization? >> senator, i was asked the question earlier whether i agreed still with what i had said, my words recorded back to me about imminent threat to america's interests around the world and i said yes, i do. isil is a threat to american, our allies, our interests around the world. i'm not going to answer for general allen, but i think we all agree, at least within the administration, general allen, general dempsey, general austin, me and the president and others, isil is a threat. the president said it last week in his speech. >> do you believe it's a present threat to its? >> a present threat meaning they murdered two americans over the last couple of weeks. i would say that is a pretty imminent threat, and other threats that they have and how they threaten us.

>> well, as you know our prayers continue to go out to the families, jim foley was from new hampshire and steven sotloff went to school in new hampshire. so i believe it's an absolute clear and present threat to us. let me ask you about the americans have joined in homeland security committee last week. we had testimony from our top homeland security officials as well as from the fbi about the 100 americans who have either gone to syria or a tempted to go to syria. what i learned was this is not a firm number. how confident are we that we have attracted these individuals that we know that there's only 100 fall the? i would ask the same question with regard to those holding western passports where we know that many of those countries unfortunately jim foley's murder as you know had a british accent, and we have a visa waiver program with great britain.

so how confident are we in those numbers as a look at this homeland threat, the inability and track of those individuals to come back to the united states of america in some way? >> senator, i think like any of these threats, they always present imperfect situations. and when you ask how confident, well, we are as confident as we can be. but you're constantly working at trying to make it better, more secure. i announced today in my testimony, it was announced a couple of days ago what we're doing at home it's a giddy, what we're doing with justice and whether border patrol in coordination with all of these other nations on identifying these individuals that we do know or we are pretty sure of, in the middle east, syria, where ever. and maybe some we don't know, but we are constantly refining and focusing on this. i don't think we can ever be too

confident that we've got it all, but we have some confidence that we do have the numbers about right. >> i thank you. my time is up, but what i heard in the homeland security committee last week did not give me a great degree of confidence in terms of what we don't know, because the fbi is basically said that 100 number could be many more, and also we know less even about those when we don't always have ful fall intelligene sharing with all the western passport holders. >> that's right. it is an issue. >> thank you. senator wicker made a request that i failed to acknowledge, a column from the "washington post" be inserted into record but it will be inserted in the record. i will also insert into record secretary gates paragraph which reads as follows in his book, in the end the iraqi leadership did

not try to get an agreement through their parliament. it would have made possible a continued u.s. military presence after december 31. maliki was just too fearful of the political consequences. most iraqis wanted us gone, closed quote. senator udall. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning, gentlemen. it is very clear that isil presents a very series of threat to u.s. interest and allies in the middle these and the groups actions have left no doubt that it's going to take both brains and brawn to defeat them. we've got to hit them hard. we got to deny them safe haven and we have to bring strategic capabilities of the united states and a committed international alliance to bear against them. we need to work with our partners on the ground to eliminate the conditions that allowed this cancer to spread so quickly and the rise of isil should serve as a warning to lead throughout the middle east. i would urge as i think we all have a new iraqi government must

take immediate steps to move past the shortsighted and harmful policies that have contributed to the current crisis. this is going to take a best effort. i know we have it in us and we do need to get right. general dempsey, in that spirit that we direct that question to you. in order to defeat this enemy will will need to be tough and smart. you noted last month that defeating isil will require all application all tools of national power, diplomatic, economic, information and military. could you describe how these tools will be used as part of a well-planned international effort to confront this threat? >> first let me ally myself with your assertion that an inclusive government of iraq that reconciles with, reconciles the three major groups, sunni-shia and kurd is absolutely a necessary precondition to the defeat of isil inside iraq. and so to your point, there has

to be an integration of diplomatic economic in the sense of support for the government of iraq as well as counter financing efforts so that the money that a senator previously described that isil is garnering every day can be interdicted, tracked, and disrupted. the flow of foreign fighters and those archive strategic regional issues really, because isil knows no boundaries, knows no borders. so we, it's not a matter of convenience that we form a coalition. it's a matter of necessity. and then tactically, that strategically. tactically, we've got to get enough of the iraqi city forces and enough of the peshmerga to go from defense to offense, to put it about as bluntly as we can. and as we do the government of iraq is to fill in behind that.

to be candid, there's some risks here, the three big risks i would mention to you are if the government of iraq fails to become inclusive, and though the signs are promising, they haven't yet fully delivered. second, if the coalition forms but doesn't have the endurance. because this will take several years. and then the third risk is retribution. when we encourage and assist the iraqi secret forces and the peshmerga to regain lost territory, we have to be alert for the fact that unless the government of iraq is there to embrace the people and ensure that they work together, there could be some retribution on the part of those who may have been seen as complicit with isil. so we've got some challenges ahead. but we're open eyed to them and to think we got a good campaign plan. >> i will follow up on the. you got significant experience on the ground in iraq and the thinking of the region as well

as anyone. our military will be able to provide advice and assistance. clearly. but can you explain the reasons why it's important for the iraqi security forces to take the lead in fighting back against isil on the ground? >> the author, tom friedman, has a famous saying, no one in history of mankind has ever washed a rental car. and i find that to be a good way to remember that ownership is ultimately what measures commitment. and i think it's clear that they have to own this. with our help and with help of regional partners, but they have to own it. >> i talked to senator graham last week and we were discussing the fact that it is i think now time for the arab leaders to really truly step up. if this isn't an existential threathreat to them, it is certn close to one and i think that's

what you're seeing and what we are seeing in the united states. after secretary, good to see you. do you consider isil to be associated force of al-qaeda? could you explain your reasoning? >> it has been an associated force of al-qaeda. it is overtime essentially displaced al-qaeda, but there are still affiliations to this day. but it has been associate with al-qaeda. >> general dempsey, let me turn back to you. we been talking about syria. as you plan the mission to train and equip moderate syrian opposition forces, how does the dod define moderate? and how do we take further steps to ensure that the weapons and the training we provide won't fall into the hands of these extremist groups? >> senator, i would suggest to

you that though i recommended doing this a couple years ago, we've learned a lot in the intervening time. we've learned a lot because of the nonlethal assistance we provided, because we had to make contact with certain groups in order to flow that nonlethal assistance. and we've learned a lot as well from our coalition partners who have been interacting with the free syrian army. we also have learned some lessons in betting in places like iraq and afghanistan. but we're very closely partner with our intelligence agencies and so i was just to you that we've come a long way in our ability to vet. in terms of defining a moderate opposition, i don't think that will be, i don't think that would be difficult actually. the region has become so polarized that those who are radical in their ideologies have made their move. and those that is not de facto

demonstrated great courage in not making a move. so i think we will be able to find a moderate opposition to i hope we can find them in the right numbers. by the way, the 5400 is capacity. it's just what we can throughput at several training bases in the course of your as the secretary said, it's not the desired end state for a moderate syrian opposition. one last thing about developing a syrian opposition. it really needs to be developed with a chain of command responsive to some syrian political structure. not responsive to us. these can't be said with surrogates and proxies. they have to be tied, linked to some political structure that ultimately can assist in the governing of syria when finally the assad regime is a per -- is either overthrown or through the negotiation is changed. so the important difference in what we're trying to do here is build a force that can, over time, actually contribute to stability in syria, not just

fight. >> thank you, gentlemen. >> thank you, senator udall. senator vitter. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both for your service very much. did either or both of you give the president any advice regarding a possible new aumf? and if so what was the? >> senator, obviously the question of authority was asked early on as we develop strategy, and our ties to the president, does he have the constitutional authority, which he believes he does, and his legal counsel told them he did, does he have statutory authority, which he believes he does and he has said that, as is the legal counsel

saying the same thing. we believe the same, that is both statutory and constitutional authority. so that was a recommendation that i made. he also noted as you recall from last week's statement to the american public that he welcomed any additional authority that the president would give him, because he's feeling strongly that it's important that a strong partnership between congress and the president always be established and always be seen in the eyes of the world spin let me restate my question that you're saying he has legal authority without a new aumf. a new aumf could, nevertheless, be helpful. did either or both of you give them advice about whether to seek one? >> well, i'll speak for myself and the chairman can answer it.

i did not advise him to seek any additional authority. i asked our general counsel and our attorneys what they thought, but i did not specifically say -- >> general? >> no, i haven't had a conversation indiana agency about whether, what a new aumf would look like. >> okay. the current estimate of isis fighters is about 35,000, correct? >> i think the last summer i saw was actually 31, but it's an inexact science because of the fact that, as i said, there are tribes that are co-opted from sometime soon be counted in the number but their hearts not in it. but the latest number is 31,000. >> low to mid 30s, clearly a huge growth over the last several months, correct? >> it is.

iss its growth because of their success. so the reporting probably lags and when the report was assembled there at their height of success spent and what's your best estimate about what it might be a year from now? >> i have informed with a be happy to take that one for the record. >> okay. and given that number and presumably increasing numbers, i take it everyone agrees some fighting force on the ground on the other side is necessary. what you think that number has to be overtime? >> evening the other side of the border? >> no, no, no. i mean outside of the fight against isis. >> i think -- >> you can watch the entire hearing with secretary hagel and general dempsey along with yesterday's testimony by secretary of state john kerry also on isis anytime on a website c-span.org. the senate is currently in

recess. they had a joint meeting with the house where lawmakers heard from the president of ukraine took when the senate is returned to we can work on a bill passed yesterday in the house funding the government until december 11 and authorizing the equipping and training of certain syrian opposition forces or they are expected to vote about 5:30 p.m. today. this morning thousand intelligence committee held a hearing on isis entered from former central command leader general genetics and former u.s. ambassador to iraq three and afghanistan ryan crocker about strategies to combat the terrorist group. we were showed as much of that as we can until the senate returns. >> called the committee to order. today, the house committee on intelligence will hear from some of our nation's foremost experts on the threat posed by isil, al-qaeda and other islamic extremists. reserve time for questions, ranking member and i will reduce

our opening statements to three minutes and have, after witnesses to do the same so we can get to questions we have a hard stop with the joint session with the leadership from ukraine today. as we move further away from september 11, 2001, we are concerned that many are disconnected from around the threat from al-qaeda and islamic extremist. we've heard al-qaeda was on the run, al-qaeda's affiliate groups were not up to the task or the jd squad, victory in afghanistan is too difficult, would take too long. city was too complicated to get involved. iraqi city forces can keep the country secure without her help obviously this has been wrong. and when we see journalists and ngo workers including two americans he headed by terrorists in syria, we are vividly reminded that it's wrong. and that they will seek its other places today in a strike on the arrest of 15 individuals associate with isil in an effort

to decapitate australian citizens to prove their point. i can only speak to the families of the americans in giving our heartfelt condolences to the families of those two americans. the commission faulted the us government for a failure of imagination to stop the attacks 13 years ago. today you don't need an imagination to understand the threat of isil, a group of thousands of fighters holding western passports include hundreds of americans. we need a better plan to stop them. yesterday was the first good step and i would hope to get the comments from our panelists on the way forward on that as well. terrace in yemen, syria and iraq take advantage of the expand safe havens that surpassed the one al-qaeda had in afghanistan in 2001. 2001 but they have weapons and transportation resources to penetrate americans

improved defenses but al-qaeda affiliates and related groups coordinate with each other and still of the strategic vision of established, that was established by bin laden and was al-qaeda's leader before his demise, that radical vision which is antithetical to america's interests is bigger than one terrorist leader or one organization to terrorist groups have metevastasized and made gan in northern and western africa, the middle east and south asia. >> with ded between the two leads or their designees, with the republicans controlling the first half. mr. cruz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, i rise today to ask that republicans and democrats in the senate come together and unanimously pass legislation to address the threat of american citizens fighting for isis and bringing our statutory system into the 21st century to

protect the national security interest of our nation. as the american people are now painfully aware, the so-called islamic state in iraq and syria, or isis, has emerged as the new face of the radical terrorist threat that has bedeviled the west in recent decades. this virulent jihadist group so extreme that they got kicked out of al qaeda, which i will note is not easy to do, is rampaging across syria and iraq in a campaign of oppression and genocide, including the relentless targeting and murder of christians, of jews, of muslim minority sects, yazidi, any who do not share their radical sunni theology. while other terrorist organizations have been content with a parasitic relationship of

state sponsored terrorism, notably syria and iran, isis has a new agenda which is to establish its own state or caliphate. they now control a territory about the size of indiana with oil fields that they can exploit on the black market to the tune of some $1.5 million a day. and their ranks have grown in the last three months alone from roughly 10,000 to now more than 30,000. unlike some regional jihadists, isis also represents a direct and growing threat to our citizens here at home. and increasingly to our homeland itself. just this week there were news reports of an online posting urging individual jihadists in the united states to attack targets like times square, the

las vegas strip, and even locations in my home state of texas with home made pipe bombs. this is not the first time we have heard such threats, but we have to take them seriously. isis has made no secret that its goal is not simply to establish a caliphate in the middle east. its desire to impose sharia law on the muslim population and to exterminate any religious minorities, and that desire is not confined by geography. when the leaders of isis abu al baghdadi was released from a detention camp in iraq in 2009, he reportedly remarked to army colonel kenneth king -- quote -- "see you in new york." this danger, this evil intends to come home to america. isis has in recent weeks

graphically demonstrated their eagerness to murder american civilians by beheading two journalists, gruesomely demonstrating on the world stage their hatred for america. this is not a situation where if we simply leave isis alone, they will leave us alone. this is a case where americans' national security interests demand a serious response, which should be both to attack isis directly and take them out in its claimed caliphate and also to defend against the attacks that isis is planning to execute here at home. the obama administration's approach to this crisis has unfortunately lacked a clear focus on that mission. it doesn't help that isis is surrounded by regional chaos, borne out of the syrian civil war and isis has exploited the

inherent political weakness in iraq. however, while both the crisis in syria and the upheaval in baghdad are unfortunate and concerning situations, we cannot allow resolving them to become preconditions to any military action we might need to take against isis. all too often, the obama administration's proposal threaten to become embroiled in the midst of these political crises. as, for example, they have made training and equipping the free syrian army a cornerstone of their plan to fight isis. but just this week, the leader of the free syrian army reportedly announced that he would not participate in the fight against isis unless we pledge to join in his fight against syrian dictator bashar al-assad. this is certainly understandable from his perspective. resolving the syrian civil war is not our mission nor the job of the military, and we should

make -- not be making the free syrian army whose focus is assad central to the american plan of defending our nation against the jihadist threat of isis. the administration's isis policy is also marked by internal confusion that further demonstrates a lack of focus on what should be our clear mission. the president has repeatedly insisted that there will be no american boots on the ground in iraq and syria as he wants any action to be led by others, even while he increases u.s. personnel in a country by a few hundred here and a few hundred there. and earlier this week, his top general, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admitted that there are circumstances under which he would change his advice to the president to recommending ground troops, a suggestion that was subsequently echoed by the chief of staff of the army and even by vice president biden. the american people need and deserve greater clarity on what

exactly our military mission is and how what the president envisions relates to the advice his department of defense is giving him. the disconnect between what we know and what we do not know about the americans fighting for isis in iraq and syria is squallly concerning. estimates range from about a dozen, according to one pentagon spokesman, to secretary of defense chuck hagel's reassertion of about 100 americans fighting with isis in this week's senate armed services committee hearing. either way, secretary hagel agreed with my characterization of the risks posed that americans will take u.s. passports after fighting with isis, after training with isis to come back and commit unspeakable acts of terror here at home. secretary hagel agreed that risk was significant. it seems only prudent to address that threat. i am therefore going to be asking for unanimous consent for the senate to pass the

expatriate terrorist act or the e.t.a. of 2014. which will make fighting for isis, taking up arms against the united states on affirmative renunciation of american citizenship. and i should note that the e.t.a. is very similar to the partisan legislation proposed by senators joe lieberman and scott brown in 2010 to address americans who were joining al qaeda overseas, notably the radical cleric anwar al-alaki or here at home like fizel shabad who attempted to blow up a car bomb in times square. the e.t.a. has applicability beyond the immediate threat of isis. it is an important adjustment to our existing laws governing the renunciation of citizenship to reflect the threat posed by non-nation terrorist groups. as then-secretary of state hillary clinton said concerning

the brown-lieberman legislation -- quote -- "united states citizenship is a privilege, it is not a right. people who are serving foreign powers or in this case foreign terrorists are clearly in violation of that oath which they swore when they became citizens. the expatriate terrorist act of 2014 is only a very modest change to current law. it's one small step in a larger and necessary effort to refocus our isis strategy that i urge president obama to consider immediately. we also urgently need to address the question of border security on our southern border so that our failure to defend ourselves does not become a weakness that isis and other terrorists exploit to carry out unspeakable acts of terror here at home. the american people expect republicans and democrats to join together to speak in one uniform voice when it comes to protecting the national

security, when it comes to protecting the lives of americans here at home. if we do not pass this legislation, the consequence will be that americans fighting alongside isis today may come home tomorrow with a u.s. passport, may come home to new york or los angeles or houston or chicago, and innocent americans may be murdered if the senate does not act today. therefore, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 554, s. 2779. i further ask consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there an objection? ms. hirono: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: mr. president, reserving the right to object, this bill has not been brought

before the judiciary committee which has jurisdiction over these issues. this bill affects fundamental constitutional rights and should be given the full deliberation of the senate. legislation that grants the government the ability to strip citizenship from americans is a serious matter raising significant constitutional issues. again, we have not had the opportunity to fully consider and vet this very significant bill. in addition, objections to this bill are detailed in two years, both dated december 17, 2014, that i would like to submit for the record. the letters are from the bipartisan constitution project and from the american civil liberties union. i ask for unanimous consent to submit these letters for the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hirono: mr. president, i object to the unanimous consent request. mr. cruz: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, i would note that the objection from my friend from hawaii observed that this legislation has not gone through the judiciary committee, and that is true. it is true, of course, because the senate is expected to adjourn this week as senators return to their home states to campaign for elections, so if it were to go through the judiciary committee, it would mean that it could not pass in time to prevent americans fighting right now with isis from coming back and murdering other americans. there is an urgency and an exigency to this situation. this is also legislation the senate has considered before. as i noted, it was bipartisan legislation. joe lieberman, scott brown, hillary clinton all were of one accord. it is unfortunate that democratic senators chose to object to this, to prevent this commonsense change in law. and i would note when it comes

to the constitutional concerns, i don't know if anyone in this senate has been more vigorous or more consistent in terms of defending the constitutional rights of americans than i have endeavored to be during my short tenure here. i will yield to no one in passion for defending constitutional liberties, but i would note there is an existing law that has been on the books for many, many decades covering the renuniation of united states citizenship. it is current law right now that if you go and join a foreign nation and take up arms against america, that act has long been recognized as constituting a constructive renunciation of united states citizenship. and as for the question of due process, existing law provides due process that an individual who goes and takes up arms with isis -- and all this does is treats isis, a nonstate

terrorist group on the same footing as taking up arms with a foreign nation against america. and it is a recognition of the changed circumstances of this world that many of the gravest threats facing this country are not coming from nation states but are coming from terrorist groups that sadly some americans are choosing to join forces with. the existing law has considerable due process protection such that anyone who is determined to have affirmatively renounced his or her citizenship has a right to challenge that in federal district court in a full proceeding under existing due press standards to have that matter resolved. the question is very simple -- would any reasonable person want an american who is right now in iraq, who is right now training with isis, who is right now taking up arms, who is right now participating in crucifying christians, who is right now

beheading children, who has right now participated in beheading two american journalists, who is right now standing arm in arm with virulent terrorists who have pledged to take jihad to america, would anyone of good conscience in either party want that person to be able to come back and land in laguardia airport with a u.s. passport and walk unmolested onto our streets? the obvious answer is no, and it saddens me that we could not see republicans and democrats come together. it saddens me that in an election year, the democratic senators up for election chose to block this commonsense legislation rather than to work together to protect the american citizens. i hope in time we see less election year politics and more service to the men and women who all of us are obliged to protect. i yield the floor.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: earlier this morning, we had an opportunity to hear from ukraine's president petro poroshenko. ukraine is a friend of the united states and it has looked to the west to meet naked russian aggression. as president poroshenko's speech reminded us, there are many shared objectives that bind our countries like the pursuit of freedom and representative government. so let's make it clear, we stand with ukraine. we stand with the ukranian people in their struggle against external aggression, and we stand with them in their struggle to secure the same kinds of rights and liberties each of us enjoy here in

america. on a different matter, today the senate will consider house-passed legislation to fund the government and address the twin threats of ebola and isil. these are important issues. i know many members on both sides plan to support this legislation. i know that others have some concerns, too. i understand those concerns, i share some of them, but while no bill is perfect, i believe this legislation is worth supporting. i'd like to thank my fellow kentuckian representative hal rogers for his leadership and his work on this bill because it does a lot of important things and all without raising discretionary spending. it would reauthorize important counternarcotics operations that help keep our children and communities safe. it would extend the internet tax freedom act until december, giving us a chance to secure a

permanent extension. it would block some of the administration's discretionary policies against kentucky coal. and it would help address the administration's veterans' crisis by providing more resources to address the claims back log and investigations into potential wrongdoing. that's a positive step towards the more comprehensive reforms republicans would like to see. critically, the legislation would provide authorization to train and equip a moderate syrian opposition ground force, a key component of the president's efforts to disrupt, dismantle and defeat isil. while i'm concerned about the ability of the coalition to generate sufficient combat power to defeat isil within syria, i do support the president's proposal to begin the program. the authorization is of limited duration and it now contains some important reporting

requirements that will allow congress to assess and oversee this program to measure whether the mission is actually being accomplished. the ebola crisis is another area where the president deserves congressional support. as you know, he recently announced several measures to contain the spread of the disease in africa, and prevent it from reaching our shores. accordingly, the bill contains additional resources to support research and bolster our nation's effort in assisting africa to manage this growing crisis. so in summary, mr. president, this isn't perfect legislation but it begins to address many of our constituents' top concerns without raising discretionary spending. and it positions us for better solutions in the months to come. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i request up to 45

minutes for the purposes of engaging in a colloquy with my colleagues on the issue of the keystone x.l. pipeline. the presiding officer: without objection. is there an objection? mr. hoeven: mr. president, i request up to 35 minutes for the purposes of engaging in a colloquy with my colleagues on the important issue of the keystone x.l. pipeline. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: thank you. it is tomorrow the sixth anniversary of the application for approval of the keystone x.l. pipeline. six years, six years ago, september 19, 2008, the trans-canada company applied for a permit for approval to cross the canadian border to build the keystone x.l. pipeline from canada down to cushing and ultimately the gulf coast to provide not only oil from canada but move oil from states like my

state of north dakota, light sweet backian crude to our refinies here in the united states, six years ago that application was filed effective tomorrow. and we're here today to talk about the need not only for a decision on the keystone x.l. plainly but for approval of this vitally important project. the reality is we can make this country energy secure, energy independent working with our closest friend and ally, canada. but to do it we not only need to develop all of our resources, our energy resources in this country, and work with canada as they develop their energy resources, but we need the infrastructure to safely, effectively, efficiently, dependably move that energy to where it's needed, to our consumers. and that's what the keystone x.l. pipeline project is all about. this is truly about building the

roads, the rail, the pipelines, the transmission, the energy infrastructure that we need as a vital part of our energy plan for this country. we have bipartisan support. we have 57 senators that support this legislation. 57. and the reality is, i think, by next year we'll have 60. so while we sit here and wait now for six years, effective tomorrow, six years, waiting for a decision from the president on the keystone x.l. pipeline, ultimately i believe this decision will be made by the american people as it always is and as it always should be because i believe that after these elections in november as we go into next year we will not just have 57 senators that support this project, we will have over 60. and then congress will pass legislation, a bill that we've submitted, a bipartisan bill

that we have pending before this body right now, we'll pass it and we'll attach it to something that the president won't veto. the house has already passed this legislation. because over 70% i think in the most recent poll of the american people want this project. they want this project approved. so here after six years -- and we're going to talk about some of the history of this and all the work we've done but before i do that, i want to turn to my colleague from wyoming, somebody who is incredibly knowledgeable when it comes to energy, somebody who has worked on energy in all different aspects, someone that truly understands that look for the benefit of the american people to build our energy future we not only need to produce that energy, we need the infrastructure to transport it safely, effectively, and well. so i would like to call on the senator from wyoming for his remarks on this sixth anniversary of the application,

waiting for approval, waiting for a decision from the administration on the keystone x.l. pipeline for his thoughts and for his comments and i would turn to the good senator from wyoming. you've worked on this project for a long time. can you give us your thoughts as to why this project is still awaiting a decision from the administration after the president told us, told our caucus last year at a caucus, we had here in in an adjacent room we would have a decision by the end of 2013, why we are here still awaiting a decision on behalf of the american people. mr. barrasso: mr. president, i appreciate and want to salute the significant leadership that we've seen on this issue from the senator from north dakota. he has been a stalwart fighter, very focused on this issue, and focused on putting together a bipartisan coalition of supporters. americans want the jobs, they want the energy, they want action. and we have an opportunity but

we've been waiting six long years. and the senator from north dakota is absolutely right. it was at a meeting of the republican conference that the president of the united states came in and i asked the specific question, when will we expect an answer so we can get moving with the jobs and the energy that the american people are asking for, and president obama said, well, by the end of the year. he said that over a year -- almost a year and a half ago. it was the end of the year 2013 that the promise was going to be fulfilled, and now here we are halfway beyond -- beyond magnificentway through 2014, nothing yet. not a thing from the white house. the white house held hostage by environmental extremists trying to block the important jobs and the important energy and this important project. now, we are here in the senate today and the majority leader is ready to close this place down until after the election. he closed it down, you count the number of days from the beginning of august all through

august, a few days in session in september but most of september not in session, and then all of october up through the election, you're talking three months with the senate in session for just two weeks. it's embarrassing. where is the accountability? we're sure not getting it from the majority leader. the majority leader ought to bring this for a vote today. but he's not going to. he's going to shut down the senate today, making sure that these jobs are not there, that the energy is not there for the american people, and the keystone x.l. pipeline, bipartisan support, is an excellent example of a project that could help us from the standpoint of energy security, from the standpoint of economic growth, from the standpoint of helping our economy, getting people back to work, but yet the majority leader is not going to allow a vote today, six years in the waiting on this

specific important project. so i would just say to my friend and colleague from north dakota and i know our friends and colleagues from -- from oklahoma and from georgia are here on the floor and i want to hear their comments as well, i just salute you, the senator from north dakota, for your continued leadership, for your focus, and for continuing to work to make america better in terms of jobs, in terms of the economy and in terms of energy and i know you will not stop until we finally get this project approved, completed, and constructed. thank you, mr. president. mr. hoeven: i'd like to thank the senator from wyoming for his diligence and for his work. you know, this really is a bipartisan issue. there are -- we have legislation now with 57 sporters -- supporters that's pending before this body. in fact, we've passed this legislation, we had passed very similar legislation, different

only in the respect that it called on the president to make a decision. this was back in 2012. i think we had 73 votes on this issue. the difference -- the pending bill we have provides congressional approval because the president once again delayed the decision when we passed legislation calling on him to make the decision earlier and so now we've come back with binding legislation after being congressional research. this bill makes the decision congressionally under the commerce clause that gives congress the ability to oversee commerce with northern nations. so simply what this does, we say to our closest friend and ally, canada, trans-canada is a canadian company, yes, you can cross the border with this palestine which is the latest, greatest technology that we have for palestine transport. let me show one other chart here before i show this one. just so people understand when

we're talking about compliance, oil and gas palestines. this gives -- pipelines. this gives you a sense, millions of miles of pipelines that move oil and gas around the country from where it's produced to the consumers that very much need it. that gives you a sense of all the pipelines we have. so now we're talking about one that has the latest and greatest technology that we are seeking to get approval, and just to put this into some context, the project that we're seeking to have approved is the keystone x.l. pipeline. the keystone x.l. pipeline, the reason x.l., is because the keystone pipeline is this pipeline here, which goes from hard icky up in alberta, canada down to illinois as well as cushing, that's the keystone pipeline. so i want to make sure there's

no confusion here. that's the keystone pipeline and that was approved in two years and built in two years. so in 2006 the trans-canada company -- i was governor of north dakota right now, you can see it runs right through north dakota. we're now the second largest oil producing state in nation, produce over a million barrels of oil a day, light sweet crude only second to texas and we've got to get that to our markets and to refineries. i started working on these projects when i was governor and in 2006, trans-canada applied for approval of the keystone pipeline, originally supposed to carry about 640,000 barrels a day, now carries 750,000 barrels a day. that application was applied for in 2006, it was approved in 2008, the pipeline was built between 2008 and came -- excuse me, and came on line two years later. so two years to permit, two

years to permit, and two years to build. four years total. so when trans-canada applied for a second permit in 2008, for a sister pipeline, keystone pipeline, seemed logical it was going to be approved, particularly when the initial project had been approved in two years, built in two years, this is the actual pipeline infrastructure we have, when they wanted to build the sister pipeline, 830,000 barrels a day seemed kind of pretty logical they would go through the process and get it approved. september 19, 2008, they applied for that approval, to move oil and pick it up -- additional oil in north dakota, montana, take it done to cushing and down to the refineries in the gulf as well

as get oil over into the refineries in louisiana. september 19, 2008, tomorrow is september 19, 2014, six years later, no decision. so i'd like to turn to my colleague the senior senator from the great state of oklahoma. curbing is a -- cushing is a hub for oil all over the country. it's vital we move it in and out of there because it's a huge transition point between where we produce oil including in the region but from all over the country and canada and move it to refineries where it's distributed throughout the country. so we need to be able to move product in and out of cushing which is truly a hub for the nation. this is exactly what this pipeline does. so i would turn to the seniority oklahoma and ask him why in the world given what i've just described, thousands of pipelines, millions of miles of these pipelines, we've got to

get truck proct to refineries and to our consumers, we can't put it all on rail, or you get incredible congestion that leads to accidents and backlog in shipping other products. this is the greatest, latest technology for pipeline transport of oil. why in the world, what rationale would there be not to approve this project? mr. inhofe: let me first of all say i was going to ask my friend from north dakota to leave that chart up there because it shows very clearly that -- i might have the biggest dog in this fight, i don't know, but i will say this -- cushing, oklahoma has more pipelines coming through throughout the united states than any other city in america. that's where they all come through. and just a few minutes ago the senator from wyoming was talking about what the president said less than a year ago that we were going to -- that he was going to be cooperating, and we're going to do this thing, the best thing for america and

he hasn't done it. what's worse than that, this right here, because of this -- the hub that we have at cushing, the president went there, this was about a year ago -- over two years ago, did he, and he went there to affirm to the american people that he's going to do all he can to make sure this pipeline becomes a reality. read this. i ask my friend from north dakota, says "i'm directing my administration to make this project a priority, to go ahead and get it done." you know, he's made -- i am a not going to use the "l" word because it is disrespectful. he has moved from that and has done everything since that time to destroy the pipeline. he talked about there -- that was when they were talking about the southern leg. obviously the southern leg is not a problem because the southern leg does not cross an international border, so the

president couldn't stop that even if he wanted to. so he was taking credit for that. but i think he was certainly underestimating the people of oklahoma. in fact, nobody showed up when he was there. that portion between candidate and cushing. that's where the problem began because of that. now, i'm going to throw out something very briefly. did i this yesterday also on the floor, but i think it is important. put the chart up. there is a new surge of opposition to this that wasn't there before this happened. this is a very fine person, i'm sure. i don't know him. but tom steyer, he has put up $100 million -- his words, not mine -- $50 million of his own money to do two things chon one, to resurrect this thipg on global warming which is dead. and if you read the polls today, people have caught on. it is now number 14 out of 15 environmental concerns according to all of the polling data.

so he's traig to bring that up again. but the second thing he's trying to do is stop the keystone pipeline. now, i say to my friend fro from north dakota, $50 million of that is his own money and he has that out there right now. i am going to quote him. he said, it is true that we expect to be heavily involved in the midterm elections ... we are looking at a bunch of ... races ... my guess is that we'll end up being involved in 8 or more raises." so obviously that factors into this thing. the keystone pipeline, which you know would create 42,000 jobs and tens of thousands more -- and if you look at my state of oklahoma, about a third of all those jobs are in the state of oklahoma. said the keystone is just the tip of the iceberg. when you look at this chart, you can see all of the domestic energy resources that be being developed around the country right now. we're going through a shale

revolution, and the only thing getting in its way is the federal government. look at this chart here. i can remember back when people considered the only oil states to be west of the mississippi in the western united states. but look, with the marcellus coming through -- you could argue and i have seen the argument in the stay of pennsylvania, for example. it provides the second-most jobs in that state. and yet they need to be aware that this is what's happening in the united states. now, this map, if you look at it, it shows what we could do if we also had the federal lands included in that. in fact, one of the shocking things that we hear about when you talk about the federal lands is that if you -- in the last six years -- and that's since president obama was there, and he's done everything he could to retard the progress of oil and gas. he came to office -- the production on state lands is up 61%.

that's in -- that's in six years, up 61%. and natural gas is up 33%. however, on federal land, that land that the president can affect, the oil production is down 6%. how could it be up 61% and be down 60%? i think that just shows that this commitment -- the commitment there is there. i.c.f. international is a well-respected consulting firm. it is not republican or democrat, and they recently released a report that will -- says that the united states companies will need to invest $641 billion over the next 20 years in infrastructure to keep up with the growing oil and gas production." what does that mean for jobs? according to the analysis, the spending on these new pipelines alone will create 432,000 new jobs. it goes on and on in talking about this. you know, i ask the same question:

how could it be -- six years ago i thought this was a piece of cake. what's the argument against it? there are people who don't want -- that fight against the fossil fuels. that's alive and well. but they know that they're going to be producing it anyway. if it goes into china -- and there's already discussions, that's public record, if it gets into china, they're going to have to go through the refining process. and they don't have any re-victions in china. so -- restrictions in china. so the argument ipeople, when io oklahoma, they say, what's the argument against it? i try explain the argument that they're using. they don't buy it. of course i am back there talking to normal people. anyway, good luck. we're going to do all we can to make this a reality. we're going to win this eventually. but i am afraid we have the opposition of this administration and unless we get at that turned around, we'll have to wait for another

president. mr. hoeven: i'd like to thank the senator from oklahoma and pick up on a point he made very well. and he made a number of points that i think are extremely compelling. bun of the point thases he made -- but one of the points that he made is that overall since 200 2008-2009, that area, our oil production up. so that's good. that's reducing the amount of oil that we have to import into this country. we're at the point -- we were below 50%. now we're closing on 60% and more oil that we produce together with canada and mexico. we're up over 75% in terms of the oil we consume, we produce

in this country or get from our closest allies and working on getting to 80%. you say, well, that's really good. but the senator from oklahoma made a really important point. understand that's because we're up 60% in oil production one on private land. on private land, right? we're actually down in terms of our production on public land. we're down between 6% and%. so when you net the two, we're up about 40%. but that's because we're up 60% on private land. so let me give you an example of how that works on the ground. in north dakota, 90% of the land -- 90% of the land in north dakota is privately owned. 90% is privately owned. so our oil production is growing tremendously. like i say, we're at about 1.1 million barrels a day, on our way to 1.4 million barrels a day in just a few years.

alaska, on the other hand, their production is going down, because their land is 90% public land and a very small percent is private land. they can't get the permits. they can't build the infrastructure. so the amount of oil they produce is declining. the alaskan pipeline can carry 2 million barrels a day of oil. 2 million barrels a day. it's down to less than 600,000 and declining. okay? now, this is at a time -- this is at a time this we're still getting oil from the middle east. and we're dealing with entities like isil, with terrorism, with instability. how can we continue to be dependent on getting oil from the middle east when we can produce that oil right here in our country and in canada? and i would ask the good senator from oklahoma to comment for just a minute on the technology that's enabling -- enabling us to do this. hydraulic fracturing. the first well hig well hydrauly

fractured was in the 1950' 50 zd it was in oklahoma. talk about the technology and twha means for the future of this country and energy security. mr. inhofe: hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling are to be credited for this shale drilling we're going through right now. knowing the american people wanted to use this abundance of good, clean, natural gas and all of this was supportive of that but he has done everything he can to retard our efforts to continue to use as we have since ^19 48 hydraulic fracturing. it is interesting because the first director of the e.p.a. that was chosen and confirmed during the obama administration was lisa jackson. i asked her the question live on

tv during one of our committee hearings, hydraulic fracturing, people are creating problems with this. yet we've never had a problem. and it all started in my state of oklahoma. i said, has there ever been a documented case of groundwater contamination with hydraulic fracturing? her answer, i say to my good friend, was no. so we have their administration saying there is no problem with that. yet they're doing everything they can to make it much more difficult to take advantage of this revolution we're in the middle of. mr. hoeven: i'd like too thank the senator from oklahoma. since 1948 hydraulic fracturing, the first well hydraulically fractured. there have been no cases of connamings since 1948. we're using this with the latest, new, greatest technology where on one pad -- on wha one t

we call ecopad, we'll drill down as many as 18 wells. we go down two miles underground, then we drill laterals three miles longs. think of how much we have reduced the environmental footprint with that technology. think how much less -- you're covering 1280 acres in the old days -- and again my friend from oklahoma would like to comment. think how many wells you would have had to drill and how much infrastructure and pumpers you'd have to have all over the landscape. now we do it on one pad covering 1,280 acres, drawing out three miles in all directions from one ecopad. so it is not just about energy. it is also better environmental stewardship. mr. inhofe: you know, all the environmentalists or extreme environmentalists who are trying to stop or fight in this war

against fossil fuels ought to realize, they ought to be rejoicing that we have this technology now. and when you talk about the number of wells, we have quantified -- it is now passed a million wells have been drilled usinusing hydraulic fracturing. by their own admission, there's never been one documented case of groundwater contamination. so there is no reason not to do it. we can be independent in a matter of weeks if we had the opportunity to export. it is not just private land. it is private and state land. all of the increase that we've had, the 63% we talk about, is all private and state land. and how is it possible that that increase could take place and while on federal lands it goes down 6%. that tells the whole story. mr. hoeven: i would follow one more question to my friend from oklahoma before i turn to the good senator from the state of georgia. comment if you would, answer for me if you would, as we produce

this energy domestically -- so we're producing energy here. we're creating jobs. we'rwe're creating economic activity. we're raising revenue without raising taxes. we're not getting oil from the middle east or venezuela or places that are hostile to our interests. right? now we're talking about environmental stewardship. we talk about minimizing the footprint with these new technologies. why would we not want to move that product as safely as possible with the latest, greatest type of pipeline, with the best technology and the most safeguards? why isn't that an environmentally sound decision as well? mr. inhofe: i've obvious said -- and many of the people who are very conscious about the environment, which i am and others, have said this is the answer. because with all the -- i remember years ago when i was very, very young -- i worked in the oilfields and i can remember, there were small wells all over.

and of course at the time there wasn't an effort -- now they've cleaned things up and nothing is greater in terms of the technology that's come along for the environment than what we've experienced. and when you think about what's happening all over -- look at -- i'm glad you mentioned this thing with isis and all of these problems that we have right now. we're facing a greater threat right now, i believe, militarily than we have before. that's where a lot of our energy is coming frvment an from. a good friend of mine and yours named harold hamm, i asked him the question, you know, if we -- the president keeps saying, well, if we were to go ahead and develop this -- on federal lands, it would take ten years before that would reach the economy. so i was going to be on an unfriendly tv show and i called up harold hamm and i said, haicialtiond i am going to ask you a question. be careful of the way you answer because i am going to use your name and your answer on nationwide tv. i said, if you were set up

someplace like new mexico on federal land, had not been touched before, how long would it take for that first barrel of oil to reach the dism economy? he said without hesitatin hesit0 days. i said, that's ten weeks, not ten years. i have never been refuted since we used that. so in addition to all the arguments that we're using, just think about what our oil independence could dovment our energy independence could do in this country. it is all there for the taking. this is the key element to make that a reality. mr. hoeven: again, i would like it thank the senator from oklahoma who has been a leader in energy and certainly a statesman and a leader in energy for many years. when you look at not only what's going on with isil, this morning we were addressed by the president of the ukraine. and look at their situation because they haven't developed their own energy resources and because they don't have, you know, their own infrastructure