results. as i appear before the esteemed committee is important to recall that june of last year isil burst onto the international scene as the irresistible force the concord a city of 1.5 million. . .

>> >> the iraqis fought back. the prime minister went to the joint operations center to order the immediate counterattack the minister of defence organize available forces and the commander during the attack. the tribal volunteers organized support it in some cases led the attack. today there back in the hands of these terrible forces i was there last

month i would say all americans would be proud to see what our troops are doing helping the iraqis but this is only the start anti-lebanon will remain a substantial issue but any part of the invincibility has been shattered. it is not invincible it is debatable and is being defeated by iraqi forces to take back their towns and cities and ultimately their country to support united states and the coalition. and the aura of the so-called caliphate is destroyed and the future is very much in doubt. because we lack the same kind of partners in the ground the situation is more challenging and complex but we're still working closely with regional partners to

have opposition elements to train 5,000 trips per year for the next three years these and other military aspects will inevitably receive the most attention but as i have seen in previous coalition efforts ultimately it is the aggregate pressure of a campaign activity over multiple lines of effort to determine the campaign six success. this is why when i visit a coalition capital to meet with the prime minister to describe the counter ijssel strategy for the military line to deny safe haven to disrupt the resources. >> since mid to timber i traveled multiple times to

meet with national leadership in the short span we have assembled global coalition of international organizations but the recent visits of heightened concern for the immediate generational challenges and rightly so through capacity building and criminal justice efforts in north africa and changes to laws in more than a dozen countries partners are working together to make it more difficult to fight in syria and iraq. even with the expanded measures they continue to make their way to the battlefield. we must harmonize the border and customs progress in share intelligence to allow the coalition to make significant gains within the region and globally. this is stemming the flow of private donations to generate oil revenue.

we now expand the efforts for informal financial networks the coalition also supporting the united nations efforts for supply of critical assistance to protect the vulnerable children and men from conditions in the region the ravaged communities from true identity when we actively work with coalition partners that take the lead role. isil is attracted to recruits the cousin of the sense of inevitability promotes the last six months have demonstrated that isil is really operating as a criminal gang under increasing pressure to send navy recruits to die by the 100. so traditional and social media with religious leaders

as their announced was the joint messaging center for though long-term to create a network where it can dispute and dominate the affirmation space filled with the isil messaging. with the authorities he believes are necessary to pursue a long-term campaign through the request of of congress for the use of military force that a u.s. request sees the unique capabilities from large-scale deployments. one that hopes to expand their reach beyond the borders of syria. taking the fight requires

that we are flexible and requires close coordination with congress so we're constantly evaluating of our strategy that will be source appropriately. things for the opportunity to be before this committee today to continue that process of coordination and consultation and a look forward to taking your questions. >> thank you for your testimony and great service. yesterday's senator kerry testified that today the administration already has because of the others to these authority to conduct those operations to you agree with that assessment? >> i do. >> it is an interesting place we find ourselves after complex have begun a

new a un that was being offered that is the standard profits that i appreciate but it is interesting place that those authorities already exist. and that you have been able to negotiate the most of the free syrian opposition so this is the reason for being. now we organize against isis going up entirely different recruitment to find this is an easier recruitment process. >> as we begin this we were not sure frankly how that process would unfold. just two days ago i had the opportunity to have a conversation with a great

soldier of the united states i will not go into details or the numbers but they are much higher than we thought and it has been very encouraging we had an encouraging sense there is an interest. >> i believe that there are with larger groups of people is that correct? >> let me ask one of the dilemmas is we know that there is a loose description of who it is but there have been significant discussions from the northwest in the area?

and actually to see them to get more involved from multiple areas and others that i will not mention here. it has kept them from getting more involved and also with that decision to do that and then to engage but can you update of the decision not being made by with a ground operations you were talking about earlier. >> i will start by saying what i did before with turkey they are in allied. and where we begin this conversation is significant progress in the conversation

about turkey's role with the coalition and all we want to accomplish together and in particular what we can accomplish in syria. there has been much progress meeting with the turkish delegation yesterday we will head back to continue that conversation and part of that obviously is those measures that can be taken collectively or by a larger coalition to provide protection for the modern elements that we would produce over time. that is then an important part. [inaudible] but those are it but writer

involvement is the greater fair assessment. >> is. the details of what that conversation can be can the deficit in several directions. there was the initial conversation of the initial no-fly zone which was very specifically they doubt on the map putting all managers >> one final question. in the event we made it to protect other members of the free syrian army in the event we need to protect them against the side

bombing them does that need additional authority other than what has been requested? >> i would have to study that. my hope is we can provide the kind of protection they need and deserve with the cooperation eight -- cooperation currently had. >> so we knew that type was a part of anything we may do? >> that clearly will be a part of the outcome. >> you are a retired four-star general and a former commander of the international security assistance force in afghanistan. . .

>> again, senator, i think that trying to put a specific amount of time on the word enduring. >> it is neither time nor size.

i think we take a full appreciation of what we are facing, and i believe that we give the president of the options necessary in order to deal with emergency. and enduring might be two weeks or two years. we need to ensure we put the right resources against the contingency and give us the amount of time necessary, us being in the american people , all the time necessary to face the problem. >> and i think you have stated the challenge we have. two weeks is one thing. two years is another. and this is the problem with the language that exists. there is no clear defining element of the authorization given to the president in which hundreds but maybe tens of thousands of troops could be sent. they can be sent for long periods of time. that is a challenge. so how we get our arms

around that, you know i think i can barely speak for democrats, we want to fight isil, but we cannot provide a blank check to this or any future president because anything envisioned goes beyond this current president. i want to use your expertise to try to put my arms around it. isn't it true that unless we buy into something that is about getting rid of assad turkey we will not engage in a way that we want them to? >> the turks have not said that in my talks with them. they share the same goal with respect to syria which is it will not be determined

by military force and ultimately we desire of political outcome that is the desire of the syrian people and that outcome is one that does not include bishara al-assad. i have not had in my conversation with the turks, the requirement that we take assertive action against the cyber al-assad as a pretext for the turks to have any greater role in dealing with isil. >> isn't that true it true syria is still allowing foreign fighters -- isn't it true that turkey is allowing foreign fighters into syria? >> if foreign fighters get into syria it is not because the turks are allowing them. i have watched him grow up this problem. it is a greater problem that many of us has gotten the beginning. we are seeking greater information sharing and intelligence sharing with them. we we're restructuring some elements of the coalition specifically to focus the capability of nations nations on the issue of the movement in the dealing of foreign fighters through transit states of which the

turks we will play an important role in that process within the coalition so do foreign fighters cross turkey and get into syria? yes, they do. other turks permitting them to do so? , no i don't think so. they're taking the measures necessary this stuff that flow is much as possible. >> iran is in the midst of iraq, in the midst of syria. do we share a mutual mutual goals with iran? >> well, i we will say our goals with respect to iraq is that we return iraq to the sovereign control of the iraqi people and the central government in baghdad. >> do you think the iranians sure that? >> i believe so. the iranians would believe that there interests would -- they would consider their interests are best served --

>> because they have influence in iraq. >> they have regional interests and they are in fact, in iraq which is not something that suits a prize or alarmist. >> and looking beyond. if we think an accommodation is good the aftermath of that in iraq in syria, and yemen elsewhere in my view is not so good. sometimes we look at the short game versus the long run and i am concerned about the long run. >> senator, i would not propose we are accommodating iran and iraq at this particular moment. we are undertaking the measures with the iraqis not cooperating with the iranians, as you have pointed out and your question presupposes. the irradiance have an iranians have an interest in a stable iraq just as we do but that does not mean we are accommodating the iranians by virtue of the actions we are taking in iraq. >> thank you. senator johnson.

>> mr. chairman. thank you for your service. i do not envy your task. in your testimony, you say that isis has lost half of its? _-dash based leadership. how do we know that? >> say again, sir. >> you say that isis has lost half of its correct _-dash based is based leadership. how do we no? >> we have good intelligence on this measure. tracking the elements within the senior echelons its we have been tracking and systematically as we are able to find in dealing with them. >> you also said in the last six months we have amply demonstrated isis is more than a criminal network and difficult. what is your evaluation of increasing versus degradation ratio? how many people are being drawn and recruited by what

they see in isis versus people who really are dying? >> that's a difficult number >> positive or negative? >> i would say two things the numbers are up because we're now tracking numbers in ways we have not before. they are also because of the so-called caliphate which is created, in some respects, a magnetism for those elements that want to be part of this , that want to support this emergence within there own sense of there faith. and so that has created a recruiting opportunity for isil that they had not have before. we we will continue to track those numbers. it is not just a matter of dealing with those numbers in the battle space. we are dealing with those numbers by virtue of taking

other measures. as my testimony indicated, we operate alone five different methods. the military is just one of them. they consortium of nations taking necessary steps to make it difficult to be recruited in the country, transit out of that country and ultimately get to the battle space. plus, as isil and the so-called caliphate, as it continues to receive blow after blow and be proven as not being is not being inevitable are invincible using that as an opportunity to truly message with this organization is and decrease its attractiveness to those who might otherwise be attracted and seek to move to the battle space ultimately to assist them. >> that leads me to my next measure. defeat sounds good but can you describe what it looks like? >> this organization has been rendered ineffective in that in its capability of being an existential threat.

we're not going to eradicate or annihilate isil. most of these organizations, they're will be some residue for a long time to come but we do not want it to have operational capabilities that created the opportunity for it to threaten the existence of iraq or other states in the region. we want to diminish its capacity to generate funding its limits dramatically its operational decision-making and capabilities to affect discretion with respect to its recruiting as battlefield capabilities. we want to compete with it and ultimately overcome or defeat its message and the information sphere where it has achieved significant capability and recruiting prowess. across the many different measures of our lines of effort we have a sense of what we want to do in the physical sphere, how we want to deal with them in the

financial sphere and ultimately in the information sphere. all of those together we will constitute the defeat of isil. >> you mentioned the caliphate. the article in the atlantic spelled spelled-out that establishes a benchmark and motivation for people being recruited. it relies on territorial gains. is that part of defeat, deny them all territory? destroy that's of the caliphate no longer exists? >> absolutely. >> we are talking about pretty much decimation. that is the word secretary kerry used. it's like nazi germany few people scattered around the world. decimation is not what i am hearing of you. >> you can apply whatever term you would like to. decimation is clearly one of the terms we would apply to it. we want them to have no operational capability which means breaking them up into

small organizations which do not have the capacity to define a threat. >> to find small organization. i am trying to get some sense of what we mean by defeat. it sounds great. are we talking about taking 30,000 down to 500? 30,000 down to 1000 broken up into different groups? >> it we will take time and we will ultimately be realized in a number of ways. breaking up the organization through connecticut and military surface terrestrial means, take time to reduce the message and attractiveness that gives it the capacity to regenerate forces, take time to denied access to the international financial system that gives it the capabilities of restoring itself or generating capabilities. all of those things together, if we deny them access, defeat the messaging in the information sphere and break them up into small groups that is defeat. >> i am out of time.

>> thank you, chairman, general. thank you for your service your continued service to our country. these are extremely challenging times, and we are very proud of your leadership. >> thank you, sir. >> you are urging us to be patient and that this we will take time and not only degrading but destroying and defeating isil. you believe, as i understand, the authorizations previously passed by congress give the administration the authorization necessary for use of force but i also understand you support the president's request to congress. >> i do. >> of course the president's request to congress is specific on isil and expires in three years. it is clear that there may well be a need for continued

military us presence beyond that three years. >> i would say probably a need for military activity us activity in some form or another. yes, sir. >> and i think that is an honest assessment. if i understand the reasoning behind the request it is that the current administration recognizes it will be up to the next administration to come back to congress to get the next congress and administration together on the continued commitment to fight terrorists and what use of force will be necessary. >> i cannot answer that precisely, but it would seem that is a logical reasoning. >> why doesn't that also apply to 2001 authorization of force? we are talking about a threat that was identified last year that we are currently combating recognizing that the campaign or use of force may well go beyond three years

but it is the prerogative of the next congress and administration to defy the find the authorizations that are needed. the 2001 authorization, which was passed against a known threat against the united states in afghanistan now still being used to a threat such as isil what did the same logic applied that congress should divine the 2001 authorization contemporary with the current needs to go after al qaeda? >> i have traveled to many of the capitals of this coalition and one of the things that has been clear to me as i have traveled to these capitals has been the substantial gratitude of the coalition for american leadership and the willingness for america to act. and in so many ways these

nations of the coalition see isil in a very different way than they ever saw al qaeda. so they are grateful for our leadership, grateful for our willingness to act and i believe this a umf which is specifically tailored to isil with the strong support of congress gives not just the president the options that are necessary ultimately to deal with this new and unique threat but also reinforces the image of american leadership that is, i think, so deeply wanted by our partners and so deeply needed for this country and ultimately by the coalition to deal with isil the way we want to. >> i understand that. and it is limited to three years? >> that's right. >> would you agree that our success in iraq in dealing with isil very much depends

upon the sunni tribes taking a leadership role in stopping the advancement of isil? it is difficult for this year, western forces to be able to get the type of confidence in the committee to withstand the recruitment of isil? >> i put it slightly differently. i agree, but i think it takes decisive sunni leadership as well and that is coming together, but the tribes we will be essential to the outcome command your question is correct. >> what is your confidence level in the government of iraq in baghdad and its ability to work with the sunni tribal leaders to give them that type of confidence that the centralized government represents their interest and protect there interests? >> it is a hard sell, senator because previously we asked the sunni tribes to trust the central government

in baghdad under malik he ended did not work out too well for them, frankly. i have met with many of the sheiks of the tribes of al anbar and some other tribes command have been pleased frankly very pleased, at there willingness to accept the leadership of the prime minister and their willingness to accept the leadership of the ministry of defense and the ministry of the interior in helping them to be one of the principal mechanisms by which we will defeat. and that has been a very encouraging sign to see them not just as a group of tribes but as leaders of the tribes be public and forthcoming in their willingness to support the central government in iraq and in particular the prime minister. >> thank you, general. i appreciate all your service. >> thank you, sir. >> senator paul. >> thank you for your testimony. what percentage would you say is an estimate of how

many of the official iraqi army are sunni versus year? >> i we will have to take your question and get back to you. right now the majority is shia, but i cannot give you the numbers. >> we are on the heels of what the senator was asking. somewhere between 80 to 90 percent. i think to have an enduring victory they're is some question from some of us whether you can have an enduring victory and be seen as an occupying government if you haven't 80 to 90 percent shia force. that is a significant political and military problem. of the chieftains that fought in the surge just an estimate, what percentage are engaged on our side now fighting against isis? what percentage are on the sidelines? >> again, those are numbers that are difficult to give you with precision.

the ones i fought alongside in 07 and 08 the ones i have spoken to without exception have indicated their desire to fight recover lands ultimately returned, in this case al anbar to the tribes and ultimately to iraq. and so they had very a very forthcoming in the desire to do that. >> and the chieftains are no longer in the area? >> many of them are. some have come at great risk, traveled out of the area to speak with us but they are. >> with regard to arming the kurds, they're were reports a month or two ago that germany wanted to send arms directly to them, but there were objections by our government saying everything had to go through baghdad. our arms forced to go through baghdad to get the curb? >> i we will take the

question, but let me offer this. baghdad is not disapprove any requests the kurds have made for weapons. we have attempted to work with baghdad to streamline to the maximum extent possible to reduce any delays that may inhibit or impair the expeditious delivery of arms and equipment to the kurds. >> do you think this includes sufficient technology and long-range weaponry to meet there needs and requests? >> all of that is coming. as you no, sir, and, again, through the support of congress we are training and equipping 12 iraqi brigades which will be armed and equipped with exactly the same sophisticated weapons that the other nine iraqi brigades will receive. >> we are destroying or abandoning equipment in afghanistan. is they're any possibility that that could be transported to the kurds?

>> that is a question we should post the department of defense, take the question. >> with regard to ultimate victory, with regard to trying to get turkey involved do you think they're is any possibility of an agreement between the turks and the kurds particularly the turkish kurds to accept an agreement where their would be a kurdish homeland, not in turkish territory, that would encourage turkish people to participate more heavily, and is anyone in the turkish government trying to come to an accommodation between the turks and the kurds? >> not to my knowledge. >> take that message to them, too, please. thank you. >> senator, if i may on the one comment you made on the shia and this year composition of the iraqi security forces, the actions that will be more than those

of the clearing force. it we will be important to recognize that there will be follow-on echelon's beyond the clearing force which will be important, and we are working closely with the rockies for the whole force which will be hopefully the saudi city police which we will actually secure and provide support to the iraqi population that will have just been liberated the government's help to have the governance element which will be familiar and very importantly to have the sunnis involved in the most important element the immediate human terry and assistance necessary to provide for the relief and recovery of populations. it is more complex than simply the clearing force. and while we may have to accept that they're is a large presence of the shia element within the iraqi military, i know they're is a very strong effort underway to ensure that they are deeply engaged elsewhere >> one quick follow-up.

you might get more indigenous support from the city people. i think our problem really was there was a shia are keeping force that did not stay long. when push came to shove they were gone. >> senator. >> thank you very much. thank you, general for your service. in the authorization for the use of military force text that the administration provided to this committee it said that it would prohibit enduring forces and this was meant to convey that large numbers of troops were not be on the ground for a long time whatever that means. i voted for the 2001

resolution, and i am reminded the us combat operations in afghanistan were dubbed operation enduring freedom. we are now past 13 years in that enduring fight and the resolution, of course, was also the basis for the justification of our actions in somalia, yemen. and the administration is saying quite clearly that they oppose the appeal -- opposed the repeal of that and that the operations going on right now in fact are consistent with that 2001 resolution. now, that causes great problems to me and two i think, many members of the community. in the absence of the passage of a new aumf the administration is maintaining that they have the authority to continue, as they have for 13 years under operation enduring freedom.

that obviously, is a problem for us. most of us we will be sitting here as your successor is sitting here perhaps not with the same interpretation of the word enduring. my question is then go to, is this going to open up a potential for an open-ended war in the middle east? will it allow for unfettered deployment of ground troops? and ultimately, whether or not we are opening up a pandora's box especially in syria. my 1st question to you goes to president assad and what the goal we will be underneath this authorization in terms of

the removal of president assad, which has been historically an objective that the united states has said is important. so could you tell us what president assad and his removal represents as one of the goals that exists in training 5,000 troops in syria for the next three years in a row and as the long-term objective after the defeat of isis? >> well, our political goal, policy goal ultimately is that the process of change of the departure of assad should occur through a political process and ultimately he should the part and not be a part of the future political landscape in syria. the role of the tmd program is to 1st and foremost

give those elements given those elements of the moderate syrian opposition we are supporting the capacity to defend themselves, build battlefield credibility and ultimately use those elements, those forces to deal with das h. at the same time we are building that capacity in the moderate syrian opposition our hope would be to build within the political echelon of the moderate syrian opposition the level of coherence and sophistication that the two together, the moderate syrian political echelon and the military echelon, are the credible force that will have a place at the table during the political process which we will ultimately see the replacement of assad. >> i appreciate that, but it seems that is a ten year proposition, and if that is the case we should be talking about ten years. we can finish iraq over three years. if you understand what the

long-term goal requires inside of syria. just saying the name of assad over and over again we will help us to focus on the ultimate objective that the free syrian army will have in that country and what we are signing up for in terms of the long-term military effort inside of that country. and i thank you mr. chairman, for the opportunity to ask this one final question which is, the basic tension that king abdullah was talking about which is that of the americans providing help to fight the war but not claiming credit so it does not look like a crusade inside of that region. can you talk about that so that the people in the region do not view this as a us-led coalition against isil?

because ultimately that will come back to haunt us and is the message we are see -- we are receiving from all across the middle east. >> senator, as your question presupposes, king abdullah of jordan has been very clear throughout this coalition that in the end the solution to the problems of the region must not only look like but must be a function of those states within the region to take concerted action, supported by the united states and by a broader global coalition for those concerted efforts to be successful. it is important that coalition have an arab face to deal with the so-called caliphate and all it has brought to the region. the king and other muslim and arab leaders in the region have been very clear

on the desire that they not just appear but really are exercising leadership front in this process. >> people in that region view it that way right now? i think that has to be our goal. i think senator paul is referring to that it has to be an indigenous muslim led effort. i do not think right now that is the internal view. >> senator isaacs. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general, thank you for your service to the country. >> thank you, sir. >> we are operating currently in the middle east under the 2001 aumf is that correct? >> that is correct. >> would be a fair statement that the when the president has sent to us to consider is a limiting aumf compared

to the 2001 authorization? >> it is specifically intended to deal with the threat of isil that is correct. >> but it is limiting in the authority of the president would have primarily in the interpretation of the enduring phrase is that correct? >> enduring as he has described it in the size and kind of forces and measures that might be applied that is correct. >> i voted for the 2001 authorization when i was here. it came on the heels of september 11, 2,001 and was passed at a time when americans had american flags on there windshields and front doors and the patriotism in our country because of the terrible attack was at an all-time high, at least in my lifetime in memory. do we have to wait for that type of event again to happen to us before we use whatever it takes to destroy this evil? meaning isil and those like them. >> i think we are taking those measures now to get

after the evil that is isil, and it is what we have one we have not seen before in a long time. just today the fbi rolled out three individuals in this country that were intent of other joining isil in the battle space or doing ill to the american people. as long as we are on the front edge of this and taking those kinds of measures, we have the possibility of keeping it from becoming something that could look like the september 11 attack. >> from your statement, you said it may also be the aggregate pressure of the coalition activity over multiple he mutual supporting efforts that will determine a campaign success. >> that's correct, sir. >> what are those mutually supporting lines you are referring to? >> first working more closely and more broadly in the committee of nations to limit the flow of foreign fighters to deal with the measures, to take the measures necessary to deal with the ability to limit

the capacity of isil to generate revenue to support its operations and to give a discretion to take action against us are potentially our allies, to provide support to those elements of the population and the region that have been displaced by virtue of the activities of isil or have been directly suppressed by the boot of the conquests of isil and importantly to work together to in the come in the information space, ultimately defeat the idea of dash. and the coalition is working hard in those areas. i have just come back from southeast asia where i met with the leadership of several countries who are watching with great interest and concern those things that are occurring in the middle east which could spread into their region and they are interested in joining us in ways that

limit the ability of those organizations to travel to the battle space or to limit there ability to directly challenge the authority of those countries. it is not just the countries of the middle east or europe. it is the countries of southeast asia. and importantly within the context of the multiple lines of effort working closely to outreach to the indigenous populations of these countries in ways that can dispel the image of the so-called caliphate in ways that can work with religious leaders and tribal leaders in those countries with populations that may be at risk, as we work with teachers and clerics and families to reduce the attractiveness of dash and this kind of extremist message. in the combination of those activities together, we think will pressure and ultimately put the kind of pressure necessary on dash 1st to defend ourselves and ultimately defeat the organization.

>> on that.and briefly, are we doing enough to counteract the use of social media and technology to communicate exactly what your talking about you are talking about that they are doing? what you heard about an southeast asia and what i have heard is the fear that they will use social media and the modern communication mechanisms we have today to spread their ideology and fear around the world. are we attacking that as much as we should? >> they are doing it now and it is an explicit objective within our efforts both in the counter messaging line of effort among the many nations involved to do just that. obviously in nations where free speech is an issue we have to accommodate that aspect of our relationship with industry that owns these platforms to ensure that we are either able to interdict that message or work with we will work with industry to remove that message in its own content so we are working closely with industry and our partners to counter that message across social media.

>> thank you for your time in service. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you. senator boxer. >> thank you so much mr. chairman, ranking member general, thank you so much for your dedication to this nation. i want to thank the president for the wisdom he showed in appointing you as the special envoy. i find your presentation to be direct, no-frills, just rate forward. and i appreciate it. under article one section eight congress has the power to declare war and i no you agree with that, yes? >> yes, ma'am. >> all right. i hope you can then understand why we want to be precise when we do that because we are sent here by a lot of people who have a lot of kids who serve in the military and the fabric of our community, so we want to be careful. i want to ask you to expand on this enduring word

because you said very clearly. your definition is no enduring presence could mean a two-week presence of combat boots on the ground, american combat boots on the ground or add to your presence of american boots on the ground. and that answers the question people on this committee have been searching for. i think what you have proven with your honesty here is that they're is none because it is the eye of the bolder. when you say to me if i vote for this no enduring combat presence and am sending my kids there in my state for two years i would argue that you have misinterpreted it. yes, the congressional research service says there is really no definition and if i wanted to take an administration to court because i would say is a member of congress i said no enduring presence. crs said i have no legal leg to stand on because they're

is no definition. i just think it is important that the administration here this once again. i no of course, secretary kerry had to hear it over and over again yesterday, but we are very uncomfortable with this language. and when senator menendez was chairman cobbled together a really good aumf that united all of us on our side because he essentially said no combat troops with these exceptions and put in the kind of exceptions i think you would agree with special forces operations, search and rescue, protective personnel. we would urge you, please, to go back and take a look at it. i feel very strongly. i we will ask you questions that have nothing to do with that because i think you and i would disagree on that subject. there is no.in going over it again. but i am very concerned

about us military support for the kurds. you answered the question in a very sure way which is wonderful. you say, no problem. however, the kurds are not saying that. i want to call to your attention a recent interview with bloomberg a few weeks ago. the head of the kurdistan regional security council expressed concerns about our commitment to the kurds, and these are our boots on the ground our boots on the ground. he said, we are starting to have doubts that they might be a political decision on what sort of equipment should be given to the kurds. we are fighting on behalf of the rest of the world against this terrorist organization. we're putting our lives on the line. all we ask is this sufficient equipment to protect lives. so i need you to respond to that. is that of peace? what do you think about that? do you take that comment

seriously? does it concern you? >> i listened very carefully to what the kurds had to say they have exhibited battlefield excellence and courage that encourage that should elicit all of our respect. we have worked carefully and closely with the kurds and your question presupposes, and is correct, that american support to the kurds has given them the capacity had more broadly and recently coalition support to the kurds have given them the ability to do much of what they have been able to accomplish. the recovery of the dam, the seizure of the junction successful defense the many things they have done is because the coalition have been in support. at the same time we have worked very hard with coalition members to respond to curtis request for equipment which has been falling and. also in the context of the $1.6 billion that was appropriated for the train

and equip program for the 12 iraqi army brigades, three of which are pitch murder, they are getting exactly the same sophisticated equipment that the iraqis are. >> my question was not about how good they are. they are saying they do not feel that they had enough equipment. and i am just saying, they are saying everything is rosy. they are complaining about it. as one senator -- i cannot speak for everyone else. they are our boots on the ground, and we need to get them what they need. i no that they're is pressure from certain factions, but if they are our boots on the ground we have got to get them what they need. thank you. >> senator. >> thank you. thank you for your service to our country and your willingness to come back in and help with this new endeavor of great difficulty

i no we are not debating the authorization for use of force, but i want to ask you because of your experience in these affairs in the past , it is my understanding that only two times in history has congress authorized the use of force with limitations, and both for un peacekeeping missions so the question i would have now is, if our objective is to defeat isis would it not be more prudent to authorize the commander-in-chief to move forward in that regard and allow him as commander in chief and any future commander-in-chief whoever they may be to decide with the appropriate strategy is moving forward to ultimately defeat them? what would be wrong with simply authorizing the president to defeat them? >> the strategy the president has approved, in fact, does envision the defeat of dash. >> i understand strategy. i understand you have endorsed your debate with what the president wants to

do, and i understand that is what the president president thinks he can get past from a military.of view without -- what it not be more appropriate to simply authorize the president to do whatever it takes to defeat them? >> the president president is the options that should be available to him ultimately to defeat dash. >> my 2nd question is that is it possible to defeat isis without them ultimately being defeated by someone on the ground? someone we will have to defeat them on the ground. if you could update us on efforts -- and i have seen in the past some conversation among some of the regional countries about the potential for coalition of armed forces brought together, egyptians, turks saudi's, perhaps some of the kingdoms of jordan, etc. who can could provide a coalition of local forces who could play that role with significant us

assistance from the air, logistics, intelligence, etc. has their been any progress on that and is it being discussed with those nations? >> senator rubio, i would prefer to have this particular part of the conversation in a closed -- >> i understand. let me move onto a separate topic. the nature of this conflict isis has proven that they will move in -- for a group like this to take root and take over they need ungoverned vacuum spaces that they can operate them which is what has attracted them to libya the ability to operate uncontested in terms of another government etc. it is important to understand as this conflict continues the possibility continues to grow that isis in addition to being based in syria and iraq we will look for other places where they can set of nodes of operation, libya as an example but potentially training camps in afghanistan any place a

vacuum opens up is an attractive place for them to move operations. as we put forth our strategy and this congress deliberates the authority for the president that reality must be taken into account, correct? >> i agree. yes, sir. >> okay. my last question is about the nature of the contact -- the nature of the conflict. these are not just random acts of extreme violence. this is a group their barbarism has a purpose at the end of the day to purify, and they're mind that region to their form of islam at the exclusion, not just of non- sunni islam but ultimately and especially of non- islamic populations. in that realm it is clear that christians in particular are an increased -- are in increased danger and they specifically target christian populations for barbarity both as a way to shock the world and as an

effort to carry out there ultimate goal of in their mind, purifying the world for islam. is they're not a deeply religious component to the strategy? as part of their effort using a term that they would use not one that i enjoy using, but close the region of infidels and nonbelievers and in that realm they have specifically targeted christians for the sort of atrocities that they are committing now and on an ongoing basis as we saw yesterday again? >> i would say yes. the interpretation that they apply to all of those segments of the population that live within the area that they control has them to do the things they have done to certain elements of the population. i agree with you, their interpretation of there responsibility under this so-called caliphate is to take action against certain parts of the population and treat them one way and certain parts of the

population and treat them another way. it is based on there interpretation. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, general, for your service. you did very significant and important work with respect to trying to provide us security roadmap for the west bank in the event of a piece deal between israeli and palestinian leaders. whether the leaders we will do what there citizens want them to do is up to them but it should not go unnoticed that you are very hard on that devalue worked very hard on that and i put in place a template for security that is an important thing then and in this context as an effort of american diplomacy. i want to make a comment about ends and means. i we will pick up senator johnson was quizzing you about the defeat of isil. they are not the state. they say they are. they are not. they are not islamic. they are mutation of islam.

you talk about defeating the idea. they are an ideologically driven difficult. as we grapple with the discretion we have to grapple with what defeat looks like i am practical about this. i want to protect americans from isil. that is what i want to do. i want to protect americans from isil, and i want to protect our allies that asked for our help. the defeat of isil the death cult fantasy that they have, we may be chasing a phantom. i want to help americans and defend our allies who ask is for that. on the means side, the question about ground above ground troops, in the last two weeks we had meetings with two leaders from the area king abdulla said this is our fight not yours and basically suggested that us ground troops would not be a good idea.

the america of qatar was more straightforward about that today saying, i do not want american ground troops. we did not suggested. he brought up the notion. it is against the west. >> that is accurate. >> the ground troops thing is a wordsmithing issue. do we become an occupier recruiting tool? the kings notion this terrorism is born and bred in the region. the region has got to stand up against it. if they are not willing to stand up against it, there is nothing the us can do, no matter how much resources we put into it, that we will lead to success. i'm interested -- forget about the wordsmithing -- but when leaders from the

region say american ground troops are a bad idea that is pretty -- how would you respond to that notion that the presence in any significant way of american ground troops changes the character of this and makes it the west against isil, rather than a region needing to police its own extremism? with the enemy are -- >> i agree. the presence of a large maneuverable force would change the nature of the conversation, but it is really important to understand that during iraq and afghanistan and the way that we have responded to other similar challenges around the world the united states brings to bear a variety of really important capabilities. the 1st is the capacity of our strategic leadership.

just our leadership alone has brought to bear 62 nations against this challenge. our leadership brought to bear the 1st night of our strike operations five arab air force is flying along the wing of the united states air force in strikes against isil targets in syria which is not anything that any of us could've imagined one year ago. our strategic leadership counts as an enabler to this process. other ways and means -- and your question is really important. other ways and means that we can bring success to the arab solution to this is providing technical support, intelligence support focused special operations strike capabilities the training and equipping that we are doing today some of which can be done in country some of which can be done offshore and partner nations

, the aggregation of those activities undertaken with partners in the region ultimately to achieve the ends that we seek. the united states really has -- and our coalition partners have many means at our disposal from leadership all the way through the potential for special operations strikes to give our arab partners exactly what they want, which is the capacity for them to be the defeat mechanism in the end of dash. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general, thank you for your service, time command testimony today. again, we have to recognize that isis is a threat to this country and requires a comprehensive strategy and the commit to the destruction is the only thing that we can accept. i am glad the president has made the effort to forward

the aumf to congress. i obviously look forward to working with the president on the aumf and this committee. in the letter that the president transmitted along with his language for aumf he stated, i have directed a comprehensive and sustained strategy to degrade and defeat isil. as part of the strategy us military forces are conducting a systematic campaign of airstrikes against isil in iraq and syria. it is my understanding from the testimony you provided to us today the us has conducted about 4500 airstrikes, is that correct? >> that's correct, sir. >> since the operation began. >> that's correct. >> an average of about ten airstrikes today. the question i have is is the pace of the operation sufficient to eradicate isil at this.? >> well, eradication is not the interstate that we are seeking at this particular moment.

our hope -- hope is not the term i want to use. what our expectation is given the strategy is that the combination of us and coalition airpower in conjunction with the training and equipping of iraqi forces and ultimately syrian forces we will overtime give us the strategic outcomes we desire. so it is not going to happen tomorrow. it is going to happen over time but the combination of those efforts is what we anticipate will allow us to achieve the objective of the strategy. >> what beside the airstrikes than does the president's comprehensive and engage strategy and vision? >> several things. the 1st is to provide support to the stability of the iraqi government which is essential command we are doing that working closely with the iraqi government with respect to reforms in partnership with the about a government which is inclined to see it that way working closely with the iraqi

security forces to prepare them ultimately for a long-term counteroffensive which will remove dash from the population centers and ultimately rejected from the country. we are working as an international coalition on behalf of iraq the pressure the capacity of dash to generate funds and resources necessary for its long-term survival. we are working as an international coalition to stops the flow of foreign fighters to the battlefield so that dash has difficulty in replacing combat losses. we will work closely as partners to share intelligence so that we are working with the iraqis to give them a clear picture of what we understand dash to be but also between and among the members of the coalition that we can defend ourselves and our homelands from the potential for dash activities within the united states. then, of course, we are

working closely with partners to provide humanitarian assistance to those elements of the population that we will need to be recovered -- recovered and relieved as we liberated them from the presence of dash in their population centers and finally to work together with -- with iraq and our partners to deal with what i think is the decisive blow here beyond the physical defeat of dash which is the defeat of its idea and the defeat of its attractiveness of a long-term. >> and the pace of operations which we discussed, with the passage of the aumf does that change it all? >> the pace of the operation we will be judged as time goes. commanders take stock of the operational environment and ultimately resource the operations that either -- that takes advantage of opportunities avail to them by the changes in the operational environment.

we could well find that based upon our current estimates that the activities that we we will undertaken a counteroffensive we will follow along the pace and timeline that we anticipate. we could easily find that as the counteroffensive unfolds that dash is unwilling to receive and defeat after defeat at the hands of the iraqi security forces which is exactly what we want to see and decided is time to pull out. we may see the operational environment could change, and it is the responsibility of a very capable commanders in this case to constantly be monitoring the success of the unfolding operation to ensure we are getting the most out of the resources that we have and if we need more resources that we ask. >> thank you. >> senator murphy. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman general thank you for your service and answers to the questions by senator boxer straightforward, very helpful. i want to build on some questions from senator menendez and senator boxer on the authorizing language we have before us.

a lot of attention has been given to this phrase enduring and not as much given to the juxtaposition that has been created between what are often -- offense of forces and defensive forces. so i understand, you have talked about what the potential limitation is on size of force or duration of force under the enduring limitation, but so long as the presence of troops is considered defensive there is no limitation in this authorization of military force as to the number of troops for the duration of their time in the conflict area so long as they are considered defensive forces. >> again, i am not sponsoring the legislation, but i think your.is correct in that regard. it is about offense of maneuver forces. >> i thought your answer to the senators question was definitive and that you were

worried, as the president does, large-scale the climate of troops to become recruiting fodder for extremists as our presence in iraq and over the course of ten years. do you think that that changes about categorization of the forces are offenses or defensive if we have 100,000 defensive troops a three-year authorization so that the next president we will get the chance to decide differently. would it matter in terms of the ability for extremists to recruit as to whether our troops they're were categorized as defensive versus offense of? >> i again, these are all individual measures. it depends on how the crisis has unfolded. it depends on the region in which those forces may be involved. it would depend on the

activities that may have occurred prior to the introduction of forces that we might call defensive. it is just not possible to give a specific answer to that question. you know, i would have a difficult time understanding how we have a hundred thousand forces in a defensive environment if we had not had substantial offense of operations to begin with and that would, of course, change the regional view and perspective on our forces and the outcome. ..

>> very important. i think it is extraordinarily important, actually. the united states has displayed great leadership in bringing together these countries and ultimately to help to deal with the defeat of dash necessary in syria, so it is very important. isil is a threat that is unique in our time

certainly unique in the time that i have been in service. and while the elements of the aumf we will be properly debated between this body of the administration and many of the members here today have brought up important points for clarity or for continued discussion. i think it is extraordinarily important, the message that it sends that the administration is in the conversation and dialogue with this committee in congress on this issue but most importantly in support of the us leadership globally on this issue a strong bipartisan vote to support the aumf complements the leadership the united states has exerted in this. >> with our adversaries and our allies they need to know we are one voice. >> that's exactly right. >> is they're one that is more important than the other in that regard, or is it equally important for both of them to hear this message? >> our friends in the

coalition in the 21 also have traveled to have been extraordinarily grateful for the american leadership on this issue. what i want is for our adversaries to not be able to sleep at night because we have the unqualified support of the congress in our actions necessary to defeat this enemy. >> at what time does the impact of this aumf get diminished if we languish and try to include every.of view and every nuance as opposed to something straightforward? at what time does it become less important? >> that would be difficult for me to answer, senator. i hope the consultation between the administration and this committee with the language in they're that the american people need to defeat and protect the country. >> other examples of aumf, there has not been much change. we are basically we're basically done with the

administration has asked. they're have been some amendments in recent aumf, but by and large it has been rather straightforward language. i think the language that the administration put forward is a good start and may be amended some but i would caution the committee and the congress in general, the senate and the house from going too far to make it all thanks to everyone and diminish the importance anyway, thank you for your service and testimony here. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you senator. senator kane i know had a follow-up. >> general, i wanáed to ask one of the lines of effort we are working on in a fairly significant way the humanitarian relief line. the us is the most generous nation in the world in terms of humanitarian relief for refugees from syria but the problem is getting worse in some ways because of closing borders with lebanon too many refugees there.

jordan probably the same thing. turkey with border issues is less willing to see waves and waves of syrians coming over. and so what are we doing in tandem with the london 11 and other nations to try to deal with the humanitarian crisis of all of these displaced folks in syria whether they are being displaced because of assad, isil colorado outbreaks. i wonder about our humanitarian efforts in tandem with other nation's. >> i will give you a partial answer and take the question and give you the ability of the department to come back. we obviously take that very seriously. we have relief efforts that as you probably.out, have been very generously supported by the united states and others directly to the populations of syria and iraq. we have the un appeals which need a lot more

assistance to bring those appeals up to 100 percent. .. >>

>> will one with us the bell populations and more broadly the liberated populations choose the internally displaced persons that come home as we clear the population centers supporting their return to their home the necessary human dictation -- humanitarian assistance like water and also reconstruction. this is a huge bill and a huge regional undertaking and it should be to everyone's satisfaction nor to optimism that many members of the coalition have been very clear with their willingness to support the broader effort for their

region and the front-line states and the number of other coalition members put their hands in the air to be leaders of ban supporters to that very important effort that follows closely on the heels of the operation to move data by iraq. it is a multifaceted, multilayer a complex issue but in the end they humanitarian peace is the death blow is what they will experience. >> with a question from the chairman indicated complexities of the no-fly zone and i would commend the idea of major military and sewn inside syria and your the of border of turkey or jordan to be justified by the security council resolution to promote humanitarian aid with the zones whether caller of or

whenever it is once they cannot transit across the border i hope we would contemplate some sort of safe haven for those citizens that are suffering so badly since world war ii. >> that is in the form of some type of fly zone. >> because it has that military label guide up front i call it a safe haven zone but i would want such a buzz going to be protected from whoever may try to mess with the of refugees that just seek safety. >> geithner you have all hard to stop in 20 minutes and you certainly have helped us in the ways we've wanted. we appreciate your testimony. i have one question.

you talked about the need for congress to be behind the effort that is taking place with isil. there have been different discussions about the length of time from the standpoint of the aumf. is there anything that matters and all relative to what you talk about appealing toch to the enemies and allies together? >> the intent is to end abilities to have the defeat as quickly as we can and if it takes longer than three years we would come back to request an extension. >> give shorter that would not trouble you either? >> not all.

>> but it would not trouble us either. [laughter] so does that length of time matter from that standpoint or is it more congress getting behind the effort and a bipartisan way? >> it is the latter. >> yes. i called you over the of weekend i know you were on your way to send, now and i thank you can tell by their respect you are not standing sirvente we appreciate the way you go about your work and decisions are not always made in the time frame someone like you that you seek to get this done but i think your demeanor is very well received and we wish you well and hope you will

come before us again soon. >> it is an honor. good days 50 record will be open if you and your staff respond to those in a timely fashion. the meeting is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

2014 executive back soon. the house will put will vote to go before the senate the agency runs out of money at midnight. senator collins spoke about her bill today on the floor with the whip and dick durbin of illinois. this is 40 minutes. >> mr. president. three weeks ago i came to the senate floor to speak on an amendment which i had hoped would provide a framework to accomplish three goals. first, to provide funding for the homeland security to perform a the vital mission to protect the people of the country and the second to put the senate on record to

opposing the president's extraordinarily broad integration action issued by executive order last november in 2014. answered coming to ensure the individuals to qualify for treatment under the june 2012 executive order on delayed action with childhood arrivals the so-called reverse that senator durbin had just spoken of as it continues to benefit under that program. i am very pleased lsi queer moving forward on a bill to fully fund the department of homeland security. we had a very strong vote on that yesterday. indeed fly have not heard a

single senator on either side say that we should shut down the department of homeland security. each of us recognizes the of vital mission and is someone who served on the homeland security committee and as chairman of the several years and i was on the committee for a decade, i certainly understand how vital this department is. i am keenly aware as a member of the intelligence committee of the threats against our country and the threats that we face for those that would do us harm. at the same time, mr. president as members of the executive branch we have an obligation

to speak out to register a our opposition when we believe the president has succeeded his executive authority under the constitution in a way that would undermine the separation of dr. and one constitutional scholar has said about the president's executive order and how far the president could nor could not go congress has said when it comes to those of the undocumented what we

can do is to carve out said dreamers for those young people that basically have grown a pair, and are americans that we should welcome. but if we start that then i would be ignoring the law in a way that i think would be very difficult so that's not an option. who was that constitutional scholar? the president of the united states. president barack obama who said this in september of 2013. mr. president, mr. obamacare got a right back then. i belief he was within the scope of his executive authority when he issued the

2012 executive orders that created uscis -- daca to allow the jurors to stay here and also let me make clear that i am a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform. while i was disappointed though legislation did not become law when he passed it a few years ago, i reject the notion that the failure is justification for the actions taken by the president last november. he simply cannot do by a executive fiat what congress has refused to pass regardless of the wisdom of congress's decision.

such unilateral action is contrary to how our constitutional system is supposed to work in their risks undermining the separation of powers doctrine which is central to the constitutional framework. and that is really what this debate is about. it is the proper constitutional constraints on unilateral executive action. happens to be executive action in that deals with immigration but it could be the executive action on any wuther issue. that is why it is important that we draw both lines and

indeed i would tell you that the legislation that i propose that we would be voting on at some point is hold the consistent with the court's ruling in texas which my colleagues from texas is very familiar with but is fully consistent to let stand the 2012 executive order but stayed the implementation of a 2014 executive order. there is a difference. the senator from illinois i consider to be an excellent senator and a dear friend. and it truly pains me to disagree with his analysis

of my amendment. i know he asks is in good faith but misinterpretations are misunderstandings over disagreements have a bike to go through some of the points he has made about my amendment. one of the chief objections to my bill is it strikes provisions of the immigration action that would expand. that is the key word expand the 2012 teeeighteen program to add certain individuals who are not eligible under the program. he talks about expanding

that age limit for example,. take a look at exactly what the criteria are for the dreamer's under the 2012 executive order. these are criteria that were praised by my friend from illinois and numerous other senators on the democratic side of the aisle and i also agree with these criteria. in order to qualify in individual hasting have come to the united states under the age of 16 and has continually resided in the united states al least five years and has to be present on the date of the june 15th 2012 memorandum.

they have to be in school or graduated from high school or obtained said ged certificate or honorable a discharge member of the coast guard or our military. in addition an individual has to have a pretty good record. they could not be convicted of the of felony offense or a multiple misdemeanor or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety. and cannot be above they age of 30. these are reasonable criteria the president came up with and frankly i do not

like multiple misdemeanors but the executive order says they cannot have multiple misdemeanors that dhl says they could have up to three. i personally would require an absolute clean record. but these are reasonable criteria and these are not changed by the collins bill in any way. the 2012 executive order stands. sova laid my friend from illinois the argument is focused on the fact he wants an expansion of these criteria and to add other categories of individuals that is what the november

november 2014 immigration action does and has nothing to do with the status of the individuals who were allowed to stay in this country as a result of the 2012 executive order. my amendment protects from those who benefited. we have basin's year disagreement with what is appropriate to and what needs to be done by legislation even though i support the policies better in the a executive order i don't think the president can unilaterally proclaim those changes. >> would you yield for a question. >> if it is brief.

>> of the senator acknowledges the president had the authority in 2012 to issue the executive order under teeeighteen to spell out the criteria that they are not above the age of 30, why does the senator disagree with this situation? if there 29 years old, eligible for daca? now two 1/2 years later and the president tried to amend the last line to expand so those who have paged out still could have a chance because congress has not acted otherwise. to say that they have the authority to write it cannot amend it?

>> mr. president i am happy to respond to the senator from illinois. the point is the 2014 executive order goes far beyond those who'd just age out. it adds entirely new categories of people. in fact, it is estimated 5 million undocumented individuals would be covered by the 2014 executive order. should the president unilaterally be allowed to make that type of the executive order or that type of change in immigration law? the court said no and i believe the court is right

about that. in fact with these criteria were issued in 2012 the senator from illinois said if they press release as recently as june of last year, that this was a smart and lawful approach. so how do you draw the line in what is the appropriate bill? i stated this someone who believes and hopes that later this year we will take up a comprehensive immigration bill and i hope to be able to choose supports its again. but this is an issue of what

is the proper role of congress or the president under the constitutional system. i was not surprised when the texas court kept to the order but blocked the 2014 executive order. now there is another issue that this senator from illinois has posed that i think is really important. he has said that my bill concerns some of those with the ability to stay in this country to keep it from renewing.

mr. president that is not how i read in the executive order and i think it is clear. looked at the 2012 executive order. this is what it says. this is what janet napolitano talks about to exercise prosecutorial discretion. june 15, 2012 daca executive order grants the first action for a period of two years subject to renewal. there is nothing in my amendment that prevents children or young adults people up through age 30 from getting a renewal of the status they have been

granted. it says right there. subject to renewal. but look further at said data. this is don said detests web site. but better to have been there more than 1,480,002,012 applications just with the first quarter of this year. many of which were from this fiscal year and many were completed before the november 2014 a executive order were even issued. there is nothing in my bill that prevents the renewal of those individuals who

receive this status and it is very clear. 148,000 have to have the application as renewed. the senator from illinois has said that i would prevent ths from issuing a memorandum. >> and of these young people they would not have sped ready before the executive order. before it was even issued. the senator has also said of that very legality of the order that it is a very similar program to the 2014

executive action. to restate my basic point my bill does not affect the 2012 teeeighteen program and it is substantially different from the executive order of 2014. in fact, if you paid the of the anchorage it embraces that distinction and specifically states it does not rescind or supersede the 2012 quarter her drove the 2014 executive order specifically states that it does not rescind or supersede this executive order from 2012. in fact, it seeks to supplement or amend it.

>> would you yield? >> i would be happy. >> darr appreciate your leadership on this issue with your typical diligence and attention to new detail has shown the objections for a vote on the cullens amendment that it is not well taken but i would ask the senator from maine, it is a your interpretation of the president's executive action any different from what the president himself had said when he did not have the authority to issue executive action? >> if i could respond, he

raises an excellent point* and i was led the graying of fed is just one that the president has said over and over again that he would like to do more for immigration but was very disappointed it didn't bring up the comprehensive immigration and bill but of 1.he said that. >> mr. president i would ask the senator from maine you are not alone to state your objections that the amendment would seek to get the votes are there a number

of threats on the other side of the aisle who had different times said they were uncomfortable with the president taking his authority himself? said junior senators said you made agree with the outcome this is not the right way. >> with there are eight democratic friends who expressed concerns about the illegality of the action and. >> mr. president it does on surprise may that those democratic senators with last november.

but with his authority but the other side of the aisle must have nervous give things about what the president did. i guarantee it a republican president to what we would have been an uproar for what it is important input was so quiet day's adopted into the constitution and there were

more senators eliot aside but in some of members agree with is a note. but the question is whether they passed the immigration reform? what about unilaterally rating fell lot? the senators from texas is a former supreme court justice in texas. . . the constitution is written in a way in a divides government's authority between the executive legislative and the judicial branches. i of course agree with you that there can be no justification on the part of the president t