all the circuits gott wrong and whether the supreme court will address it all or ada amendments act does, in fact, protect pregnant woman? >> as i said, i hate to make predictions but if i had to guess where the court is going to go with this, it looks to me like the court here and the other -- this is the fourth circuit, but other courts that have wrestled with this are getting it wrong. this is not consistent with what congress intended when they passed the pregnancy discrimination act and at least to the extent that the 2008 amendments to the american's with disabilities act should have at least boosted that argument that that doesn't seem to be helping either. so, i would guess, if i were going to predict, that the court will rule against united parcel service and for peggy young. >> thanks. who is next? right over here on this side.

yes. >> i'm ariane with abc news. >> stand. we want to make sure who we're talking here. can we get a bright light on you, please. >> i had a question. i happened to be looking at facebook and i think but i have no idea, i looked up and saw that there was alonis with the same name and he is posting on facebook. talk big picture. either way the court rules, what is the impact on the average person who posts on facebook? what sort of the big picture impact. >> you're talking about current posts. >> i thought i did. i can't say for sure -- but i thought it was interesting. what's the bigger picture? >> were they over the top? >> well, so, you know, the law professor in me resists the idea about what this case is about and what we should think it's about is the law of facebook. there's kind of risk of creating

what we like to call the law of the horse. the law of an inanimate object or particular medium and something like that. first amendment area by and large the supreme court has resisted doing that. they want -- they want rules here that are all purpose, that apply to people who are speaking face to face, who are publishing in a newspaper, who are publishing in facebook, who are tweeting, whatever. now, that doesn't mean that they aren't sensitive to the fact that our chosen media change and that this is probably not a standard that's going to get played out through facts very much. it's going to get played out in facebook and twitter and other things. but they want something that's not medium sensitive, that applies across all media. and i think whether they're thinking about facebook or they're just thinking about people speaking or whatever, partly they will be concerned about the question of is our standard something that's going to chill people who engage in

speech that's borderline but ultimately protected? by and large, historically the first amendment, they boarry about the impact that their rules for unprotected speech will have on protected speech. the question is, what kind of rule would you need to have to make sure people feel comfortable posting on facebook to make sure people feel comfortable engaging face to face and that's not something that they've -- and by the way, that's not the only thing they could be worried about here. it's the tape type of thing that your question raises and one thing they could be concerned about. how exactly they'll decide to susz all that out, i don't know. but what they won't be trying to do is make the law of the facebook. >> i think i don't know if you would agree, leslie, i think if they opt for an intent requirement, either they say it's in the statute or say the first amendment requires it, then i think that gives you a lot more lee way in all realms

of speech. you can say things that if the requisite intent is not there, you probably can continue to say. if i post on facebook and say, you know, if you don't take that picture of me down, i'm coming after your family. if it's a reasonable person standard, i may be in more trouble for that post than if it's an intent requirement. i think it would be fairly clear that you can't tell that i really intended to make a threat in those circumstances. but a reasonable person might have felt threatened in those circumstances. that is sort after a simple version of the difference between the two standards. >> i think a tough thing about that -- so i do think that's exactly right and people proceed on the sunsing that a subjective intent requirement would be protective of more speech, be harder to prove that someone had the requisite intent to say that

their speech was -- but intent itself is a tricky thing. ultimately in many cases juries will be deciding it or it's going to come down to evidentiary questions about what do we read, what gets let in by the judge and, you know, contra depicting a jury's assessment of what someone's intent is kind of a hard thing to do. so it's depends exactly if they say anything about how to implement that if it's a question for judges what types of evidence are relevant. >> if alonis gets a new trial, which intent is required, i'm not sure he wins. >> that's right. that's right. >> that's what makes this case pretty interesting because they could get both outcomes, use this a as an example where the language was to strong that you can infer intent but it doesn't set too broad to chill other speech. >> who is next? yes, ma'am, hi.

>> hi. my name is brianna and i'm a politics law scholar at american university. just a general question. so what does the courts recent decision in american express versus italian colors mean for the future of class action lawsuits, and do you see these type of lawsuits diminishing in number in the future to this decision? >> are you one of professor's students? >> no. >> that's okay. >> we'll find out who her professor is. >> i'm not a civil procedure expert. >> i'm not either. >> the court has been really hostile to class actions in recent years. and there is already been a significant reduction, i think, in the number of class actions in the courts -- the requirement by the court that the commonality of interest in the parties in the class has to be much more rigorous than before

that sort of spade of rulings in the last few years. i think has made class actions more difficult. have you had some experience with it? >> i would say that's absolutely right. this is one in a long line of cases that makes it very difficult to bring class action lawsuits. you think about walmart a few years ago that also narrowed it. preceding that there's been a huge attack on the ability of lawyers to get attorney fees in these sorts of cases. what we often ignore is how these procedural rules have an impact on vindicating rights. so we talk about the substantive cases quite a bit and the rights that are at stake, but they're only enabled by these procedural rules. so they are as consequential in many ways as the substance because you'll never get to the substance if you don't have the right proceduralen tray. i'm glad you raised that. that's a great question. >> i don't know of any cases on the docket this term that raising of those issues or even that are pending.

but who knows. >> i think we have time for one more question if someone has one. yes, sir right there in the middle. thank you. >> hi, thanks. phil lia, i'm an attorney on capitol hill. just had a question about the alabama redistricting case and wondering if section 2 of the vra was at all in play there? >> that's a great question. >> can you explain for the uninformed what that is. >> i talked about section 5 already and that is part of the voting rights act that's limited to specific jurisdiction. it was limited to specific jurisdictions until shelby county versus holder where the court basically put that on hold. what is still in full effect is section 2 of the voting rights act which again prohibits any voting practice, procedure, policy that has a discriminatory impact on manorty communities thatlessened the ability of those communities or voters to

elect a candidate of choice to exercise their voting power on equal footing. so section 2 was raised in this case. it hasn't been the focal point. the defense was compliance with section 5, section 2 has been less developed. of course, those of us who care very much about section 2 are concerned that the court may decide to reach into section 2 and talk about it and there are lots of concerns about whether it may -- there may be arguments about its constitutionality. i don't think this is the case that's teeing that up squarery. i don't think the court will reach that far to get to it. this is the last piece that is currently in effect to provide the ball -- >> earlier neil had said that the same sex marriage is the civil rights issue of our times. hearing you talk about voting rights, the civil rights issues of past times are still unresolved. >> yeah. i might push back on that one

with him. there really is no higher archiof civil rights issues. there's sadly too many to deal with. >> before we close, i want to say a couple words of thanks. thanks to our bar associations. and kathy hawk back in chicago. if you want anymore information from the wilson center or the ada division of public education, please check our websites. that's where people who are joining us via website or via cspan can get a copy of this useful publication. thank the aud yins in the room the audience in the overflow room at audience watching on cspan 2. then i want to ask all of you to join me with one final bit of business, which is thanking our outstanding panel. the three still with us and neil who had to leave. thank you. [ applause ]. thanks for coming. thanks for watching. that's all for tonight.

president obama will lead wednesday's u.n. security council meeting on the threats posed by foreign terrorist groups. on our next washington journal, we'll talk with jay solomon with the "wall street journal" about that u.n. meeting. and then author jason grumet discusses his next novel. and later mitch daniels looks at higher education costs and academic standards. plus, your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. from now until election day, c-span's 2014 campaign coverage is bringing you more than 100

debates between candidates running for congress and governor. here is between democrat wendy davis and republican greg abbott who are running for governor. >> senator davis, do you regret voting for barak obama? >> mr. abbott, what i am working on right now is running for governor of this incredible state. and bringing policies forward that will benefit this state. i'm working to make sure that every hard working texan, no matter where they start has an opportunity to go as far as they dream. 30 years ago, i couldn't have imagined that i would have the privilege. when i was a young, single, struggling mother of sitting on this stage and having the opportunity to ask texas for its vote to be the next governor. texas is at a turning point and

that's what's important in this election. will we create a 21st century future economy that works for all hard-working texans or just some? i believe that we need a governor who will fight for all hard-working texans every single day because their future depends on it. and i believe we need a governor who is going to make sure that our children receive world class education because our future depends on it. >> thank you, senator davis. >> senator davis, it's your turn to ask the question. >> mr. abbott, judge deeps has recently ruled against you and in favor of the school children of texas. ruling that our schools are unconstitutionally underfunded. the only thing right now coming between our children and appropriate funding of their schools today is you. on behalf of the 5 million children of this state, will you agree tonight that you will drop

your appeals and allow our schools to be appropriately funded? >> senator davis, there's actually another thing coming between me and settling that lawsuit and that is a law that you voted on and helped pass in 2011 that removes from the attorney general the ability to settle lawsuits just like this. but it's important to understand that what i want to do is focus on creating as governor a better education system in this state. it's time that we put our partisan differences aside when it comes to building a better future for the next generation. what i'm focussed on is not a school system that was constructed in part in the last century. what i'm focussed on is building a better education system for the next generation. >> you can see all of that debate and others from around the country at c-span.org. and you can look for the most

recent debates every sunday beginning at 12:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. here are just a few of the comments we recently received from our viewers. >> historical educational shows for a lack of a better expression, are very, very informative and very, very highly educational and valuable, invaluable to a young society today that does not value or maybe even doesn't understand or know about the significant impact that these historical sites have on how their ancestors shaped and formed this country. i highly encourage you guys to show more programming of the like. thank you so much. >> caller: i'm watching nancy pelosi, the weekly briefing center. i accuse c-span of being liberal. this is a classic example of

what i'm talking about. weekly briefing, we don't need nancy pelosi giving us a weekly briefing today. but c-span sees that we get a steady diet of nancy pelosi. she does not always tell the truth, in fact most of the time she never tells the truth. give us a break. >> caller: i enjoy your programming, especially the historical programs that you have on. one including examination of little big horn and all of it. it's very good programming and continue to do so, please. >> and continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400 e-mail us at commen comments at c-span. or send us a tweet. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter, join the

conversation. in the fight against isis, iran has offered to help the u.s. in concessions are made toward its nuclear program. monday's white house briefing, press secretary josh earnest said that the united states will not be in the position of treating iran's nuclear program to secure commitments to take on the terror group. secretary of state john kerry recently testified before the house foreign affairs committee about the use of a broad coalition for combatting isis. he also talked about other parts of the strategy including on-going air strikes and the planned armed syrian rebels. this is two hours.

this hearing will come to order. this morning we welcome secretary kerry back to the committee to weigh the administration's response to the isil threat and a threat it is. never has a terrorist organization occupied such a sank tu ware. had the access to a abundant natural resources that isil has. never has a the heavy weaponry, cash or personnel that isil has today and it's brutality, of course, is unmatched.

this committee on a buy partisan basis has been pushing the administration to confront this threat. for months i pressed the administration for drone strikes as the terrorist columns advanced on iraqi cities. that's what the iraqis wanted and it's what many in our embassy in baghdad wanted. we're pushing to arm the free syrian army. that's what the president's entire national security team wanted including general david petraeus who headed the cia at the time and frankly the white house hesitancy on this has put us in a situation where isil has gained a lot of ground. but where we are today is i think we agree on the steps that will turn the table. turn the table on isil, pushing mallky to the side to give iraqis a chance at

representative government is one of the issues the secretary of state has worked on. aid to our allies from the air and i should say here we saw 116,000 air strikes during the opening days of the first gulf war when kuwait was occupied. we need a robust fight from the air. giving many iraqi units the backing they need to confront isil in using other elements against this ret chet terrorist group, not just the free syrian army. we recall the sunni awakening when they rose up against al qaeda and the fact that that strategy worked against al qaeda, it can work against isil. we have here an organization on the ground a jihadist group that frankly has carried out massacres of christians, chia,

sunnis, beheading two american journalists, enslaving minority women, calling them into concubines, frankly a jihadist group that demands the international community come together to suppress and defeat it. and it's good that we have finally acknowledged that we do have a partner on the ground in syria. just not one that is adequately trained and adequately supplied to take on the regime in damascus. it has to be attacked in syria because the sank chew ware, the base of training is on the syrian side of that border. and to defeat a terrorist group, you have to go after their sank chew ware. as we hit them from the air there has to be engagement of the isil forces on the ground attacking aleppo. we trust that you will be in

close touch with the committee, mr. secretary, as you get this training program off the ground. so it's us in the air, it's the local kurdish and arab unit providing the combat troops on the ground, maintaining the momentum against isis to defeat it. the administration is right to get as many others in the region and from around the world to step up. this isn't just our fight. the secretary is just returning from a trip to the region hand has been talking with other nations. some will contribute tech cash, others intelligence or military support, but we would like to hear more about the pledges of support, just who will be bringing what to the table. how firm is their resolve? and while we are aware of the plight of those turkish diplomats that are being held capti captive, the bottom line still is that turkey is a nato ally and it is not pulling its weight and that has to change.

of course, not all in the region will play a constructive role. qatar comes to mind and the committee doesn't see iran's regime doing anything other than what it has done in the last 30 years, bring destruction to the region. we look forward to meeting with general allen, who you just appointed, mr. secretary, as the eshl enjoy for the global coalition to counter isil. this is a dramatic wakeup call. some claim the threats to the united states were reseeding, the reality is that a tidal wave of militancy is cresting here. lot of recruitment occurs through the internet. the good news is that the president has now acknowledged that this threat must be confronted. we must have a sustained commitment that only the commander in chief can marshall. this hearing will be one of many to evaluate the administration's

resolve and strategy to defeat this threat and i'll now turn to our ranking member mr. elliott engel of new york for his opening comments. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, mr. chairman, the decisions we now face are decisions of life and death. the course we set in the next several weeks and months will have ramifications around the world for years to come. this situation demands that we set party politics aside. mr. chairman, we are grateful as always for our even, bipartisan leadership and i want to identify myself with your remarks. mr. secretary, thank you for coming before us today. and thank you for our decades of tireless service to our country for our work during uncertain and dangerous times. congratulations to you and the administration for asking for a vote and winning the vote in the house yesterday to aid and train syrian rebels. but, mr. secretary n my view,

the step the house took yesterday was long overdue. over a year and a half ago i introduced the free syria act which armed and trained vetted members of the opposition at this point. we can't know what would have happened if we had acted then, we know that since then, tens of thousands of men, women and children have lost their lives. millions of have been driven interest their homes and isis has grown and spilled across the iraqi border, leaving mind a trail of destruction and bloodshed. now that we're on the verge of training and equipping moderate syrians, this must be considered only a first step to address a far-reaching threat. a vast-stretch of land and syria and iraq is now in the crushing grip of isis. they would rule the cradle of civilization offer safe haven to those who share their hateful and false iedology. with whether isis or al qaeda,

hamas, terrorists thrive in ungovernored spaces and thread their lies in hatred. we've seen this before in afghanistan after the russians were driven out with american help, the taliban planted their flag and al qaeda found a safe place to plan attacks against our country, including september 11th, 2001, against my city. make no mistake, if we don't act, it will happen again. so today i hope we can explore the way we move forward from here. there are a few points i think are especially important. first, building a credible, international coalition. it's critical they are partners in the region play a leading role combatting isis. but the entire international community has mistaken this effort. thousands of foreign fighters have poured into syria to join isis and these battle hardened extremists could launch attacks when they return home. i look forward to hearing about your progress with leaders in the middle east and europe and addressing the foreign fighter

issue and building international coalition to degrade and destroy isis. how do we address all aspects of conflict the border between syria and iraq are gone. we're dealing with a single theater. congress has a responsibility to consider a new umf, authorization for the use of military force. that is tailered to the current situation. next, how do we ensure our support of the moderate syrian is not limited to combatting isis. they continue to torture and murder its own citizens. we cannot lose sight of the fact that assad must go. he is a magnet for extremists and forbe fighters and this crisis will not end as long as he remains in powder. this train and equip program is the best chance we have. empowering the moderate opposition is the only way to appel assad. make no mistake, there is no

military solution to this crisis. how can we shape an environment that the conducive to bringing the parties to the table? mr. secretary, you know better than anybody, we're out of good choices. there are no good choices in iraq and syria. no one in this country or this congress wants to be dragged into another open-ended war. but i fear now of all the bad choices the worst choice would be to do nothing. that's why i'm glad the house did the right thing yesterday in the vote. as the president said last week, we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country wherever they are. we need to do this and we need to do it right. so i thank you again, mr. chairman and mr. secretary, i look forward to your testimony. >> and mr. secretary, welcome back. all of the members here are pleased to be joined by mr. john kerry, 68th secretary of state

of the united states and without objection, i'll add that the witness's full prepared statement will be part of the record. members here will have five legislative days to submit any statements or questions or extraneous material they want to put in the record. mr. secretary. >> thank you very much, chairman royce, ranking member engel, all the members of the committee. it's my privilege to be here today. i'm glad to have this opportunity. let me begin by both congratulating you and thanking you for the vote that took place yesterday. we are enormously appreciative because stepping up the efforts with respect to the moderate opposition is an essential piece of any strategy against isil and i'll go into that in a little bit in a moment. i know the chairman knows i have a hard stop on this because i have to be at the white house for the meeting with president por shane koe, so i'm going to -- i'll try to really abbreviate and keep my answers short but want to make sure i answer them -- your questions

sufficiently. you know, for more than ten years iraq has been a source of debate and some disagreement obviously up on the hill in the country. i think we would waste time today if we focus instead of rehashing past debates. when the issue that confronts us is really straight-forward and one on which we ought to all agree. isil has to be defeated. plain and simple. end of story. has to be. and collectively i think every singling one of us will be measured by what we do to guarantee that happens. the same is true on the international level. even in a region that has been virtually defined by division over the last years, leaders who couldn't find any agreement for 11 years and to agree on very little on general are all in agreement that isis has to be

defeated. we've been focussed on isil, i will tell you, since it morphed into al qaeda in iraq in 2013 and up aqis mission under a different banner. obviously, prior to that we were focused on it in the full context of what we were doing with respect to al qaeda. in january, we ramped up our assistance to the iraqi security forces increasing surveillance, isr, and flights to get a better picture of the battlefield and in order to expedite weapons like the missiles for the iraqis so they could bring those to bare in the fight. early this summer, the isil threat accelerated. when it effectively obliterated the border and the mosul dam fell. there were complicated reasons why that happened. it's not a straight forward,

they ran over them deal. it has to do with the kind of army that prime minister maliki began to create. it has to do with shia and sunni and a lot of other ingredients. as a result of that, we further surged our missions immediately over iraq. we immediately set up joint operations and our special forces conducted immediately a detailed assessment of the iraqi security forces because we needed to know in order to be able to answer your questions and the questions the american people what might we be getting into here. do we have an iraqi army capable of fighting? what will it take to reconstitute it? so whatever judgments are coming to you now are coming to you as a consequence of that assessment. and in addition to that, i'm proud to say that thanks to american engagement, isil's

movement, which was rapid at that point in time, was stopped. together with the peshmerga and the brave kurds who stood up, we were able to not only stop them there but to liberate sinjar mountain, to bring our efforts to bare on the dam and make a difference. by the time isil had launched its offensive in the north, president obama began air strikes to begin with on a humanitarian basis to protect american personnel and prevent major catastrophes such as the dam or the maintenance of the mosul dam and to bolster the security forces. to date we have launched more than 150 airstrikes. i know that sounds like that's very few mentioned to that earlier, but it's a different

deal. i believe we needed to get in place a structured, clear, iraqi-chosen, iraqi effort that provided a government with which we can work going forward. if you didn't have a government with which you could work going forward, nothing that we tried to do would have had the impact necessary. so the platforms we put in place last june have enabled us to do what we have done now and there's absolute clarity to the fact we have created momentum, created the time and space to be able to put together a comprehensive strategy, get inclusive government and build a broad coalition. that's the way we ought to go at this.

it showed the foreign minister of saudi arabia arm in arm with the kurdish president of iraq and with the shia foreign minister of iraq. they all came together. that's why i went to baghdad last week to meet with this new iraqi government and make certain of what they were willing to do and committing to us and encourage them to discuss in e detail their commitment against isil and especially their commitment to unify the country and do the things that haven't been done for these eight years or more. what happened in jetta was historic in terms of the recent history of iraq and the conflicts of that region.

iraq is no longer isolated from its neighbors. last week the iraqis weren't just invited to come, but they were warmly received by the saudis. and by the rest of the countries there. the saudis announced in that meeting that they will reopen an embassy in baghdad. that's a big deal. and it's essential. president obama outlined the broader strategy in detail the other day. i'm not going to go through it all. it quickly highlighted because it's important to continually remember this is not just an american effort, number one, and number two, it's not just military, not just kinetic. even within the military. it is critical that we all understand how complicated it is. they are not just focused on taking the enemy out on the battlefield, but we have to take out an entire network. i don't know how many of you saw it today, but the australians

today arrested a large group of people that they suspected of being isil members. they are planning some kind of extravaganza in australia. . so we have to decimate and discredit a militant cult mass car raiding as a religious movement and claiming with no legitimacy to be a state. there are similarities to what we have been doing with al qaeda, but frankly it's different for some of the reasons that the chairman pointed out. these folks have now taken over territory in ways that al qaeda never did. they have access to money in ways that al qaeda never did. they have access to weapons that they captured from iraqis and they are holding that territory and beginning to try to build a capacity for stainability that challenges everybody.

so certainly military support is going to be one component of this. and i sit here today while i can't go into all of the details at this particular moment for a lot of obvious reasons, i'm here to tell you that we have people in europe committed to being part of the effort, outside of europe in other parts of the world committed, and in the region. arab commitments to be part of this effort. in syria, the on the ground combat will be done by the moderate opposition, which is syria's best counterweight to extremists like isil. we can talk more about what it looks like, who it is, what they are capable of today, what they could be doing as we go forward. in addition to the military campaign, we obviously need to dry up the elicit funding sources for al qaeda. we have to stop the foreign fighters. people with passports from some of your states. people who could return here

with experience in fighting in syria or iraq and come back and engage in activities here. and the evidence of that is not in my saying it. a fighter who was in syria traversed back through turkey and other places, came back to europe. a french sympathizer, wept went to brussels and shot four people outside of a synagogue in brussels. so i emphasize that when we say in addition, there's another major step. that will be to continue to deliver humanitarian assistance and to make a difference with the people on the ground so that they don't get sucked in by the money that an isil can spend or even pay them. in addition, we have a major effort to undertake to repudiate the insulting distortion of

islam that isil is spreading. i was very encouraged to hear yesterday that saudi arabia's top clerical entity, 21 clerics, unanimously came out and declared again the terrorism as a heinous crime, more importantly declared that isil has nothing to do with islam and that it is, in fact, the order of satan. and this is vital because we know that preventing any individual from joining isil, from getting to the battlefield in the first place is actually the most effective measure we can take. the grand of saudi arabia last week said that isil is the number one enemy of islam. and it might serve us all well to focus on not a name that gives us a state but to focus on it as the enemy of islam. that's why i spent the last days

in europe and in the middle east building this coalition together with other countries and that's where i'll be tomorrow at the u.n. security council at a session that's aimed to build up this coalition even more. and to get even more specific about commitments from each country as to what they are going to do. we have more than 50 countries now contributing in one way or another. with specific understanding of what those countries will do. some will provide ammunition. some will help with the delegitimizing, some will engage in military assistance, some in training and assist, some in kinetic activities. in addition, in new york with me tomorrow will be general john allen. many of you know him, command in iraq for afghanistan for two years, 2011, 2013 and deputy

commander of ambar in iraq and great experience in the region, great respect in the region. knowledge of the sunni tribes of all the folks there that are part of the mix to be able to mobilize action. and he can help us match up even country's capabilities with the needs of the coalition. that's another reason we can't late it all o out because in the pentagon as well as in our intel community as well as in the white house, we are marrying all of the needs with the particular coalition contributors. the ambassador as well as the assistant secretary who is so much a part of al qaeda and pakistan are also leading the team. i commit to you that we will continue to build and enhance the coalition well beyond. so with that, i look forward to your questions and i hope we can get through as much as possible. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i think that does bring up a

good question, mr. secretary. which is how we move forward to get a large portion of this paid for by saudi arabia, by kuwait. i remember in 1990 when the invasion of kuwait occurred in order to push that army, which at the time was the fifth largest army in the world. in order to push it out of kuwait, there was a coalition and there were 116,000 airstrikes that decimated 42 divisions. frankly the tanks, 3,700 were destroyed. we saw the value of air power in pushing back a force. and to date we have less than 200 airstrikes. so that's one point i would bring up with you. another point i would bring up just goes to the question is to

what to do with the passports. these are individuals who would be able to travel without a visa. we have the authority here in the united states, the state department can revoke a passport if someone is likely to cause serious damage to the national security of the united states. but we need some interagency process to identify werners that travel to fight alongside isil. and i wanted to speak to you about that issue as well. i have been working on legislation to address this. we should have a carve out for doctors without borders and the doctors group sams and other groups that are going to try to help with respect to setting up hospitals and refugee camps, but in terms of those going to fight, i think we need a way to approach this to make certain

that their ability to come back into the united states is made a hell of a lot more difficult than it is right now. i wanted to ask about that. >> yes, sir. let me just say very quickly. it's just not the time to begin comparing the numb of airstrikes because the number of air strikes that took place then was related to an invasion. a full-scale invasion. this is not an invasion. this is a counterterrorism operation. and it's going to be different, number one. number two, if we had engaged in just jumping in and doing airstrikes one place or another without the structure or without the forethought or proper targeting and something went awry, we would be up here and every single one of us would be asking why we shot before we aimed and did our homework.

>> but mr. secretary, with all due respect on that point, our ability with armed drones and with f-16s to be able to see a target from the air, we could actually see from the planes the fact that they were flying this black flag, they were in long columns. we didn't know what was happening here. they took flue ja. in every one of these situations, we had an opportunity to hit from the air. >> i will tell you i was chomping at the bit and agonizing over that watching these convoys. you'd see them on cnn. but in point of fact, when we stopped and thought through the strategy, if we had begun to do that and did it in full swing, we might have actually interrupted if not prevented the capacity of the government to have a new government and new formation. there were serious considerations about timing. >> i acknowledge that point, but

at the same time by the time this go to mosul, and we're talking about the central bank in mosul, we had reached a point with the ability to take that city and take the cash out of the central bank would arm this terrorist organization to an extent that no terrorist organization previously had their hands on that much cash. >> that's why we're building the coalition. they have to why those weapons from somewhere. the cash thooz go to another country, go out there awe a system. the weapons have to get in th e there. if we do this effectively enough and that's where all countries can play a role. shutting their borders, enforcing the law, engaging in intel cooperation and preventing that money from being effective. now that's one. two, with respect to passports, you're absolutely correct. i have the authority to revoke passports. and we are currently examining all of the people, the

individuals we're trying to learn who is there and what those possibilities are. we also need to do that with sen sensitivity to certain investigations that may be going on because you don't want to flag something. but we're well aware that's part of the strategy and part of the process. what i want to make certain is that anybody who has a passport who returns, returns in handcuffs, not through customs with their passport. >> my time is expired. you can finish. >> that's fine. >> my only point here was we have to step it up from the air. let's go to mr. engel from new york. >> thank you. mr. chairman, secretary, there have been several falsehoods and misrepresentations of a modern opposition. in particularly the free syrian army. i'd like to clarify one point. the free syrian army is committed to fighting isil. i would like to request consent to place in the record a statement by the chief of staff

of the supreme military command of the free syrian army in which he states that the free syrian army is committed to fighting isil. i want to just quickly read part of the statement. the chief of staff of the supreme military command, i request to remove them from syrian soil. the heroes of the free syrian army have sacrificed thousands of brave souls in the fight over the past year. we fully plan to continue this fight until baghdadys defeat and collaborate with islamic state and other terrorist groups that seek our extermination. we will be unable to finish off islamic state without acting to stop assad. we call upon the world community and the u.s. congress in particular to fulfill the humanitarian security responsibilities by u provide

ing the free syria army with robust support to bring syria free from terrorism in all its form. i'd like to put that into the record. as they fight isil, we must remember that assad remains a magnet for terrorists and forn fighters, so there will be no stabilization unless he's forced to stop his slaughter of his own people. i'd like to ask you for comments on what i just said and to clarify what you meant by the united states deconflicting with the assad regime. what do you expect our policy to be? and it appears that assad's forces have encircled and the moderate opposition is losing ability to hold territory there. knowing assad employed a starve campaign to surrender or die and that they have symbolic importance as a stronghold. what can the u.s. do to prevent the starvation of modern

opposition and help them hold? >> thank you, congressman. thank you for your leadership and chairman for your leadership. you guys have been pushing on this and you have been very articulate about the needs of the syrian opposition. we appreciate that. and i appreciate the comments you just made. indeed the syrian opposition is in the tens of thousands. i can't tell you precisely how many, but sufficient that they are a legitimate force. and the political arm of the opposition is the syrian opposition coalition. the political army which is a group of people that represent the various parts of it. the soc includes representatives of the free syrian army, and when possible they have been

able to provide funding and certain other help to supplies to the fighting forces. they are fighting forces are a conglomerate of groups that were formed to defend local communities from regime attacks and it includes secular as well as some islamists. but the islamist elements are opposed to isil. we estimate that we have specific numbers in certain movementings. it's about 4,000 fighters divided into certain divisions. the regimist who are also part of this effort. there are other groups, at least seven groups with somewhere between a couple thousand and 4,000 fighters each. but that's not all of the moderate forces. what's important is all of these

forces have a solid record of fighting isil. they have been fighting isil. they are fighting isil right now up around other areas. in fact, it was basically they drove out from the province. another area in the delaware mass cuss suburbs they have been fighting. and the thinking is that without prompting from outside forces, without america coming in and saying we're helping isil, they are fighting isil. so we believe that as this global coalition comes together, determined to take on isil that the organizing principle of the region, a which is success breeds success, you'll hear more people say we're on the side of the moderates. they will grow in vent and we can begin to isolate isil

itself. it's still under siege. isil is trying to gain control of some border crossings, but helping those units right now actually could help us secure supply routes from turkey and raise the moderate fighter morale. the moderate opposition is also fighting. especially in the province and our sense, again, is that on occasion there has been a tactical cooperation purely for media purposes. but to our judgment and the judgment of our people that's had no lasting kind of impact, so our feeling is, congressman, that we have something to work with here. i'm not telling you it's easy. i'm not going to tell you it will happen all overnight. but there is indeed this syrian

opposition that you have been arguing for for a number of years, which notwithstanding with a support structure continues to fight. and our judgment is they will now even more so. >> the chair of the subcommittee on the middle east and north africa. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman and ranking member. welcome, mr. secretary. i have reservations about the president's plan to train and equip the moderate syrian rebels. the president did you want have the will to do all that is necessary in iraq and syria and the result is the half measure that we passed yesterday, which tells our enemies what we won't do. does the president have this comprehensive plan to not only defeat isil but also other terrorist groups you just referred to and remove assad from power? or do we no longer view assad staying in power as an impediment? the ambassador said recently

there were discrepancies and there were admissions in declaration regarding the removal and destruction of his stockpile. assad did not live up to his obligations and isil if it gets access to these weapons, does assad have hidden, undeclaredd chemical weapons? we have seen it in iraq and it would be a nightmare if it were to also get. assad's undeclared chemical weapons. also reports suggest that isil fighters number in the 30 to 40,000 range. different reports. given its sophistication and force strength, how can we expect the syrian rebels to fight against isil and assad at the same time? some of our top and former military leaders have said that a time may come when we have to put boots on the ground to supplement the kurds, iraqi

forces, so-called moderate syrian rebels. but this has been repeatedly rebuffed by the president. our allies in the gulf need to make substantiative investments. has any country pledged or indicated that should the need arise, it would be willing to send its own troops on the ground in syria? and lastly a point on the misguided iran nuclear deal. why the double standard with syria and iran. we have demanded that syria dismantle, destroy, remove chemical weapons program. but we are allowing iran to keep its nuclear program intact with enrichment capabilities and thousands of centrifuges spinning. thank you, sir. >> there's a lot of meat in which i u can't get through all of that now, but i'm happy to answer what we can in writing.

the legitimacy, no, we still believe there's no way we would imagine the support for those who have been taking on assad is simply not going to stop. and so there's only a political solution here. we don't see how that has assad with some long-term future in syria. besides even as they are willing to fight isil, the opposition is not going to stop continuing to fight assad. so we recognize that reality. with respect to poison gas, we actually accomplished something historic. people's skepticism about his possibilities and that is that all of the declared prohibited

chemicals under the convention have been removed and destroyed. all of them. that has never happened particularly in a time of conflict in any country in the world. and i'm very proud of the effort made that folks arriving today in virginia on the cape ray merchant marine and the navy and the other folk who is are all involved in helping to achieve that goal. >> if i may, mr. secretary. what samantha powers says -- >> i was just going to come to that. she's right. that's declared materials. chlorine is not a required declared material. and we also have some questions about a couple of other items. those are being prosecuted or being pursued within the process. and indeed we believe there's evidence of assad's use of chlorine, which when you use it,

it is prohibited under the chemical weapons convention. he's in violation of that agreement and we believe and we're proceeding to do things. >> thank you, sir. i have some written. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the isis organization has caught the international community off guard. what began as a movement in tribal lands and minor promises is now a worldwide threat. only after two beheadings did president obama announce his strategy to degrade and ultimately destroy islamic state organization. i can't underscore in terming

how the united states responds to this crisis. what we do and how it now is the main issue. we must act responsibly and swiftly. and we must share true and accurate facts and information so we can assure the american people that our actions in the region are not only warranted, but just. we must act and get this thing correctly. you mentioned in your statement that isis has to be defeated and they also outlined some aspects with the administration's efforts to fulfill this problem. as veterans ourselves in the vietnam war, we are look at another vooietnam if we don't g this right? >> no. because we're not invading the country. we're not getting in the middle

of a civil war. we're going to be part of a coalition that is engaged in counter terrorism. this is a counterterrorist operation. not counterinsurgency and not engagement in a civil war. >> concerned among the neighboring countries in the region about what is happening as far as the operations and what the crisis organization has done? my point is that are the arab countries supportive of us in our efforts to address this issue. >> hugely supportive. that's what the conference is about. we had all of the members of the gulf cooperation council there together with lebanon and jordan, iraq, and it was real really -- unified about isil and

what it is doing. without seeking it, we obviously all know that on the surface, though he doesn't have the ability or will to do anything about it, assad doesn't like them. russia doesn't like them. russia, which is supporting assad. so you have a con influence of strange bedfellows, which doesn't promise cooperation because we're not engaging in that, but all of those oppose. all people are distinguishing between isil and other political issues of the region. >> you and i both know the rhetoric is very easy to come up with. are they also committing resources to this issue? >> i'm not going to run through them all, but there are a lot of countries that have already sent in ammunition, provided money, engaged in assistance. they are engaged in ways. we have a couple of nations that are flying with us.

though we haven't made major pronouncements about where the coalition is because we're still in the process, as i said earlier, of delineated who will do what, where, when and how. >> i cannot think of a better person that really appreciates and understands the importance that when we send our men, the expense of their lives that we need to make this thing right. we don't need another vietnam, in my opinion. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. we go now to mr. chris smith of new jersey. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary, welcome. first of all, i want to thank you for your strong august statement calling on iran to relea release. perhaps you might want to tell

us if there's been any response, and i know other members are grateful for this strong statement. secondly, did the amendments, will they be applied to the vetting process? >> yes. >> and third, over a year ago, i wrote an op-ed published in "the washington post" calling for the creation of war crimes for syria. the idea being that accountability for all sides whoever commits the atrocity needs to be done and set up and established immediately. a resolution calling for the immediate establishment was passed by this committee and awaits floor action. i argued then and would argue now, thumbs down by the russians, is not up to the task. david crane who was the chief prosecutor testified here and said that the icc is not up it the task. it's had only one conviction in a dozen years and that was of a person committing atrocities in

the democratic republic of congo. but the idea behind a tribunal like yugoslavia would be all sides would be held to account. who died while his trial was going on. they are currently under -- their trials are continuing. nobody thought at the time that charles taylor would get 50 years, the former president of liberia. i will never forget the picture of him after the verdict was read looking down. here's a man, as you know and i know, and we fought against him for so long. the astrosties that he committed in liberia, he's in jail now for 50 years. this would be an accountability initiative. it needs to be stood up immediately. and i respectfully hope that the administration will do just that. i yield. >> let me begin, congressman,

first of all, you are tireless and persistent in your advocacy for these things, and we all respect that enormously, number one. number two, every occasion that we get, even most recently at the meeting in the context, we raised the issue of our folks who are being held. and i can't go into all of it here now except to tell you that we are actively pursuing some way of trying to say whether or not both countries needs can't be met. as you can imagine, they have counter demands and we are engaged in looking at that. but we are very much engaged. we have had various efforts for proof of life. we have had various discussions with other countries in the region. and this is very much on our minds and the president will not

rest when any american citizen is held like that and it remains unresolved. with respect to the tribunal, i personally when i was in the senate, i helped to work on the special u.n. tribunal that held one responsible for their atrocities. there's no question in my mind that what has happened in syria on a number of occasions, the government has engaged in war crimes and i think they need to be held accountable. i very much support it. the president supports finding a mechanism that will do that. i don't know if some have the inability of the current structure, but we ought to try to resolve this. one way or the other, it it shouldn't be sitting in a limbo. people need to know there's accountability and one of the

problems historically as you know better than anybody is the impunity that exists. if there's impunity in one country, in one region, a continent or another, people tend to try to get away with things. it is the prosecution that acts as a deterrent. it's the accountability that stops it and we'll work with you to try to provide that. >> thank you. >> we go now to mr. sherman of california, ranking member of the subcommittee on terrorism and nonproliferation and trade. >> mr. secretary, i have so much to cover. some of the questions you may want to respond for the record. i want to commend the administration for the success in dealing with assad's chemical weapons. you may be a 90% successful, you may be 99% successful, but there was no other plan presented that would have freed the world from the risk opposed by the vast majority of assad's chemical weapons. i want to commend the chair and ranking member for their opening statements, particularly the

ranking member when he mentions the free syria act. i was happy to be an original co-sponsor of that and the ranking member is correct. we need to write a new authorization to use military force and replace the ones we have now. whether or not your air campaign is legally authorized depends upon whether isis is part of al qaeda. that is a metaphysical question. they weren't in existence on september 11th, 2001. thn they joined al qaeda and left al qaeda and now fighting al qaeda. i don't know if they are part of al qaeda or not. there's a -- the solution is for congress to write a statute that fits 2015 rather than see whether you can stretch a 2001 statute to fit a circumstance that was never anticipated.

mr. secretary, the american people want a great plan. we want a guarantee of the immediate total destruction of isis without u.s. casualties. the administration for not developing such a plan. i want to commend you for not giving into the political pressure to promise what cannot be delivered. in your statement, you said we would defeat isis. the president's words are eventually defeat isis. to listen to some pundits, you would think that not only do we have to totally and immediately destroyist uist, but we have to do so without discussions with questionable allies in the middle east that has no allies except questionable allies. the fact is that can be done if we're willing to put half a

million troops on the ground the way -- or at least several hundred thousand troops on the ground and be okay with the casualties. but it also ignores another situation. it's not just who you destroy. it's who you empower. and isis's most powerful opponents, at least most powerful today, are nearly as evil as isis and perhaps more dangerous. hezbollah, iran, the extremist shiite militias, assad, a division of al qaeda, these are the other powerful forces on the battlefield. and there's a lot of discussion about how isis members have passports that might allow them to conduct operations outside of the middle east. hezbollah have killed hundreds of americans. iran and hezbollah have killed hundreds of americans in iraq and both have conducted terrorist activities on a variety of different continents.

mr. secretary, the middle east is a region of incredibly complex evil. caution is not a vice. and bravado is not a virtue. maliki ignored us, didn't need us. i hope one of the things you bring up is his international obligations to protect those who are living at camp liberty. turkey is not fulfilling its responsibilities and here i do have a question, believe it or not. one of the problems with turkey is they are allowing this oil to be smuggle led. the question is -- and i don't want you to give away any secrets here, but is there some reason we haven't bombed those oil fields and refineries under isis control? this would deprive them of money from struggling, deprive them of

fuel for their own operations, it would also unfortunately deprive civilians under their control of fuel as well. during world war ii, we bombed oil fields and refineries even if that meant that enemy civilians couldn't get fuel. do we have an objection to bombing these fields now? >> i haven't heard any object n objection. >> why don't we do this, mr. secretary. why don't i suggest that we respond in writing because the gentleman used all of his time. so given that circumstance, we'll go to the chair of the subcommittee on europe and emerging threats. >> thank you and first of all, let me express my appreciation to you personally, mr. secretary. you're working hard and doing your best for us. e we may have some disagreements, but all of us should appreciate the hard work you're putting out.

also the respect that you're showing the american people and congress today by being here and opening yourself up to this type of very energy jetic questionin. i will get to my energetic questioning. let me understand the proposal that i seem to be seeing here is that we support the free syrian army and build them up. although it does have some good elements, there is every indication that it is riddled with islamic radical elements. many of whom are more committed to fighting their regime, assad's regime than fighting isil. and assad's regime, which of course, means us no harm, but they themselves are engaged with fighting isil. in the end, it seems to me we're going. to be basically providing

weapons in order to undercut an enemy of isil, who is engaged deeply in fighting that radical islamist terrorist element. am i wrong in that? am i missing something there? the dynamic that's created in the end? a big army that assad's regimes armed forces that are a major part in the fight against isil are going to be undercut by what we're doing? >> regrettably, congressman, we're not going to be undercut because if assad's forces indeed do decide o to focus on isil significantly, which they haven't been doing throughout this period, one of our judgments is, there is evidence that assad has played footsie with them and has used them as a tool of weakening the opposition. and therefore, never took on their headquarters which were

there with other assets they had. we have no confidence that assad is either capable of or willing to take on isil, number one. so we don't see a conflict in that process. that may develop depending on how far they get. i think -- and with respect to the weapons and what's going to them, we -- look, i'm not going to sit here and tell you that the vetting process is a perfect process. but we have gained e enormous expertise over 20 years. general. >> my time is up. >> let me just say, i think it would be worth hearing from him as to how they vet what they do. we have a lot of relationships with vetted moderate members. >> i think we have a poor track

record in determining who our friends are in the past. and vetting, i will have to tangherlini you the people we rely on for that vetting, i don't have any confidence in whatsoever. mr. secretary, the administration inherited a big challenge in the middle east. left them with big problems. and i think this administration has turned a big challenge into a major crisis. and one of the most significant factors in turning this into a crisis is this administration seems unable to go directly to america's best allies and support them, but instead fight fault with them and basically have overseen replacing good allies who were flawed with people who hate us and expansion of the radical islamist

terrorist movement in that area. the people i know in that region who are the most loyal to us are the kurds. and yet this administration insists on all of the supplies that we're going to were -- have to go through baghdad. now why are we marginalizing our best friends, the kurds, and denying them the weapons they need and they are really on the front line in order to help the government in baghdad who, by the way, i think still is allied with the regime in iran and, in fact, here we are contacting the regime to associate with us, but here assad is a horrible alternative to deal with. but we can deal with the iranian. this is contradictory. it seems our friends are getting shortchanged because they are imperfect and we end up helping

our enemies. >> well, congressman, there are two big points you raised there. and i want to take them both on. we could not be more engaged with our long-time, good friends throughout the region. i have probably made more trips as secretary of state to the region and had more conversations in a year and a half than any former secretary of state. we just came back from a meeting hosted by one of our most important, longest allies in the region, saudi arabia. there was including those who don't have a record of being fully supportive of every effort in that region. but that's not us. that's them. we have made it clear what our expectations are. and our expectations are that

people stop funding islamic radical groups. islamic is the wrong word. . radical religious extremists. we need to stop seeing them funded and we need to start making sure there's a solid support stream and only that stream to the moderate opposition. we're on the same page. this is important, mr. chairman. i want to clear this up because maybe you can rectify it. you say the administration is responsible for sending all these weapons through baghdad. no, we're not. you are. we're adhering to u.s. law passed by congress with respect to export/import. what we are allowed to do. we have to send it to the government because that's u.s. law. and if you want to change it, fix it -- >> that's why we should recognize the kurdish government. >> the time is expired, but that

particular point you raised is one we could undertake. i think it's one we will undertake. we go now to mr. gregory meeks of new york. >> thank you, mr. secretary, for all the work you have been doing. yesterday i voted in support of the amendment to authorize training and equipping of appropriately vetted opposition. and i did so because i believe that we can't ignore the threat from isil and because i believe that the strategy that the president has proposed is probably the best option available to us at this time. but it wasn't an easy vote. it's a very -- it was a very difficult vote. and i had to talk to a number of difficult individuals. attended all of the classified meetings, et cetera. come away with what you said is

absolutely key and essential that we have to -- this cannot be seen as the united states against sunni muslims. so everybody being engaged in more than just words, but actually engaged in this fight is absolutely important. but one of the things i came away with after the vote in talking to members on the floor and talking all today, there were certain questions that came up. certain questions were asked here today and you didn't have a chance to answer, so i thought i would ask a couple of them and be quiet so you can have a chance to answer them. one, slippery slope. and given that i know that you understand this because your service and your talk, the question was how will you assess if this war is going wrong. if it's going wrong and why we're not on a slippery slope and what's different this time.

so i'd like to know that. then i think mr. engel and mr. sherman talked about the aumf. so i was wondering -- and i believe you have the authority you need, but many want to renew it. so could you or would you be helpful in language by a new one and are you willing to work with congress on this matter? >> absolutely, congressman, thank you very much for both questions. and very relevant, very appropriate. on the slippery slope issue, i think it's engrained in a lot of us through the past experience of the last 45, 50 years in some cases very personally and other cases through the experience here in the congress. and through our experience in the middle east and the last few years. so we're all fairly warned.

we understand the dangers. that's why the president is being so clear. that's why the president is adamant about building this coalition with real assumption of responsibility within the coalition. not a hold your coat, we'll watch you while you do it. not a fig leaf; we'll do a little bit. but a genuine coalition to tackle a genuine threat to those countries more immediately than us. that has to happen. and we're going to be very disciplined and very tough about making that kind of assessment, and you are too, and we know that in conjunction with each other. so i think we'll know fairly rapidly how things are coming together, how effective, what is effective, and we have a really tough individual seasoned in leadership and these things in john allen who help us make those judgments as we go along.

on the aumf, we welcome updating the aumf. we're not trying to avoid that. it would be very good for everybo everybody, i think. so we welcome it. of course, we'll work with you, closely in an effort to do that. chairman menendez yesterday said that he is, in fact, already proceeding down that road. we intend to work with him and with all of you in order to be effective. but we are convinced beyond any doubt that we do have the legal authority to proceed now. would it be better to have something in 2014 that speaks to this particular situation rather than in 2001? sure, but that's not where we're starting from. we need to get moving and we've been very careful to make the judgments about authority here. one of the reasons why we couldn't move without coming to you before was because we didn't have authority in our judgment

with respect to syria and chemical weapons because that didn't fall into the 2001. so we have clearly drawn that distinction and no effort to stretch here. we will be better, all of us, with congress, the american people, clear about where we're heading. >> we go to the chairman of the subcommittee on asia. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for appearing, mr. secretary. like everybody in this room, i watched, and i think a lot of people watched the president. many were shocked when he emphasized that the islamic state of iraq was not islamic. they now simply refer to themselves as the islamic state. they don't call themselves the methodist state or baptist state. they are the islamic state, and i think for good reason. when christians, for example,

are told to convert to islam or die, that would seem to fly in the face of the president's insistence that the islamic state is not the islamic state and an indication he may not fully accept that radical islam is, indeed, something that does exist, and, in fact, is growing. let me get to my question. the president has emphasized over and over again that there will be no american boots on the ground. isn't that terminology misleading? we have already or soon will have 1,600 american military personnel back to iraq. and i say back, i know that you emphasized early in your statement we didn't want to rehash old thing, but it would be remissed if we didn't say isil wouldn't have been as successful as it has thus far in taking land and literally

slaughtering so many people had the u.s. not pulled the troops out. every time that i was there, i think everybody, our military personnel, the iraqis, our diplomats, everybody anticipated that there would be a residual u.s. force there and you talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, i think that's exactly what happened here. but i digress. back to the 1,600 u.s. military personnel and probably more that will be on the ground there, and i know that's for training and it's for intelligence purposes and it's for targeting our air power and so forth, but my question is, is the administration really being straight with the american people when you keep emphasizing no boots on the ground? isn't this 1,600 military personnel likely to go up and

perhaps significantly? >> well, you raised two important things and i'd like to speak to both of them quickly. the islamic state, they can call themselves obviously what they want to call themselves. we shouldn't. compound the sin by allowing them to get away with calling them what they are now. they are not a state. and they do not represent islam. and as u said earlier, now religious leaders, islamic leaders are reclaiming legitimate islam. and they are separating it too. so i wouldn't compound the crime by calling them a state whatsoever. they are the enemy of islam. that's what they are. and as the 21 clerics said yesterday in saudi arabia, they are the order of save tan.

there's nothing in islam that condones or suggesting people should go out and rape women and sell off young girls or give them as gifts to jihadists and cut heads off and tie people's hands behind their backs and put them on their knees and shoot them in the head. these are war crimes and they are crimes against humanity. and we need to make clear that that is exactly what is the reality here. ? not to interrupt you, mr. secretary, and i agree with all the things you said as far as things they've done are horrific, no question about that, but it is clear to me that their motivation is their religious fervor of this fenatisism. >> i think a lot of them are thugs and criminals and people that want to go out and marad

and take part of the success and -- >> i certainly agree with you there. >> there is a lot of stuff going on there. with respect to the troops and the president has again and again said, no combat troops. he just said it yesterday very, very clearly, i think i have his statement somewhere where he -- here is what he said. will not have a combat. the troops that have deployed to iraq do not, will not have a combat mission. he's been absolutely up front about what they are doing. training and assisting, helping with intel, helping to build the capacity and they will not have a combat role. what is important about what you said about the troops staying in iraq, yes, there was an expectation. but we couldn't get the immune its and legal protection from them over the long-term required for up to 10,000 troops. and therefore, they didn't stay. but no one makes the judgment that what happened in mosul

happened because noncombat troops weren't there. these guys weren't going to be combat troops. what happened in mosul happened there because no troops had no fighting in mosul. there is a greater allegiance to one person or one sect than they did to iraq and that's the problem. >> from new jersey, ranking member from the hemisphere. >> we have just been given a note that president hahn announced he authorized for france to provide air strikes in iraq in response to a request from the government of iraq and we obviously welcome that public announcement. that's one of the countries that we've been counting in our list. >> mr. secretary, thank you very much. i want to get back to the question of the kurds and so if we can get a little more detail.

they have been playing such a strong role and such strong supporters of us. they have been basically holding the line against this islamic state and providing christians and other minorities with safe haven. yesterday we had dinner with one of the ministers. and one of the biggest complaints was that they don't seem to be working with the new government in baghdad. and the other one was that the arms that we are providing, because it trickles and they need the arms necessary to continue the push. obviously, they've been our friend for many years. obviously we work for them. they've been loyal. i'm just wondering if -- i know it's going to take time, and i know you have a hard job putting all these groups together. but it would seem to me that this is one of our pry tort make sure that they have what they

need to keep pushing isil back. so i was just wondering, can you talk a little bit about that -- >> i'm delighted to talk a little bit about that. i traveled to irbil a few weeks ago, i think a few weeks ago, to meet with president bar zany and talk about the government formation and also the steps that we would take. so let me make it clear that we have, first of all, we conducted targeted air strikes to stop isil, and isil is advancing rapidly and president obama made the emergency decision that we wept in and stopped advancing. number two, we immediately opened joint operation center in irbil to share information,

intelligence at an unprecedented level. number three, we led an international level to provide weapons and ammunition and at least 39 international flights have arrived in irbil carrying arms for the krg. the coalition up to now has provided 2 22 /* million rounds of ammunition. anti-vehicle machine guns and rpgs. we have coordinated donors like alban albania, croatian, with air transport providers, uk, can dpa, denmark and australia and the president of the united states providing $25 million in draw down funds to support operations which directly supported the krg supply efforts. so i have to tell you, that you know, i think some 17 flights of

ours have gone in with these weapons and arms. so well continue, we are moving as fast as we can and we're doing, i think, a pretty darn good job of getting weapons into the kurds and we have great respect for the key component of this. now, i'm concerned about what you said about they have a sense of not working closely enough with the government. >> they aren't getting paid? >> the government just gotten going. one of the parts of the agreement, government formation was that in the immediate billion dollars would be paid over and it was as the government came together. there is up to 4 billion needed in toward pay back salaries, the next billion is on its way. so i think that that will be addressed. because everybody understood that was part of the deal of the government coming together. >> i think one of the concerns that they have is that we make the deals and then the

government offing about dad says, let's not keep up the end. >> if the government of baghdad doesn't keep up their end, and it is crystal clear, then they will have trouble having the out of america doing things that they need them do. >> okay. thank you very much. >> south carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you for being here. as we defeat isil there will be no more mistakes. i look forward to working with you to avoid his mistakes. the obama mistakes of underestimating isil of jv, junior varsity. the president announced the terrorist threat was being diminished. but there were warnings of growing safe havens of tourists across north africa, the middle east and asia. the obama mistake of failing to secure a basic security agreement with iraq, this undermines the achievements of

the american ally forces in promoting freedom in iraq and particular identified two of my sons served in iraq. i'm grateful for their service. the obama mistakes of defense sequestration down sizing military as jihadist threats expand allowing safe havens to attack american families worldwide. the obama mistakes of failing to support student of iran's green revolution, we should remember the iranian revolution support offers in teheran carry signs very clearly if english and they state that is death to america. the obama mistake of declaring red line in sir why on chemical weapons and then blaming others, clearly the red line was stated first in the speech by the president on august 20, 2012. the obama mistake of releasing five taliban murders while releasing one of the terrorists. one was the equivalent of 10,000 warriors to destroy america.

guantanamo bay is more important than ever. afghan withdrawal date disregarding conditions, putting afghanistan and pakistan at risk. the obama mistake of equating hamas rocket attacks with israel's self-defense. we should recognize hamas creed, quote, we value death more than you value life. end of quote. the obama mistake of the benghazi assassination's coverup, the obama mistake of the ft. hood massacre dismissed as workplace violence and drive-by shootings. the president obviously needs to change course and adopt these two strengths. we know weakness and dangers american families worldwide. i believe the president should take action remembering september 11th and the global war on terrorism and i am pleased to hear and joan with congressman in regard to our concern for the kurdish region. the kurdish region has been

loyal allies of america for decades. the people are very brave and capable but i have heard that the necessary military supplies are not being delivered. they are putting the kurdish people at great risk. so again, what steps are made to certainly grarn guarantee and make sure that kurdish reason receives the necessary supplies to defend themselves.uarantee a sure that kurdish reason receives the necessary supplies to defend themselves. >> i don't know where to begin, congressman. i tell you where i'll begin. thank you for your two cents. we really appreciate the enormous contribution to the country. and i think what i'll do is i obviously disagree with your judgment about mistakes, red lines, things like that -- i mean, we can have an argument

about that but i don't think it serves in great purpose here today. so what i will do is ask o to be on the record for that and your son's service and that's what makes america great. >> i have a commitment that we will follow through with weapons. >> well, as i said, we are deeply committed. the kurds are essential partners in this. we have enormous respect for the courage they have shown and fight she have taken to isil. and we are aiming for success, congressman. believe me, the president is deeply committed to this effort. one theng i would say after the list of mistakes is i honestly can't think of a president who has taken more risks and put more on the line to fight the continued struggle against

terrorism specifically. his efforts in afghanistan, his efforts in pakistan, efforts in yemen, efforts in mali, efforts in libya. you can run the list. >> mr. secretary, one final question, yes or no, is america at war? >> well, you know, i'm going to answer that mr. chairman. but you know, a lot of people are debating this idea of what do you call it? do you call it war, don't you call it war. it is not a war like iraq where we invaded and had hundreds of thousands of troops mobilize. and you know, 16,000 sorites and so forth. it is not that kind of war. but if you care about what you call it, it is a war similar to what we did with al qaeda and terror. and sure, what i care about is

not what we call it. i guess about what we do. and i care about making sure we defeat isil and if you're more comfortable calling it a war against this enemy of islam, then please do so. we're happy to call it that. it is much more important to focus on that. >> time has expired. we have to go to jerry connolly of virginia. >> can you say that with some enthusiasm mr. chairman. i was listening carefully to my colleague from south carolina, and i must respectfully take issue. what happened in syria last year was a signal failure by this congress. in a very rare event, a president of the united states came to congress and said here's the problem. here's what i want do about it. give me app authorization.

and what did we do? we wrung our hands. we found all kind of rationalization for why we couldn't get ourselves to do it. i think we damaged the united states policy, united states standing, and you're respectability as an institution. so if we're going to start finger poenting, let's start with ourselves. having said that, mr. secretary, welcome back to congress. the fun never stops around here. >> mr. secretary, you bravely served your country and you have medals from an undeclared war in southeast asia. at that time we had two presidents who used the gulf resolution, basically to engage

in a massive ground war in mainland asia. that was a fairly flimsy basis. upon which to wage war. and all of us of that generation are cognizant of that. so i want to return, and i understand you're wearing a different hat today than you did when you were on the senate relations committee, but we heard you say, and we heard the president say, you welcome a congressal authorization. but i guess i would gently prod you, don't you need it? given a different time, different environment, different challenge, 13 years ago. and wouldn't it be better for our country, our allies and for the mission we're undertaking, to have a full blown debate and to request that authorization as i believe the constitution of

the united states requires. but i know we're not going to agree. i want to give you an opportunity. >> thank you, congressman, for your original comment. i think i said to you that of course, it would be better to have an update, better to have congress ratify and join in. better to have the american people represented by the congress through a good debate and what is happening, for sure. i haven't changed in all these years with respect to that. but it is not necessary for the president to begin the process that he is beginning. >> mr. secretary, if i could interrupt, because we have limited time. and you said you think you have all of the authorization you need from that resolution of 13 years ago. >> we are convinced, we've tested this very carefully, with lawyers and i have as good a set of lawyers as anywhere in the country, and in the state department and in the white house. and they conclude without any

question that isil began as al qaeda in iraq. and the authorization clearly in 2005, 6, 7, 8, referred to al qaeda in iraq. just standing up in 2013, a year ago, and saying we're no longer going to be part of this because we happening to worse than them and they don't like us any more, doesn't get you out from under who you are and what you are try doing and how you do it. and therefore, as long -- yes, a span of years. it wasn't something that any of us forsaw and it doesn't effect the legality that any of this still is the same group that was doing what they did in iraq, called itself al qaeda in iraq and called itself al qaeda in iraq and now they are continue doing the same thing in both places in iraq and syria. been convinced that the long standing relationship they had with bin laden, long standing

relationship with al qaeda, continued desire to attack the united states and u.s. persons, two of whom they've already murdered. we have the authority without any question and refer to the affiliates by the way, the language of the resolution referred to al qaeda and its affiliates. there is no question these guys are an affiliate. so we are convinced we have it. but yes we are definitely stronger as a country. which is why the president came to congress for the syria authorization previously. >> thank you. >> to texas chairman of committee on homeland security. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you mr. secretary for being here today. we've known about this threat for well off a year. it's been festering. this is a real wake up call for the american people about the

evil of isis or isil. we watched the president go through a very tortured decision making process. i think in part because it defines his narrative. that he campaigned on that he would end the wars and defies his legacy as well. having said that, i'm glad that you finally came around on the issue. listen to chairman joints of state that we cannot beat isis unless we go into sir why. we add briefing on the australian plot that was thwarted, this is an external operation out of syria involving beheadings of australians and potential attack on their fbi.

i don't want to see that happen in the united states and i know nobody sitting here today wants to see that either. i would commend your pick of general alan, that's one of the best decisions made. i think and i have always said that moderate muslim, that appears to be the strategy here. with the vetting process. now the syrians and weapons, and in terms of not proper training, the fact that this is off site in saudi, that we do have data bases sufficient to properly train and vet them, but eventually what turned me around is the fact that we are going to

train the moderate sunni muslim to combat the extreme sunni muslim. it is their fight. we can provide air strikes and we will have advisors and probably have special forces. but at end of the day, it is their backyard so my question to you is when you met with these nations that quite honestly threw a lost money indiscriminately that create this problem. seems to me they aught to be fixing it as well. what are they willing to put on the table it assist this effort and specifically are they willing to put a ground force. because that's what is lacking in syria. we don't have that in syria. i'm concerned that the number of 5,000 over a period of six months, when you look at 30,000 isis forces and growing everyday. whether that's a realistic

achievable strategy without more assistance from these others nations and particularly the arab world that i think has some responsibility to bear the burden. >> congressman, thank you for your leadership on homeland security and your service there. that's key tower safety. i think it sun fair to confuse careful with quote corps toured. i have watched the president ask a lot of tough questions that are appropriate and look for for consequences and i think careful is what people want in a president. secondly, the president has accepted general dempsey's advice. that you have to go into syria. you have to impact sir why and

you said that to the nation. and i think you cannot attack just in syria. if they have a safe haven there, that's contrary to the policy we've pursued about not allowing the sanctuary to al qaeda and pakistan or elsewhere. so you know, you can't contain, there's no containment with this group. no such thing as negotiations. nothing to negotiate. and i think everybody here understands that. so that requires the willingness to go get the job done. now in that context, you are correct, money has come from places that it shouldn't have come to these groups. and they marshed. and i think people would sit there in a moment of candor and tell you that today that they acknowledge that. that is part of what is giving us unit, purpose to rectify that now.

i'm very hopeful that, when you say with isis growing everyday and only 5,000, there are, you know, you get the classified numbers. but the classified numbers say there is tens of thousands of opposition fighters today. not 5,000. 5,000 is what the initial training can produce and if we are successful. if they can get setback sufficiently, young people and possible recruits will have a different attitude about where they might want to be. and with woman. and that could change very rapidly. so numbers are something that could be in flux. i'm not telling you with certain it is 5,000 p.m. that's a target. but i can tell you that i don't think these guys are 10 feet tall. and the intelligence tells us that as we have begun to hit them we've been able to prove

that to some degree. >> we go now to mr. ted deutsche of florida, on the subject of middle east and north africa. >> thank you, chairman. thank you, ranking member, for the opportunity to discuss directly with the administration the u.s. administration to the ice ill threat. mr. secretary, thank you for being here today. before going into my questions about this topic, i want to join mr. smith and thank you for your statements about the americans who have been held in iran and in particular i would note that as we approach the november deadline for nuclear talks with iran, we will also be approaching yet another thanksgiving that bob levinson will not be with his family. while i appreciate all of your efforts, i nevertheless want to continue to urge you to press

and urge them to show some humanity and some good faith by permit mr. levinson to be reunited with his family. the administration's been, as outlined, comprehensive strategy, for combatting the isil terror threat, that encompasses not just a targeted air campaign but also to cut off the financial support. and mr. secretary, you personally traveled to nearly every air on state securing our partners in the region. you and the president have helped to build a strong international coalition. and i support your efforts. i commend you for them and i think that we're grateful for them. i just wanted to follow up on mr. connolly's questioning with a couple of points. one, i would like to associate myself with his comments about the actions of this congress a year ago but i would also like to just suggest that while yesterday's vote was about authorizing funding to support

syrian opposition, that we do need to have a broader debate about authorizing the use of military force. that's not what yesterday's vote was. and while you may be precisely right, that the aumf from 2001 legally gives you the authority that's necessary, that there are an awful lot of us who weren't here to participate in that debate. and who would like the opportunity on behalf of our constituents to engage in a debate about the type of force that should be used, can be used, and in fact, then, ultimately once that determination is made to authorize it on behalf of americans today for this purpose. so i hope that we have that opportunity and i think that -- i think that is something that

administration should want and should request. shifting topics for a second. you were quoted in the press this week saying we are leaving channels open with iran. i would like to you explain exactly what we are communicating to iran. how much we know about shiite militias. who is on the ground in iraq. and finally, we're reminded that iran continues to be the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. aep that iran with a nuclear weapon would not only people empower its terrorists but spark an outrage through the region that would be so damaging as extremist group is are marching throughout middle east. given that there is less than two months to nuclear negotiations, if you could provide us with necessary assurances that our share goal of destroying isil won't be used by iran as pretense for

extending negotiations or for pressing the administration and our partners in those negotiations to accept anything less than an iran that does not pose a threat to the region and around the world. >> let me state unequivocally. there is no connection, relationship, dependency, between what we are currently about to be engaged in with respect to to this, you know, so-called isil, and these talks. and there's a real discipline on both sides, with respect to the focus on the talks. now everybody knows because we announced it that on the margins of the talks, there was some