calling the organization. not coming with facts and figures. once again, it's the republicans who asked the pointed questions. i'm thankful for the very few democrats who stand up and basically side with the republicans on trying to air dirty laundry about the law. the other thing that i'm sick and tired of people trying to say the republicans don't want health care. we all have to participate in health care we want to make sure everybody is covered in a fair, compensated way and not just say because you are in a particular class you pay more versus another class that pays less. we should all pay equally. i have seen people from various states who live in virginia. their insurance rates are going up.

the out of cost pocket insurance is going high. i don't know what's happening with new york. everybody needs to create a p.o. boxer for new york to get low health care costs. >> we will be going shortly to the senate foreign relations committee. secretary of state john kerry is expected to testify on isis. also, earlier we could hear about the release of the cia report. the report on the cia about their interrogation techniques. we'll take a few more calls before the senate hearing begins. san antonio, texas. catherine, go ahead. >> thank you. as a spanish person it's really an eye opener. let me tell you something. i came here 40 years ago. the country was so different. there was not this division that it is now that's been driven by so many people. i sit here and i watch this. i think to myself this is the

country that i came from. they come up here. they lie to you. they get away with it and they take our money. there is no repercussions for these people. we as the american people need to clamor that when people do wrong they go to jail. if i did what gruber did or any of the people in the administration did, i would be in jail for a long time. what's wrong with our nation? it used to be a nation of principles. it used to be a nation of things that were good. now we just call each other names. >> catherine in texas. jonas from chicago on the democrats line. what are your thoughts about the hearing we heard from? >> caller: first of all, the first two callers claimed to be democrats. didn't sound like it. i'm a retiree. i wash watched the house oversight committee quite a bit. it's obvious to me it has nothing to do with oversight.

it's all out to score political points. fast and furious, the irs, benghazi and obamacare. it's just a show case for the republicans to beat on obama. they start doing it. the day he was elected. unfortunately their political strategy has worked. obviously it's disgusting what the professor did. that doesn't change the fact that obamacare is working. it was a huge health program. a huge step in the right direction. any program that big will have major problems. republicans aren't doing anything to help the program and help americans' health. i'm still very strong obama supporter. i think the oversight committee is a kangaroo court. all the republicans, all they do

is attack the witnesses. don't allow them to really finish their questions. the questions are loaded. it has nothing to do with the oversight. if you really want to talk about oversight why hasn't there been oversight over the containers full of billions of dollars going to iraq that disappeared in the desert. then we would find out. that's all i have to say. >> thanks, jonas in illinois. we are moving on to the senate foreign affairs committee. secretary of state john kerry will be testifying on the authority to use military force in iraq and syria. expecting to start momentarily here. also let you know that taking your calls just a moment ago on what we heard earlier from the house oversight committee. we'll show that entire hearing again tonight starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern on our companion

network, c-span 2. you will hear the comments that came from jonathan gruber who is the adviser to the white house on the affordable care act. also marilyn tavner, the administration for medicare and medicaid services. live now to the senate foreign relations committee as we await the arrival of secretary of state john kerry.

>> no more war. u.s. intervention is counter productive. the weapons will land in the hands -- >> this committee will come to order. mr. secretary, we welcome you back to the committee. thank you for being here today to discuss one of the most important topics that congress ever must meet the challenge of. whoen you last appeared before the committee in september you asked congress to authorize military force against isil. we have in a umf that the committee will consider later this week. today we are asking you to provide the administration's views on this text. on your strategic planning to counter isil along with the

range of military authorities you will need to achieve your goals. this is the most important vote that any member of congress can take. it is a vote that potentially sends america's sons and daughters into p harm's way. we don't take that responsibility lightly. that demands our full attention and consideration of three issues. first the military action is necessary and in the security interests in the united states. i believe it is. and i doubt anyone on the committee would disagree. i believe the risk of isil acquiring a safe haven in iraq or syria or beyond from which it can create the operational capacity to attack american interests and at some point america itself demands action. second, we need to understand the political and military goals of the operation. how we expect to achieve them and the time frame of this

campaign. now, i know some may see this as limiting. but at the end of the day, americans will not be supportive of an authorization of an endless war. they do not want us to occupy iraq for decades. they do not want an isil recruitment aumf allowing jihad against western crusaders that enhances their ability to recruit followers who want to fight americans. deployment of ground troops would be ground hog day in iraq all over again. we want to hear what the authorities expect they will need from congress to achieve his political and military goals of defeating isil and closing off the region to extremists and terrorists. i hoped to begin the conversation weeks ago so the entire senate, not just this committee would have time to consider a comprehensive bipartisan aumf.

that didn't happen. we are here today to begin the process of taking action. i think the american people expect congressional leaders to engage on this issue to understand the mission, parameter and risks. as i have said many times, i am not comfortable with the administration's reliance on the 9/11 amf and the 2002 iraq aumf. the 9/11 was to counter al qaeda in the wake of the september 11 attacks. no member could have foreseen we would still be acting under its authority 13 years later. i don't believe it provides authority to pursue a new enemy in a different country under different circumstances than existed 13 years ago. congress has the ability and authority to authorize military action and to declare war for these reasons. we are the check and balance on

executive power regardless of who the executive is. if we abandon the role we will have done a grave disservice to the american people. the text i have is based on consultations with members of the committee and addresses t the -- seeking. an eye is sill specific aumf should authorize the president to use military force against isil and associated persons or forces. meaning individuals or organizations fighting for or on behalf of isil. it should limit the activities of our forces so there will be no large scale ground combat operations. the president feels he needs that, then he should ask for it and congress can consider it. it should limit the authorization to three years and require the administration to report to congress every 60 days. as drafted the text would limit the authorization of force by not allowing ground combat operations except as necessary for the protection or rescue of u.s. soldiers or citizens for

intelligence operations, to en able air strikes, operational planning or other forms of advice and assistance. the authorization would be limited to three years. the president has said this will be a multi year campaign. i don't believe the aumf should be unlimited. a three-year time frame would allow this president and a new president time to assess the situation and make responsible decisions. together with the congress about whether and how to continue military action. that said, mr. secretary, we'd love to hear from the administration what the framework is, what you see. this authorization is intended to provide the authority. isil is not only an american

problem. it is a global problem. no isil strategy can rely on american military power alone. we need to train iraqi security force and kurdish peshmerga forces, stand up and train and equip for moderate syrian fighterers which are being authorized in the defense authorization bill that the congress will consider this week. work with coalition partners to cut off financing and foreign fighter flous and provide humanitarian aid to address the situation situation of the millions whose lives have been uprooteded. we look forward to working on our mutual goal of degrading and defeating isil. we welcome you back to the committee. let me turn to the distinguished ranking member for his remarks. >> mr. chairman, thank you for allowing us to move away from what we considered last week which was an aumf that was an amendment to a water bill.

i i want to thank the secretary for being here. i'm pretty sure this is not are where he'd like to be this afternoon. i thank you for coming before the committee. i want to thank you for trying to set up a process this week that was thoroughment that's not occurred. i think everyone understands that we have no defense presentations here, no intelligence presentations here. i would also say. it was going to last about ten

hours. we were able to go through a process that was much more serious than the one we would have this week. whatever passes out of the committee this week is not going to become law. at least this will be a part of the process. just for what it's worth, i know we are not going to get to a place where the house and senate pass an authorization. when we begin a process like that, we don't actually enact it in law. we weaken our nation. we also hurt our nation when we attempt to pass something out on a partisan basis. one of the things about the

earlier syrian aumf was it had bipartisan support and opposition. regardless of what happens in these meetings this week, my plan of conduct personally is to act in such a way that hopefully will not harden positions but will build for an opportunity for us to act in a more full way down the road. i want to say though that i think the testimony today will be helpful. you know, i listened to the chairman's comments and referred to the fact that the 60-word authorization that was passed september 18 of 2001 has led to some out comes that people didn't anticipate. that's why from my standpoint i would like something much more full. much more understood, a strategy

that's laid out in a way that i understand where we are going. authorizing. it's hard to remember one that ended up with a satisfactory outcome. we start the conflicts without teasing out from the administration in most cases how we are going to actually go about being successful. we start the process. in this particular case it appears that an aumf has been offered to start the process. it actually limits the commanderers in chief -- the commander in chief's ability to carry it out. in fact, what would happen under this authorization is right now we can use all efforts, if you

will, to go against al qaeda. if we were to pass this authorization as where it en. we would be saying against isis we can with only do certain things. somehow we must view them as being a lesser evil than the al qaeda effort -- the al qaeda group we have gone after and the taliban group we have gone after in afghanistan. we are not going to do anything that passes unfortunately. i don't think it is good for the nation. it's better to start at a time we can finish with a congress that will actually deal with this from start to finish. i appreciate the chairman deferring to this week, trying to make the process slightly better. i certainly appreciate in spite of the fact we don't have a full

presentation, i appreciate the presentation he's going to make. >> mr. secretary. >> well, mr. chairman and ranking member corker, it really is a pleasure for me to be back before the foreign relations committee. during my time here we have some things right. we certainly wound with up wishing we had done things differently. most of us would agree and i saw it during both parties' chairmanships including the years senator luger and i were here that this committee works best and makes the greatest contribution to the foreign policy and our country when it addresses the most important issues in a strong bipartisan fashion. this is one of those issues.

the chairman and the ranking member both said that. this is one of the moments when the bipartisan approach really is critical. as you know, the president is committed to engaging with the committee and all of your colleagues in the house and senate. regarding a new authorization for use of military force as weal call it the aumf. specifically against the terrorist group known as isil though in the region it is called dash. specifically because we believe deeply it is not a state and it does not represent islam. we are looking for authorization with respect to efforts against dash and affiliated groups. i want to thank chairman menendez and the committee for leading the effort in congress. and for all the important work

you have done on this complicated and challenging issue. it's important that the committee lead a congress and the country. i think you know i believe that. i realize we may not get there overnight. i have heard the ranking member's comments just now. we understand the clock. we certainly won't resolve anything and get there this afternoon in the next few hours. but i do think this discussion is important. we all agree this discussion has to conclude this is not one party's fight against dash but rather it reflects our united decision to defeat dash. the world needs to understand it from the united states congress above all. our coalition partners need to know that from all of you. the men and women of the armed forces deserve to know it from all of you.

that's why this matters. toward that end we ask you to work closely with us on a bipartisan basis to develop language that provides a clear signal of support for our ongoing military operations against dash. our position on the text is really pretty straightforward. the aumf should give the president the clear mandate and flexibility to successfully prosecute the armed conflict against dash and affiliated forces. it should be limited to the threat posed by that group and by forces associated with it. i will come back to the question of the aumf in a minute. we believe that as we embark on

this important discussion, context matters. all of us want to see the united states succeed. all of us want to see dash defeated. we are united on that. i want to bring the committee up to date on where our campaign now stands. mr. chairman, less than three months ago, perhaps two and a half months or more have passed since the international community came together in a coalition whose purpose is to degrade and defeat dash. two and a half months ago it didn't exist. not it dash, but the coalition. and 60 countries that assembled in brussels. i had the privilege of chairing the first meeting of the coalition last week. we heard prime minister abbatti describe the effort his team is making to bring iraqis together,

strengthen security forces, take the fight to dash and improve and reform governance. we heard general john allen, our special envoy to the coalition review the progress being made in the five lines of coalition effort to shrink the territory controlled by dash, cut off financing, block its recruitment of foreign fighter, expose the hypocrisy of the absurd religious claims and provide humanitarian aide to the victims of the violence. during the meeting i have to tell you i was impressed by the leadership activism. frankly the anger towards dash that's being displayed by arab and muslim states. governments that do not always agree on other issues are coming together in opposition to this profoundly anti-islamic terrorist organization.

now, to be clear, isil continues to commit serious, vicious crimes. it still controls more territory than al qaeda ever did. it will be years, not months, before it is defeated. we know that. but our coalition is already making a difference. to date we have launched more than 1,150 air strikes against dash. these on rags reduced its leadership. squeezed its resources. damaged the logistics call and operational capabilities and change its tactics. it's becoming clear that the combination of coalition, air strikes and local ground partners is a potent one. in fact, virtually every time a

local iraqi force has worked in koo coordination with air cover they have not only defeated dash. they have routed it. in iraq, progress also continues in the political arena. this is no less important, frankly. last week after years of intensive efforts the government in baghdad reached an interim accord with the kurd stan government on hydro carbon exports and revenue sharing. that's been long sought after. it is a big deal that they got it. it's good for the country's economy. it's even better for its unity and stability and for the imprint of the direction they are moving in. the new defense minister is a sunni. the appointment was an important step toward a more inclusive government. the process of securing the nation's security forces has a

genuine chance for success. meanwhile the prime minister is taking bold steps to improve relations with the neighbors of the country including saudi arabia, the uae and turkey have been responding. i want to under score it's too early to declare a new era in regional relations. but countries that had been drifting aparter or even in conflict with each other, are now in the process of coming together and breaking down the barriers that were create ed. that's helpful to our coalition and it is bad news for dash. beating back the threat is job one for our coalition and our iraqi partners. even if the baghdad government fulfills its responsibilities it will still face a dire challenge because of the events in syria. if you recall. the coalition's decision to

carry out air strikes in syria came in response to a request from iraq for help in defending against dash's brazen attack. to date, we and our arab partners conducted over 500 air strikes in syria, targeting areas where dash had concentrated its fighters, targeting on command and control nodes, finance centers, training camps and oil refineries. our objective is to further degrade dash's capabilities and deny the freedom of movement and resupply that it has previously enjoyed. at the same time, we will continue to build the capabilities of the moderate opposition. i want to thank the members of this committee and many in congress who supported these efforts, supported them strongly. our goal is to help the moderate forces stabilize areas under their control, defend civilians, empower them to go on the offensive against dash and promote the conditions for a

negotiated political transition. recognizi recognizing, as i think almost every person has said, there is no military solution. now, mr. chairman, we all foe that dash is a threat to americans' security and interests. it poses an unacceptable danger to our personnel and facilities in iraq and elsewhere. it seeks to destroy both the short and long-term stability of the broader middle east. it is exacerbating a refugee crisis that's placed extraordinary economic and political burden on our friends and allies in the region. one thing is certain. dash will continue to spread until or unless it is stopped. there should be no question that we with our partners have a moral duty and a profound international security interest and national security interest in stopping them.

that's where the fight now stands. a coalition that two and a half months ago didn't exist is now taking the fight to the enemy. it was cobbled together by strong american leadership and steady intensive diplomacy with country that is disagree on many things but all share an aversion to extremism. i think you would all agree we need to summon the same determination to find common ground here in washingtonment in the hours, days and weeks to come we are determined to work with you. first to develop an approach that can generate broad bipartisan support while ensuring that the president has the flexibility to successfully prosecute this evident. that's the balance. what do we envision specifically regarding an aumf? importantly -- and i think i

will lay out today a clear set of principles that i i hope will be instructive. we do not think an aumf should include a geographic limitation. we don't anticipate conducting in countries other than iraq or syria. to the extent that isil poses a threat to american personnel in other countries we would not want an aumf to constrain our ability to use appropriate force against isil in those locations if necessary. in our view it would be a mistake to advertise to isil that there are safe havens for them outside of iraq or syria. i know this is hotly debated with passionate and persuasive arguments on both sides. the president has been crystal clear. his policy is that u.s. military

forces will not be deployed to conduct ground combat operations against isil. that is what the local partners and allies want. that's what worked best in terms of the iraq experience. that is best for preserving the coaliti coalition. most importantly it is in the best interest of the united states. while we certainly believe this is the soundest possible policy and while the president has been clear, he's open to clarification on the use of u.s. combat troops to be outlined in an aumf. it doesn't doesn't mean we should preemptively bind the hands of the commander in chief or commanders in the field and responding to contingencies that are impossible to foresee. finally with respect with

respect to duration. we can be sure this confrontation won't be over quickly as the president and i have said many times. we understand, however, the desire of many to avoid a completely open-ended authorization. i note that chairman menendez has suggested that a three-year limitation should be put into an aumf. we support that proposal. we support it subject to a provision that we should work through together. that provides for extension in the event that circumstances require it. we think it ought to be advertised as such up front. to sum up, mr. chairman, and members of the committee. i ask for your help in, above all, approving on a bipartisan basis with the strongest vote possible because everybody will read messages into that vote. an authorization for use of

military force in connection with our campaign and that of our many partners in order to defeat a terrible, vicious, different kind of enemy. almost a quarter century ago when i was here, then a 47-year-old senator with certainly a darker head of hair, president george h.w. bush sent his secretary of state james baker to ask this committee for the authority to respond military -- to the iraqi invasion of kuwait. the country was divided. congress was divided. this committee drafted an authorization and it passed the congress with a majority as bipartisan. armed with that mandate. they built the coalition that won the first gulf war. that was a different time. it was a different conflict. it called for a different

response. it was also this senate at its bipartisan best. what we need for you today to strengthen and unify our coalition is that kind of effort. the world would be watching what we together are willing and able to do. this is obviously not a partisan issue. it's a leadership issue. it is a test of our ability and our nation's ability to stand together, a test of our generation's resolve to build a safer, more secure world. i know every one of you wants to see a bold, bipartisan mandate to strengthen our hand to move closer to the goal. thank you. i'm pleased to answer any questions. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i think there is undoubtedly -- and i will let the members express themselves -- there is a

bold bipartisan view that we need to defeat isil and there is no debate about that. virtually every political element of of the spectrum from those considered dovish to those considered hawkish and everyone in between has a common collective goal of defeating isil. i must say they have not sent us five, six months into the engagement in aumf and had the administration sent an aumf maybe we would be better for congressional debate but that's not happened. if we wait for that and it's not forthcoming, by this or any other administration then the absence of getting an aumf from

the executive branch and congress not acting because it's waiting for an aumf from the executive branch would create a de facto veto of pro rate of growth tifs and responsibilities the congress has. there are many of us on the committee for the purposes of understanding the administration's views felt it is congress's responsibility to move forward and define it. no one worked harder in the last two years as the chairman of this committee to make this a bipartisan effort not just on aumf but across the spectrum. i'm proud to say working with a ranking member, we have virtually passed out every major piece of legislation on some of the most critical issues on our time from are the aumf on syria and the use of chemical weapons to oas reform to north korea,

iran, a whole host of issues they have been bipartisan. virtually every nomination, except for three of hundreds have largely been on a bipartisan basis. no one has driven harder in the process. there are some principled views here that may not be reconcilable. it starts with when the administration itself -- and i think you have reiterated what you said earlier in the previous visit that the president has been clear that his policy is that the united states military forces will not calm down combat operations against isil. that's what our local partners and allies want. what's best for preserving the coalition and what's in the best sbre of the united states. some in the congress have a different view. they would have a robust and

open ended use of combat forces in this regard. if the administration wants that, it should come forth and ask for that. based on your testimony and on what the president wants or has said he wants, i reject the characterization of my text as something that is constraining to the president. my text gives the administration the ability to do everything it is doing now. the text makes clear an activity on the grounder for protection of the members of the u.s. arm aed forces would be allowed. support of intelligence collection and sharing would be allowed. activities on the ground to enable air strikes by identifying appropriate targets would be allowed. activities on the ground to support operational planning would be allowed. activities on the ground including advice and assistance to forces fighting asill in iraq

or syria would be allowed. obviously air strikes would be allowed. everything the administration is doing and has said it seeks to do and has said ewiyo using the president's own words which we incorporated into the aumf when he said the president articulated five lines of effort in the campaign to counter isil including supporting regional military partners, stopping the flow of foreign fighters, cutting off isil's access to financing, addressing urgent humanitarian needs and contesting isil's messaging. nothing in the aumf constrains the administration or the president's efforts in any of that regard. indeed, authorizing u.s. ground troops is a subject of debate here. my next precludes america from being dragged into another unlimited and unending war in the middle east.

it does preclude the deploilt of large scale combat forces done in iraq at far too great a cost in my view. unless i hear something differently, how would you have us reconcile the view of some members of the committee who want combat forces to enter into iraq and syria as well. versus the president's own stated view that that's not what we or allies want. >> mr. chairman, first of all, i'm not characterizing your bill negatively whatsoever. it's very close to what the president could support with the exception of a few things i mentioned. those are a few. you have done a good job pulling together a broad authorization.

and there is a fundamental core that the administration would absolutely be supportive of. i mentioned a few things we think we ought to reconcile with work amongst ourselves. with respect to when and timing and all of this i will work with youen on behalf of the administration to get it done. the president has said he wants an aumf. there is nothing in the aumf they want to be the niche yayer tor of that. there is past record of this committee taking the lead and drafting it. we are delighted to have your draft. we think it is a good draft.

there are limitations to the choices to the president. none of us can imagine all of the circumstances that may a ri rise. would a hostage attempt be permitted? what if chemical weapons fall into the hands of isil or are about to and there is a need to keep it from happening because there is a cache that we discover. >> the response would be an open ended authorization not only this president with two years on his term but whoever would be elected by the american people as the next president of the united states for another year the president said this is a multi year campaign. we would get past this administration. we would give a year to the new president to come forth and talk about how the war with should be prosecuted. >> let me suggest thisment again, we want to get a broad

based boat. you said some of this may be irreconcilable. i'm not sure it ought to be. the president could not have been more clear about policy. no one that i know of is in favor of open ended effort. we have just accepted the idea of the limitation of time with some capacity for review that we ought to work on together so it's sensible. it seems to me there is no way to go through the hypotheticals. you wind up tying the hands -- >> it sounds to me like you are making a case for a rather open ended authorization which i would say to the secretary in fact the very elements of what the president described as the strategy has been rejected by members particularly on the

other side of the aisle saying they don't believe it can succeed. that's a question of debate. they believe that's not a strategy that can succeed. they believe that there are those member who is believe the only way to achieve with this strategy is to have combat forces and the wherewithal to issue those. we cannot imagine every single circumstance -- but the use of long term combat troops on the ground which of course is totally different from what the president said. >> what i suggest, mr. chairman, because i think it is a much better way of trying to resolve it because we can't exhaust the hypotheticals. we sit down, very specifically and work through what may be the best balance of this that might be able to bring people from both sides to the table. >> we are always open to that. we have shared several drafts

with the white house chief counsel on this issue as we have with the rest of the administration. to be very honest with you, we get relatively little in response. so if there is a desire to have language that can accomplish the mutual goal, we are certainly willing and open to receive it. in the absence of it, the absence of language is not going to create a permanent veto of the committee's actions or the members of the senate's actions and the administration needs to know that. >> the administration, i want you to know 100%, president obama, he has no intention of sending combat troops in. there is a way to come together to work through how to resolve the difference in a way that isn't open ended and i think putting a time limit on it is pretty -- a serious statement about the administration. >> there is a famous movie that

says show me the money. i say show me the language. maybe we can get there. >> let's work on it. that's the point. >> this conversation is interesting. i would say that i do believe what the secretary just said is true. if we sat down, understood what authority the white house, the secretary of state is seek ing, i believe there is a way for us to craft legislation but more importantly craft legislation that the administration supports. i mean, passing legislation, passing a bill out of the committee or an authorization is one thing. passing something on the house and senate floor is quite another. the only way that's going to happen is if the administration

is firmly behind what we do. i would just say to every member here, i think it is harmful to our nation to begin the process and not see it through to the end. i thought the last effort harmed us greatly. so, again, i understand the frustration by the chairman. i realize he's tried to have witnesses here and it hasn't occurred. i believe sitting down with the secretary and sitting down with the general counsel at the white house as we did last time. i believe we could come up with an authorization that passes the test for the bulk of the members of the party, of this committee and actually enacted into law. let me ask this question -- do you believe the administration today has the authorities that it needs to carry out the operations that it is carrying out? >> very clearly, yes. >> so i will say there are some members of the committee that

believe otherwise. and believe that the best way we can be effective in making ourselves relevant is just to pass legislation that makes what you are doing legal and somehow that are doing legal and somehow that makes us relevant. that's beyond. i don't see how that's the case. it seems that part of what is missing here is an understanding. i don't think i am in the same place that they characterize. i would like to ensure we have an out come here that is worthy of the effort. i go back to what i said and we had multiple efforts since world war ii that did not end well. they cannot produce the out come. that's how you made your name. talking about that. i would say that for all of us

to conduct this situation, it would be good to understand how the administration will go about it. is the strategy evolving, yes or no? the strategy of how you will go about this. are you building on successes right now to try to morpho -- are we going to go against him? do we plan to militarily go against a sat? >> not at the moment, no. >> let me ask the question. do we pla know to go militarily. do we the united states plan at this moment to attack assad as part of this, no. we are asking for isil-oriented authorization. you going to explicitly ask? >> let me finish. we are heavily engaged thanks to

you and the passage of $500 million authorization and now the training and equip effort that all the ground work is being laid now in addition other things you are aware of to support those who are engaged in the fight directly. many of the partners are particularly focused on the a sat component. when i say are we, the united states, no, but as part of the policy. let me try to help ow this. >> help this way. are you going to ever explicitly seek an authorization from congress? >> we are seeking authorization now. >> and if you don't receive that authorization, will you continue the operations? that's an explicit seeking. >> the authorization for what we are doing now in iraq and syria? >> that's correct. >> absolutely.

we will continue it. we believe we have full authority under the 2001 and parts of the 2002. here's where i want to help you if i can. if congress passes a new dash-specific aumf, we will support the inclusion of language in the new one that will clarify that the did she-specific aumf is the basis for the use of military force. i think that will give comfort to a lot of people. number two, we will support the repeal of the 2002 as part of an effort to clarify that the isil-specific aumf is the only source of legitimacy for theus of military force. therefore we would live under the confines of what we pass here. that's a pretty clear and important addition to the

discussion. >> do you plan to send us a draft to work off of? >> we think the cha chairman has a draft and there differences of opinion about parts of it. for instance there is a component that is more of a technical fix that refers to the forces associated. we believe that the fighting alongside language that has been interpreted out of the 2001 aumf is important to a full explanation of how to fight this effectively. there sec tal fixes like that. the mundamential draft that the committee has is a fair starting point. >> you are proposing they engage more fully to develop using

language that has been draft and to edit and change that in such a way that you believe more fully addresses the issue we are talking about, is that correct? >> i'm not proposing it. i'm here doing it. >> what do you think would be the i'm tram to work through it? >> i don't think it will be finished by thursday or friday, but we can engage in the effort over the next days and as we come back in early january, let's. >> do you think it would be helpful? >> we are anxious to operate. this helps everyone. this is important for the congress and the country. >> other than not explicitly asking for an authorization to be candid, i appreciate what you are saying and think it's exactly the way we should go about it.

i know members on the other side feel differentlily about that and feel we should act this week and i understand that and appreciate it and i plan to conduct myself in a way that we don't harden ourselves prior to the first of the year. >> senator, if we could do it, we are not trying to not do it. >> most of us would like to hear from the pentagon. you are talking about boots on the ground. that would be respectful to hear about to work through the origin. i appreciate you coming here and i understand where we are and hopefully will move towards authorization that most of us can get behind. >> thank you for the work you do. i believe president obama has

the authority because i voted to give any president the authority to go out to the outgrowth of al qaeda. i feel he's got it, but having said that, this is a threat to humanity that i don't think human kind has ever seen before. i'm assuming you understand why many of us want to go on record as a former senator, can you understand that, not getting into the details which i think our chairman working specifically with all of us here and in particular senator cain has worked so hard that reflects what the president said he wanted. i won't get into the details because that's our job to do. now it's your job to do something else. you do it well, but we have to do this. i would say from the standpoint of a former senator, you understand then why so many of us would like to go on record on

this threat, is that correct? >> absolutely, senator. i have total respect for it and i understand it and welcome it. the president does too. >> good because let me be clear. >> the president wants an aumf. >> he may have it from the majority and last time it was more of a bipartisan vote. i'm hoping it can be and had to do with syria. it can be enacted with the chairman and ranking member. we set forward that had limitations on it. it had a tremendous impact. we didn't wait to talk and talk and talk. we knew that assad had the chemical weapons. i say to my friend, even without it going to the floor, it had an effect on what happened. i want to talk to you about an amazing hearing i had with the

senator this morning. about isil and the abuses specifically. we had an amazing panel including a woman who is the only member of parliament talk to us about what it's like. it appeared today in the daily beast. it is taken from a question and answer. it's unbelievable. that answers questions of the recruits as they come into isil or dash or whatever they want to call them. can i put this in the record? i will give you a sample. i want people to not be upset and i think we can't not talk about this.

can all women be taken captive? there is no dispute. it is permissible to capture unbelieving women. question, is it permissible to have intercourse with a female captive. answer, it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with a female captive. they quote alla. if you do, you are free from blame. question five, is it permissible immediately after taking possession of her. he, her master can have intercourse with her immediately after taking possession of her, however if she is not a virgin, her uterus must be purified. this is disgusting garbage. i understand your desire to put this off and control. i need to be on record. because of what i am learning.

they say their knife and they will quench their thirst for american blood. the language is evil and vicious and as tom said from your administration, when it comes to being terrorists, they are in a league of their. and there so many other groups out there. he will speak for himself. i made the point today. when i was a kid growing up r, want to make a point that there is a lot of room for plexibility and we don't limit it to four exceptions. we say including these

exceptions. please look at it, mr. secretary. i think it's very important. i didn't vote to go to war in iraq. i treasured the fact that i voted no. this cannot be boots on the ground and another invasion. it can't be. if it is, i won't vote for it. the president is working with others on the ground, particularly the kurds and hopefully we can do it with the syrian moderates. we are on the right track here. i am sad frankly that we haven't been able to work with you to craft something. i understand you want to do more work and bring in more parts. i have no problem with that. i want to say to you, i hope you

understand the passion with which everyone that i talked to view this is question. i hope the administration won't take it as some kind of act of an unconstitutional act if we go ahead without you. it's clear what our responsibilities are. i hope you will take it if we do this and i hope we do to cotify what the period said. instead of being westerned as you think you are concerned about it, hopefully you can embrace it and that you can work with us to make it better, but i don't think we should put this off. i'm done. i have to go on record. my constituents expect me to go on record. >> senator? we appreciate you coming here and we have been anxious to do

it for sometime. they are asking for an aumf. is that correct? is there a reason this has taken so long? >> we asked for it last time we were here. we were prepared po work. mosul fell months ago tomorrow. we took our flights up from one a month to 60 a day. way back. we started pouring in and no one anticipated the fold that took place in mo actual.

that has been pushed back and the point i'm making is the first step was to get a government they could work with. since then we are prepared to work work to do it. >> this is the first time they asked for an aumf. the letter would have been responded to and someone like yourself would have come up and said this is what we wanted to do. what angers me about this, our enemies have to be looking at this and saying look what's going on. this is not a republican democrat thing. this is not a first or a second branch thing. i'm with the chairman and feeling aggravated that this is

playing out like this. we have to pull the wagon together. this is a serious american problem. not a congress versus president problem or a democrat problem. you can understand the frustration on this. admittedly we have a difference in what the rules of each party or the founding fathers were wise when they put in the hands of the 4 declare war. one of the responsibilities is military. we take this seriously and the american people take it seriously. it served us well. let me ask this. if the senator passes and his resolution passes, will the president sign that?

. >> i haven't asked the president because he is hopeful since we generally agree, we can work through the differences that exist and the president wants to preserve the flexibility we need and he is prepared to work to try to arrive at how to do that. >> obviously we have disagreements in that regard. if he believes the 2001 solution gives him the authority, we have a basic disagreement and that's why i think it gave us the first branch of government to do this. i guess the question, what would be your continue as to whether or not the president signed the senator's resolution if we pass this this week?

>> i'm not going to suggest that i share the advice with respect to what his choice is if it came to the president. i think we are missing the point that that's the road we go. from the moment i opened my mouth, and i mean this, as the president. we don't want it to be a bare minimum majority. you want one that way. we agree we have it and we are committed to working towards that. this shouldn't be a partisan vote or hopefully divided. i am convinced we can get there. the term proposal as i say covered a lot of bases. we think the president needs plexibility that is not

reflected in it. i think he is owed that constitutionally. we are not here to make the argument and get into a place where we find a way to have a level of flexibility to meet the needs of something you are not voting for and creating the loophole for the president. i don't think anybody wants to get into a long-term ground operation, but we don't want to hamstring the generals and the commanders and the president who is commander in chief from their ability to make a decision decision they need to make and that doesn't need to take you into a long standing operation. you concerned at all about the mechanics of this? it's highly unlikely we will be able to pass through both houses during this week. now then we are gone until the first of the year.

what message does that make? i'm with you. everybody needs to get behind this. in fashion or another and get to express their continues. here we are now where the request is before us and it's probably not going to get done. how does that affect things? >> to be truthful, i don't believe that's going to be read except for what it is to get the right end result. the fact is that we will continue this operation because the president and the administration are absolutely convinced that and i respect your opinion, we have the authority. no question about it because the 2001 resolution addressed itself to al qaeda and the taliban and associated forces.

the courts have decided this in the cabuous decisions that have been made. all three branches of government have been in agreement. fundamentally that the aumf applies to al qaeda isil- -- i prefer did she because the arab world as a real meaning with that. the fact is that they fully understand that we are on the track we are on. in my judgment everybody knows that this group merely changed its name. it was al qaeda in iraq. it has been from 19 to 2004 or 5. wherever they were we are doing that now and those are all part

of the same. that authorization fits, but we agree. we have an argument here. we agree with you that it's better and i have come to you and said we will absolutely scudle and refine the 2001 for the period of time we need and we will show that this particular authorization is not based on 2001 any longer. it is based on what we are doing here. that's i think a major statement. >> just to remind you that amendments are in order. if those believe that there is a better way to perfect the present text, we can take it up and consider it and debate it. senator? >> thank you very much. i think your testimony has been extremely helpful.

i thank you for that and that the terrorist organization that we are right in the campaign against them and with the use of force to stop this and stop the funding and to stop the ability to cause the type of instability in the region. always stronger when we speak. we are in agreement that we need the military force. the president stated he is doing. i think there is agreement on that. there is agreement that the 2001 and 2002 authorizations and 2002 needs to be repealed and 2001 needs to be motified as it

relates to did she. we are in agreement that. i do think there is a great deal and i thank you and your testimony has helped us. understand that there is a fundamental difference. i do think there is fundamental differences with the separation of powers and branchs of government. i do believe in the war powers act and that congress has the constitution constitutional authorization of force. there have been too many months that have gone by and they have a support to weigh in. i would love to have your response. the reason why i am so concerned about the language that we put into this authorization being too broad, the explanation you have given at the 2001

authorization. several members of this panel, the force against those nations and theyed aed the terrorist attacks 2001 or harvard such organizations and prevent further attacks against the united states by such nations and organizations or concerns. i go throughed reading that and i think back that after coach of our military battles, this could be used in a way that could be used, they drafted that authorization differently. i think it's our responsibility to make sure we draft him

appropriately and recognizing that they have to deal with the uncertainties. they will give you the authority. you can always come back to seek the authorization. i would like to get your response as a former member of the committee and former chairman. we want to work together. we agree on what we are trying to accomplish. in the authorizations that they passed. they allow you to do what they need to do. they won't cover every contingency in the world.

the two areas that seem like they are in disagreement and geography and the use of forces. i would hope that you would gave us clarification so that we can be together. i respect your position and your long history of clarity on the issues in the senate. and the work we did together on these things. i disagree with respect and very respectfully that the 2001 aumf authorized this. what started in 2001, 2002 and you kind of get going. we had a presidential race in

2004, a debate about this issue. the fact is that it was in 2004 that isil came into our focus and was targeted. as what it was. and at that time osama bin laden publicly endorsed the group as the a failiate in iraq. so we had a formal affiliation with al qaeda and that's when we began to take it on. the troops took it on. we were fighting it all that time. it's late to come bang and say we didn't have the authorization to fit it in 2014 when a punch of folks died fighting it and we put our efforts into it. they changed their name.

are we going to suggest that any groups can veto because they changed their name. they gave the terrorist organizations the right to get out from under by changing their name. these are the same people. with the stamp and support by bin. we have been fighting them since 2004. i don't think there is a question about 2001, but we are wasting our time to go back and fight about it. we agree we have to refine it. number two, we need an aumf. number three, we want the exclusive vehicle of authority not relying on that. >> we gree that. where we need help are the two areas where we disagree. >> on the geographic location.

>> there is no communication in one area. it's one area then. it seems like. i'm confused then. that's the only area we are in disagreement. >> two areas. one is in the definition with associated forces. we believe that that requires to you make a definition of ideological association or other affiliation. we believe that gets complicated certainly for a commander in the field or instant decision about retaliation. that's the language used in the interpretation of the 2001 eumf. that's in the application of force. the biggest challenge here is

what is the appropriate level of restraint on the president of the united states as commander in chief and congress's micromanaging of what the military can and can't do in the context of the fight. that's all. none should challenge the prohibition that he doesn't plan to send forces in to be part of this battle against it. do you think there is a way to protect you with notification. >> that's appropriate. we agreed that it's time that they get clear about the authorization. >> we thought it was appropriate that they gave whoever the next president is a year to be able to get in place and get all the people in place. then have some kind of trigger

that requires it to be evaluated. let's work on what they ought to be. that's a restraint on the open endedness. they can do this properly. that's a great constitutional balance. just for the record, i think they recognize this. i shared your concern about the release of the cia report put out by the committee and i'm sure that the state department is taking all the appropriate measures to safeguard the security around the world.

you outlined a clear objective to degrade and destroy isil and all the groups. you also out lined what you seek. your point is you do not believe that you require authorization. you think we act stronger when we have that and i agree with that point. you outlined what they should have no geographic limits. you agree that in a minimum you don't want to telegraph the limits we have. third is that you don't -- you are hoping a time constraint and last but not least it's important to find out that they are broad enough to encompass alongside isil. that is critical because of the group in libya. they are operating in an

ungoverned space. there is no one to fight there. not to mention the emergence or any other groups in the area. here's my question. such a clear idea of what it should look like. as others have done in the past, as least as a starting point to debate, what happened in the ak absence, three proposals that tend to micromanage. i oppose all three. that's not congress's roll to micromanage the tactics. the role is to approve or disapprove or fund or not fund if you don't disagree. the other problem is that it clearly telegraphs to isil and the enemies what we won't or will do. where we will or won't do it and how long we will do it for.

that takes a lot of the advantage away from our engagement. i blame all of this on the lack of presidential direction and leadership. i don't understand why with such a clear idea about what it should contain. as far back as september. here's the other thing that is problematic. this is a complicated conflict. as you talked about repeatedly, it involves a coalition. this includes people that wants to target a sat. they think it will extend to getting rid of assad. how does that fit? these rebel elements are being attacked and they may not be able to take the beating. how does that fit in? we heard testimony that these militia are going into communities and attacking

sunnis, burning down the homes and wiping out the influences. last but not least, the kurds. we heard testimony talking about the role they provided in playing a safe haven. they have been highly effective fighters. all the pieces they failed to put together a strategy that we can understand about how it fitsing to and for the life of me, i don't understand with such a clear idea of what they should look like, you don't have anyone that can type that up real quick so we begin a debate? this committee seeks that presidential leadership on the matter and previous administrations drafted such damage. all of these proposals.

when does the white house intend to send it to us as a starting point for the discussion that you seek? >> senator, i was around here long enough to know even if the president set up language there would be just as many bills and just as much debate on what he set up. let's not kid each other. that's the same debate. if you top the say the president didn't show leadership, they said they could have drafted it two or three months ago. it can go both ways. >> the president is the commander in chief. >> he is beginning to win the fight. >> he has the authority to win the fight, he has to tell us what the fight looks like. >> the sole basis that we would make this. we would make the current state-of-the-art basis. as i have said to you, the president doesn't need to have

the authority to do what he is ago doing. he believes and i believe he has the authority constitutionally and has the authority with respect to the 2001 aumf as i have shown you. that aside, he is going further to try to provide the precise clarity that you are looking for. saying he will make it clear that the aumf has passed and will be the designated thrd with respect to what we are doing. >> where is the damage. i said we have a couple of differences. they are not incidental.

it's fundamental between the two sides of this, i think. what we are suggesting is we try to work that through in a way that balances it adequately for both sides that we could be important. this could in fact with the proper effort become the preliminary down payment on what happens subsequently. that would be a good out come if it were possible. my respectful suggestion is that in answer to your comments about the strategy there and the president has a strategy. the general is leading that effort. and they are doing extraordinary jobs with respect to the military. the delegitimatization with respect to the religious claims and the financing. there a series of efforts that

are under way. >> the administration position, the amf they would like to see is the chairman's language with some amendment. >> with some changes, that's correct. with efforts we work on hopefully to try to work this. >> senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you, mr. secretary for all of your efforts on behalf of this country. much has been around authority of the congress versus authority of the president. this is important for another reason. i think it's about the people to know what's entailed in the use of military force against i till including the scope and

duration. we weaken our count rye rather than strengthen it when we begin a loss like the discussion we are having today. this debate strengthens resolve in this country and our enemies should not assume that this is weakness that we are having, but it's our ability to debate issues of war and peace. if the committee worked and oobd what the administration wants, we could agree to.

i agree with that. we have caulked about a process that would have this hearing today and have time this week to discuss among ourselves and we were hoping to work with members in a classified setting to hear more about what is currently under way with respect to that if we are committed to having that discussion, should we assume that there members from the it was and the communities who could be part of working with us on that kind of a back and forth and is that something

that we could get set because my understanding is that one of the challenges has been what the committee had. i can't imagine that as i said, the administration is prepared to work with you and see what's doable.

>> i appreciate that and it is very important to have this debate for the committee to act and work and see if we can find an acceptable language in a way that is not open ended so that we have as the committee said in the past, we are waiting for language that may never come. let me ask what's going on with the current operations with the fight and renginizing that you may more may not be able to answer this.

can you talk about the extremists and the reports that that opposition is in the process of totally collapsing? is there intention to expedite the training and assistance to the moderate syrian opposition groups? >> the answer is yes, but the opposition in the south is actually doing fairly well right now. it's a problem for the regime because the fight is critical in the north. they are a challenge and it's that we are very, very well aware of. we are, wooing with the turks right now having long discussions in order to work through a number of different

thoughts about how best to deal with that. there is isil up there and the opposition and then you have the regime. the president is considering a number of options with respect to the north, but we are working through the details. the general was trying to focus in and narrow down who could do what how. everybody understands the app sigz. there a number of different opposition groups did not fare about well in their battles. one or two folded in and that is

disturbing, but they survived. they are holding on. they have been the entity that has been fighting and we are doing a number of things to try to make a difference. some of which are a part of the training effort that we want to get under way. the base is complete and ready and we have to get more going and the saudi component needs work to be ready. people are seized of the urgencey and it's important to get a number of things in place as rapidly as possible.

while they are doing well, the north is a challenge. >> i don't want there to be an impression that we have not tried to engage with the administration and have withins and witnesses. they have been here on several occasions and we appreciate that and we -- i don't think he has the wherewithal to talk about this no matter how well he tries. there military questions and this is what we have. for time purposes, let's understand that the first powers notification came to us in june.

then on september 23, we made it clear. the president requested the congress request isil. going back to that president of time, this chair engaged the administration going back to october when we met with the white house counsel toil go overdraft of language. in fairness, we did not get specificity of responses. the same as the we talk about. let's work together. there has been an effort to try to achieve that. i don't think anybody to think there has not been an effort to

think wow, it seems like they are doing rambo by themselves. there has been an effort. requests remain for this hearing as well as classified hearings for others for them to be able to further inform. they were not for whatever reasons, logistics and travel, they were not being pursued. senator johnson. >> secretary, i wanted to paik up and we talked about an authorization of military force and at that point they wanted to engage with the congress and a number of us discussed that and

the white house council was finding a 10 jus connection to previous authorizations and they were after all that time, why hasn't the administration sent us a proposal. the k3457bd commander in chief would want to pursue the actions he thinks are necessary. why have they given us a draft. answer the question of why? >> i think we have get sdraft. why doesn'ty he write it up?

>> there have been about seven meetings. i wasn't present at any of the meeting, but the seven meetings discussed the draft with the chairman himself who went down and talked about the draft. there is no requirement for the president to send it out. as i said earlier, would it have made life easier and changed the debate. it's the same debate. you have language in front of us which we are working with and the president said by and large, it's good. this is the first time that the committee has exert leadership. the president asked for it. >> won't get an answer and that's fine. the reason we need to review past authorizations is there is differences as to whether or not the authorization justifies right now. it's all past tense.

committed or harbored. there is nothing describing him. there is legitimate concern. my understanding in the white house, they have the section between the current use of force and the authorization. world war i and world war ii. they had two and we had six. they gave the president what he needed to defeed the enemy. to bring it to successful

termination. even in the 2001 authorizations, they are authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force. that's what they wanted. the authority to be commander in chief and accomplish the goal. has president obama deviated from the goal to defeat isis? >> not in the least. >> what are is the goal of his process? is it to have a bipartisan authorization? is it to have members put themselves on the record, or is it to produce an authorization that gives the president the authority to accomplish that goal. >> the purpose of the aumf is to

authorize in the new context, the challenge we face with a different extended threat. the discomfort with the relibs in 2001, the discomfort that exists should be clarified. and the american people are oh,ed a 2014 commitment. >> another thing they are owed is a draft to work from. what i would argue is we need an authorization. this is not what it will look

like. we need a discussion about what does defeed lock like? we need an authorization that is good not only for president obama, but a future president. this is not going to be a war or a conflict that ends quickly. i'm looking for what he believes he needs and what the suck suszor might need to grapple with to keep the nation with this grand new threat that is not a nation state, but ideology that wants to till americans. i look forward to the draft. it would make it a lot easier.

>> we are close as we sit here. we have to sit down and work through the differences. in general terms. >> does the president really believe that isis or the new name did she will be defeated in three years? does he believe that's the case? >> the president said this will take a long time. >> why would we limit ourselves? why would you want to hamstring his successor this disfunctional body. we had this hearing in may. this will not be concluded. we will take a show of vote, but this will not give president obama the authority he needs. >> first of all, look. it's hard to have the argument both ways.

there is no way he didn't send it up. that's not the reason. i don't mean to make fun of it. that's not the reason and it's not where it is. the president for 2 1/2 months now have been precouped in trying to focus on putting together the strategy and implementing and building the coalition and doing what we need to do. >> why not? >> i'm not in those meetings. >> they are not giving you a briefing or sending you a memo? >> let me come to your other question. you asked about the time frame, would we limit it. why would we limit it? if you listen carefully, i am not in favor of that limitation without the ability, but i'm trying to balance.

what we are trying to do, all of us must not get dragged down skd we want to see if we can meld the differences into something that is acceptable to both sides. that we did that. we ought to be able to do it now. some have an interest in protecting the open endedness and others who by virtue of experience and bad experience, they want to give a fixed

president of time where you take stock of it. it's not open ended, but so it's a responsible process that it won't end and work out. how does that work? what's the appropriate way to do that? what's the trigger? so that there's a respectful assessment of where we are, how it's been implemented and that it isn't, in fact, open ended and dangerous and dragging us on into an open ended war. so i think that's what we're trying to balance. a lot of that comes o out of the experience of iraq or even afghanistan. people are worried about it. they don't want it to be that again. everybody is sensitive to that. we're just trying to find the appropriate balance between those thing its. the chairman's mark is a good starting place. we should work off of that.

>> thank you, chairman. thank you, ranking member. >> thank you, secretary kerry, for your hard work and leadership in assembling and he helping the coalition and. i believe the american people deserve and our values demand this sort of robust. we have raised important and difficult issues. as you just commented, it's in large part because of the difficult history, the lessons learned from the cost and the reach and the scope and complexity of our conflicts in iraq and afghanistan and the 2001 and 2002 authorizations that were the foundations.

and this is the sort of debate, the sort of give and take between executive and legislative branch. s that our founders imagined. we have to re-examine and reset that relationship. let me also just put on the table an important issue that hasn't been touched on so far. and issues that are important for congress to consider. the wars in iraq and afghanistan according to a report that just came out, there was a total of $1.69 trillion requested to pay for the cost of those two wars. as other members have commented, the congress has two ways to restrain the executive in the conduct of long wars. first, the authorization or declaration of war or how we fund them. and it is my hope, my expectation that we cannot write another blank check for war as was unfortunately the case under previous presidents and previous congresss for previous conflicts. paying for war is the not just

fisc fiscally but also morally responsible. it's not right to expect that the only people who sacrificed would be our troops and families. so expressly having a conversation about how to offset the cost of this war through a reduction in spending will help americans have a more direct connection to the conflict and an awareness of its impact not just in terms of our spending, but our steadily growing national debt. i'm aware this responsibility doesn't fall just on this committee, but the duty of congress as we debate the strategy for this conflict to also look squarely at its cost and how to pay for it. so i will continue to raise that

issue as we move forward with the debate about the iumf. if i might just bare oun down on an issue that i haven't heard a concise answer to. if we're trying to come up with an aumf that recognizes the challenges of the 2002 and that puts some restraint on the use of ground troops and that strikes you as unacceptable in this effort to balance a restraint against an open-mended con applicant while allow iing e commander-in-chief to prosecute this conflict successfully i think one of the reasons their there remains resistance to an open-ended commitment at the conduct of any kind is we haven't had a full debate at the strategy. we can't go home and clearly defend what the strategy is. although you laid out the five core areas in which there's ongoing and effective activity. could you accept that initially had a elimination on large scale ground. combat. but required an examination of strategy and reconsideration to remove that limit nation on the scope to conduct this and

prosecute this one. >> i think by implication the way the administration is looking at it, there's some restraint because the president has been pretty clear and there's no current scenario he would imagine that if you're putting a restraint in time you're not getting into a long-term activity. so the three years is, in fact, the best automatic limit nation of long-term. and if you have the right kind of formula for the trigger or for the -- i can think of several of them, but we could certainly sit down and bang out the ways that interest that create a sufficient level of review so you're certain you're going to get your whack at it but it's not self-limiting to so

the wrong message is sent and you're not going to prosecute the war. . some people still have struggled with that terminology. that's where it is. so i would suggest there is a balance and i think we can work that out. i don't think you have to have the ground troop limitation by virtue of the three-year peace. >> mr. secretary, i join many of colleagues in express iing a desire for a bipartisan aumf and a proud discussion and debate about strategy and what the direction is going to be, but i want to make it clear that i support the conduct, but i think they are a real and present threat to the united states and i do think we should be supporting our armed forces. but weeks have turned into months since the notifications came up here and i think this congress needs to be more actively engaged in being accountable for authorizing this

conduct. it was announce d e today that 1500 will join 3100 americans in the train and mission in iraq to tra train. how else will they assist in a previous conflict in the region, many of our partners contributed significantly to the financial cost of the operations. will we be complimenting. i was encouraged by your comment that many of our allies and the administration believe that nonu.s. ground troops are most likely to be effective in this conflict and in this context. >> the answer, senator, is that -- the answer is yes. a number of countries are

committed to providing financial input as well. some of them that depends on what we choose to do. but the answer is yes, and already are in some place. for instance, the training facilities in some of their territory, they are taken care of. in addition to that, there will be a variance as to who is doing what. five arab nations are flying with us in the missions over syria. saudi arabia, united elm rats and qatar. and in addition to those five. whether it's to training, providing direct assistance, providing humanitarian assistance, providing equipment, providing arms. and in some cases presence on

the ground in the case of a number of our close allies in the actual training activities. australia is a case and example, great britain, others are doing that. there's a full fledged broad based engagement. >> thank you, thank you for being here, mr. secretary. you're a very good diplomat. you've mentioned that the president doesn't need to outline his own aumf because we have one here. but then in your testimony, you state pretty clearly, at least, diplomatically, that we need to do far better than that. and senator johnson, if you go

beyond that, i'm looking at a few of them here, 1955 with defense of taiwan, president authorized to employ the armed forces as he deems necessary. look at 1957 in the middle east. authorized to cooperate with and assist any nation or group of nations. 1964, southeast asia, take all the necessary measures to repeal any armed attack. then we come to this one, where the president is authorized to subsection c. i would submit that's not just very comforting and not very strong aumf. more accurately may be an authorization for the use of not too much military force. when you signal to our enemies and to our allies that we're not going to use ground troops.