senator coops that would make importance of finding a way to paying the way. it would sunset the 2001 aumf after three years of enactment unless it has been reauthorized. this period of duration mirrors the text of the isil's specific authorization. so, i just want to say that on that point, it is -- i think it's tremendously important that we work together in a serious way to refine the 2001 aumf. and i think a three-year window is a responsible amount of time in which to do that. i support the three-year sunset because i think without a forcing mechanism we would find it virtually impossible to come to an agreement on how to refine that 2001 authorization.

i'm willing to entertain comments. >> mr. chairman, i'm so respectful of every member of this committee. each of us has very strong views. some of them are nuanced and some of them are quite different, but i just want to go on record, this is a conscious issue. i also am very respectful of the relationship you have goped -- you and ranking member have developed in soon to switch gavels. and it makes me very proud because i think it's so key. these are difficult moments, but it's not -- they're not moments where we get angry at each other. we have to direct our anger at the people who are cutting off the heads of our people and who are taking girls as sex slaves and the rest. and we may differ on how to go about and take the fight to them and this is a day i've been looking forward to. i'm one who believes the president does have the

authority under the aumf i voted for. that does not speak for most democrats. but i still believe we need to update that. so i am grateful to my chairman. this took a lot of guts on his part because this is really in many ways a standoff not only within the parties in the committee which is understandable given our differing views, but also with the administration who i think we could all admit with senator kerry i didn't see -- sense that he was thrilled that we were going forward. so mr. chairman, you are just standing up for the rights and the per ogtives of members of the united states senate and the congress. so i appreciate it. i'm strongly supporting your mark for two reasons. one, congress can't sit back and take no action in the face of this evil that we see in isil. a threat to all humanity as one of the administration witnesses

said at the hearing senator paul and i had, when it comes to human rights abuses, they are in a class of their own. and we cannot sit back and not speak out against them. and the second reason, after years of a war in iraq that believe was based on false pretense, which i believe killed and maimed thousands of our best and brightest, i want to be clear that i draw a line in the sand as far as another ground war. and i think that those two messages are important. basically this aumf cotfies the president's strategy put together. but i find it to be -- that's an understatement, i find it to be something that i can embrace. let me tell you why specifically. we have 60 countries on our side. we have the uk, australia, france, germany, canada to name a few of our allies, but we also

have saudi arabia, baja rain, uae, jordened an that's just a few of the 60 countries. if you read the president's comments, quote, going forward we won't hesitate to take action against these terrorists in iraq or sere yarks but this is not america's fight alone. he says, i won't commit our troops to fighting another ground war in iraq or in syria. it is more effective to use our capabilities to help partners on the ground secure their own country's futures. we will use your air power. we will train and equip our partne partners. we will advise and assist and lead a broad coalition of nations who have a stake in this fight. this isn't america versus isil. this is the people of that region versus isil. it's the world versus isil. now, i thoroughly agree with that. if there are folks who think we ought to put our troops on the ground in another ground war so

be it. speak out now. offer an amendment. that's your right and i respect it, but i strongly disagree with it. and i think you have, mr. chairman, and all the work with us, you have crafted something that while everyone of us would write it a tad bit differently, in general we stand with the world against isil. and i'm very happy that we're doing it. very last point. our ranking member soon to be chairman said this is going nowhere, why are we doing this? i think the chairman answered it, but that's what people said when we work together in a bipartisan way on this syria air strikes. people said, why are you doing it? it's 6:00 a.m. in the morning. why are you meeting? why are you doing this? at the end of the day, we had an impact on the ground and syria got rid of its chemical weapons. so i think what we do here matters. so i want to send that signal today. we take the fight to isil and we don't use our ground troops to do it. >> now, we have a vote going on, but i think there's still time

for at least one more member to speak and then i would recess, have the one vote, come back and then finish the rest of our work. is there anyone who else --. any other members? we'll recess and i'll recognize senator koons. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to underscore how proud i am to be a member of this committee under the leadership of senator menendez and senator corker. this committee has operated in the best traditions in the senator foreign relations committee and the united states senate and i think we're a stronger nation as a result of it. i thank both of you for your extraordinary leadership. i just really want to underscore a couple points. first, president obama and former presidents would probably agree that they don't need congress to pass any further

authorizations that they have all the power that they need. so, i look at this resolution, this carrying out the appropriate oversight responsibility that we have. one of you mentioned vietnam and the expanded u.s. involvement in a war. i think this resolution helps prevent that because president obama's interpretation of the 2001 korgs would allow him to use our military force including ground troops pretty much anywhere in the world against any extremists. and i think that's why it's important for us to act. this is a specific authorization in regards to our military operations against isil, consistent with the president's military operations, the international coalition's needs and understanding of the u.s. military involvement. it makes it clear there's no ground combat troops and i think that's important. it requires reports as to the strategies being used by the administration and international

partners as well as providing us financial information how the war is being cost and paid for. and it requires also the reports on the international partners and provides for a three-year sunset unless reauthorized. now, i heard my colleague senator corker talk about the repeal sunset on the 2001. the bill does repeal the 2002 and i think we all agree the 2002 iraq specific rez lugts is no longer needed. in regards to the 2001, let me just state the obvious. those of us who were in congress in 2001 never envisioned that that authorization would still be utilized today the way it was utilized in 30 separate military operations. we were interested in going after those who attacked our country on september 11th. it was not the only piece of legislation that was passed during that period of time. we passed to give our civil

authorities the intelligence tools they need the patriot act. fortunately we put sunsets on the patriots act. as a result, that's been refined over the years including most recently. if we did not have that sunset on those laws, i dare say it would be difficult for us to come together as to how we can make sure we have the contemporary tools we need in order to fight the terrorists in this country. we all acknowledge that we're going to need tools against terrorists, including our military operations. we should refine it to meet the current needs. that's our responsibility as congress. and that's why a three-year period for refining the isil campaign militarily as well as our war against terrorists is not only appropriate i think it's required. i'm pleased the chairman has included that in his chairman's mark. senator kerry's interpretation and the obama administration's

interpretation of the 2001 authorization, which said that we could use our military against those nations, organizations or persons the president determines planned, authorized, committed or aided terrorist attacks that committed on september 11th, 2001, in other words against al qaeda, and is using it now against isil even though al qaeda said isil is not a branch of al qaeda, we have no organizational relationship with it and the group is not responsible for its actions. all i point out is, it's a stretch. we have a responsibility to clarify that as part of congress. now, yes the administration is not all together where we are on this resolution. they would like to have broader authority. secretary kerry talks about unpredictable circumstances and wants to make sure that they have maximum flexibility. are we surprised? president nixon vetoed the war

power's act. it's our responsibility to speak with specifics. the president has article 2 powers. the president has the right to come back to congress if he needs additional authorization. and i dare say we will respond promptly to any such requests. so, i believe this is in the best traditions of what the responsibility we have not only to authorize the use of force but to oversight that authorization. that's our responsibility. and for those who believe the pursestrings are adequate to deal with that it's not. we all know that. it's this committee's responsibility, the senator foreign relations committee to recommend to the full senate what the appropriate authorize should be on the use of military force. and i think what the chairman has brought forward carries that out in the best tradition of

giving president obama and future presidents the authorize to use our military but the restricted and to have oversight so that we make sure it's used consistent with the congressional authorization. >> if i could say one thing? >> i know we're going to leave and go vote. and i realize that some of this may dissipate. i don't think there's any difference on the two sides about our strong desire to take the fight to isis. i think everybody understands there's no difference there. i think the concern is that we haven't done our oversight. we haven't had the officials that are going to conduct this operation come in and even share with us how they're going to do that. i don't want to embarrass anyone, but i don't think there's anyone on this committee, people who spend hours and hours and hours in intelligence briefings that has yet heard the administration come forth with anything that's

plausible. and so to me, that's the problem. we're rushing to make something legal for those who think it's illegal, we're rushing to make something legal as if that makes this relevant. but what makes this relevant is to have the administration come forth, lay out what they're going to do, let uz tease that out, let us understand and authorize it. mr. chairman, i thank you. i appreciate you letting me. >> thank you. let me just say on that note and then we're going to recess. my intention is to go directly to the floor vote as one vote and come back. so pild urge all members to come back who want to be present and make comments and/or offer amendments. we've had now two hearings by the secretary of state. we had an intelligence hearing that included members of the department of the defense as well as the person in charge of our coalition. and in addition to that, the armed services committee has held hearings of which i have

looked at its transcripts since i am not the member of that committee although there are several members here who are members of that committee and have been informed of the information that is received there. now, one would argue that despite all of that, one may not fully gleam what is the totality of a strategy, but it isn't a totally uninformed view at this point in time. this committee stands in recess subject to the call of the chairman.

we will come to order. i'll ask the members and those in the audience to take their seats at this time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would just like to respond to senator corker. but before i do, let me add my appreciation to both you as chair and senator corker as ranking member for the way you've led this committee and for the inclusiveness with which you have treated all of the members. i have very much appreciated that and your working together and your encouraging of all of our working together i think has

been very helpful. thank you very much for that. what i wanted to say, though, in response to your comment, senator corker, is that i guess i would disagree that we haven't heard a strategy from this administration. i think there may be disagreement as to whether that strategy is the correct one, but i feel like -- and i do serve on the armed services committee so i may have had a few more classified briefings and other hearings than some other members of this committee, but i do feel like we've heard a strategy. as i said, we may not all agree on the strategy, but i do think there is one in place. so, this is for me this authorization is not about trying to address that strategy. it's about trying to make sure that we do exercise our right of oversight and that in particular for me i think it's important to weigh in and limit the ability

without coming back to congress to put tens of thousands of troops on the ground to fight isil. so, i very much appreciate the opportunity and the debate that we're having right now. >> mr. chairman -- >> senator corker? >> if i could. i understand there's a difference of feelings there. just for what it's worth, i think we have a pretty good sense of some of the sensibilities that people are trying to express in this aumf that are going to vote for it. i also think the administration may have a pretty good sense of a way to bridge that. so at the end of the day, in spite of those comments and i would like to hear a little bit more about how we are actually going to move ahead. we really don't have a way to deal with the ground at present. i would like to understand more fully how we're going to go about doing that. but just know that as we take

this up, this is one step in the process. and i hope that together we're going to figure out a way to bridge the differences in such a way that people can come together on authorization that we feel good about and that we can actually try to pass in both the house and senate. >> i appreciate that. thank you. >> senator johnson? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i actually have a number of things i would like to talk about. but let me say at the heart of my opposition to this particular authorization use of military forces, i don't believe it really commits us to victory. i don't think and i don't think i would ever vote for an authorization for use of military force -- in other words, put the finest among us at risk of their lives if we as a congress if the commander in chief isn't fully committed to victory. an example that has always weighed in my mind, when president obama announced the surge in afghanistan and in the same speech said he was going to withdraw in two years.

that really provides some comfort to our enemies. and in our testimony in senator kerry's testimony, i asked him the question, does the president really believe we can defeat isis in three years? no. why would we want to put that restriction? why would we authorize the use when we're not fully committed to victory? i just think that's the wrong thing to do. another deficiency is we're really not defining what defeat is which i would argue is -- what is the end goal? what is the achievable goal we're trying to achieve? as i look through the authorization, about the only goal i see stated in here is to counter the grave threat to regional stability. that's not the same as degrading and ultimately defeated isis. i will say that was a deficiency of the 2001 authorization. we authorized the use of

military force but we did leave it pretty open ended. and i agre with those individuals who certainly have a question as to whether or not that current authorization really is applicable in this situation. now the way we handled it in world war, we should look back to the past history, again, totally different circumstances, a nation state, but there actually was a stated goal. it was to bring the conflict to a successful termination. it didn't necessarily totally define that. back then against nation states pretty much understood what that was, unconditional surrender. now we have a totally different circumstance. i will thank the chairman for holding this. i think this is a very good discussion. i think it's a necessary discussion. we're not going to bring this to conclusion, but this is a good first step. and as we reopen the discussion, reopen the debate next year, i'm really going to encourage my

colleagues here to go -- if you're going to have a strategy, there's really a process to developing one. you have to recognize reality. sometimes that's not very easy to do. by the way, we had an excellent hearing the other day with senator boxer and the witnesses that the majority called described the reality. let me give you a couple of their statements here real quick. the witnesses said that isis is gaining strength. they're worse than ever. bombing is not doing much. we're having very ineffective aid efforts. the military mission is not sufficient. isis will be around for the foreseeable future. now that's painting a pretty ugly reality that we're not really recognizing in this authorization. so, if you're going to have a strategy, you have to recognize reality and set yourself an achievable goal. people need to understand what is the goal. again, president obama has laid

it out, degrade and ultimately defeat isis but we haven't described what defeat looks like and i would argue that then limiting actions. first of all, not particularly wise. i don't know why you would ever signal to your enemy what you will or will not do to defeat them. but you're limiting that activity. so i would really urge as we continue our discussion in the next congress, let's understand reality, which is going to require hearings. it's going to require the participation of this administration. let's understand what the achievable goal is. let's understand what it will take to achieve that goal and then let's craft the authorization for y use of military force, specifically to achieve that goal, not tie the hands of the commander in chief who is going to be charged with that awesome responsibility of committing the finest among us, putting their lives at risk. let's make sure the commander in chief, the president of the

united states has the full authority to achieve the goal that we all agree on. that's the way to proceed in this. again, i appreciate this hearing and i appreciate the thoughtful discussion debate. >> thank you, senator johnson. before i recognize senator coons. we are committed to victory. we are collectively committed to a victory to defeat isil. we say that in the second page of the aumf in the fifth where as, it is the policy of the united states to work with regional and global allies and partners to degrade and defeat isil and goes on to talk about other elements of how that is achieved. now, there is a difference between a commitment to victory and what some would be committed to maybe an endless war with tens of thousands of ground troops. that can be a fundamental difference in divide. but a three-year authorization ultimately creates the greatest

accounting of the administration this or any future one to the congress to come back knowing that that authorization can be renewed. and may very well will need to be renewed if the fight has not been fully achieved to degrade and defeat isil. but without that end date, there would be no real accountability no matter how much we try, only the necessity of an administration to have that authorization and congress buy-in would do that. i don't see the three years of saying we're only going to fight you in three year. in three years we're going to make sure we defeated you or we're going to recalibrate to make sure we do whatever is necessary to defeat you. i think there are different ways of looking at that three year. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to all the members for your engagement in this vital and important debate. i think how we ensure our security, how we demonstrate our collective commitment to

fighting and defeating isil and how we sustain our core values is by engaging in this open and democratic debate. i for one think we should stay and continue this debate until we have crafted an aumf that can succeed in being taken up and passed by the congress and that we should have on the table in this debate and discussion another issue that hasn't yet been raised. i filed an amendment to the aumf for this debate and discussion today, a provision that would call for a plan for how the funds required for the conduct of our war against isil would be offset through reduced spending, through increased revenue or both. all of this debate, this discussion today about revision to the aumf from 2002 to 2001 to geographic restrictions or scope or strategy or time restrictions are done in the context of a nation that is weary of 14 years of war in iraq and afghanistan

and weary of not understanding at the outset the scope and the costs and the challenges in front of us. i think all of us share a goal that we secure from the administration a clear strategy in what is a very difficult region where clear strategies are hard to come by and that we have a sense of the scope and cost of the conflict which is already under way and which i believe we should authorize. paying for our war against isil is not just fiscally but also i think morally responsible. it is not right to expect the men and women of our armed forces and their families, our veterans to war. how whether he afford a war. so i would like to say i'm grateful to the chairman for including in the manager's amendment a provision that calls on the administration not just to present a military strategy but a fiscal strategy so that those of our constituents who question what is our path

forward can have a full and informed insight into the strategy, the costs, the scope and the duration of this. as we try to work together to achieve a broadly supported bipartisan aumf in this debate and in the debates to come, it is my hope we will also keep right in front of us how we will pay for that war. >> senator rubio and then senator durbin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am grateful we're having this discussion. this is of extraordinary magnitude not just because of the national security implications but because of the power that we would be giving or authorizing the president to pursue which is perhaps the most important power he has and that is to commit men and women into combat. i think it's important at the outset to remember why we're in this to begin with. isil despite the horrifying acts that we've committed and we've been outraged by them, the reason why this nation is engaged in this conflict is because we have correctly sum miezed and concluded that left unchicked this group poses an

unacceptable risk to the national security of the united states. this is perhaps the best armed and best funded terrorist organization in the history of the world who seeks not simply to carry out insurgencies and attacks but to control territory. and their aims are not simply limited to syria and iraq. they seek to establish a kal fate that extends into places like lebanon and jordan and potentially israel as we know today and obviously that would be a big fight but that is something they would endeavor to do. we see them springing up in places like north africa and southeast asia. and so the point is that left unchecked, if we didn't get involved and if we're not involved, this group will destabilize. many of our regional allies and they would do so rapidly. i don't think i need to convince anyone on this committee how important our relationship is with jordan. what an important position jordan plays in the region and what could very quickly happen to jordan had isil's progress

that they were making through iraq gone unchecked. so we've concluded and rightfully so and the president's concluded that this group left unchecked poses an unacceptable risk to the national security of the united states and therefore they must be destroyed and defeated. that is the objective. senator johnson was talking about that a moment ago. but when i read through this aumf and some of the amendments that are filed here, it strikes me that what we're saying they were to be approved, we are committed to defeating isil but only if we can do it with air strikes alone or we are committed to defeating isil but only if we can do it in three years or in some cases in one year. we're committed to defeating them but only if they stay where they are right now or if they stay organized the way they are right now. i recognize that doesn't fully describe the manager's amendment and what the chairman has propo proposed. and i just think what that basically says is unless we can beat them with only air strikes in three years and where they're

currently located then isil gets to stay? and that to me sounds like an unacceptable position for us to take. by the way, i am not calling for a ground war. we all hope that the ground forces currently there now, the iraqi army, the militias, although some of them have big problems that we should be concerned about as well, some of the rebel groups that are engaged, we would hope that regional partners engage in this con flikts, turkey is more quickly impacted, we would hope they would get more involved, but if they do not, if the ground forces that are available today are unsuccessful, does that mean that isil gets to stay and continue to grow? if you want to take this to a level of absurdity, if we pass this proposal, what we're saying we're not allowed to use ground troops but you could use nuclear

weapons. no prohibition against nuclear weapons. i imagine some would say that amendments are in order. so perhaps someone will offer that. but my point is that this is a big problem for us. because if we put forth something that basically says we are willing to fight isil but only up to a certain point after which they get to stay potentially, i think we created a big problem for ourselves in terms of putting together the kind of coalition that we're going to need to succeed. my last point, congress does play an important role in all of this. here is the role we play. the role we play is in deciding whether or not we should go into war. but our role is not to decide how to go to war. our goal is to decide whether or not to go to war and to pay for it, to fund it. it is up to the commander in chief to carry out this war and to tax the associated therein. if he does a poor job, of course the united states would pay a price. that's why we have elections and oversight. i think we've extended -- this

effort to micromanage, the tactical pursuit of the objectives that we've laid out is a grave error. and i hope that happened we'll continue to work on this. i echo the sentmenteds of senator coons and others. we can stay here as long as possible to achieve the objective that we all agree is so important, the degre dags and defeat of isil. thank you. >> senator durbin? >> thanks, mr. chairman. this is my last markup in this committee at least for now. i hope some day to return, but i'm glad it's on an issue and subject of this historic moment. i can recall many sleepless nights as a congressman and senator contemplating decisions on war knowing that at the end of the day my vote would result in the loss of life, even american life fighting valiantly

on our side. i'm glad we're taking this seriously and we have good attendance to debate it. it is true that the commander in chief has authority and we give it to him or her if the case may be, to protect our nation. there's never any question that a president needs to respond quickly to protect our borders, to protect our people, to protect our vital national interest. but the constitution goes on to say that when it comes to war, congress -- let me take that back. when it comes to war, the american people through congress will make that decision. it is a limitation on the power of the president. it is a limitation on the commander in chief. it is written in the constitution that we have all sworn to uphold and defend. by our nature, we limit this commander in chief. that is who we are. and if we fore sake that constitutional responsibility and say to a president, it's yours. report to us how much it costs.

i think we have walked away from a basic responsibility. we tie the hands of the commander in chief regularly when we exercise our constitutional responsibility. i think about the cost of this war, there's one cost that has not been mentioned. beyond the cost of human life, 4,484 have died in iraq, hundreds of thousands came home injured, a lesser number in afghanistan but still tragically high numbers. we will pay for those two wars for a long, long time. and we should. we promised those men and women we would stand by them. so when it comes to cost of war, i know we're all sensitive to that, but i think about it and i think that's why we need to sit here and make this an important and relevant debate. there was a moment after 9/11 when someone in the white house under another president said the most important thing we can do now is to invade iraq.

we need to show those people in the middle east once and for all just what america has to offer if you want to challenge us. look what happened. look what happened. after years of engagement there, searching for weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist, after deposing a terrible dictator, we made another enemy, iran, even stronger. and as we left the country, realized they couldn't maintain their own, we had to come back. this is not -- this debate is not in my mind about the current isil crisis. we all agree they're blood thirsty, ruthless people and they need to be stopped. but if you put it in the context of history and get to altitude and look down, this conflict started 35 years ago in my mind with the deposition of the sha

of iran. that triggered extreme islam in our time, in our generation. and it has been unfolding ever since in countries in stages and it will continue to. as the people of the islamic faith fight within their own ranks about true orthodoxy, as countries question whether or not their first allegiance is to their view of god or to a nationality. as they challenge boundaries written by colonial empires decades ago that many of them don't believe are valid. so as we engage now in this conversation about isil today, trust me, i'm afraid 10 or 20 years from now another senator foreign relations committee will be viewing the latest chapter in this unfolding saga. i think the president is right in one key element and i hope

we'll give him credit, he has built a coalition, it is no longer the united states doing it alone. he has said i am going to engage the arab and muslim states. if you do not share our belief that there should be stability in your region and if you're not prepared to sacrifice your lives and your treasure to achieve it, we cannot do it. the united states cannot do it alone as we have shown. so, i think it's important we have this debate. i would hope and it probably won't be the case, that at the end of the day, we will have a common view on what we should do here. i don't view a three-year deadline as the end of any commitment. i view it as the renewal of our responsibility to reswlu has occurred and under the constitution decide on behalf of the american people how we go forward. >> senator murphy and then

senator cain. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i think there's much more unanimity than disagreement on this committee in the sense that i think senator rubio better than anybody and more sus tingtly put to us what the threat is and why we are united today in a way that we frankly have not been in some of our previous authorizations behind the idea that there is an imperative necessity to authorize military action. our disagreement is other the wording of the authorization. i don't share the idea that we don't have enough information to make this decision. i think there's going to be disagreement with the strategy that the president has put forward and there certainly a lot of dissatisfaction on this committee as to the specific witnesses that have been brought forth but in a variety of different forms, i think just personally, that i have enough information with which to make this decision. and i also don't want us to set up what is an impossible expectation. the idea that the president is

ever going to be able to put forward a plan that gives any member of this committee 100% assurance that we have what it takes to defeat this enemy. why do we knee? some very smart people with unlimited resources over the past decade have been trying to root out sunni extremism in the very region. at the end of the period of time,@not better, it's worse than it ever has been before. it's very difficult to take on this enemy from thousands of miles away. and so, i think all of us are going to ultimately not be satisfied with the plan and the strategy that's put before us because we can't ever have that level of assurance. i think that we're here for a number of reasons because we think this is important but also because many of us, myself included, believe that the president today is operating outside the bounds of the constitution. i believe that. i believe that the war power's authorization has expired. i certainly understand we can wait and do this in january.

we would be abdicating our responsibility. the president i believe right now doesn't have the authority under the constitution to launch this action. but as senator durbin so aptly said, our responsibility is not just simply to declare when we need to open hostilities. our job is to learn from history and put parameters and restrictions around that authority when we think we have learned such lessons that it rises to the necessity of doing so. i think there's two clear lessons over the last two years. one is that an open-ended authorization will never expire. we are going into the 15th year of the 2001 authorization being used today in a way that very few members of this committee or of this congress ever contemplating. and by putting a three-year expiration or one-year expiration, we aren't saying we're going to walk away from the conflict.

if it doesn't work during that period of time, we're saying we think there needs to be some forcing mechanisms to allow us to re-evaluate the policy if it isn't working. i think that we should learn some lessons from that when we're authorizing wars moving forward. we don't sign peace treaties any longer. we don't have neat, tidy ends. i think the second lesson is that the massive deployment of ground forces in the middle east end up creating more enemies than it ends killing. i think that's an air-tight take it to the bank lesson of the last ten years. and i think that's why i feel so strongly about putting this language in the underlying authorization. it serves as a crutch so that domestic governments don't need to undertake the political reforms that ultimately will be what roots out extremism, like what we're seeing in syria and

iraq and ultimately it provides bulletin board material for people to fight an endless war against the united states. i think we crafted a common sense restriction that has plenty of allowances for the kind of insertion of temporary ground forces that may be necessary to protect american personnel on the ground, conduct rescue missions, do counter terrorism activities. but i think if we are doing our due diligence as a committee, we need to accept that we have learned lessons over the last ten years that we need to put into law when we contemplate an authorization of this force and effect. so, i thank the chairman for bringing this to a markup fod. i appreciate all the great work that the ranking member has done. i assume this conversation will continue into next year, but i actually think what we've done -- i said this in your hearing the other day, has been a forcing mechanism to get members of this committee to really think about what we could

support in an authorization moving forward. even if it doesn't get to the president's desk by the end of the year, i think that we have sped up our ability to work in a bipartisan way next year perhaps to pass an authorization that does live up to our constitutional responsibility. >> senator corker? >> with that said, i mean, i think the tone of what the senator just mentioned, the fact is we all know that this is a process that will continue. i would like to understand the administration's concerns about the language. it seems to me that seeing language offered by them and trying to understand why they have concerns about the associated forces language be helpful. i don't know why we would want to vote on something and not understand what the issue is there. they obviously have concerns about the limiting components. i would like to understand that even though i know the chairman has done a really good job of trying to state exclusions, but

i hope we can do that. i think we will do that. and i think we ought to go ahead and vote and move on with this and know that this is something that will continue as we move into this next year. >> i appreciate that. i think there's only one or two more members that want to speak. senator cain? >> just briefly. thank you for doing this. you've led it ably. this is so necessary that we're doing this today. i speak for myself and i speak for others and i certainly speak for virginians. we're so connected to the military in my state as you all are in your jurisdictions. it's necessary for us to do our job after four-plus months of basically a unilateral war. there's differences of opinion certainly between the executive and us and some within this body but many of us passionately believe there's no legal basis for the military action that's under way.

1,100 air strikes and now nearly 3,000 advisers either on the ground or on their way to be on the ground in iraq. we need to do this to do our duty constitutionally and we need to do it to support our troops. i think of the troops who are there who will be missing their holidays with family as we are adjourning. we send them a message if we stand up and say this mission is worth it. but if we don't stand up and say this mission is in the national interest, we send them a message, too. i think the message they get by congressional inaction on something like this is a powerful one and a debilitating one. we need to stand against isil as a committee and as a senate and even if we can just do it as a committee and start that process, it is solitary. the treatment of the aumfs is important. this mark would repeal the iraq '02 authorization which the administration supports. they've testified to that here in may. and that would be important so that there aren't duelling iraq resolutions out there that would

create any ambiguity. and second, part of the chairman's mark amendments, it would put a three-year sunset in place where we would do exactly what the president asked the nation to do in may of 2013 in the speech to the national defense university, we need to be taking the '01 aumf and figure out how to refine and improve it. the three-year timetable gets substance abuse a discussion in a way. i believe we will find a resolution. on the ground troop, some wonder if it's legal, i circulated fairly extensive large article reviewing the legality of such restrictions. they've been litigated up to the supreme court in the legality of such restrictions are clear because the framers took the whole power to declare away from the president, prior to the constitution of the united states being formed, the declaration of war was executive. it was for the king, monarch, the executive. we took it away uniquely, still

to some degree uniquely and put that power in congress. but there's another reason why the ground troop limitation is important and i'll just put it on the table because we're going to have a process about this. first the president committed to the american public. looked them in the eye five or six times and said there will be no ground troops. has that policy changed when i asked senator kerry, he gave a one-word answer which he doesn't often do, no, it hasn't changed. but importantly, i would encourage you to go read the speech that secretary ro gert gates who served six presidents at west point, he gave a speech at west point and he said the next time a secretary of defense suggests to a president that we put significant american ground troops into a land war into the middle east, the president should ask the secretary of defense to go see a psychiatrist. he has said similar things in

his out biography. it is not just a limitation because it makes us feel better, it's a limitation that expresses the thought of very important people about what ground troops do, don't do and in some instances can even harm us in this region. so i would encourage folks to read that. i think the no-ground troop limb dags -- it isn't an limitation, it's an authorization makes a great deal of sense strategically and militarily. i look forward to this vote and i hope we might find a time to get a floor vote on this in some way and i thank the chairman for indication we may look. >> is there any other member who wishes to sneak. >> mr. chairman, i would just say, i plan to offer an amendment today but i will withdraw it. i just wanted to get some language out listening to the secretary of state the day before yesterday, it struck me when he was saying that i like the chairman's mark.

it's kind of like saying, i like the male but not the entree. the central part of the chairman's mark is the limitation on use of ground troops. so i agree with everyone who says we really don't want to use ground troops there, but to put in an aumf that the congress decides the limitation there, it's fine for the president to say it, he can change his mind at any time if conditions warrant it. but to have it in a aumf i think is not the right way to go. i have proposed language that doesn't go there. it also i think takes into account where we are and where we should be. but i'll just have it for the record and withdraw my amendment. thank you. >> senator murphy? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the ranking member as well for helping to make it possible for us to debate this

most important of all decisions which congress must make, which a country must make. i want to thank you, senator i want to thank senator cane, as well. i think this is a very important moment in congressional history. i want to thank each of you for helping to create this moment and this debate. i voted for the authorization for the use of military force in 2001. i voted for the authorization for the use of military force in 2002. i never envisioned, nor did the american people ever envision, that we would still be engaged in conflicts related to those two authorizations so long ago.

we now have had 2.5 million americans serve in iraq and afghanistan. 400,000 of them have served on three or more tours of duty in those two countries. 6,600 of them have died in those conflicts. 670,000 of them have now been

actually classified as disabled. 270,000 of them are now, in fact, being treated for posttraumatic stress disorder. this is an important debate. this war -- these two authorizations have now triggered a cost of at least $6 trillion to the united states of america. $6 trillion. $1 trillion in medical care for those who served. the total federal debt is $18 trillion, $6 trillion authorized in 2001 and 2002. and we did not raise taxes, by the way, for those two authorizations of the use of military force. this is our greatest responsibility. this is what the american people expect their elected officials to do, to ask the tough questions, to try to look over the horizon. so this debate which we're having is historic, and it's just beginning. and it's about time. it's about time. i cast 22,000 votes in the house of representatives, the 11th largest member of 17,000 members

of congress in history. but those two votes in 2001 and 2002 are amongst the five most important i cast out of 22,000. and everyone here will know that when they've looked back at all the votes they've cast as well. you bear the responsibility for what happened. so, yes, we have authorize this conflict, but we also have to put the limitations on it as well and revisit these decisions. so we have to decide if we want combat troops on the ground, we should say so. we should decide how long this authorization is going to go. we should decide whether or not, in fact, we should be operating under a 12-year-old authorization, which is where we are right now. that's for us to decide.

what i heard from the administration actually in testifying was they're willing to accept reasonable limitations, and we should work with them to reach that goal. but we should not pass up our historic responsibility. this is our moment on this committee in order to make these decisions. and again, i thank you, mr. chairman, for having this hearing. and i yield back. >> any other members? if there are none, then let me just say as we go to a vote on the -- on the managers amendment, and i appreciate the intellectual and thorough and heartfelt discussion on all you sides. you i, too, voted for one authorization, 2001. it was the right one.i, too, vo authorization, 2001. it was the right on, too, voted

authorization, 2001. it was the right one. support president bush, it was bin laden, al qaeda, and the afghan/pakistan border. those were the ones who took 3,000 american lives, including 700 new jersians. i felt the cause was right, and i'd be willing to send my son and daughter, which means i'll vote to send anybody else's, but in 2002, i didn't vote for the iraq one because i felt that there was -- i spent the time looking at the evidence. there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, no clear and present danger, no imminent threat to the united states, and i think it was one of the worst blunders ever done, although i respect the men and women who served who answer the call without asking is this the right or wrong engagement. so i've learned from both of them. but i never expected 2001 to still be alive today, to take us to so many different countries and so many different iterations. i would simply say to my friends that to look at the three-year limitation and suggest we're only going to fight isil for three years, we're going to have

an accounting, and then we're going to figure out if we haven't defeated isil, we're going to go back to it and figure out what else do we need to do that we didn't do number one. number two, the president of iraq has said he will not permit troops, foreign troops on his ground. so unless we are going to invade against the will of a country, i think that's -- the iraqi prime minister, not the president. the prime minister said that, and unless we're going to go ahead and invade in opposition to a sovereign country who in this case is taking the fight themselves, which is a whole other complicating factor. thirdly, i do envision boots on the ground, but they're just not american boots. they're iraqi boots, they're kurdish boots, modern syrian forces boots and maybe other allies who will put boots on the ground with the engagement of and cooperation of those countries in which the fight presently takes place.

and finally, i know some people have reference on both sides of the aisle that we -- that we tie the hands of the commander in chief, that that is actually envisioned by the founders. my view, we create checks and balances on the commander in chief as is envisioned by the founders. so with that, the omnibus, the manager's amendment is before us. since no other member is wishing to speak, i would say that all in favor will say aye. aye. opposed, no. the ayes have it. >> let's have a vote. >> that's fine. the clerk will call the roll. >> yes. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye.

>> aye. >> no. >> no. >> rubio? >> no. >> johnson? >> no. >> no by proxy on mccain. >> mr. barrasso? >> no by proxy. >> yes. >> mr. chairman? >> yes. >> 11 ayes, nos are 7. >> are there any other amendments? senator udall, i understand you have an amendment?

>> yes, i do. let me call up the one. i think the one that deals with the limitation, the authorization that we've just passed or the managers amendment has a three-year limitation. and this amendment that i'm merging is we go to one year. but let me, since i didn't give a statement on the manager's amendment, let me say a couple of things. first of all, i want to thank chairman menendez and ranking member corker. i think you've helped us push this a long way to get consensus. and at this point it's looking like some bipartisan consensus on many of these issues.

i really appreciate the tone and the civility of the debate. i think that's something that's very important to the foreign relations committee to see that kind of interaction. and so i think that the leadership you have helped set that tone, and i appreciate that. i also very much agree with senator markey that senator kane and senator paul deserve credit for pushing the issue. feeling strongly it had to happen. chairman felt that also. but you've brought us to this point that we're debating it. and the big question is what we're going to do now. and i -- i think we should pass this out of the foreign relations committee, but i think this is so important that the senate ought to speak on this. i think we ought to stay. we're in here as a congress, and we ought to debate it and do it. and so that's -- that's what i would prefer to do. it may not be the popular

position now, but that's the position i would take. the reason -- the reason i urge a one-year is because this is an extraordinary situation. we're not declaring war on a country. this is a terrorist group. and we're all in agreement. and we put it into the resolution, the brutality of this group and the threat that they comprise. but i believe it's our responsibility as a congress to exercise real oversight, to try to do everything we can to make sure there aren't unintended consequences. and this doesn't morph into some situation that none of us could imagine. and that's the way i feel. i was there with bob menendez in the house when i voted for the 2001 resolution. and i can't believe today that we are where we are and believe that what we pass then we concede this was going to be utilized to get us into

conflicts years and years later. and so i'm also supportive of an amendment and supportive of the manager's amendment that tries to put a limit on that 2001 authorization and do it in a short period of time. but the issue here for me, this isn't about, and i know you know it's going to come back, people are going to say, oh, well, this is tying the hands. this is -- this is preventing our ability to achieve victory. it isn't about any of that. this is about congress staying involved in this. and if there's any lesson that i've seen in these wars in iraq and afghanistan is if congress had stepped in earlier, if we had had some kind of limits, if we'd had us revisit the issue because there was a time line, we would've ended them a lot earlier. because the american people

would want them to be ended. so that's -- that's the position on this. it may not -- it may not prevail. but i really believe that we should be doing our job when it comes to war and peace and we should revisit this. and so with that, that's my statement. thank you. >> mr. chairman. >> senator? >> i would like to make it known for the record and be listed as a co-sponsor for this amendment. >> without objection. >> the thing is that when we look at whether or not we should limit this, many on the other side say you're planning on the war lasting one year. no, i'm planning on reasserting congress' authority to review how long this war lasts in one year. this isn't a limitation of one year. this is limitation of the authorization and we'll debate it again in one year. and that's very important. the reason it's important is because the wars, frankly, have gone on and on and on. some say de-fund it. you know what the argument is about de-funding a war. well, you're going to take away money from the troops in the

field? it's very, very difficult even for those opposed to war to cut off funds because people will say you're cutting off funds for people in harm's way. it's almost impossible, you know, to de-fund a war. so our only ability to reassess and reevaluate is to time limit the authorization. i whole heartedly support this amendment. >> to assure there'd be oversight of the congress and the executive branch, particularly in the conduct of a war. but i'm not comfortable with the one-year authorization simply because the president, secretary of state and others have said that this is going to be a multiple year conflict. as such, we try to bridge the divide between a multiple year conflict and having an open-ended authorization.

and to do it in a way that allows this president to prosecute and allows the next president whoever that person may be to still have time to come to the conclusion, that doesn't mean we should sit back during those three years and not have the most vigorous oversight that is possible during the course of those years. also, we have now hooked the 2001 authorization to expire in three years. so it coincides in that regard in what i think is an appropriate period of time. i respect the senator's desire, but i cannot support it at this time. with that, unless there's any other member who wishes to speak, does the senator want a roll call vote or does he accept the voice vote? clerk will call the vote. >> yeah. >> no. >> no.

>> mr. durbin? >> aye. >> mr. udall? >> aye. >> mr. murphy? >> aye. >> mr. kane? >> no. >> mr. markey? >> aye. >> mr. corker? >> no. >> mr. rubio? >> no. >> mr. johnson? >> no. >> mr. mccain? >> no. >> mr. barrasso? >> no. >> mr. wahl? >> yes. >> mr. chairman?

>> any other amendments? >> yes, this is paul amendment number three. this amendment would set geographic limits on this aumf. it reads, nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed as authorizing the use of force against the islamic state outside of the geographic boundaries of iraq and syria, and no action may be taken outside such area without congressional authorization. now, many have made the argument that we've added too many limitations. there should be no limitations, and they've argued historically that we haven't done this. the national security network looked back at all of the uses of authorization of force since

the beginning of the republic, and they found that 60% of those actually did have a geographic limitation on them. some would say, well, you know, we just don't need this. it's too confining. the problem is, when you look back at 2001, we are now using it to mean anything. the words have become meaningless, the authorization has become so blanket that we are now authorizing a new war in the administration maintains that a war resolution has something to do with isil. i think that's absurd on the face and almost embarrassing that anyone even makes that argument. i don't believe an objective observer would say that the vote in 2001 remotely has anything to do with what we're doing now. i do think we do need to militarily respond but in a way that limits the president's actions in order to have congressional oversight. the original use of force

resolution in 2001 was 60 words. and doesn't mention who we were going to fight. eventually interpreted to mean al qaeda and associated forces. but here's the thing about the associated forces in the imprecision of that target. the current administration will not tell you who the associated forces are from 2001. it's either classified or i believe they won't even define who the associated forces are. we have that in this resolution also. we have associated forces. who are associated forces? we define them as successor organizations. and to me, it's loose enough to really encompass anybody in the world that sort of has allegiance with this group. so, for example, the group called terrorism research and analysis consortium.

and you made allusion to this two days ago, they now list 60 jihadist groups in allegiance with isis or the islamic state in 30 different countries. so realize that language is important, words are important, and there's a tendency for executives from both parties to abuse this wording and to make it mean anything they want. so i understand, and i sympathize greatly with the resolution being forward and having limitations on it. i just simply fear that the limitations won't be enough that executives will abuse this, even with its limitations beyond the scope of this. i ask secretary kerry this question the other day because after senator udall made the question. i was like, oh, my goodness, he mentioned four countries, we looked now and found 60 groups in 30 countries. listen to the list. and realize that there will be executives, maybe from this party or from the other party who will interpret this

resolution even with restrict n restrictions to these other countries. jordan, saudi arabia, pakistan, egypt, gaza, libya, lebanon, morocco, tunisia, kurdistan, uzbekistan, indonesia, the philippines. we have to be careful with the language here, and that's why i think there should be a geographic limit. if you're imprecise with your target, and i think you are being imprecise by allowing associated forces, something that hasn't been used in any legislation before. it's been interpreted from the 2001. but 2001 did not list associated forces. so i would prefer we strike associated forces and that would make your need for a geographic limit better. i think with an imprecise target of associated forces that you really ought to have a geographic limit. this would limit it. people say what if they go to another country. what if they're in isis in six months? let's vote again. if they're in jordan, i'll vote to defend jordan.

jo they're a great ally of ours. if they invade israel, i'll defend israel, as well. let's limit where we're going and not have a worldwide war. currently, it's a disaster in libya. there's a civil war going on with a significant portion of those involved in the civil war having declared allegiance to the islamic state and the caliphate. we have to be careful. i know you think you're doing the right thing, but i'm very worried this will be open-ended enough that we could be involved in war in 30 countries. now, the secretary's response to this was, well, you're not reading all of the limitations we've set upon ourselves. well, yeah, that's great. i'm glad they've set limitations, but the limitations have to come from a co-equal branch or they're not of any value. the president when he was first running for office was very clear on his position on war. he said no president should unilaterally go to war without the authority of congress.

less we're under imminent attack. and i would be saying exactly the same thing if this were a republican executive. i'm very bipartisan in my belief of limitation, whether it's a republican or a democrat. but i would respectfully put this forward and say that we should have a geographic limitation if we truly want to limit the scope and impact of this use of force resolution. thank you. >> mr. chairman? >> senator boxer. >> thank you so much. i so appreciate senator paul's leadership on this whole thing, but i do part ways with you, senator, on this one. here's why, words are important, but so is taking the fight to isil. and this is a group without a country. they're trying to start one. and we don't know where they're going to show up. and, you know, if you look at world war ii, if you had restricted what we do against the japanese, we couldn't have gone to the philippines. if you restricted where we'd

fight the nazis, you know, we couldn't have gone to other european countries. i just think that it isn't wise. and i could envision a situation where the king of jordan is in desperate situation and he calls upon us because isil's about to do something, they have the intelligence, and they want our allies to conduct some air strikes. i can envision that happening. so i really hope that we can not go this route because this is a very different -- this is a group without a country trying to get one, we don't know where they show up. and if we're going after them, we've got to take the fight to them and not to some mythical two places because they could show up in these other places. and so, i just hope that we would not go along with this restriction. >> any other senators? i'll recognize -- >> well, if i could make a quick response to that, it wouldn't be so important to make the geographic limitations if your target definition was more precise.

so i'm not opposed to taking the war to isis where they are. if they're going across borders here and there, you wouldn't be limited. but because you've allowed your definition to be successor groups and associated forces, there are now 60 associated forces in 30 different countries. you are authorizing the executive and giving the executive power to be at war in 30 different countries, currently. not prospectively, but currently, there are 30 different countries that have groups in alliance. >> senator, let me respond, and i hear you very well -- and that's why i voted for the one year so that we can revisit this. i'm with you on that, we really should. but what if tomorrow isil changed its name. if you're confining this to just isil, now we don't know what to call them. are they dash? are they isis? isil? i.s.? so we have to be careful here. that we don't restrain too much so we can go where they are. >> senator rubio? >> thank you. i'm going to -- there's another

amendment i think has to do with the associated forces. and i think senator paul's argument is if we did that one, this one would not be as necessary or is it vice versa? either way, i think they're associated with each other. i wanted to take them in block and talk about it. a terrible mistake. if we're serious about achieving the objective of this undertaking. which is to defeat them. here's why. this is a group that has clear territorial aims. by their very definition. they're not a group saying we want to take over syria and iraq. this is a group that says we want to establish the pre-eminent caliphate. into the middle east and -- and they say so openly. let me give you one real world example we've already seen develop. they're not just in libya, they control an entire province in libya. and unlike iraq or syria, they have no one to fight there.

there is no government to push back against them. they're already implementing a court system. they're already implementing their laws and enforcing them. they're implementing basically the outlines of a real government in an entire province in libya where they're completely unchallenged. it's not outside the realm of the possible that in short order and faster than the ability of this committee to come back together, have a debate, bring a vote, take it to the floor, have it pass out of somewhere else, as well. it is quite possible they could shift many of their operations to a safe haven such of that. especially we've identified safe havens in writing in law. which is the biggest concern that we should have, this is a situation that has the potential to develop much faster than any language we could craft a deal with it. the second problem we have with it is success in this endeavor and everybody in this committee i would hope everyone agrees with this. will require us to put together a coalition. a coalition that involves other interested parties, other nations, et cetera. in order to put together such a

coalition, we have to exhibit seriousness and commitment on the part of the united states. and to put forth something that says we are willing to fight isil, but we're not willing to do it here, there or the other place i think imperils that effort, as well. i understand some of the examples that senator paul has given. 30 countries, 30 groups, thought if it was 30 countries or 30 groups. but i think in -- if we look at this from a realistic point of view, that's not what the president is going to do. and that -- that's not what's going to happen here. but i do think it is important that he has the authority to target isil wherever they emerge as a threat to the united states. or to our national security interests. >> let me go back and forth, senator udall. >> thank you, and i would ask to be joined as a co-sponsor on the paul amendment. >> without objection. >> i think the issue, senator rubio in terms of libya and having a province being

controlled by isil. if they decide to attack the united states, the president has article two authority. so we don't, we don't need to deal with every one of these situations, but i think it's -- it's looking at the countries in the region that are beyond the area that isil controls right now. we should be very careful in terms of agreeing to any president going to war in some of those areas. we, and that's once again, i'm back to limitations, congress doing its job, pulling in and saying if we're going to expand this war farther than the territory it is right now, we need to -- we need to be involved in that decision. >> so you'll be joining the amendment? >> yep. >> do you want to -- >> i want to address. it's a really important point you talked about. if libya's used as a staging ground for the attack. here's the problem, that isn't necessarily how this works.

a perfect example is how they use syria to stage attacks in iraq. it's not just staging it from there. what they look for is a safe haven to establish a command and control operation center. a place where they now know that they're not going to have to interact with government forces that will push against them, where they're not at risk of being hit overhead by the united states or someone else. they are actively looking for a safe haven where they can conduct, command and control, raise money, where they could establish the elements of the state. part of the strategy and you're starting to see them develop it. now they're saying they're going to print money or mint coins. they want to establish themselves as a state. people take them seriously as some sort of state. and they've got to be able to show a resemblance of a government and government organization. they're actively looking for a safe haven where they could establish that. they may not launch attacks directly from libya, tunisia or some other part of the world, but it could be the command and control center that gives

legitimacy to the cause. and we cannot allow that to be off limits to the commander in chief and our efforts to defeat them. that's my point. >> let me recognize someone who hasn't spoken. senator murphy and senator johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's very briefly. i would argue that's a different conflict. that if we're talking about, for instance, a massive new long-term bombing campaign in libya that has implications for american foreign policy that are fundamentally different than the implications in the context of a fight inside iraq and inside syria. and it may be worthwhile. but it should involve this committee coming back and relitigating what that means for american national security going forward. and so given the fact that we are talking about very different conflicts with potentially very different implications for the united states, i'm supportive of this amendment. i think we have the ability to come back and make a different

decision. and just to underscore senator udall's point. nothing in this amendment -- if there's an imminent threat to the united states, if isil is plotting an attack inside libya against the united states still gives the president the authority to conduct whatever military operations within the confines of the war powers act necessary to protect the united states. and so that gives me, i think, pause to be confident that with this geographic limitation we aren't putting the security of the united states at risk and that we will be able to come back and make an independent decision. if isis poses a threat to the united states in another country in the region as to whether it is a good idea to bring the fight to that country, as well. which may involve a completely different set of factors. >> senator johnson. >> i think much of this discussion really kind of underscores my primary point is we should spend a lot of time on definition. you know, spend a lot of time

defining exactly who the enemy is as opposed to name one group and associated forces. that's too ill to find. if we spend a lot of time defining who the enemy is and exactly what the objective is. because -- and then, be 100% committed to the objective. don't tie anybody's hands, don't place limitations. define the objective and be 100% committed to it. if we do that, it'll be a whole lot easier finding the coalition partners that will also be 100% committed to the exact highly, you know, properly defined objective. let me use an example. the first gulf war. when the first president bush said this will not stand when saddam hussein invaded kuwait. very clear defined objective, drive saddam hussein out of kuwait, and he was able to assemble a phenomenal coalition that by and large paid for the war.

over 200,000 other troops were involved in that coalition. again, that was because it was a very clearly stated objective. and this country, america, was 100% committed to that objective. no limitations. we were going to make sure that saddam hussein was driven out of kuwait. again, i would just suggest that in our next discussion and the next congress, we really spend a lot of time in this committee defining exactly who the enemy is that we're going to declare war on or authorize the use of military force against and then clearly define the objective. spend a lot of time on that and then an awful lot of these limitations and concerns go away. >> any other members? >> if i could just briefly. i haven't vigorously debated because i realize we'll be doing this again in january. i would say that i guess the limitations would then apply to drones? i would like for the author to

clarify that if the commander in chief wanted to utilize drones to potentially deal with isis in one of these countries, is this amendment intended to limit our ability to do that? >> i think it's not specified. and i think also that most people have used the 2001 resolution to justify that. >> but we're sunsetting that. and i want to go back to what senator johnson has said. there are some details here that are important. and we are going to be limiting, we're sunsetting the 2001 aumf, which i think limits the ability over time, we're limiting it geographically, does that mean drones. i do look forward, again, us continuing this. and i think also everyone for their tone and i do hope we'll

vote at some time. >> senator paul? >> a quick point. and i think he made a good point. he cast votes and one of them will stick in everyone's memories. this could be that kind of vote. and that's why we have to be, i think, incredibly or very careful about our precision on our language. you've already heard arguments from senators who say they're worried about being restricted from war in libya. they want no restrictions, really, on the geography of this because they already can conceive of places that they think were -- will need to be entertained. so you can see how an executive who wants to expand this is going to say, well, you know, yeah, we got libya, 30 other countries, 60 jihadist groups around the world. i think it's important if you want to really place meaningful restrictions and limitations on this war to one region and one enemy that we're going after, it's important that we'd either define the target more precisely or the geography more precisely. >> let me speak to this and then

we'll vote. this definition, first of all, the amendments about geographic specificity. but we've had a whole conversation about the associated persons and forces. i think the definition tries to broach the concerns here. it makes clear that the authorization applies only to isil and only to individuals and organizations fighting for or on behalf of isil. and a potential closely related successor entity. surely we have to account for the possibility that this group changes its name. it's been called several things here during the course of the process. but it's still the same group at the end of the day. so that's one way in which we try to control not an endless pursuit across many different boundaries. and the other is, as it relates

to the geographic limitation, that's not an amendment i can support. while i appreciate the effort of what the senator's trying to do, it would in essence create the possibility that isil could establish sanctuaries in other countries other than iraq and syria. and in doing so, would not be able to feel the power of america might with its allies including simply air strikes. so i think that is -- that is not something that is the wisest way to achieve the goal. with that, i assume the senator wants a recorded vote. clerk will call the roll. >> no. >> no. >> mr. durbin? >> no. >> udall? >> aye. >> mr. murphy? >> aye. >> mr. kane? >> aye.

>> mr. markey? >> aye. >> mr. corker? >> no. >> no by proxy. >> mr. rubio? >> no. >> mr. johnson? >> no. >> mr. flake? >> no by proxy. >> mr. mccain? >> no by proxy. >> mr. barrasso? >> no by proxy. >> yes. >> mr. chairman? >> no. >> please record me as no. >> mr. chairman the ayes are five. nays are 13. >> is there anyone else willing to offer an amendment? if not, the vote is on final passage of the aumf as amended.

clerk will call the roll. >> aye. >> aye. >> ms. shaheen? >> aye. >> mr. coontz? >> aye. >> mr. durbin? >> aye. >> mr. udall? >> aye. >> mr. murphy? >> aye. >> mr. kane? >> aye. >> mr. corker? >> aye. >> mr. rubio? >> no. >> mr. johnson? >> no. >> mr. flake? >> no by proxy. >> mccain? >> no by proxy. >> mr. barrasso? >> no by proxy. >> mr. paul? >> no. >> mr. chairman? >> yes. court will report.

>> mr. chairman, the yeas are ten, nays are eight. >> the aumf will be reported favorably to the senate. i ask unanimous constent the staff be allowed to make technical and conforming changes before reporting to the senate. is there any objection? none so order. and danny, we've already feeded you before, but here's a resolution signed by every member of the committee. congratulations and thank you for your service. >> i want to thank you again for your service as a chairman. all the committee members for the tone and seriousness, and i look forward to continuing. thank you all. ooh >> thank you all very much. this hearing is adjourned.

coming up oot 11:30 a.m. iron, the justice for all march. it is being organized by the black women's roundtable, naacp and national urban league, among others. it begins at freedom plaza here in washington and continues to the capitol for a rally where leaders and families will outline a legislative agenda for congress. watch it all live on c-span.

next, a deep space exploration hearing. witnesses testify about the programs under the space launch system and orion, as well as funding for carrying out those programs. this is an hour and a half. good morning, welcome to today's hearing, an update on the space launch system and orion, monitoring development of the nation's deep space exploration capabilities. i recognize myself for five minutes for opening statement. i would like to welcome every one to our hearing in particularly our witnesses. thank you. anyone who pays attention to the media is aware of the spectacular launch of orion crew

vehicle last week. i want to congratulate the entire team at nasa, lockheed martin for an outstanding test flight. scientists and engineers and nasa will continue to analyze data for quite some time. the successful test launch of orion demonstrates we are on the right track for sendsing humans back to the moon and mars within our life times. across the nation people were watching with the same hope and pride all americans had in the early days of our space program. in my congressional district children watched a live feed of the launch. events like this are what we need to inspire the next generation of astronauts and engineers.

the purpose of our hearing today is to examine the challenges and opportunities facing the space launch system and orion programs. it is no secret that this committee is concerned that the support within nasa for the sls and orion is not matched by the administration. while this lack of commitment is somewhat puzzling, it is not at all surprising. the president has made clear that he does not believe space exploration is a priority for the nation and has aplowllowed political appointees to influence or space program. these decisions should be made by engineers with decades of experience in human spaceflight. this is not an easy field. we cannot ramp up capability or prepare for missions overnight. it requires a dedication to advanced preparation and research and this committee and congress are dedicated to supporting that requirement.

the administration's consistently requested large reductions for these programs despite the insistence of congress they be priorities. mow recently the budget for 2013 called for a reduction in these finances. additionally, the administration asked for reductions of $175 million, $87 million, and $144 million respectively for the orion program. had congress agreed to the request, orion would have incurred hundreds of millions of dollars in reductions. thankfully congress listened to program managers and industry partners to ensure these programs were appropriately funded. congress is once again demonstrated support for the sls and orion by provided funding

well above the president's request for 240 015. let me be very clear on my watch congress will not agree to gutting the sls program any time in the foreseeable future. human exploration program at nasa has been played with instability from constantly requiring requirements and missions. this committee is consistent and unwavering in its commitment to human exploration. a tradition that i appreciate and am confident will continue into the future. while this hearing is certainly an opportunity for us to celebrate the great progress of the sls and orion's programs, the committee has ongoing concerns about challenge facing these programs. in a letter for the nasa administrator, chairman smith and i expressed our concerns for potential delays of a mission

slated for 2017, now potentially delayed to as late as 2018. the administration's letter back to the committee did not inspire a lot of confidence in nasa's ability to meet the original timelines laid out. congress needs answers to these questions. at the very least we need to know what are the true funding needs and schedule expectations for development of the sls and orion programs and is nasa on track to meet these expectations. in addition to consistently submitting insufficient funding requests, the administration also appears to be limbed in the use of funding it does received use of funding it does received use of funding it does receivede use of funding it does received the use of funding it does received. the committee has learned the administration has given direction to the sls and orion programs to plan spending rates consistent with the president's budget requests instead of the higher continuing resolution

level. in a recent report, resources needed to be matched to requirements to decreased risk to support long term afford ability the government accountability office highlighted technical and schedule risks nasa had not previously brought to the attention of the committee. specifically gao states, "according to the program's risk analysis the agent is he's currenting funding plan for sls may be $400 million short by 2017. it was surprising for the xlit to hear about this shortfall since the administrator previously testified, "if we added $300 million to the sls program you wouldn't know it." it is not unreasonable for congress to expect the administration to be straightforward about the risk and cause associated with national priority programs. as we look to continue pushing towards mars we must talk honestly and real isically about these programs and what we can accomplish with them. we want to be partners moving

forward, not competitors. unfortunately the administration simply has not allowed for that cooperati cooperation. the tests last week of orion was an important milestone in the future of america's space program. it was a fully commercial mission licensed by the federal aviation administration and conducted by the private sector. in the future orion and sls will serve as the tip of the sphere for our nation's space exploration program. recently some have argued that the government shouldn't be involved in space exploration at all and suggested the private sector alone was capable of leading us into thes could blows. i certainly hope some day this will be possible but right now space exploration requires government support. this is a worth while investment for the taxpayer. it inspires the next generation of explorers to pursue engineering and math, ri international relations, orion

and sls, the vanguard of our nation's space program are key to advancing these interests. i look forward to hearing from you today about the challenges and opportunities facing these important programs. i now recognize the ranking member from maryland, miss edwards. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. good morning and welcome to our witnesses. i want to join the chairman in congratulating nasa and lockheed united launch alliance and the entire government and contractor too many on successfully conducting the exploration flight test eft-1 of the orion capsule last week. it was truly exciting and i no he that around the country and the world there were many of us looking on television for the first time in a long time at a u.s. space program that's really forward looking. the flight subjected is orion and its system to test key

systems, verify design, reduce technical risks and test recoverability operations. i believe that this test flight shows americans the tappingable progress is being made on returning humans to exploration beyond our earth's neighborhood and a goal that this committee and congress as a whole have embraced through multiple nasa authorization acts despite some challenges that the chairman laid out. i would also note that i think we were in this hearing room just three years ago woundser g i wondering whether orion was going to be possible or not. i think we have addressed that question in what is a remarkably short period of time. while i look forward to looking at challenges and taking on those challenges, i don't want to lose sight of the fact that we have great capacity and that the american people can get greatly excited by that and i think then lead those of us who

are the policymakers to do the right thing when it comes to robustly funding our exploration program. the development of the space launch system sll and orion crew vehicle are necessary next steps in reaching for goals for human space exploration including the long term goal of sending humans to the surface of mars as stated in our biharts house passed nasa authorization act of 2014. i also thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing so we can obtain an uptate on the status of the programs. it was indeed just those three years ago that we sat in this room and we were pressing nasa for decision on a final design of the sls rocket. it was great debate between the administration and this committee and the congress and i think today we're going to hear of the program's approval to enter into the full scale development as some of us had

envisioned. this is indeed a significant accomplishment even in the midst of major challenges especially those related to constrained budgets. very often congress has been supportive of sls orion and has appropriated funding above the president's request. i don't know that i necessarily share the chairman's view about where all the faults lie. however, the programs have been challenged by the flood fundfla that depart from the profiles of major development programs. that's why we recognize the critical need to authorize a robust top line in the 2013 nasa authorization bill that included healthy increases for the program. the national academy's committee in fact recently released its report on human space exploration and also recognized that sending humans to the surface of mars would include

and require sustained increases. they said, "increasing dplaus's budget to allow increasing the human spaceflight budget by 5% per year would enable pathways with potentially viable mission rates greatly reducing technical costs and schedule risks." so mr. chairman, we can work together to overcome these challenges. as we work over this next congress to reauthorize flaws, i look forward to working with you to ensure that this committee authorizes the appropriations that the sls and orion programs require to achieve the expeditious investment and testing of these vehicles for their use at the earliest possible date and that we obtain a human exploration road map to focus the sls and orion systems an long-term mission goals. when i see the excitement of the test flight demonstrated by the flight's coverage as leading media story, i think in fact it

did lead the broadcast news, i'm replipded th reminded that the sls and orion programs really belong to the american public and they will in fact embrace them. we need to honor this for exploration. i encourage or colleagues in the senate to seek quick passage of the house passed nasa authorization act of 2014 so that nasa and its industry contractors have the direction and stability needed to plan for continued progress. and i'll reiterate what i have said many times before, and that is we cannot have one set of goals for flaws and our human exploration programs, and not match those goals with the resources required to commit to the work on a timely basis. it is unfair to the agency. it's unfair to contractors. an it is a false expectation for

the public. with that, i yield back and i look forward to hearing the testimony today. >> thank you, miss edwards. i now recognize the chairman of the full committee, chairman smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first i want to congratulate those at nasa and also at lockheed martin and united launch appliance who i see are represented in the room today on a spectacular flight test last week of the orion crew vehicle. i flow a lot of hard work went into make thak test flight successful. at a fundamental level, the mission of nasa is about inspiration. this inspiration fuels our desire to push the boundaries of what is possible and to reach beyond our own pale blue dot. the successful orion launch last week is one step in a long journey. the purpose of today's hearing is simple -- we wish to accepted a loud and clear message that space exploration is nasa's number one priority.

last week's test flight demonstrated many firsts. we are also here to ensure the next steps in this long journey are on track and will be just as successful. there bisupport within congress that nasa stay on track with the orion system including the appropriations bill we plan to vote on tomorrow. orion and sls are essential elements for astronauts to eventually travel beyond low earth orbit. the om anybody bus appropriations bill made public last night is the latest example of congressional support for these programs funded well above the president's budget request, the sls and orion are receiving resources they need to ensure their success. fortune favors the bold. last week's test flight was necessary to answer the nay sayers and critics who claim that america's best days on the frontier of space are lined us. last week's mission answered

those critics. the apollo demonstrated that we could reach the moon, and orion and sls will ensure america is a space nation for decades to come demonstrating great american ingenuity. we must continue to push forward. great nations do great things. everyone in today's hearing wants to ensure that the first flag flying on the surface of mars is planted by an american astronaut and they will have arrived there on-board an orion vehicle prepared by the space launch system. let's work together to make that happen. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. if there are members who wish to submit additional opening statements, they'll be add theed to the record at this point. i would be remiss if i did not point out we with missing nasa

chief financial officer david rasnowski. he was invited to testify regarding questions regarding nasa's budget time inrous invit and attempts to secure his attendance, the administration refused to make him available. he holds a senate confirmed position at nasa and is obliged to testify before the agency's oversight committees. we are aware of the many demands on his schedule and for that reason, the committee was allowed to send any cfo if the office and unfortunately nasa prevented any other cfo from appearing today. this is unfortunate. under gerstenmaier may not have all of the information that would be available from the office. at this time i would like to introduce our witnesses. our first witness today is mr.

gill gerstenmaier. he started his work with nasa in 1977 as a researcher an aeronautics. today he is associate administrator for the human operations director at nasa headquarters here in washington, d.c. he has received many awards for his work on space exploration, including the distinguished executive presidential rank award, national space club brawn award. space transportation leadership award and several nasa award. he received air naughtal engineering and master of science degree from university of toledo. miss christina chaplin has been an office employ fooee for 23 y. she is responsible for gao assessments of military space acquisitions and nasa. she has led reviews of the space launch system, international

space station and james webb telescope among oermgs. prior to her current position she worked with gao's financial technology team. she received her bachelor's in international relations from boston university and masters from columbia university. thank you, again, to our witnesses for being here today. spoken testimony is limited to five minutes each after which members of the committee will have five minutes each to ask questions. i recognize mr. gerstenmaier for five minutes to present his testimony. >> thank you very much for having me here. i would like to again thank you on behalf of the entire teem that work in the exploration program. and i'd like to start off my testimony with videos and pictures that we provided earlier of these videos and images capture the work that's been accomplished in the exploration program. and i'll narrate some of the video as it is shown. so if we could start the video, please.

again, the program is made up of three major components. ground systems operations down in florida which is preparing the launch site. these the image is that you are seeing here on the screen. again, the purpose of these videos to show you how much work is actually being accomplished kind of behind the scenes. you can see the launch of the ft-1 but you don't get a chance to see all of the work occurring at various field centers and areas making these things happen. this is the delta 4. there are delta 4 images showing up at the kennedy space center. this is the fabrication and manufacturing of the ryon capsule launched on the test flight. you get to see technicians, folks at various centers working to make all of this activity happen. it is not only if florida. also in houston where the control center team got monitor the capsule. actually send commands to the capsule. there is a team in florida that monitors the launch. so they parties nate that activity and participate in the orion capsule activity.

again you can see the capsule coming together. some of the hardware came from the martial space center. manufacturing the space between delta 4 rocket and orion capsule came from the marshal space center. again i would say there is the entire nasa team coming together make this happen. this is some work at the -- again in florida preparing for the capsule and also at the assembly facility where the sos will be put together. i think you were there for the vertical assembly center that got put together that will manufacture the large external tanks. that activity is occurring. there is several sections all ready to be test welded next january. in about a month. that's moved forward. also the test was the substantial amount of test occurred before the test to make sure the parachute systems would work. we are preparing for the future exploration activities to look at the redirect mission. and now you can see some of the work of actually transporting

the capsule out to the launch pad to be integrated eventually with the delta 4 rocket. again, i think the important message and take away from all of these images is there's a tremendous amount of work going on. it's being accomplished pretty much on schedule. there's challenges through this work. it is not easy work. the teams are very dedicated. they are working very hard to make things occur and i think that the results of the test life show evidence we are making significant and substantial progress as we move forward. the next video that's getting chewed up now is the actual video from the test flight that many of you got either see it in person or you see it on television. again, i'll describe some of the activities that occurred there. and again, the point here is that this test flight didn't come about, just as a happenstance, there is lots of preparation before. we did many drop tests from the parachute systems. many recovery activity. we've done the board system testing down at white sands

earlier. again, to verify, when we did this test within we were ready to do the test. there were still questions to be answered. still things we contest in any other environment other than the test flight but this test flight confirmed that other pieces at least at first look fit well and we understand data and things very good from an overall standpoint. again, a lot of folks got to witness this. it was exciting it see people show up in florida to be there, as you talked in some of your opening remarks. encouragement to the science te technology engineering and math students. it was nice to see their excitement going forward. there was added by united launch alie ups specifically for this flight. that did not exist before this flight on the delta 4 launch. again, the launch went extremely well.

the vehicle gave us a great ride to space ip jekted the capsule exactly where it needed to be. the upper stage did all of the activities to accelerate the vehicle to the right entry conditions. all of that worked extremely well and went really, really flawlessly. in terms of kind of first results from the tests, nothing major was really learned. one of the video processing unit had to be recycled. most likely caused by radiation events. so we got understand the radiation environment that the capsule will fly through. the heat shield looks in very good shape as we returned we removed plugs from the heat shield down in california yesterday. and the capsules are about ready to get on the truck that head toward the florida for more detailed evaluation and all of the data has come off the capsule. the images are pretty em pressive when you look at small earth and see the horizon. i think what's more important is when you see it through a window where some day a crew will be, it makes the tie between a human

space flight and the robotic space flight even stronger. this is the capsule again successfully floating in the water that we expected to see five air bags deployed in this situation. we see two. there's something that didn't work in that system. we know the pyros fired. we know the pressure came out of the system and we will understand what occurred. again, overall a tremendous testimony to the work that program is put together. and i look forward to your questions as we move forward in this activity. so thank you. >> we recognize miss chaplin for five minutes to present her testimony. >> chairman, ranking member edwards, chairman smith and members of the subcommittee. before i begin i would like to congratulation on the successful test. it helps to design technologies in orion in this important event. as you know we recently reviewed preliminary cost estimates.

we performed and in-depth review of the space system and we have been covering the orion program for the assessment of nasa's magic programs. in conducting this work at the time we reviewed sos the program is approaching a critical milestone known as kdpc where it makes formal commitments to congress in the form of cost schedule base lines. the gate represents the point at which program begins full scale efforts to fabricate the space system and the point at which technical and or funding programs can have large spread effect. we found that sos was generally doing a good job at maturing design, keeping requirements stable, and putting a high priority on quality. the program is also acting the managed cost, however it did take longer than to definitive contract for cost growth. >> still facing inherent technical design and as all space programs do but it was

actively managing them in a transparent fashion. >> however, the resource gap and that the agency gap is planning funding for sos and matching requirements for resources for the december 2017 flight test and high confidence level. the agency's options are largely limited to increasing program funding. delaying the schedule for accepting the reduce confidence level for the initial flight test. the sos program calculated the risk associated with insufficient funding through 2017 and 90% likely to occur. indicating insufficient budget to push the december 2017 launch date out six months and add some 400 million to the overall cost of development. after our report was issued, when nasa established formal baselines for sos, nasa committed to a launch readiness date of 2018. so that it could have more confident in meetihi