likes to remove barriers to get good things done. this is one of the more righteous things. let a major crisis happen to this kouncountry if you get this done you'll make a difference that could be thousands of lives could be saved. could you talk for a moment about those obstacles and how we can remove them for you. >> sure, i think the way i'd like to characterize it is we're working with deputy secretary bruce andrews and his staff on improving the processes within the department with first net. set aside the federal regulations for a moment. there's just a lot of people touching a lot of things today and we need to streamline that. we're really committed to working on that improvement. i also think it's important that we take -- we have the ability to control our destiny. and we have the ability to have people who are dedicated and

first net is their first priority. because this is no pra jorty of comment about people that we work with, but first net is a secondary item for them. they have a full-time day job and we pile on top of that. we probably don't get the urgency that we feel about things. so to the degree we can take accountability and responsibility for those functions we'll obviously follow all the rules and regulations but we would have an opportunity to move more quickly. i'd like to see what we can do about improving that and also taking responsibility from commerce and obviously e we wouldn't do that until such time we're prepared. we went through that process with our finance organization. initially, they provided support for us. today we do a lot of that work ourselves. so i think we have demonstrated we can bring in the right resources with the right talent and training, put the controls in place to cause people to feel

comfortable to fullfill that. >> i'd love for you to submit more of that for the record. i'd love to hear some of the things we could be doing to prevent it, but i want to end by saying one question which is the comment is our first responders we elevate as senators consistently. but the people that have the first responders' backs should be elevated too. and i want to just give you a chance to respond to the cost issue. really the design to have a self-funding mechanism. do you think that's sufficient? mr. goldstein pointed out it might not be. is that sufficient? >> what's important to understand in the gao report is the information that's in there is built on a lot of assumptions. i think even mr. goldstein indicated that those assumptions you saw have a set of assumptions that he didn't even have visibility to. we have built a financial model with a set of assumptions as well. we believe we understand what we need to accomplish in terms of our spectrum value in order to

make this a self-sustaining network. that's why the rfp is such a critical component to that. that is really the funding mechanism while $7 billion is a lot of money i'm not saying no thank you to that, but it's not sufficient to continue to operate and upgrade this network over time. so i believe that the financial model is solid, but we won't know the answer to that until we finish the rfp process. the rfp process is critical for us being able to put together a plan for each of the governors where we can talk about the coverage we're going to provide and what it's going to cost the first responders it to subscribe to that. we won't know all of that until the rfp is completed. we have made assumptions. we won't know the facts until the rfp is is completed. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you senator booker. senator mansion? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i, too, want to thank all of you

for what you're doing in this first net is unbelievably important for all of us. i came into the office in 2003 and we weren't able to communicate with any natural disasters or mine tragedies that we had. couldn't get the equipment to the right place and time because we couldn't communicate so it was important for us to protect our citizens by being able to communicate. we put a system in with towers and all that. we're probably one of the most rural states east of the mississippi. with that being said, this is so important to us. what i would ask you, and i also want to thank you for the conference you attended and met with some of my first responders, but when will it be available? which is going to get us in business. everyone is talking and planning, but we're not seeing any action. >> i don't know if you want to answer that question. he manages the grants.

>> turn your microphone on. >> so there are actually two rounds of money. the first round of money under the state level implementation grants so round one has gone out. round two is dependent on figuring out what the data needs are. the first round has gone out for the consultations and planning and to really allow the states to do the work to work with first net. second round is accumulating the data that will go sba it. so we're in the process -- >> every state is going to be different. everything is different from state to state as far as the needs are. we undertook a program with stimulus money and billed out to every school, every post office, every community building we got internet into every nook and

cranny in west virginia. but to build off of that has not been. profitable because of the customer base. but it would be easy for you to hook off that for first net into those critical areas of first responders. some of us could get up and running quicker if we had access to some of this. >> we expect in the next couple months to have the second phase of money go out. >> if you want to use us as a trial and error, we would be glad to work with you. mr. goldstein, you have successfully hired less than 100 people that i'm told. an investigation found various issues with hiring process, response appears to have more layers of bureaucracy and more red tape. the annual report due february 23rd still has not been release ed because it has to be reviewed. i'm told by ten different federal agencies before it can be even shared with the first responders who it is designed to

serve. is all this new to you? >> yes, sir, i'm not aware of that. >> are you aware february 23rd has come and gone and the annual report has not been given? >> i'm not sure of the question you're asking. to whom is it referred? i'm with the gao. >> oh. you are overseeing it right? >> we have done our first audit of first net, which is what i'm here talking about today, sir. >> what i'm -- would it alarm you they might not be able to meet the first net needs as far as personnel if that's all they have been able to hire? can someone else answer this? >> i can certainly respond to that. the annual report has been issued. there was a bit of a time delay but you should have access to

that at this point. it does require significant review. you're correct on that. maybe there's an opportunity to take -- >> but i mean this is what upsets people. >> you're talking to somebody from the private u sector and the answer is no. it doesn't make sense. but i'm not an expert on government process. >> these are things -- if something would happen can we help each other? katrina type thing, it was such a cluster i couldn't even tell you. >> could we help each other in the network? yeah, actually, that's the beauty of first net. >> to cut through the ten federal agency, tell us where your impediments are. . >> the impediments today are in personal hiring because it takes anywhere from nine months to a year to get people on the payroll through all the processes, through job descriptions, through hiring, through security clearances and those kinds of things it can take a significant amount of time. we're working with department of

commerce. and procurement. i would like to say i think it's really important that we have as much control over our destiny as possible. to have people who are dedicated to this, to feel a sense of urgency for whom it's not a second job. all the people who work in first net today feel the sense of urgency want to get things done, but it's difficult. >> if i could maybe work with you and the ranking member to look at cutting some of this government regulation or to get this it up and running much quicker because we're hitting this in every aspect of the government. maybe the commerce committee can cut through this stuff. >> i would be more than happy and willing to work. that is crazy. this stuff is beyond the pale in terms of what it takes it to kbet it launched. senator peters? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thanks to our panelists today for your testimony and all your hard work on this issue and your insight into it. i want to say i'm certainly

concerned about all of the issues i have heard from my colleagues in michigan that i'm privileged to represent has a great deal of rural areas as well. i appreciate their efforts in making sure we have this network up and running in rural areas. we also have urban areas, but my question i want to take another area and that's border areas. we are a state that is on some of the most traverse border crossings in the country. . we just recently have been moving forward on a new international bridge between detroit and windsor, which will greatly increase trade between our countries and continue to make michigan a logistics hub for the whole country. plus we have border crossings. as a result of that, we have frequent contacts with canadian officials. as we're dealing with border issues often have to coordinate with those international entities or canadian entities. they have different spectrum

issues than we have in the united states. so the chairwoman if you could comment a little bit about how first net is going to ensure that some of our emergency communications along the borders are going to be facilitated and get kind of a sense of what sort of discussions you have had with canadian officials in making sure there isn't interference in the communication on our side of the border versus their side of the border and when they have to be connected as well. it's a complex issue. >> actually it's not a complex issue. from a technical perspective, i would just tell you that one of our top projects is not focused on the southern border because border issues are challenging. we are actually learning quite a bit from our top projects and one of those is border issues. we're focused on mexico, not canada but we have a very good relationship with canada. they have the same standards that the u.s. does, so we don't anticipate a lot of difficulty with canada.

we are anticipating some challenges with mexico which is our top project is focused on that as one of the key learning conditions. so we have actually i think from a key learning condition and things we have learned, we have had about 61 things we have actually learned and i would like to mention another one in particular that has been extremely valuable that's been fed into the technical team and rfp process. that's our project in los angeles. los angeles is working to try to get some sites up. we have learned that the use of existing government infrastructure is quite a bit more challenging than we had originally anticipated. developing memorandum of understanding, leasing access capacity is very challenging. it actually has been extremely helpful through that project. i would just have you feel a little more comfort that be happy you're on the northern border instead of the southern border. i think we'll be able to traverse those challenges quite

easily. >> that's very good to hear. the other issue we face being a great lakes state is a large coast guard presence as well. let me know what first net is doing with the coast guard. as you know, depending on what the emergency is, sometimes it's the coast guard that's the first to respond but they work closely with fire and police and ems personnel as well. >> exactly i think it's an excellent question. just as we have outreach to all the states we have been talking about, we have a dedicated person on the first net staff to focus with our federal partners. there's a person inside the federal government who is our single point of contact. there's a lot of an anymores in the federal government. i'm sorry i don't remember the acronym, but it has to deal with bringing all the agencyies together around emergency communications. two of our board members were co

co-chairs of that committee. so we are very engaged and recently met with the federal partners to make sure we can coordinate and make sure they are part of this process. we're very engaged with them. >> wonderful. i want to pick up on a comment you made about when the systems are overwhelmed depending on the incident. i'm thinking about horror story in michigan if we had a crisis at the university of michigan football game which we have an awful lot of folks at the stadium, communication can be difficult. how do you see first net handling that situation? and how can we assure we're going to be able to handle these incredible spikes of why this network is so incredible to handle? >> senator on the large scale events obviously, the initial stages of it are somewhat chaotic. that's when we experience the most difficulty with voice communication. but as we have to reach outside of our own jurisdictions at

those times to gather critical information to manage that incident, the data side of this is what's really needed and what's really important. so when we reach out to federal agencies that could provide us mapping information and other types of information that we would need when law enforcement may need to reach out for intelligence type information having availability through the first net for the data is critical. again, depending on the localities communication system, some are very robust systems. some are not so much at this point. so i look at this as somewhat of a safety net in those times that if your voice communications do start to fail or get overwhelmed, you have that backup with first net on the data side to exchange critical data. >> just a couple comments. first of all, going to my

comments about a dedicated network, first of all, that's a lot of capacity. we have 20 mega hets and that's a lot of capacity. we sometimes have spikes. we will through the rfp process get someone who actually want to use that excess capacity and will be using the network and will be getting revenue for that. the beauty of long long-term evolution is it has priority and preemption. even if there are people using the network, those folks will come off the network and public safety will be get. ing priority. this is the first time this has ever been done. having been in telecommunications for a a long time, people talk about it, but it's all been done manual pi. this is done automatically. we're doing testing. we have vender technology in our labs and we're testing it. so the good news is that it works. i also think it's important to mention because this is a big change for public safety.

it's use edd to working in vertical organizations. fire, law enforcement, ems, this is creating a very horizontal ability to communicate. as a result of that we have an advisory called the public safety advisory council. they are looking at how this new organization is going to local operations. i think it's going to change the way public safety operates. i think it's all good, but it's different. i think we are going to enjoy as we see this technology roll out things we aren't even thinking about today. it's going to be a big change for public safety. those are the important things about the public safety network that will make a very big difference. >> thank you. >> senator fischer? >> thank you, mr. chairman. can you give us an idea of when this is going to be fully operational. do you have a window of time there? >> it's always a great question.

as i said, we have the strategic road map that lays out the timeframe of getting through our state consultation, issuing the rpf, getting the response and obviously awarding to the winner of the process. what we don't know today is what might happen in that process. so if we were unencumbered by external factors we can give you a more definitive timeframe, but my expectation based on what everybody has told me is we might see a few bumps along the way. the goal is to, obviously to get that rfp out, get the responses in put that information together and deliver plans o to each of the governors of every state. what happens during that timeframe we're hoping is smooth and i hope you get a sense of the sense of urgency and how hard we're working. >> will you reach the 2022 goal that's out there?

>> oh yeah, if we don't we should be shot. >> mr. chairman, i don't even know how to respond. >> we'll find a lesser answer. >> appreciate your honesty on that. when we're looking at the gao's estimate that you're going to need $12 to $47 billion over the next 10 years how do you think -- first of all, go you agree with those numbers? >> as i said previously, the gao report has looked at some assumptions and some estimates where they have no visibility to the assumptions that were made. i will tell you very early in the process the early folks who were with first net along with the board looked at a financial model around some assumptions. we're pretty comfortable based on our experience around the cost structure to do this sort

of thing. the revenue side is a little harder but we have made some reasonable assumptions. we have incorporated that into the model to say is this even feasible? can we even do this? i thought it was an important process to go through because why expend federal funds to go down this it path to find out at the end of it -- >> can we do it? >> yes, we can. assuming that the -- notice i would just like to highlight that the public notice we issued on monday is critical to the rfp process because it starts to answer some of the questions that i think were maybe a little unclear in the legislation that we're trying to clarify before we go out with rfp. we believe that it can happen, but it will only be validated through the rfp process. >> if by chance that's not going to be enough money what do you

see happening? are the states going to have to step forward and pick it up? are we looking at turning first net into a self-sustaining entity? where do we go from there? >> i think it's an excellent question. we've talked a lot about that inside of first net. if we don't realize what we believe the value of the spectrum is, we could fold up our tents and go home, which is why this is such an important process, which is why we're out with state consultation to make sure -- think about this. we have to provide a compelling value proposition for our first responders. we're in a very different situation than other projects where they are more mandated. we have to deliver to our first responders something that they think is worthwhile. so i think it changes the dynamic and way we approach this in terms of how we approach the project. if we don't realize the value of the spectrum, it's going to be

very challenging to be self-sustaining. >> do you think first net would then put in a claim for more of the money that comes from the sale of spectrum? >> we're not looking for more money actually. we're not looking -- >> that is nice to hear, thank you. >> that's rare that's rare but we take that honestly very seriously, which is why you see such a dedicated team at first net and why i think senator booker talked about the importance of having people who have done this before so you have a sense of confidence that it can be accomplished and why it's so important that the rfp be very well done. we believe that there is interest in our spectrum. we have a fundamental belief, and we validated that through conversations we have had had with folks. there's never enough spectrum. it's like gold. we think it's good spectrum and

we have people out there who are more than interested in being part of that. we're confident that will prove to be the assumption that was correct. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you. next up is senator blumenthal. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i found a remark earlier that you made somewhat staggering. that it takes nine to ten months to hire someone? did i hear correctly? >> unfortunately, yes, you did. >> so you have the funding you need. >> correct. >> and you have the spectrum that's necessary. >> correct. >> the two essential components that have been commonly identified but you are in effect i don't think it's too strong a word to say handicap even crippled by procurement

procedures including hiring procedures that essentially are os fied and inurgent to the task you have faced. you have used the word urgent to describe it. i think all of us would agree. what can be changed in those procurement policies, which have so handicapped other branches of government as well in urgent tasks particularly in the hiring area. >> z as i said, senator, we're working with department of commerce and the secretary staff to see what we can do. in addition to just the federal process i think we have some things internal. we are looking at the cycle time of that and what is getting in the way. why is it taking two months to write a job description. why is it taking two months to hire a firm to hire people. it shouldn't take that long. we're looking to see what we can do to come press that, which would enhance our ability to get

the job done. i'm just telling you we're working hard. i'd love to report back to you on the progress we're making on that. >> in each of those steps that you have identified, opm has to be a partner, correct? >> you know, i'm probably not -- >> under current procedures. >> i'm not as familiar. >> if i could give a little more context on that. one of the things we have done and moved first net over to the commerce personnel system, which is a more streamlined and flexible process than the normal opm process. there are undoubtedly challenges because of the safeguards that are built into federal law in terms of hiring that, as you point out, this is urgent and the needs of first net are incredibly specialized. >> what about ms. swenson giving first net direct hire authority? >> i'm happy to start that.

we have made that request. it has not been granted. >> when did you make that request? >> i would have to pull the exact dates. >> it was quite awhile ago. >> eight or nine months ago. >> what have they said to you? >> up until now it has not been granted based on the nature of the hiring and what they -- >> have they responded negatively or just not responded? >> negatively. >> i would just clarify that just a little bit. they responded negatively to our first request. they have not responded to our second request. >> when was your second request made? >> august of 2014. >> august of 2014. so that's awhile ago. >> right. >> let me just suggest that for the first year and a half, i believe i'm correct in saying your board essentially

functioned as the staff. now you have 110 employees, which seems inadequate low is right. the success of this very very important national priority depends on having the best and the brightest. there is simply no way you can compete for the limited pool of highly skilled talented people who are being hired by google, apple, there is huge demand for these people. >> correct. >> and you're telling them, sorry, we can't let you know for another ten months and they are going to say, thanks but no thanks, right? >> in fact they have. >> and they have. i'm sure that they have in large numbers. >> correct. >> so if i may respectfully

suggest the federal government is failing you. less we expose you to capital punishment, i think we have an obligation to compel the relevant agencies, and anybody else concerned to do better and to do more and to do it more quickly so that you can succeed in this task. >> senator, we would really appreciate that, thank you for your comments. >> thank you. senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman. one of the issues that strikes me in this discussion is this on how fast you can go and whether there's more the private sector can do but the key phrase here is inner operability. am i understanding that some of those pilots were turned down because they really weren't ensuring interoperability?

the private sector can get it done in a second, but it will be a closed loop system based o on somebody's technology that they build and build and build and build off their technology. if you want to give somebody the grand prize, we could do that. but the issue here is making sure we have interoperability. is that correct? is that what some of the pilots were delayed for because they weren't conquering with that? >> i can respond pretty specifically because as a board member i actually in the very beginning days of first net negotiated the leases. those projects were in existence prior to first net. they were focused on broadband and to make sure they were consistent with what they were trying to do with first net. the good news is we were able to move some of those forward. some of the difficulties that we experienced, one of the requirements was that the plan that the organization presented had to be self-sustainable. so in other words, they needed to show financial viability.

in some of those cases, it didn't turn out to be that. i will tell you personally, senator, that i personally worked very hard to try to get those projects completed because we knew how important they are. we have learned a lot from these projects we have already incorporated into the technical work that the technical team is doing. it's helped us in terms of understanding the government assets and how we might utilize those. i think that ntia has been involved in that activity as well because they have a different role than first net does. we work hard to get those projects on board because we're learning a lot from them. >> so i want to ask you about when we will see functionality because it is important. so while i understand the issue of interoperability and making sure that it is implemented throughout the network, i think the state grants are very important. i mean, we have this horrible incident that we're about on our almost one year anniversary which is the mud slide which

literally cut two communities in half and they were without communication and required 30 different agencies to respond. i think everybody now knows exactly what we want and what it's going to take in this particular area because of the topography you have communication challenges just in that, but literally at one point we were just trying to green light basically putting the broadband back up for a mile connected to the trees. that's what we had to do. . we couldn't have -- over 40 people lost their lives in this incident. everybody wanted to respond, but we didn't even have broadband communication until we green lighted and hanging it along tree limbs and everybody could respond. i just hope that we will see the urgency that we have to get some

of these pilots done and we take these state plans and make them sew up the actual needs so that then you can lay your work on top of them in a faster fashion and we get some of these demonstrations and pilots up and running right away. when would we have that functionality? >> let me see if i'm trying to listen to all the comments that you had in there. i think it's important to understand that the pilots are important for us relative to building out our nationwide network. that's our first priority. i know that there are many people who would like us to do many more pilots and i will tell you it would be a bit of a delusion of our efforts as we indicated, were resource constrained at this point. we want to focus our effort and energy on the public notice that we just issued, which by the way really did a lot to support the rural states issues if you have

seen that. it's a really important issue for the coverage there. >> when would we see functionality of one of those? >> the functionality of one of the pilots? >> yes. >> actually there's a pilot in colorado that's in the boulder area that's up and functioning. we have another project that's not actually a broadband project, but it's in harris county, texas and they have an operational system. in fact, i went and visited harris county in january of 2013. so they are actually experiencing and using these with first responders to test some of the functionality and the interoperability. so some of these projects are up and running. in new jersey we have a deemployable project. they are in the process of getting the deployable so they can test the ability to operational liez them. >> i'm sure our state is very aggressive, so i know my time is running out here. we'll have to get details about what our state is doing and when we'll see a pilot within the state of washington.

>> we'll be happy to spend time with you. >> senator wicker? >> thank you, mr. secretary. the broadband technologies program came about as a result of the stimulus act in 2012 a tax relief act came along and now we have firstnet. mississippi was one of the grantees under top and moved forward very aggressively with greater speed than any other recipient. and the department and our delegation have had numerous discussions about our disappoint disappointment with how this has turned out. i understand firstnet maintains it could not reach a lease agreement with the state of mississippi. this was unfortunate because it's tens of millions of state and federal tax dollars had been

spent significant assets deployed and the system weeks away from going live mississippi would have provided an early demonstration of the great. potential broadband holes for first responders. i'm sure you're aware the delegation met with the secretary in 2013 to impress on him how important restarting the original b-top project was to all of us. at that point i tried to help the state of mississippi reach an agreement. they pledged to work with us to find a way forward and this has not come to fruition. the grant as saving taxpayers money by avoiding investments that might have to be replaced if they are incompatible with the architecture of the

broadband network. however, one of the fundamental conditions on all 700 mega hertz is the commitment of the waiver recipients to design develop and deploy a network that is fully interoperable. so that argument does not seem to hold water. further more, mississippi's contract with its venders required complete compliance with, quote, all rules specifications and functionalties, end quote, that may change per the fcc or ntia during the build out of the nationwide network. understandably, we in mississippi are disappointed and upset. given these asurnss by the state of mississippi how is ntia saving taxpayer money when the agency is telling mississippi to spend money to dismantle the lte

equipment already deployed? >> senator, as you know, there were originally seven pilot projects looked at. four of them were approved, three of them were not approved, including the mississippi grant. we were deeply disappointed as well because we wanted to try to make this work. at the end of the day, the state and ntia couldn't agree on terms because the state's plan didn't provide the necessary level of detail we needed to meet the statutory requirements of the act. under the btop program there were specific requirements that this had to meet. the mississippi plan that came forward wasn't a viable alternative that met the statutory requirements. one of the things that ntia is committed to doing -- >> statutory requirements from 2012 or -- >> from the original btop program. it's my understanding that the mississippi program didn't provide broadband coverage.

so that was one of the challenges of this. but look we wanted to try to make this work. the firstnet team worked long and hard with mississippi trying to find a way to make it work. three of the projects were not in the end able to go forward because they, for one reason or another, including this one. ntia is working with the state to dispose of the equipment. the medical communications equipment held by the hospitals and ambulances will be retained to mississippi so we're trying to keep as much of that value. but ntia is committed to helping to dispose of the access equipment frankly to avoid a loss to the taxpayers. >> mr. secretary, we were weeks away from deployment. mississippi was a leader in deploying a network for first responders. based on the statute that was enacted in 2009 when the federal government made the decision to disman to start over. mississippi has already accomplished the goals of ntia's

implementation program, which is why the state turned down the offered sligp grant. mississippi today has a mature governance structure for the network that was created in 2005. the state was only weeks away from turning on its broadband network. when the btop grant was suspended by ntia. i hope that your offer to continue working with the state comes to fruition. ms. swenson was invited over a year ago to come to mississippi. for whatever reason that meeting has not taken place yet. but i can tell you that we in mississippi and our entire delegation, democrat and republican, are very concerned about this very disappointed at the wasting of federal money from the economic stimulus

program. and we are particularly disappointed that medcome is not able to go forward, a project that has received essential equipment and would allow first responders to transmit life-saving data to provide hospitals with support and medical services to proceed on. my time has expired, but i hope this hearing will result in some purposeful action on the part of the department and firstnet to make things work in mississippi. >> thank you, senator of environments. very rural environments across much of the state. it's removed geography as a constraint. we're able to build world-class

companies because we can attain talent. we have fly fishing, streams and mountains and so forth. it also helps us improve our first responder services, the technology and i'm encourage edd in what firstnet can do to improve public safety by coordinating these communication capabilities. when we have incidents that are 50 to 100 miles away in terms of a medical emergency, it's the difference between life and death. we have some important national assets. we have a third of the nation's icbms are located in montana. we share a border with three canadian provinces. so without perhaps as background, i am concerned about the definition of rural.

on top of existing infrastructure first and that makes complete logic, perfect logic and sense to me except for the fact that states like montana have limited coverage and, in fact, in tribal lands it's virtually nonexistent. what sort of contingency plans do we have for these types of areas like the northern cheyenne reservation that doesn't even have 3g service let alone 4g. secretary, maybe you can take the first shot at that. >> with your permission, senator, i'd like to allow sue to take this. she can answer that question. >> she's smile inging. >> i'm happy to answer that. first of all, it's important, senator, that you know that the public notice that we issued on monday takes a really bold step about rural and making sure that

rural is maken care of in this total plan. so we know how important it is for states like yourself. in our first public notice, senator, asked for public comment on what rural meant because in the legislation, it could have different interpretations and we want to make sure we have consistency on that. we have gotten a lot of good feedback and we'll incorporate that. i'm assuming your state probably gave us feedback on that particular topic. if not, we're happy to take that. in terms of tribal, it's important that you understand that we take the tribal consultation very seriously. all the different states have a variety of tribes that we need to consider. tribal organizations should be part of state consultation, so when that occurs, the single point of contact it's important that we make sure that that representation is actually part of the state consultation.

we as an organization actually hired and have a person dedicated to the tribal organization so that they are fully represented. we also as part of the public safety advisory council have a tribal working group. one of our board members has been traveling the u.s. meeting with the different organizations. so i just want you to know that rural is important tribal is important and i believe we're taking steps to make sure those areas are covered. >> what's the preliminary thinking? the infrastructure doesn't exist today. will they wait until the infra infrastructure is there or will they circumvent that and put the infrastructure in? >> that's going to be part of our rfp process and what we'd like to get feedback from the partners and venders who will be responding is how we cannot only cover urban but cover rural. because the idea is we would make that as high a priority as our urban coverage. i think there was some comments about leveraging existing infrastructure. part of the rfp needs to address

the rural coverage and the folks respond ing responding to the rfp need to respond on how they plan to do that. >> of course, the paradox is some of those areas are in the greatest need of telecommunications telecommunications. >> which is why we're making it a priority. >> as i understand also, the gov governor of each state would have the option to accept or opt out of the firstnet plan. i'm not hearing that montana is planning to opt out, but there was curiosity if a governor did opt out they are responsible for coordinating an effort and submitting that plan to the fcc. any sense of what the costs associated with opting out versus accepting the plan for some of the states might be? >> well, i think that's -- it's a great. question. it's important to understand that you're not really opting out of the nationwide network. you're really assuming responsibility for building your own radio access network. all states, whether they use firstnet's network or build their own, will connect to our

national core. that's what creates the interoperability across the nation. now in terms of the cost, that will be something for your team in montana to determine. we're going to give the governor a plan that will lay out the coverage we have planned based on the consultation we do with your state in terms of the priorities and we will give you what the cost of that is or the pricing to your end users. you will then have that to make a determination as the state and the governor makes that decision as to whether or not you want to take on responsibility. >> you'll have a cost. >> we won't determine your cost. you're going to an issue an rfp. we'll tell you your plan. you can compare to what you think bidding your own network would cost. >> i'm out of time. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, mr.

chairman chairman. thank you to you and the ranking member for holding this important hearing. as a former prosecutor and co-chair along with senator burr of the 911 caucus in the senate, i know how important it is to support our first responders. i'm also the state that had that bridge collapse and while everyone saw on tv the first responders show up and repeatedly dive into that water to look for survivors and all the work of the emergency responders, what people didn't see were the 77 men and women at the minneapolis emergency communications center who took those calls. while a number of people died it could have been so much worse because people were able to get to hospitals. there were dozens more cars in there and people survived because of our first responders. i have worked hard to strengthen our country's emergency response network in part by sponsoring and working on the legislation that led to the creation of firstnet. i think it's critical to our communications infrastructure

and congress intended it to be billionth on a combination of new and existing infrastructure. senator thune and others have been talking about the rural issues so i'm not going to focus on that. that's important to me. but ms. swenson, are you committed to making sure that as firstnet launches partnerships that opportunities will be available to entities of all size? i know that new core wireless based in st. cloud is participating in a pilot project with firstnet in elk river and it's a good trial project but i want to make sure you'll continue to work with entities of all sizes. >> yes, in fact i think it's important to understand that the process is design eded to do that. we have a responsibility to make sure that we deploy a nationwide network at the most effective cost structure. so as we go out and talk to people who have different assets who want to participate in the request for proposal, everyone

will have an opportunity to do that. we will weigh those options and also look at the complexity of the design and also the speed to market. those are the things that we have to consider. but certainly, we're welcoming one and all because this is going to take a really integrated and joint effort to make this work. >> okay. the spectrum act also included an amendment i worked to create a funding mechanism for $115 million for 911 research and grant. s coordinated by ntia. i continue to have as my top priority in making sure we not only have the nationwide network in place but we integrate the technologies that already transforming public safety realtime video text messaging. what involvement has firstnet had with answering points and 911 community? >> actually we're in communications with the

as you know as well the nat administers the next again program and that is what we are working on. >> and we should invite you to join the 911 caucus. we have emergencies that we respond to. my last question, miss swenson, is i understand that minnesota was the second state to have its

consultation with first net last september. what are the takeaways with that meeting from the stakeholders of minnesota? >> as i indicated earlier i think it is important that we learn from each of the states their individual circumstances. every state has a set of circumstances that are very different. your topography is different and your priorities are different and we've learning in each of the consultations is unique to your state to incorporate that into the process. >> very good. thank you very much. >> senator udall. >> thank you very much chairman soon, and thank you for focusing this hearing on this very, very important topic. and let me first just say i want first net to succeed in ensuring our nation's first responders have the communications tools

they need despite the lessons learns of 9/11, our first responders still do not have nationwide inner operable communications network. as many of you know, in an emergency this can be a matter of life and death n. my home state of new mexico i'm pleased a grant helped upgrade the safety communications. this hope my puts -- hopefully puts my state ahead as first net becomes operable. sometimes congress makes good policies but fails to follow through by adequately funding the implementation and that could well be a case here. building first net is clearly no easy task and i want congress to give first net a chance to succeed. it is important first responders have the communications tools they need to protect all of us. now many have raised the rural

issue. i think rural is tremendously important in new mexico and so i want you to focus on that. miss swenson, you talked in your written testimony and i think to a question asked by senator danes about tribal -- the tribal issues and how tribes are going to be included. i want to applaud you on having a person dedicated to the tribes. that is usually the way it works best is somebody that understands the tribal issues and develops a long-term relationship and works with them. could you expand a little bit on your testimony -- your written testimony about how you're going to make sure that the tribes aren't left out in this -- moving forward. >> certainly. as you know the act really requires that we engage with tribals so there was no ambiguity about that. so we're very clear about that. but setting that aside, first net really understands the

importance of tribes. as you said, we have a important dedicated to that within first net and that is unique for an organization like that to dedicate a resource to that. we also have part of the public safety advisory council a tribal working group and that is focused on the tribal group so it is represented within the public safety community and the tribal group. that particular small group had a meeting in washington, d.c. just two weeks ago and so it is a very high priority for us. in fact when i was in town hall meeting a couple of weeks ago the tribal representative from our organization was there at the town hall and we had tribal representation at the town hall meeting and he was going to get in his car and drive along the coast and meet with as many tribal organizations as possible. so he's out and about. and our board member kevin mcguiness from the ems has been taking on that responsibility as a board member making sure we

are reaching out and making sure they are aware of and making sure the tribe is part of consultation. so it is important that they are at the state meetings so we can understand their perspective as well. so we're very, very focused on that and consider it a high priority. >> and as you said, the consultation part is tremendously important. i mean the tribes really look to the federal government to look at -- and see that they are going to be communicated with and consulted with on these kinds of issues so we appreciate what you are doing and we have your economiment to make sure they are not left out. >> you absolutely do. >> thank you. senator garner. >> thank you to the witnesses for your testimony and time. i apologize for coming in late. i was attending an aufm hearing with secretary kerry downstairs. thank you mrs. swenson for your

attention for a network. first net if done right can help first responders do their job for quickly and effectively and no one knows this more than colorado with wildfires. so i want to know what we need to react to disasters such as these in the future and i want the network to succeed. and i'm happy to talk about the 911 caucus too but she's left so we'll figure that one out later. so one of the concerns from the state and i've heard from the state is that the current path forward for first net does not include the use of public assets that are ready and willing to be utilized by the public safety network. i understand you need to know who the commercial partners are before moving forward and utilizing public assets. isn't there an argument that we

should be using these public assets? >> i think that is a good question and you weren't here earlier. but in the earlier days of first net, we thought getting that information about government assets would be very very important for building out the network. what we've learned through our b-top projects in l.a. in particular, is this is particular in the circumstances in every state about coming to a memorandum of understanding about those assets, the leasing of excess capacity on those assets. whatever the circumstances are, they are much more complex than we had anticipated. so what we would like to do is obviously know about those assets but take that into consideration after we determine who the partner is and then determine what additional -- what additional perhaps coverage or capability those assets can add to the existing plan. and so we just think from a

sequencing standpoint and complexity standpoint as i said earlier, we want to make sure we have the national network built. so it has been a change from what we had originally anticipated but we are comfortable with this approach. and additionally if there are assets that this organization and the state would like to be considered as part of the nationwide network, it is important that we look at speed to deployment and complexity and cost because we have a responsibility to make sure this is done in the most effective and efficient way as possible. >> and some of the follow up on the complexity and the speed at which we are being done. and adams county is functioning and so thank you for that. but if they've met all of the international standards and inter-operability is not an issue, and if we're looking at three or four years down the road and people in colorado need

to get this done now, does adams county have to wait until they can wait for a plan and can colorado build it out and still be part of first net. i'm concerned we have places in colorado a significant metropolitan area with forest and terrain that need to move forward and yet this is taking time and we could build out. how do you respond to that? >> well again this is a complex issue as you know and we're very excited about what adams count is -- county is doing and it has become a real -- a good project for people to come and see how this new technology is working. i think it is really important for people to understand, our focus is getting on the nationwide network and we have limited resources at first net in order to spend time on individual projects. and so it would dilute our ability to work on the nationwide plan. and so it is a trade-off for us very frankly, senator. and a difficult one because i

would love to have all of the resources in the world to do a lot more in a lot of different areas. but we have an obligation to move this as quickly as possible so we've had to make some tradeoffs. >> and perhaps we could follow up on that but i want to shift to the rural combination that people brought up. in previous experience that we've had with some funding from the federal government that was intended and designed to go to unserved or under-served areas money was spent in areas where it could easily be spent or many would be spent in difficult areas to reach, that money was not spent and by the time they got to the areas that were hard to reach, like in colorado, that money was gone. are there parts of areas parts of colorado, where first net will not be building out into because it doesn't make sense or it is not responsible? >> well i think that is an excellent question. first i think it is important to know that the funding in the

second notice ensures world buildout. the notice from monday is insurance in the buildout. this is talking about the priorities. not that we would never build but we want to understand where the priorities are. because obviously a network of this magnitude we can't just snap our finger and turn it on one day. it will have to go in phases. but we have rural buildout milestones that we need to accomplish to make sure that we do that. the response to the rfp will be critical and the folks who respond to the rfp will have to address those issues. that is why we're taking the information from your state consultations and interactions with your state and putting that into the rfp so whoever is responding knows that is a priority for you. >> but from your point there is no place in the country that is taken off the table. >> no. from my point, we talk about

rural more than metropolitan. and i commend and for anybody listening, the second in thenotice really assures that. and we took great pains to make sure the very situation you describe won't happen here. >> thank you. mr. chairman. >> thank you senator gardner and i appreciate the continued emphasis on the rural issues. miss swenson, i'm sure you got that a lot. >> i feel the same way. >> this has been a great panel. i thought this shed a lot of light on a subject that has -- i think we needed to get out and have just this oversight hearing to raise some of the issues ask some of the questions and we appreciate the panels willingness to appear today and to respond to those questions and we'll continue to provide that oversight. this is an important investment. something that has a lot of ramifications for our first

responders and our public safety community and making sure we're able to respond in a timely way when things happen so we want to make sure that we get it right and this committee will do everything we can to stay on top of it. thank you for being here today -- oh, okay. all right. the senator from massachusetts is here. >> i apologize, and i appreciate it. and i want to thank you for convening today's hearing. we understand very well how important it is to have a strong reliable first responder network from the over 100 inches of snow this winter to hurricane sandy to the marathon bombing, we know how important it is to have the first responder communication tools to communicate with each other

safely and i have always supported first net because it supports the recommendations of the 9/11 commission and the public safety network and it ensures that our first responders have the tools which they need. so miss swenson we must ensure that first net is reliable across the entire country. however each part of the country faces its own set of difficulties that wille chaenk the net -- that wille enk the network from tornados, emergencies, the list is endless. we need to make sure the network has the capacity as it actually responds to each one of these different challenges. so my first question is it is supposed to establish the network for the 21st century public safety needs, given the states and municipalities have

first responder networks how will first net deploy the national public safety broadband network. >> senator thank you for the question. we are interested, as you are, in making this a reliable network and we were just talking to senator gardner about a similar question but i'm be happy to repeat it. the issue with the current assets within the state when we started first net, we thought that that would we -- would be the way to go to do an inventory and then go from there. but our project in los angeles has informed us and been useful in understanding the challenges with actually using existing asset because of the difficulty of developing understanding and leasing capacity and understanding it was probably harder than we thought to do. now that doesn't mean that we

wouldn't utilize those in some fashion but go through the rfp process, award partners to actually deploy the network and then determine how those assets could be utilized. and also the assets, depending on who owns them they could be part of responding to the request for proposal. because deploying this network, as you indicated, it is important that we do this in an urgent fashion and that is where we are dedicating our resources to do that. >> okay. on patriots day 2013 right in the middle of downtown boston with a million people watching the marathon there is no other event like this, we then had the marathon bombing attack. >> right. >> so on the one hand you have the government response, on the other hand you have a private cellular network that you want to have working and you have a million people all calling what is happening to my family member running. or even in this instance

people who weren't running also injured. so can you talk a little bit about the capacity in emergencies for the private cellar network to be able to also provide the information necessary for people to be able to respond properly. >> sure. as you know, the commercial networks today get really burdened when there an incident, whether it is small or large. and all of us pick up our phones and make a phone call. so it really prohibits the first responders from being able to use the commercial network. with first net, it will be a dedicated network and even with the leasing of the excess capacity for other use the technology today, senator, has something called priority and preemption and that can allow first responders to get access to the network and remove the folks using the fet work who are not critical. and so we believe that that particular capability really

differentiates first net from commercial networks today. that is what commercial networks can't do. additionally, we are working in the state consultation meetings to look at how to harden those networks. so assuming we have a commercial partner that partners with us along with other folks, we're going to be in a different band class and we'll harden the networks relative to each particular state. >> excellent. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you senator markie. and again thank you very much to the panel and the hearing record will be open for two weeks. during that time senators are asked to submit any questions they have for the record. upon receipt the witnesses are requested to submit the written answers as soon as possible. again, thank you very much for your participation. this hearing is adjourned.

>> if you missed this hearing we'll show it laettner our program schedule and available online shortly to vieh new time at c-span.org. check the c-span video library. and the house is out for this

week but the senate is in session working on anti-trafficking legislation. they are looking at language for victim restitution to include funds for abortion. mitch mcconnell said next week this le look at loretta lynch's nomination to replace outgoing eric holder. and you can watch it live on our companion network c-span 2. and later a defense secretary hearing with ashton carter to talk about the situation in ukraine live at 2:30 on our companion network c-span. and carter talking about isis joined by secretary of state john kerry and the chair of joint chiefs dempsey. that started at 9:00 a.m. and continues on our live network

c-span. and we'll show you that hearing tonight at 8:00 also on c-span. and should congress approve the use of military force against isis. log on to our facebook page at facebook.com facebook.com/c-span and leave your comments. here are the features programs for this weekend on the networks. saturday at 1:00 p.m. eastern c-span's book tv is live from the university of arizonafor the tucson festival of books, featuring discussions on race, politics and the civil war and by the nation magazine writers with call-ins with the authors. and then on sunday, panels with the obama administration, and the future of politics and cob -- concussions in football. and on c-span three we're live in farmville, virginia, for the

civil war seminar where they talk about the closing weeks of the civil war in 1865. and on sunday morning at 9:00 we continue our live coverage of the seminar on the remarks of the surrender of the fedder assy -- confederacy. find the entire programs at c-span.org. or call us at 202-626-3400 or email us at comments at c-span.org or join the conversation. like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. and on to a discussion now on president obama's request for the use of military force against isis from today's washington journal. >> set now is benjamin wittes the senior fellow at brookings institution to talk about the isis war authorization. this debate over war powers. let's begin with the history

here. why have president's gone to congress to ask for authorization to fight a war or to fight terrorists in this instance, where cher the command -- when they are the commander-in-chief. >> so congress gives the president the power to declare so the war powers are shared between the president and congress. it makes as you say, the president the commander-in-chief. but the decision to go to war is a shared decision. over the years, since world war ii really the declaration of war in the formal sense has kind of lapsed. we don't use them in international affairs any more. and what is left of it is the authorization to use force which is a domestic law permissioned by congress to invoke the war powers of the presidency. in the '70s, congress passed the war powers resolution which was an attempt to regulate the circumstances in which the

president had to ask for an authorization. it has been a document of, shall we say, middling success. >> so how has it worked over the years. >> the president goes to congress for the permission to use force, except when he doesn't. and when he doesn't, he always has a reason that amounts to -- because i don't have to. and when he does he doesn't admit that he doesn't have to. a good example the president has gone to congress and asked for a resolution of authorization to fight isil, all the while claiming that he has already all of the authorization he needs from the previous 2001 aumf for al qaeda. >> and you were talking about the powers act of 1973, the

powers to introduce the united states armed forces into hostilities, and pursuant to a declaration of war specific statutory authorization or a national emergency of attack upon the united states. >> right. so the general rule is that the president, as commander-in-chief has inherent authority without congress's involvement, to repel an attack. so think of the exigent circumstances in which you don't have time to get congress involved and congressional deliberations are lengthy. on the other hand, if you are thinking about a conflict where you have some time to think about it, it is always prudent and many scholars believe constitutionally or statutorily required to go to congress and seek an authorization. and the war powers act tries to

regulate and balance those two basic ideas by requiring that when the president introduce forces in a non-exigent situation he come back to congress within 60 days and seek authorization. >> when it comes to isis, where do they fall under those three circumstances that i just read that are outlined in this '73 war powers act? >> this is a trekkie move that -- a tricky move that the administration has played here. they claim congress has authorized the fight against isis when they passed the 2001 aufm in response to 9/11. so they claim they don't need to come back under the war powers resolution and get another authorization because they already have it. now the problem is that they've come back any way. and they are asking for what they think of as a supplemental

authorization devoted to this situation in particular. >> what is the -- does the 2001 authorization say. >> it says the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force to attack the persons, organizations or states -- groups or states that are responsible for 9/11 and the persons, groups and states responsible for harboring those people. and that has been interpreted to refer to al qaeda the taliban and their associated forces. and the administration regards isil as sort of a branch office of al qaeda and certainly an associated force part of the old al qaeda in iraq. >> we were just showing our viewers the 2001 and now the 202 authorization that is up. the 2001 authorization says use

of all authorization persons organizations committed or who aided the september 11 attacks. so is this a declaration of war. >> it is not so much a declaration of war or a state of hostility between nations, but it is a declaration of war. it is congress saying for separation of powers purposes, you, as the president, have the authorization to use your powers in pursuance of these objectives. >> why is the word "war" not then used and what are the legal ramifications of using the word" war". >> and the reason we don't use declarations of war is sort of international law history question that i'm not sure i

know the answer to. it has a lot to do with the creation of the u.n. charter, which sort of changed the landscape in international law. but i'm probably the wrong person to ask that question too. the significance -- but when you get rid of the -- the declaration of war, it doesn't change the domestic level separation of powers question. that changed the international law landscape. but what you are left with is the separation of powers issue who has the power and under what circumstance to initiate armed conflict? is it congress? is it the president? or is it some shared responsibility between them. and the way the system has evolved, it is a shared responsibility in which congress' role is smaller than it used to be, but not unimportant. >> the 2001 authorization written broadly, no limitations

on it and so why then did congress go ahead and authorize force in 2002? >> so the 2002 aufm was specific to iraq and to the then i impending and not completed invasion of saddam hussein. he was not one of the people who planned and carried out the -- the 9/11 attacks so it wasn't covered -- that goal wasn't covered by that aumf so president bush went back to congress and said, hey, give me authority for what i now want to do which is invade iraq and take out saddam hussein. that aumf has been cited sometimes for the current isil fight because it does, after all, take place in iraq. but it is not particularly

strong support for the current mission. and so the president has asked in the context of congress passing a new aumf to have that one repealed. >> to have the 2002 repealed and the 2 0001 and stands and what does mean. >> this gets into tricky points but let me try to unpack it. so first of all, if you leave in place the 2001 aumf which remember the president claims gives him all of the authority he needs for current operations and you pass a new aumf with restrictions and it has ground force restrictions and time restrictions. it sunsets after three years. and a lot of people, and i'm one of them, believes those restrictions are meaningless if you leave in place an underlying document that you claim, gives

you all of the authority you need for what you are doing and doesn't have those restrictions and so a lot of people -- again and i'm one of them, have argued that you need to think about -- if you are going to restrict current operations in any way, you need to think about how the previous document interacts with the new authorization for those purposes. >> well that will surely be part of the debate up on capitol hill this morning when the secretary of state john kerry the defense secretary ashton carter and the joint chiefs martin dempsey appear to talk about the president's request for authorization for force against isis. and we'll end the journal a little bit early this morning to bring you live coverage of that hearing. and that is our conversation now with all of you and our guest here ben wittes, senior fellow

of studies at brookings institution, here to take your questions and comments about this debate. before we get to your calls let me show you what the president sent up to capitol hill. here are the limitations he wants to put on any new authorization. authority does not use the armed forces in enduring offensive combat ground offenses. this authorization shall terminate three years after the date of the enact of this joint resolution unless reauthorized. herb in orchard park new york, democratic caller, you are first. >> yes. i have a question that relates to what you alluded to a couple of minutes ago mr. wittes and that is the united nations. as you know, when we joined the united nations, drafted most of the charter, we agreed to abide by the charter. in that united nation's charter as you know well they have

codified and defined international law which in effect in summary without going into any detail, a military conflict must be authorized by the united nations security counsel unless a country is attacked and they have the right to defend themselves and then they have to go back to the security counsel so i would in summary submit to you for your comment, submit every military action the united states has taken since the korean war, the korean episode within the security counsel, the united nation's rules every one since then has been in violation of international law. >> okay. ben wittes. >> so you are certainly correct that there are a great many u.n. -- international armed conflicts that are not

sanctioned by the u.n. security counsel. it is not correct that no u.s. operations have been sanctioned by the security counsel. some have, some have not. generally depending on how able the u.s. is to a., get the votes it needs and b. persuade them to get the votes it needs. it is still the question of whether you can militarily intervene on behalf of a country that has within its own territory, consented. remember this is a military operation done in collaboration with a sovereign iraqi government. it is not exactly the situation that the u.n. charter there is contemplating which is a conflict between states. this is -- a set of operations done with state consent.

but, yes, you are correct that many -- that the u.n. charter has not in fact governed a lot of state's actions all of the time including the united states' actions sometimes in the military sphere. though most countries, including the united states spend a lot of time and energy trying to argue that their actions are fully in conformity with the charter at least as it has been interpreted and enacted. >> from florida, bruce democratic caller. hi there, bruce. >> how are you doing? >> good morning to you. go ahead. >> well, what i'd like to point out to everybody, you all have a graphic on your tv that says isis war debate. they are not debating war. they're debating the use of force. and this man here on tv a while ago said the 2001 authorization was to go after saddam hussein

it was not to go after hussein it was to go after weapons of mass destruction. thank you. >> so there is a difference, you're correct between uses of armed force, which can be sort of limited and less than full-fledged war and war. in fact, in international law we generally don't talk about war any more. we talk about armed conflict. and there are a varieties of picayune terminology depictions. that said, what congress is being asked to vote on and authorize is major military operations, particularly from the air. so i think for col oakial purpose -- colloquial purposes it is not unusual to car about a

war -- usual to talk about a war authorization rather than any other authorization. >> is our plan for war? has isis attacks us yet? >> they haven't attacked us yet but i don't think there is anything preemptive. they have seized things from the iraqi government and the iraqi government has asked for our help in recovering that territory so i don't think there is anything preemptive about the attack except in the limited sense that part of the hope, of course, of defeating isis now is that you do so before they then reach a level of strength at which they can and want to attack you. >> the "wall street journal" front page has drop in oil threatens the iraqi terror fight. they are headed over a fiscal

cliff, unable to keep the oil flowing, and skill fighting for oil revenues and heading -- for a break up. kim is here from texas. >> i've been hearing in the news and yes i'm going to change the topic a little bit, because i could care little about quibbling over the iraq argument 15 years ago. right now i speak to all of the men in texas because i'm from texas, and all of you y'all especially cornin, you are ridiculous. i'm 50 years old i can speak authorities to you. >> kim we don't know what you are talking about. >> i will finish and wrap it up. we are a unit. and by jumping across and

usurping powers is the most disrespectful thing and it is dangerous and i speak that on behalf of what is right and what is true. and you know it and i hope marco rubio -- you pay attention. but this is not what you all need to do. >> okay, so kim, i think he's referring to republicans writing the letter, 47 republicans writing the letter to iranian officials about this deal. what are your thoughts on that letter that was written, them saying this only really lasts about 22 months? >> right. so my colleague jack old smith on the website that we run law fair there was a constitutional error in the letter that purported to lecture foreign leaders about the u.s. constitution, that they misstated the operations of the treaty clause. so i mean, look this was not a good idea, to sort of have an

independent foreign policy communication with essentially an enemy state. that said, i think there is the anger on the part of a lot of democrats about it is probably a little bit overblown. it is just a letter from members of congress. >> we are talking with ben wittes senior fellow at brookings institute and editor in chief and co-founder of the law fair blog, you can follow him on that website as well. and member of the hoover institutes task force on national security and law. we'll go to darrell long beach, california, independent caller. good morning darrell. >> good morning. basically, i see the united states of america has a tremendous amount of investment into the military and it looks like no matter what happens we search for situations and problems of which right now, i notice in victoria nuland's in a

commentary mode with the senators and some of them reporting putin as a thug and a criminal and our athletes went to the olympics and there used to be a g-8 and when world war ii will start, do you think the united states will be at least 50% responsible. see you what you say, benjamin. >> and the headline in "the new york times," peter bake's piece, obama is said to resist growing pressure from all sides to arm ukraine. ben, what do you make of his sentiment, the caller? >> i'm not a foreign policy scholar. i work on issues related to the law of conflict. and i often don't have specially strong views about what the right u.s. policy should be for example, with respect to ukraine

or to isis, actually. i work with what is generally given as the policy. and right now, what is given with the policy with respect to isis is that the president wants to use military force and the congress, if anything wants him to use more military force than he is inclined to use. and so the question i confront is ifs that the policy objective, should should the law be? how should the law implement the policy objectives that we set? but if the question is how involved should we be in iraq? there is a lot of people who know more about iraq than i do honestly and that is certainly true of ukraine. >> does the law exist on the books now to fight isis the way the united states is fighting right now and/or any future strategy? >> the administration would say

the answer to that question is yes and i would say the answer to that question is fuzzy but probably not. and i think if you want a good authorization that is solidly on point for the fight we are fighting now rather than the fight that 12 years ago we thought we were likely to be fighting, you need -- congress needs to be involved. and it needs to pass something that more directly re -- reflects our 2001 aumf language did. >> what language would directly reflect the reality. >> we are currently fighting two classes of enemies. one is al qaeda the taliban and associated forces and the other is isis and its associated forces. and we have one resolution that sort of speaks to the former and to resolution that directly refers to the latter. and i would write a single

resolution that referred to both classes of groups explicitly and build in some restrictions, although not ground force or geographic restrictions and build in some restrictions and then sunset the whole thing every three to five years so congress could not do what it did last time, which is just let it sit for 13 years but would have to come back and see if this is still the same document we need for fighting. >> and so that is address specifically the security concerns in iraq with an authorization tailored to isis? >> yes. but also go back and look at the authorization, the 2001 authorization, and say, is this still well-describing what we are doing in yemen a country that we were not thinking about when we passed the 2001 aumf.

in certain actions, in somalia right, we are not fighting a war against bin laden any more and we should have an authorization that reflects the conflict -- conflict that we are involved in. >> manchester, connecticut, benjamin, thanks for hanging on the line. you are up next. >> great name. >> how are you doing? good morning. >> good morning. >> i was just wondering, the debate over the war powers, how necessary is it during peace time to have all of these laws about the war powers? >> well the war powers resolution has been around for a long time -- the executive branch has had constitutional questions about whether it is a proper law. it has generally sought to comply with it in a limited

sense on grounds of respect for congress basically, without acknowledging it is appropriate or constitutional. congress has been fruft -- been frustrated it doesn't get more deference than it does, but on the other hand congress doesn't exercise the powers it has very robustly. and the great example is you pass the 2001 aumf and then you sit there for 14 years and don't do anything. it is a great rule of american power politics that if you do not exercise muscles, they atrophy. and over time congress has not flexed its war powers muscles and the result is that executive branches over time have regarded themselves as the principal and sometimes the only actors in

this space. and my message to congress is if you believe you have a role to play in this, play it. >> we have about 10 minutes or so left with ben wittes, and he is previewing a hearing that will happen in about an hour. with ashton carter and john kerry and martin dempsey talking about the president's request for authorization to fight isis. and we'll have coverage of that here on c-span at 9:30 a.m. eastern time. ben wittes taking your questions and comments ahead of that hearing. what are your thoughts on the president's request to have congress grant him the authority to fight isis. thomas in lorj las vegas and a republican. go ahead. >> yeah, with the way iran is acting i wouldn't use any forces against isis.

especially if you are thinking about allowing iran to have nuclear weapons. iran is isis' enemy and let them take care of each other. >> okay. carmen in illinois, an independent. >> i would like to ask the gentleman, the 2001 war powers authorization set to go after people that committed the 2001 attacks against the u.s., how come the united states didn't go after saudi arabia? >> you know, the u.s.-saudi relationship is extremely complicated and there are a lot of factors in there other than one sense of whether the saudi regime are a bunch of nice people whether you think that is a good thing or a bad thing we have all kinds of strategic energy relations with the saudis and

and i don't think the possibility of military action against saudi arabia was ever seriously entertained. >> we'll take more of your phone calls as we continue talking with benjamin wittes. the numbers are on your screen. the phone lines are open. continue to dial in. benjamin wittes i want to go to a political headline that says no one is happy with the draft that the president sent up to congress for authorization to fight isis. some say it is not flexible enough. what language would you need in it to be as they say flexible for the president? >> well, so there are few bases in that law for anxiety. so for somebody that wants very robust action, here are the things you don't like. for one, it sunsets in three

years. so you are anxious that the law if passed, would limit the president temporally. you get a new administration in office, 18 22 months from now, and then all of a sudden their organization to use force is about to expire. number two, it has restrictions on ground forces. it does not authorize enduring ground operations. nobody quite knows what that means, but you say, hey, why would you tie the president's hands behind his back if you are sending him to do a fight, right? on the other hand if you are somebody who wants -- as many democrats do really to send the message that hey, we want to authorize a limited involvement, but we don't want to get involved in a long-term major new invasion of iraq, then you look at this authorization and you say, hey, it doesn't have

geographic limitations and not limited to iraq and syria so it could authorize force anywhere, theoretically, and you also say this enduring ground operations, i don't know what that means. maybe anything could be authorized if you just define it as not enduring. and so there is not really a lot of people who have read this authorization and said ah, yes this speaks for exactly the policy objectives i have in this process. >> charles milton, florida, republican, you are on the air. >> i would like to remind mr. wittes, they killed four of us at [ inaudible ]. >> i'm sorry i didn't hear you. >> hello mr. wittes i was just saying they've killed four americans and that is getting attacked four times to me. >> so, look i mean there is no doubt, and i don't think anybody on the hill who has safrpganxieties about this aumf are arguing that

isis is nice people or that they don't have ambitions to attack americans in a serious way, you are correct. they have beheaded or murdered a number of people, including americans. that -- and if you look at the draft aufm that the president has sent up, those killings are listed as the set of findings that congress if it passed it would adopt. and so you are right, these are not people who like americans and i have no doubt that there are -- that if given the chance, it is an organization that would probably want to conduct significant operations against americans and perhaps against the american homeland. >> another tweet from south fork who says this when the constitution was written congress was in session rarely.

presidents had thord to deal with sudden threats when congress was not available. >> that is absolutely correct. >> and so what does that mean then? why does that not then stand today? >> well, again many people would argue that it does stand today. and in fact, the administration would concede that, right? it claims not that it doesn't need authorization, it claims that it already has it right? and so the reason, in its view that it has the authority that it needs is not that the president had some inherent power to do this without congress, is that congress already acted. >> romeo, rocky mount, virginia independent. hi romeo. >> hello. >> you're on the air sir, go ahead. >> i just have a question. i was born and raised here in america and i do like our freedoms here but i also [ inaudible ] and i'm curious as

to why you think that jihadist want to kill various people here in america. it is not necessarily that they want to kill various people versus leaders of foreign policy and people aligned in various political conspiracies bankers and things of the sort, very strictly speaking, it is the leaders of this vast global conspiracy trying to attack and destroy fundamental islam and you see that in the news and the media all of the time and i'm curious why is there this war against the base of islam? >> i don't know if you have any thoughts on that it is not your expertise. >> it is beyond what i work on. among the people i talk to, there -- none of them express a desire to have a war with islam. >> max, mechanicsville, maryland. a republican. hi, max. >> yeah. that was an interesting call there that preceded me.

and if you did mention the base which is kind of apropos, you are fighting, what you describe as al qaeda, and it is like the administration has the cake and eat it too mentality if you are fighting a war on one front and you change the name of it for your own purposes and then claim that the authorization still includes that new enemy it doesn't make a lot of sense. so i guess what you are saying is they have to rewrite the rules to restrict them to only funding essentially the enemy they want to fight and it is confusing because i don't understand how an authorization allowed them to fight one enemy and then by their own choice they've changed the enemy they are fighting for no reason. they had no reason to change the name of the enemy because they've proven the 2001 enemy, which i guess al qaeda and the

taliban was in some way responsible for creating the mess and give them the al qaeda in iraq. so it is frustrating to hear our administration trying to change the words around but at the same time have their cake and eat it too. we don't want to continue fighting the war in iraq even though it is under the assumption that president bush made it is like a contradiction. does that make sense. >> okay. mr. wittes. >> so i think the conflict is not on the part of the administration. the issue is that the groups fractured, split rejoin and the groups that existed and congress authorized against the force in 2001, don't exist in the same form any more. so let me give you a couple of examples of that. we've conducted a number of operations against al qaeda in the eye -- eye rainan peninsula

that poses a threat and it did not exist at the time of 9/11 but has grown up and matured in the interim and so how does that fit under the 2001 aumf and the administration has decided it does. and another harder example is what used to be al qaeda in iraq that is now called isil. and this is a group that broke off, it was originally a sort of iraqi branch office of al qaeda but it broke off and now fights with the syria and iraqi branch office of al qaeda the nasra front and so is this something covered by the 2001 aumf because

it is one branch of the tree or not covered because it broke with al qaeda. there is no good answers to those questions. and that is why you need a more modern document. >> benjamin wittes, senior fellow for brookings institutions and out with a new book, the future of violence, robots and germs, hackers and drones. that book was out yesterday. he'll be talking about it later on at brookings institution today and go to our website at c-span.org for our coverage of that. thank you very much for talking to ow viewers. appreciate the conversation. >> thank you for having me. >> in congress, house members are back in their home districts all week. the senate is in session. senators debateing anti-human trafficking. and also the suggestion of loretta lynch for the new attorney general can watch the senate

live on our companion network, c-span2. later today, live, a joint briefing with defense secretary ashton carter and british counterpart. expect them to talk about the situation in ukraine among other topics. see that live at 2:30 eastern on c-span. mr. carter was on capitol hill earlier today discussing isis, a hearing with the senate foreign relations committee was joined by secretary of state john kerry. and that hearing wrapped up a short time ago. we will have the entire hearing tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. also, we're asking if you think congress should approve the use of military force against isis. logon to our facebook page at facebook.com/c-span. you can leave your thoughts tweet us using the hash tag #c-spanchat. here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. saturday starting at 1:00 p.m. eastern, c-span2's book tv is live from the university of arizona for the tucson festival of books featuring discussions

on race and politics, the civil war, and by the nation magazine writers with call-ins throughout the day with authors. sunday at 1:00 we continue live coverage of the festival with panels on the obama administration, the future of politics, and the issue of concussions in football. and saturday morning at 9:00 eastern, on american history tv on c-span3 we're live from longwood university in farmville, virginia, for the 16th annual civil war seminar with historians and authors talking about the closing weeks of the civil war in 1865. sunday morning at 9:00 we continue our live coverage of the seminar with remarks on the surrender of the confedry sy. find our complete schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. e-mail us at comments@c-span.org, or send us a tweet at c-span #comments. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter.

with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span, and the senate on c-span2 here on c-span3 we complement that coverage by showing you the most relevant congressional hearings and public affairs events. and then on weekends c-span3 is the home to american history tv, with programs that tell our nation's story, including six unique series. the civil war's 150th anniversary, visiting battlefields and key events. american artifacts, touring museums and historic sites to discover what artifacts reveal about america's past. history book shelf best known american history writers. the presidency looking at the policies and legacies of our nation's commanders in chief. lectures in history, with top college professors delving into america's past. and our new series reel america, featuring archival government and educational films from the 1930s through the '70s. c-span3, created by the cable tv industry, and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd.

like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. republican senator bob corker says the obama administration's policy in ukraine is feckless as chair of the foreign relations committee, senator corker pressed state and defense officials yesterday on arming ukraine and its conflict with russia. a treasury department official was also at the hearing to talk about the impact sanctions were having on russia's economy. this is just over two and a half hours. >> -- will come to order. want to begin this hearing by expressing my condolences to the family of boris nemtsov and the people of russia murder of russian opposition leader boris nemtsov just outside the kremlin appears to be an attempt to silence those in russia who want

to see their country move away from the awe authoritarianism corruption and lawlessness of today's russia. boris nemtsov sought a better future for his people and we must remain committed to his vision for a democratic russia at peace with itself and its neighbors. he was especially critical of putin's aggression in ukraine where for over a year now russia has continued its occupation of cryimea and the destabilization of the country's eastern regions. our country made a commitment in 1994 to defend ukraine's sovereignty and its territorial integrity, which has been under a near constant assault by russia for more than a year. more recently we lured ukraine west by supporting their desire for closer association with europe. now with ukraine's future in balance, the refusal of the administration to step up with more robust support for ukraine and further pressure on russia is a bligtht on u.s. policy in

seven years of defending a europe that is whole, democratic and free. the conflict in eastern ukraine was started by a russian-backed mergs nair mercenary, now directly involves thousands of russian military personnel and has resulted in over 6,000 deaths and generated 1.5 million refugees in eternally displaced persons. for roughly two weeks after the second cease-fire agreement was signed on february 12th, the russian backed rebels continued their offensive activities ultimately akwirg the strategic railway hub. the determination of the rebels to secure it despite the fact that the minsk cease-fire agreement shows that putin has no intention of honoring the cease-fire. while the violence has subsided since the rebels achieved their short-term objective and

acquired the hub, the immense cease-fire is far from being a success. in addition to the ambiguous constitutional electoral conditions required of ukraine to regain control of its borders, the second minsk agreement is burdened by the failure of the first agreement as it stands. in fact, administration officials have repeatedly referred to the recent minsk accord as an implementation agreement of the first minsk accord. but jumping from cease-fire to cease-fire in hope of convincing russian-backed rebels to fulfill the same commitments is not a strategy and not a strategy for success. in my view, any strategy will not be effective unless united states begins to provide ukraine with the ability to inflict serious military cost using defensive weapons on the thousands of russian troops operating in its eastern regions. ukraine freedom support act which originated in this committee passed unanimously by

congress and signed into law by the president authorizes $350 million in lethal military assistance to ukraine. but yesterday we heard germany's ambassador to the united states say that president obama privately pledged to chancellor merkel in memberfebruary tv officials continue to tell the american public they're seriously considering this policy. deputy secretary of state tony blink argued last week in berlin that no amount of lethal military assistance for ukraine would be sufficient to defeat the rebels and their russian sponsors. but ourbjective is not to provide ukraine with enough weapons to overwhelm the russian military in direct confrontation. rather, the provision of lethal assistance aims to increase ukraine's defense capabilities in a way that will give kiev the ability to produce conditions on

the ground favorable to a genuine peace process. by equipping ukraine with the means to impose a greater military cost on russia, the united states will be contributing to a quicker, fairer and more stable settlement of the conflict. but our support for ukraine must go beyond simply imposing cost on russia. ukraine's foreign currency reserves have diminished to a month's worth of imports. ukrainian currency lost 80% of the value since april 2014 and economy continues to teeter on the brink of collapse. the same time while i believe the government in kiev is generally committed to reform, more needs to be done by the ukrainian authorities to move forward with these reforms, especially in the energy sector where corruption siphons billions of dollars away from the budget each year. even if the united states does more to help ukraine, and kiev defeats the russian-backed rebels, but the ukrainian

economy implodes in the process we have failed and putin succeeded. he's had an even greater success if that occurs. this is why the united states must have a comprehensive strategy that will both counter russian aggression, but also drive political economic and anti-corruption reforms in ukraine. during this hearing i hope to have a detailed discussion that explores the situation in eastern ukraine since minsk cease-fire agreement was signed, examines why the united states has failed to provide ukraine with lethal military assistance and considers additional ways to support ukraine with its ongoing economic challenges. i look forward to your testimony. i thank you for being here and now i'll turn it over to our distinguished ranking member for his opening comments. >> thank you, mr. chairman. , for holding what is an extraordinarily important and timely hearing on countering russia and ukraine and i appreciate our witnesses being

here. let me join you in very heart felt condolences to someone who was a courageous opposition leader. and sometimes true patriots pay a price. boris nemtsov led efforts in which he passionately believed in in a different russia. and i find it pretty outrageous to see the latest narrative that is being portrayed that an islamist plot is the reason why he was assassinated. but to his family, his friends and his followers we have our heart felt thoughts and condolences. no