it is coming up to 6:00, and we are watching the special from glasgow. forecasting that this is a no vote in the independence referendum. your response? >> i'm delighted that were having a no vote across scotland. martin sure very strongly voted no. good.s particularly the engagement that the public turnouts any areas of the country has been something that means we have got

a good base to move forward. its say, people really have expressed what they think and we can move forward do that together using passion on both sides of the argument because we do all want to see the best future for scotland. >> would mr. cameron speaks mr. cameron speaks later, what does he need to say? approach the smp conference and make a decision on that. energy of this campaign, the enthusiasm, getting involved in politics for the first time, the number of people who have dundeered, in my city of where there were 8000 new people went to register for the first time ever.

we should make sure that we capture and hold on, as we move scotland forward. >> we are close to a very important moment, where the campaign will reach its target and i think it will do that in fife. brown has his constituency there. lets have a look at the declaration home in fife. should stay on these images for a while. i think it will be the declaration that takes us over the finishing line. we have been watching the bbc's coverage of scotland's independence referendum. we will leave it here as the associated press is reporting early votes are not in favor of leaving the u.k., that saw unprecedented numbers of voters.

among the few those that did still threeere are of 32 regional centers that are counting their votes but the no sides in so far is about 55% of the votes to 45% for the yes campaign. >> coming up on c-span, the secretary of state -- [no audio] on the next washington journal we will be joined by phil gingrey and gene green. they will talk about a bill that helps against superbugs. it would advance the development of new antibiotics. we will also take your phone calls and get the latest on the scottish vote or independence. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter.

watching the journal, line every morning -- live every morning on c-span. takes c-span city stewart american history tv on the road, traveling the u.s. cities to learn about their history and literary life. this weekend we partnered with comcast. paul 1930's, i wouldn't call in las vegas but it was a very lively city. the gangsters brought their guns. during prohibition you had the a it was athe biggest -- very lively place partially because the gangsters were welcomed. virtually every major gangster, kidnapper, and bank robber in america lived and worked within a three block radius of where we are standing today. nelson,linger, babyface

all were here. people don't know that. there is no statute of these gangsters, but this was the epicenter of 1930's crime in the era of john dillinger. the fbi, with j edgar hoover, had this building as their headquarters. this is where they were tried and sent to alcatraz, leavenworth prison, other prisons across america. it's where it began and where it ended. >> we are standing here, looking over the junction of the minnesota and mississippi rivers. st. paul is up the mississippi river. before it was here before the city was. it is intimately connected in the creation of st. paul. in the 1830's, there were groups of settlers living on the military's property.

competing with them for resources and felt they should be removed. the settlers then moved across st. paur and found l. when you think about the history of this region and beyond the is what we try to do here, push people to inc. more -- to think more will about what it means when all these places came together. what perspective they have on historic events. >> watch all of our event saturday at noon eastern, in sunday afternoon at 2:00 on c-span three. john kerryy of state announced that france will conduct airstrikes and iraq against isis. he was testifying on the president strategy. is hearing of house foreign affairs committee is two hours.

>> we welcome secretary back to the committee. of threat it is. a terrorist organization occupied such a sanctuary, never has a terrorist organization had the access to the abundant natural resources that isil has at its disposal. never have they possessed the heavy weaponry or personnel that isil has today. it's brutality is unmatched. a bipartisane, on

basis, has been pushing the administration to confront this threat. for months i pressed the administration for drone strikes as terrorist columns advanced on iraqi cities. that is what the iraqis wanted and it is what many in our embassy in baghdad wanted. a ranking member has been pushing to arm the syrian army. that is what the president's entire national security team wanted, including general david us, who headede the cia at the time. hesitancy has put us in a situation where i saw has gained a lot of ground -- where isil has gained a lot of ground. i think we agree on the steps that will turn the table on isil. anding malik you to decide give them a chance of are .resented of government

we saw hundred and 16,000 airstrikes when kuwait was occupied. we need a robust response. unitsthat many iraqis what they need to confront isil, not just the free syrian army, but the sunni awakening. when they rose up against al qaeda, and the fact that that strategy worked, it can work against isil. we have here an organization on the ground, at jihadist group, that has carried out massacres of christians, and yazidis, shias, sunnis, beheading two

american journalists, enslaving minority women, turning them into concubines. frankly, a jihadist group that demands the international community come together to suppress and defeat it. it's good that we have finally acknowledged that we do have a partner on the ground in syria. just not one that is adequately trained and adequately supplied to take on the four middle -- the formidable isil threat. attacked inbe syria. it has to be attacked in syria because the sanctuary, the base of operation, is on the syrian side of the border. to defeat a terrorist group you have to go after their sanctuary. as we hit them from the air there has to be engagement of the iso-forces on the ground that are already attacking. yesterday's house vote trusts that we will be in close

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

not all in the region will play a constructive role. qatar comes to mind. the committee certainly doesn't see a regime doing anything than what has been done for the last three years, bring destruction to the region through their machinations. we look forward to meeting with the general who you just appointed as a special envoy for the global coalition to counter isil, to discuss these and other issues. the isil threat is a dramatic wake-up call. while some claim that the threats to the united states were receiving, the reality is that a title wave of militancy is coming. a lot of the recruitment occurs through the internet. the good news is that the president has now knowledged knowledge to that this threat must be confronted. we must have a sustained commitment that only the commander in chief ken marshall. this hearing will be one of many to evaluate the administration's

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

took yesterday was long overdue. over a year and a half ago i introduced the free syria act which would have armed and trained members of the opposition. we can't know what would've happened if we had acted ban but we do know that since then, tens of thousands of men, women, and children have lost their lives, millions have been driven from their homes, and isis has grown across the iraqi border, leaving behind a trail of destruction and bloodshed. now that we're on the verge of equipping moderate syrian's must be considered only a first step. a vast stretch of land in syria and iraq, now and isis -- in isis, they would ruin the cradle of civilization and offer safe haven to those who share their hateful and false ideologies. whether isis are al qaeda, hamas or hezbollah, terrorist when they -- thrive

can spread their lies and hatred. we have seen it before in afghanistan after the russians were driven out with american health. -- help. al qaeda found a safe place to plan an attack against our including september 11, 2001 against my city. they can mistake. if we don't act it will happen again. i hope we can explore a way to move forward from here. first, build a credible and an international coalition that is critical to our partners in the region. the entire international community has a stake in this effort. thousands of foreign fighters from dozens of countries have poured into serious to join isis. these battle hardened extremists could launch attacks and return home. i look forward to hearing about your progress in the middle east and europe in addressing the foreign fighter issue and

building international coalitions to degrade and destroy isis. second, how do we address all aspects? the border between syria and iraq is gone and we are down to a single future. i think congress has a responsibility to consider a uamf. ensure that our support of the moderate syrian opposition isn't just limited to combating isis? the assad regime continues to torture its own citizens. we cannot lose sight of the fact that assad must go. he is a magnet for extremists and foreign figthers. i believe this program is the best chance we have to bring about a negotiatied political solution. mistake, there is no military solution to this crisis.

how can we shape an environment that is conducive to bringing the party moving toward a negotiated solution? mr. secretary, you know better than anybody that we are out of the choices. there are no good choices and iraqi in syria. no one in this country or this congress wants to be dragged into another open-ended war, but i see her now that all the bad choices, the worst would be to do nothing. that is why i am glad the house did the right thing yesterday in the vote. as the president said, we will hunt down terrorists to threaten our country where ever they are. we need to do this and we need to do it right. thank you again, mr. chairman and mr. secretary. secretary, welcome back. all of the members are pleased to be joined by mr. john kerry, 68 secretary of state of the united states. i will add that the witnesses

thererepared statement -- will be five legislative days to submit any extraneous material. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. , members of the committee. members of the committee. i'm glad to have this opportunity. let me begin by congratulating and thanking you. we are enormous the appreciative -- enormously appreciative. is an essential piece of any strategy against eiisil. the chairman knows i have a hard stop on this because i have to be at the white house for the meeting with president poroshenko. i will try to abbreviate and keep my answers short but i also want to make sure i answer your questions as efficiently.

iraq hasthan 10 years, been a source of debate and disagreement up on the hill and in the country. ifhink we would waste time we focused on rehashing past debates. the issue that confronts us is straightforward and one in which we can all agree. isil half to be defeated -- has to be defeated, plain and simple, end of story, has to be. collectively, i think every single one of us will be measured by what we do in order to guarantee that that happens. the same is true on the international level. even in a region that has been virtually defined by division over these past few years, readers who couldn't find any agreement for 11 years and to agree on very little in general are all in agreement that isis has to be defeated.

isilve been focused on since it morphed into al qaeda up iraq in 2013, and picked aqi's mission under a different banner. we were focused on it with respect to al qaeda. in january, we wrapped up our assistance to the iraqi security forces, increasing intelligence surveillance, reconnaissance, and flights to get a better picture of the battlefield. weaponsrder to expedite so they could bring those to bear. earlier this summer, the isil threat accelerated when it effectively obliterated the iraq-syria border and the most will dam so -- mosul dam fell. there are a couple of reasons, it is not a straightforward

deal. that has to do with the kind of begin toprime minister create. it has to do with shia and sunni, a lot of other ingredients. as a result of that, we further surged our missions. we immediately set up joint operation centers in baghdad. our special forces conducted immediately a very detailed assessment of the iraqi security forces because we needed to know, in order to be able to answer your questions in the questions of the american people, what might we be getting into. do we have an iraqi army that is capable of fighting? to what degree? whatever judgments are coming to you now, coming to you as a consequence of that assessment, and in addition to that i am proud to say that thanks to american engagement, isil's movement, which was rapid at

that point of time and careless, was stopped. together with the brave and courageous souls of the kurds who stood up, we are able to not only stop in there but to liberate them early -- liberate erbil and sinjar mountain, to make a difference. a the time i saw had launched defense in the north, president obama began airstrikes on a humanitarian basis to protect american personnel and prevent major catastrophes such as the m, and also to bolster the iraqi security forces and kurdish forces. today we have launched more than 150 airstrikes. itknow that sounds -- sounds like very few compared the 16,000, but is a different deal.

i believe we rightfully, absolutely needed to get in place a structured, clear, effort that, iraqi provided the government with which he could work going forward. if you didn't have a government, nothing that we tried to do what it had the impact necessary. the platforms we put in place last june have enabled us to be able to do what we have done now. there is absolute clarity to the fact that we blunted isil's momentum. we created the time and space to be able to put together a comprehensive strategy and build a broad coalition. that is the way we ought to go out this -- at this. we redoubled our efforts to move the iraqi political process forward, and were clear eyed about the fact that any strategy against isil is only going to

succeed if it has this strong, inclusive government in iraq. i hope you notice the photograph on the front page of the wall street journal two days ago that showed the prince, the foreign minister of saudi arabia, arm in arm with the kurdish president of iraq and with the shia foreign minister. they all came together. that is why i went to baghdad last week, to meet with this new iraqi government that makes certain of what they are willing and encourage them to discuss in detail their commitment against isil, and especially their commitment to unify the country and to do the things that haven't been done for these eight years or more. what happened was historic. the recent history of the racket the conflict of that region. iraq is now no longer isolated

from its neighbors. last week the iraqis were just invited to come, they were warmly received by the saudis and by the rest of the countries there. they wouldannounced reopen embassy in baghdad. that is a big deal. that was essential. president obama outlined a broader strategy in detail the other day. i will not go through it all, just quickly highlight it -- this is not just an american effort and it is not just military, not just kinetic. that we allal understand how complicated it is. precisely because we are not just focused on taking the enemy out of the battlefield, but we have to take out an entire network. i don't know how many of you saw today -- the australians

arrested a large group of people they suspected of being isil members, supporters, sympathizers, who were planning some kind of extravaganza of brutality in australia. we have to decimate and discredit the militant cold masquerading as a religious movement and claiming, with no legitimacy, to be a state. there are similarities to what we have been doing with al qaeda these last few years but frankly it is different. these folks have now taken over territory in ways that al qaeda never did. they have access to money in ways that al qaeda never did. weapons they captured, holding the territory, beginning to build a capacity for sustainability that challenges everybody.

certainly, military support is going to be one component of this. can't goere today, i into all of the details of this particular moment, i am here to tell you that we have people in parte committed to being of a kinetic effort outside of europe and other parts of the world. commitments. in syria, the on the ground combat will be done by the moderate opposition, which is syria's best counterweight to extremists like isil. we can talk more about that day, whatopposition to they could be doing, as we go forward. in addition to the military topaign, we obviously need draw the a list that -- the fun ding. we have to stop the foreign fighters, people with passports, people who could return here

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

spreading. i was very encouraged to hear yesterday that saudi arabia's top entity, 21 clerics, unanimously came out and declared again at terrorism is a heinous crime under sure i a law law, and thatah isolate has nothing to do with islam and that it is in fact the order of satan. this is vital because we know individual joining isil, getting to the battlefield in the first place, is the most effective measure we can take. the grand most he of saudi arabia said that isolate is the number one enemy of islam, and it might serve us all well to focus on it not in a name that gives it -- to focus on it as the enemy of islam. that is why i spent the last days in europe and in the middle

coalition,ings together with other countries, i will be andhy new york tomorrow at a session that is aimed to build up this coalition even more. to get even more specific about investments from these countries and what they're going to do. we have more than 50 countries contributing in one way or another. a specific understanding of what those countries will do -- some will provide ammunition, some will help with delegitimizing, son the financing -- some definancing. in new york with me tomorrow will be general john allen. many of you know him will stop he commanded in iraq and afghanistan for two years, deputy commander in iraq, great

experience in the region, great respect and the region, knowledge of the sunni tribes and all the folks there. eachn help us match up country's capability with the needs of the coalition. that is another reason why we can't lay it all out to you today, because of the pentagon as well as in intel communities in the white house, we are marrying all of the needs with the particular coalition contributors. they are also leading the team that i commit to you will continue to delve and enhance the coalition well beyond. with that, i look forward to your questions and i hope we can get there was much as possible. >> i think it brings up a good question, mr. secretary, which is how we move forward to get a

for by saudi paid arabia, by kuwait. i remember in 1990, when the invasion of kuwait occurred, in order to push that army which at the time was the fifth largest army in the world, in order to push out of kuwait, there was a coalition and there were 11 6,000 airstrike that decimated 42 divisions. destroyed,icles were power ine value of air pushing back a force. to date, i think we have less than 200 air strikes. that is 1.i would bring up with you. another point i would bring up goes to the question of what we can do with respect to those

passports you spoke of, french, belgian, british, australian. these individuals would be able to travel the united states without a visa. i know we have the authority in united states to revoke a passport if someone is likely to cause serious damage to the national security of united states. but we need some kind of interagency process to identify westerners that traveled to fight alongside isil. i wanted to speak to you about that issue as well. i have been working on legislation to address this. we should have a better course for doctors without borders and other groups that are going to try to help with respect to setting up hospitals and refugee camps. in terms of those going to fight i think we need a way to approach this to make certain

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

withct, our ability now armed drones and f-16s, to be able to see a target from the air, we could see from the planes the fact that they were flying this black flag, in long columns, we didn't know what was happening -- they took falluja, they eventually took mosul, and every one of the situations we had an opportunity to hit them. >> i will tell you i was chomping at the bit and agonizing over that, watching these vcconvoys. when we thought through the strategy, if we had begun to do that and did it. and, we might have actually interrupted, if not prevented the capacity of the iraqi government to have the new government formation. there were serious considerations about timing. >> i knowledge that point but at the same time, by the time this

got to mosul, the central bank, we had reached a point where the ability to take that city and take the cash out of the central this terrorist organization to an extent that no terrorist organization previously had their hands on that much cash. >> that is why we are building a coalition. they have got to buy those weapons from somewhere. they have to go through a system. those weapons have got to get in there. if we do this effectively enough then that is where all countries can play a role, shutting the borders and enforcing the law, preventing that money from being effective. rts, respect to passpo you are correct. i have the authority to revoke passports. we are currently examining all of the individuals, trying to

learn as well as we can who was there and what those possibilities are. we also need to do that with sensitivities to certain investigations that may be going on. we are well aware that that is part of the strategy in the process and what i want to make certain is that anybody who has a passport, anyone who returns returns in handcuffs. that is our goal. >> my time is expired. >> that's fine. >> my only point was that we have to step it up. let's go to the gentleman from new york. >> thank you. have been several falsehoods and misrepresentations. i would like to clarify one point. the free syrian army is committed to fighting isil. i would like to get unanimous consent to get the chief of

staff statement of the free syrian army, in which he states that the free syrian army is committed to fighting isil. i want to just quickly read part of the statement. the chief of staff of the supreme military command, i hereby reaffirm the race area armies to minute -- committment. the heroes of the free syrian army have sacrificed thousands of brave souls in the fight against the imposter islamic state over the past year. we fully plan to continue this fight until complete and utter defeat. the assad regime collaborates -- we will be unable to finish without also acting to stop us on -- assad. we call upon the world to the philly humanitarian security responsibility of providing the

syrian army with robust support. i would like to put that into the record. remember that assad remains a magnet for terrorists and foreign fighters thomas o there will be no stabilization of this conflict unless assad is i would like to ask you for comments on what i just said and to clarify on what you meant about deconstructing. -- deconflicting. it appears that assad's forces and a moderate opposition as losing its ability to hold territory there. -- compelling his opposition to either surrender or die. a has symbolic importance as rebel stronghold. what can the u.s. do to help the modern opposition?

>> thank you. leadership.r your you guys have been pushing on this and you have been very articulate about the needs with respect to the syrian opposition and we appreciate that. i appreciate the comment you just made. opposition is in the tens of thousands. i can't say precisely how many. but sufficient that they are legitimate force. the principal political arm of the opposition is the syrian opposition coalition, the political arm which is a group of people who represent the various parts. it includes representatives of the free syrian army, and, when possible, they have been able to provide funding and certain

supplies the fighting forces. the fighting forces are a conglomerate of armed groups who reform local communities from regime attacks and it includes a secular as well as some islamists. the islamist elements are opposed to isil. we estimate that we have various movements specific divided into certain divisions. ists, defectorse who have come in. there are other groups, at least seven groups, somewhere between a couple thousand and 4000 fighters each. but that is not all the moderate forces by any means. what is important is that all of

these forces have a solid record of fighting isil. they have been fighting isil. they are fighting isil right now. they drove out isil in thee province, damascus suburbs. the thinking is that without prompting from outside forces, without america coming in and saying we are helping, they have been fighting isil. as this global coalition comes together, thatmined to take on isil, the organizing principle of the region, which is success breeds success, you are going to begin to see more people saying we are on the side of the moderate. they will grow in strength and we can begin to isolate isil.

some places are still under siege, isil has tried to gain control border crossings. helping areas could help us secure supply routes from turkey, and raise the moderate fighter more how insignificant ways. the moderate opposition is also -- ourg, especially occasion theren has been a kind of tactical cooperation purely for media purposes. to our judgment and the judgment of others, it is had no lasting impact. our feeling is that we have something to work with here. i'm not telling you it is easy, i am not going to tell you that it will happen overnight, but there is indeed a syrian opposition which you have been

arguing for for a number of years, which notwithstanding of the absence of a full-throated support structure, has survived and continues to fight. our judgment as they will now, even more so. you.ank welcome, mr. secretary. i have reservations about the president's plan to equip the so-called moderate syrian rebels. he doesn't have the means to do all that is necessary in iraq and area. the result tells our enemies what we want to do. we do not have this conference a plan to defeat isil but also other terrorist groups. and to remove assad from power. ambassador powers said there were discrepancies in assad

apostate declaration regarding the removal and destruction of his chemical weapons stockpile. assad did not live up to his obligation and isil may use them. does assad still have hidden, undeclared poison gases and chemical weapons? we have already seen that they see -- it would be a nightmare scenario if they got undeclared chemical weapons. number in the 30,000 to 40,000 range. hown the sophistication, can we expect a few thousand syrian rebels to fight against isil and assad at the same time? we know that some of our top and former military leaders have said that a time may come when we have to put boots on the ground.

this has been repeatedly rebuked. our allies in the gulf need to make substantial investments for the coalition. has any country pledged are indicated that, should the need arise, it would be a link to send its own troops on the ground in syria? and lastly, a point on the misguided array nuclear deal -- why the double standard with syria and iran? we have asked they remove its chemical weapons, but we are allowing iran to keep its nuclear program infrastructure intact with enrichment capabilities and thousands of centrifuges. thank you. at there.of mee i am happy to answer what we can. no, theregitimacy -- is no legitimacy.

we still believe that there is no way we would imagine the support or those who have been taking on isil -- it is simply not going to stop. there is only a political solution here and we don't see assad with some long-term future in syria. besides, even if they are willing to fight isil, the opposition is not going to stop continuing to fight assad. we recognize that reality. secondly, with respect to poison we actually accomplished something historic. to many people's skepticism about possibility. , prohibitedeclared chemicals under the convention

has been removed and destroyed, all of them. that has never happened, particularly in a time of conflict in any country of the world. i am very proud of the effort made by the folks who are arriving today in virginia. the folks who were all involved in helping to achieve that goal. >> if i may, mr. secretary -- >> she is right. is declared materials. chlorine is not a required declared material. and we also have some questions about a couple of other items, those are being prosecuted or pursued within the process. indeed, we believe there is evidence of assad's use of userine, which, when you it, despite it not being on the list, it is prohibited under the

chemical weapons convention. believe and we are proceeding to do things -- >> thank you, sir. i have some written questions regarding sanctions and security for camp liberty at another time. >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, the isis organization has caught the international community offguard. what began as a movement in tribal lands and minor provinces is now a worldwide threat. only after two beheadings did president obama announces strategy to do great and ultimately destroy the islamic iraq.of support,ppreciate your i cannot underscore the importance of how the united

states response to this crisis. what we do and how we do it is the main issue. we must act responsibly and swiftly. we must have true and accurate facts and information so that we can assure the american people that our actions in the region are not only warranted but just. we must act correctly. you mentioned in your statement that isis has to be defeated. you have also outlined some aspects of your administration's efforts to fulfill this problem. as veterans ourselves in the vietnam war, are we looking at another vietnam, mr. secretary, if we don't get this right? >> kno. we are not invading the country. it is in the middle of the a civil war.

we will be part of a coalition that is engaged in counterterrorism. it is not counterinsurgency and not engagement. >> is there any concern among neighboring countries in the region about what is happening as far as the operations and what the crisis organizations -- arab countries supportive of us in our efforts to address this issue? >> hugely, hugely supportive. we had all the members of the lebanonether with and it was iraq, and they and turkey -- all joined in a major condemnation, unified about i saw and what it is doing.

without seeking it, the on thely all know that, surface, though he doesn't have the ability or the will to do anything about it, assad doesn't like them and their rent doesn't like them. russia doesn't like them, russia who was supporting assad. you have a congruence of strange bedfellows which doesn't promise cooperation because we are not engaging with them. but all of them opposed. i think people are clearly distinguishing between isil and other political issues in the region. >> you and i both know that are they also committing resources to address this issue? >> i am not going to run through them all now, but there are a lot of countries -- 40 countries have already sent in ammunition and provided money is engaged in humanitarian assistance. we have a couple of nations already flying with us, though we haven't made major

pronouncements about where the coalition is because we are still in the process of delineating who will do what and when and how. >> is a wounded combat veteran, yourself, i cannot think of a better person that appreciates and understands the importance of when we send our men, soldiers, sailors, at the expense of their lives, we need to do it right. we don't need another vietnam. thank you. >> thank you. we got now to the gentleman from new jersey. >> i want to thank you for your toong august 28 statement, locate robert levinson. perhaps you might want to tell us that there has been any response -- and i know other

members are grateful for that statement. well the amendments be vigorously applied to process? >> yes. >> over a year ago, i wrote an op-ed in the washington post, calling for the creation of a war crimes tribunal for syria. accountability for all sides -- whoe commits the atrocity needs to bever dealt with. the resolution was passed by this committee. i argued then and i would argue is not up toicc the task. crane, the chief prosecutor in sierra leone war crimes tribunal, testified here, and said it was not up to the task and that only one conviction about a dozen years. that was of a person committing atrocities in the democratic

republic of congo. ae idea behind a hybrid, tribunal like yugoslavia's oral wanda's ---- or r meloshavik -- their trials are continuing. nobody thought at the time that he would get 50 years, the formal president -- the former president of liberia. after the verdict was read, looking down, others have fought against it for so long, the atrocities that he committed in liberia and sierra leone. he is in jail now for 50 years. this would be an accountability initiative. it needs to be stood up immediately and i hope the administration will do just that. you ourme begin --

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

in any american citizen is held like that. it remains unresolved. the tribunal,t to i have personally, when i was in the senate, i helps to work on the special u.n. tribunal that held khmer rouge responsible. there is no question in my mind that what has happened in syria thea number of occasions -- f government has engaged in war crimes and i think they need to be held accountable. i very much support and the president supports finding the mechanism that will do that. i don't know if we have made the same judgment that some have with respect to the inability of the current structure but we haven't tried to resolve this. one way or another it shouldn't be sitting in a limbo. people need to know there is accountability. problems is the

impunity that exists. if there is impunity in one area or region are consonant, -- or consonants, people try to get away with things. it is the accountability that stops it. >> thank you. now to the gentleman from california. i have got so much to cover. some of the questions you may want to respond to for the record. i want to commend it ministration for its success in dealing with assad's chemical weapons. you may be 90% successful, or 99% successful, but there is no other plan presented that would have freed the world from the risk posed by the vast majority of siv's chemical weapons.

i was happy to be an original cosponsor of that a year and a half ago and the ranking member is correct -- we need to write a new authorization to replace the runs we have now. isther or not your campaign legally authorized depends upon whether isis is part of al qaeda. that is a metaphysical question. aty weren't in existence september 11, 2000 one, then they joined up, then they left al qaeda -- i don't know if they are part of al qaeda or not. there is a -- the solution is for congress to write a statute that fits 2015 rather than see whether you can stretch it is 01 defend the circumstance

that was never anticipated. the american people want a great plan. >> we won a guarantee of the media total destruction of isis without u.s. casualties. will takestration flak for not developing such a plan. i want to commend you for not getting into the political pressure to promise what cannot be delivered. in your statement, you said we would defeat isis. i know the president's words were eventually defeat isis. but to listen to some pundits, you would think not only do we have to totally immediately destroy isis, but we have to do so without discussions with questionable allies, and the middle east has the most know for -- no allies except for questionable allies.

you cannot put troops on the ground, several hundred thousand troops on the ground, and incur the casualties that none of the pundits is willing to discuss. but it also ignores another situation. it is not just who you destroy, it is who you empower. opponents powerful are perhaps more dangerous. extremist iran, the shiite militias, a division of al qaeda. these are the other powerful forces on the battlefield. there is a lot of about how isis members have passports that might allow them to conduct terrorist operations outside of the middle east. has killed hundreds of americans in lebanon. killedd hezbollah have hundreds of americans in iraq, and both have conducted terrorist activities on a variety of different continents.

mr. secretary, the middle east is an area of evil. caution is not advice and bravado is not a virtue. nouri al-maliki ignored us, did not need us. i hope that one of the things that you bring up with him is his international obligations to protect those who are living at camp liberty. turkey is not fulfilling its responsibilities, and here i have a question, believe it or not. one of the problems with turkey as they are allowing oil to be smuggled. do we -- and i, don't lead to give away any secrets, but is there some reason why we have not on oil fields and refineries under isis control? this would deprive them of the money for smuggling, it would

deprive them of fuel for the road operations. it would also, and, deprive civilians under the control of fuel as well. during world war ii, we bombed oil fields and facilities even if that meant that enemy civilians cannot get fuel. do we have an objection to bombing these oilfields or refineries now? >> i have not heard any objection. whether we do this, mr. secretary, whether i suggest we respond in writing, the gentleman yields his time. >> given that circumstance -- >> the chair of the subcommittee on europe, eurasia, and emerging threats. >> let me express my appreciation to you, mr. secretary. you're working hard, doing your best for us to. we may have disagreements, but all of us should appreciate the hard work you are putting out,

and also the respect you are showing the american people and congress today being here and opening yourself up to this type of very energetic questioning. so i will get to my energetic questioning. let me understand, the proposal that i seem to be seeing here is the pre-syrian army and we build them up. although it has some elements, there is every indication it is riddled with radical islamic elements, terrorists, many of whom are more committed to fighting the regime, assad's regime, then fighting islamists. assad's regime, which of course means does no harm, but they themselves are engaged with fighting isil. in the end, it seems to me we are going to be basically providing weapons in order to

whorcut an enemy of isil, is engaged deeply in fighting that radical islamic terrorist element. am i wrong in that? am i missing something there? the dynamic that is created in big army, assad's regime, armed forces that are a major part in the fight against isil are going to be undercut by what we are doing? >> regrettably, congressman, no, they will not be undercut because if assad's forces indeed do decide to focus on isil significantly, which they have not been doing through this time, one of our judgments is there is evidence that assad has played footsie with them. and he has used them as a tool of weakening the opposition. and therefore, never took on their headquarters, which were

obvious, and other assets they had. so we have no confidence that assad is either capable or willing to take on isil, number one. so we don't see a conflict in the process. now, that may develop somewhat, depending on how far they get. weapons respect to the and what is going to them, we actually -- i mean, look, i'm not going to sit here and tell you the vetting process is a perfect process. but we have gained in norman's expertise in the vetting over 20 years. general nagata -- >> mr. secretary, my time is -- >> while him up here, i think it will be worth your hearing to understand how they've that what we do. we have a lot of relationships with better it -- with that it

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

movement in that area. the people i know when that region that are the most loyal to us are the kurds. and yet this administration insists on all of the supplies, all the work against the radicals, all the supplies have to go through baghdad. now, why are we marginalizing our best friends, the kurds, and denying them the weapons they need, and they are really on the front line, in order to help a government in baghdad, who by the way i think still is allied with the mullah regime in iran. and yet here we are contacting the mullah regime to associate with us, but here assad is an horrible alternative. this is contradictory. it seems again where our friends are getting shortchanged because they are imperfect and we end up

helping our enemies. two big congressman, points you raised and i want to take them on. we could not be more engaged with our longtime good friends throughout the region. more tripsably made to the region than any former secretary of state. we just came back from a meeting foremost,one of our most important, longest allies in the region, saudi arabia. there was unanimity at that meeting, from all of the folks present, including some you may be referring to who don't have a record of being fully supportive of every effort all the time and that region. but that's not us. .hat's them we've made it clear what our expectations are.

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

you raise about changing the law is one that we could undertake given the frustrations of the kurdish foreign minister, and i think it's one we will undertake. we go now to mr. gregory meeks of new york. >> thank you, mr. secretary, for all of the work you have been doing. yesterday, i voted in support of the amendment that would authorize the training and equipping of properly vetted elements of the syrian opposition, and i did vote -- i did so because i believe we can not ignore the threat from isil and because i believe the strategy the president has proposed is probably the best option that is available to us at this time. but it was not an easy vote. it was a very difficult vote. and i had to talk to a number of different individuals. i attended all the classified meetings, etc., to come away

with what you said is absolutely key and essential, that this cannot be seen as the united states against sunni muslims. engagedverybody being in more than just words but actually engaged in the fighting i think is absolutely important. one of the things i came away with after the vote, talking to members on the floor, talking all today, there were certain questions that came up, certain questions asked here today, and you do not have a chance to answer. so i thought i would ask a couple of questions you do not have a chance to answer. one, the question of slippery slope. given that -- i know you understand this because of your service in vietnam, but the question was, how would you assess if this war has gone wrong? and why we are not on a slippery slope and what's different this

time. so i would like to know that. then i think mr. angle and mr. aumf, and iked about believe you already have the authority you need, but many want to review it. so could you or will you be helpful in the language of the aumf and are you willing to work with congress on this matter? absolutely, congressman, thank you very much for both questions, and very relevant and appropriate. issue, iippery slope think it is ingrained in a lot of us through the past experience of the last 45, 50 some cases very personally, in other cases through the experience here in the congress and through our experience in the middle east in the last few years. so we are all fairly warned.

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

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

and chemical weapons because that do not fall under the 2001 aumf. so we have clearly drawn that distinction, and there is no effort to stretch here, but we will be better, all of us, with congress, the american people clear about where we are heading. to the chairman of the subcommittee on asia from ohio. secretary.u, mr. like everybody in this room, i'm think a loted -- i of people watch the president and many were shocked i think when he emphasized that the islamic state of a rack and the lavon -- of iraq and the lavon was not islamic. they now simply referred to themselves as the islamic state. they don't tell themselves methodist aid war the baptist date. they are the islamic state, i think for good reason. when christians are told to convert to islam or die, that

would seem to fly in the face of the president's insistence that the islamic state is not the islamic state, and an indication that he may not fully accept that radical islam is indeed something that does exist. in fact is growing. let me get to my question. the president has emphasized over and over again there'll be no american boots on the ground. isn't that terminology misleading? soon, willdy, or have 1600 american military personnel back to iraq. i say back. i know that you emphasized early in your statement we did not what to rehash old things, but i think we would be remiss if we did not say that isil would not have been a successful -- would not have been as successful as it has been taking land and

literally slaughtering so many people had the u.s. not pulled the troops out. iraq,time that i was in everybody, the military theonnel, the iraqis, diplomats, everybody anticipated there would be a residual u.s. force. you talk about matching -- the jaws defeat from of victory, i think that's what happened here, but i digress. militaryhe 1600 u.s. personnel, and probably more that will be on the ground there . i know that's for training and it's for intelligence purposes and its for targeting our air power and so forth, but my question is, is the administration really being straight with the american emphasizingyou keep noble it's on the ground? isn't this 1600 military personnel at the present time likely to go up and perhaps

significantly? >> you raise two important things, and i would like to speak to both of them quickly and answer your question. the islamic state, they can call themselves, obviously, what they want to call themselves. we should not compound the by allowing them to get away with anything, calling them what they are not. they are not a state, and they do not represent islam. and isaiah said earlier, -- and as i said earlier, now islamic leaders are reclaiming legitimate islam and separating it, too. so why would not compound the crime by calling them what they are not. an enemy of islam is what they are. as the 21 cleric said yesterday in saudi arabia, they are in fact the water of sin. there is nothing in islam that

condones or suggest that people should go out and rape women and selloff young girls or give them as gifts to jihadists and cut people's heads off anti-people's hands behind their backs and put them on their knees and shoot them in the head. these are war crimes. and they are crimes against humanity. and we need to make clear that is exactly what is the reality here. >> not to interrupt you, mr. secretary, and i agree with all the things you said as far as the things they have done our ,orror effect -- are horrific but it's clear to me their motivation is their religious fervor, this fanaticism, however misguided it is. >> well i don't know if that is in truth. it's part of it. the caliphate is certainly on the minds of many. i think many of them are thugs and criminals and people who want to marauder and take part

and vanquish and be opposed to the majority and all kinds of things. >> i agree. >> there is a whole bunch of things going on there. the president has again and again said no combat troops. he just said it yesterday at centcom, very clearly. i think i have his statement somewhere where he -- here is what he said. "we will not have -- the troops that are deployed to iraq will not, cannot have a combat mission." he has been upfront about what they're doing. they will be training and assisting, helping with intel, but they will not have a combat role. what is important about the expectations of troops staying in iraq, yes there is an expectation, but we cannot get the immunities and legal protection for them over the long term required for up to 10,000 troops. and therefore they did not stay. but no one makes the judgment osul what happened in m

happened because noncombat troops were there. these guys were not going to be combat troops. what happened in mosul happened because the troops there had no stake in fighting for mosul, and the officers abandoned their post. they had a greater allegiance to one person or one sect than they did to iraq, and that is the problem. >> we move to the wrecking member on the western subcommittee. >> can i just say, i have been given a note that says president llande has announced that he will authorize airstrikes in iraq in requests from the government of iraq, and we obviously welcome that public announcement. at is one of the countries we have been counting in our list. hear.e har >> i want to get back to the question of the kurds, see if we can get more detail.

they have been pulling such a strong role. basically holding the line, i guess, the islamic state, of providing christians and other minorities of this. yet yesterday we had dinner with one of the ministers, and one of his biggest complaints was they don't seem to be working with the new government in baghdad. and the other one was that the arms we are providing, they come in and trickles -- they come in in trickles, and they need the arms necessary to continue the push. obviously, they have been our friends for many years. obviously, we have worked with them, they have been loyal. i'm just wondering if -- i know it's going to take time and i know you have a hard time putting all these groups together, but it would seem to me this would be one of our priorities, to make sure they have what they need to keep

pushing isil back. so i was just wondering, can you talk a little bit about that? >> i'm delighted to talk a little about that. look, i traveled a few weeks ago -- i think it was a few weeks ago, to me with president barzani and talk about the government formation in the steps we would take. that wee make it clear have -- first of all, we conducted targeted airstrikes to stop isil's advance. kurds were courageous, but i will tell you, isil was advancing rapidly and president obama made the emergency decision and we went in and stop them advancing. number two, we immediately open a joint operations center to

share intelligence at an unprecedented level for up number three, we let an international effort to provide weapons and ammunition and at least 39 international flights have arrived carrying arms for the krg. the coalition up to now has provided 22 million rounds of ammunition, tens of thousands of small arms, heavy mortars, heavy machine guns, a craft, adv april machine guns, and rpg's -- and ti-vehicle machine guns, and rpg's. the president of the united states provided $25 million and drawn out funds to support operations which directly supported the krg supply efforts. i thinke to tell you,

some 17 flights of ours have gone in with these weapons and arms. so we will continue. we are moving as fast as we can. doing, i think, a pretty darn good job of getting weapons into the kurds, and we have great respect for the cash him or -- for the kashmir. now, i am concerned about they had a sense of not working closely enough with the government. >> one of the reasons i said that as they are not even getting paid. , onee of the first things of the parts of the agreement the government formation was the immediate billion dollars would be paid over, and it was, as the government came together. errors up to $4 billion needed to pay back salaries. the next billion is on its way. i think that will be addressed, because everybody understood that was part of the deal with the government coming together. think one of the concerns they have is we make this deal, and then the

government in baghdad does nothing to keep up their end. >> if the government of baghdad has not kept up their end, and cleare made it crystal the united states of america will do the things we need to do. >> ok, thank you very much. >> joe wilson of south carolina. andhank you, mr. chairman, thank you, mr. secretary, for being here. the president said as we defeat isil, there will be no more mistakes. i look forward to working with you of avoiding the obama astake of designating isil junior varsity. 16 months ago he said the terrorist threat was diminished, yet at the same time the american enterprise institute warned of terrorist across north africa, across the middle east, and central asia. the obama mistake of failing to secure a basic security agreement with iraq undermines the achievements the american

allies forces in promoting freedom in iraq, and i been notified two of my sons served in iraq, and i'm grateful for their service. mistake of sequestration, downsizing the military as jihadist strikes expand, allowing safe havens to attack american families worldwide. the obama mistake of failing to support the students of iran's green revolution. the rainy and revolution supporters in tehran carry signs very clearly in english, death to israel, death to america. the obama mistake of declaring a redline in on chemical weapons, then blaming others. clearly the redline was stated in the streets by the president august 20, 2012. the obama mistake of releasing five murderous taliban while negotiating with terrorists. one of the terrace was praised by the taliban murders is the equivalent of 10,000 warriors to destroy america.

the detention facility at guantanamo bay is more important than ever. the obama mistake of announcing date, withdrawal disregarding conditions, putting afghanistan and pakistan at risk. the obama mistake of equating hamas rocket attacks with israel's self-defense. we should recognize how must -- hamas, " we've got you death more than you value life." the them b benghazi mistake. the fort hood massacre, the missing violence is a drive-by shooting. the president obviously needs to change course. in dangerskness american families worldwide. i believe the president should take action, remember september 11, and the global war on terrorism. and i'm pleased to hear and join with congressman serous in regard to our concern for the kurdish region. the kurdish region has been

loyal allies of america for decades. the people are very brave and capable, but i have heard, as he, that the necessary military supplies are not being delivered. they are putting the kurdish people that great risk. so again, what steps are being made to certainly guarantee and make sure that the kurdish region receives the necessary supplies to defend themselves? i don't a where to begin, congressman. [laughter] i'll tell you where i will begin. your two sons.or we really appreciate their enormous contribution to the country. i obviously disagree with your judgment about mistakes, red lines. can have an argument about that, but i don't like it serves any great purpose here

today. so what i will do so we can answer you want to record on that, but i do say thank you for your sons' service. that's what makes america great. of theevery statement commitment that we will follow through with weapons to the kurds? >> as i said, we are deeply committed. the kurds are essential partners in this. we have enormous respect for the courage they have shown in the fight they have arty taken to isil. we are aiming for success, congressman. believe me, the president is deeply committed to this effort. the one thing i would say after the list of mistakes is i honestly cannot think of a president who has taken more line and put more on the to fight the continued struggle against terrorism specifically

his efforts in afghanistan, his efforts in pakistan, his efforts in yemen, molly, libya, run the list. secretary, one final question -- yes or no, is america at war? >> well, you know, i'm going to answer that, mr. chairman. a lot of people are debating this idea of what do you call it. do you call it war, do you not call it war? it's not a war like iraq, where we invaded with hundreds of thousands of troops mobilized and 16,000 sorties and that sort. it's not that kind of war. what youu care about call it, it is a war similar to what we did with al qaeda and terror. sure, what i care about is not

what we call it. i care about what we do. and i care about making sure we defeat isil. if you're more comfortable calling it a war against this in a me of islam, please do so. what everyoneith th call it. i think it's more important we focus on how we do it. >> time has expired. we have to go to gerry connolly of virginia. >> you could say that with some enthusiasm, mr. chairman. [laughter] i was listening to my colleague from south carolina, and i must respectfully take issue. yearhappened in syria last was a single failure of this congress. rare event, a president of the united states came to congress and said here's the problem, here's what i want to do about it, give me an observation. and what did we do?

thered, kvetched, hands, came to all kinds by observations about how we cannot do it, and i think we damaged the united states policy on standing in our respectability as an institution. so if we are going to start finger-pointing, let's start with ourselves. said that, mr. secretary, welcome back to congress. [laughter] the fun never stops around here. secretary, you bravely served your country. servicemedals for your in an undeclared war in southeast asia. and at that time, we had two presidents who used the gulf of tonkin resolution basically to engaged in a massive ground war

in mainland asia. that was a fairly flimsy basis upon which to wage war. and all of us of that generation are cognizant of that. or and i to return, understand you are wearing a different hat today than when you were on the senate foreign relations committee, but we heard you say and we heard the president say that you welcome a congressional authorization. but i guess i would gently prod you, don't you need it? citet it just as flimsy to a different resolution for a different time, different challenge 13 years ago? wouldn't it be better for our country, our allies to have a full-blown debate and to request that authorization, as i believe

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

began as al qaeda in iraq will stop the authorization clearly 6, 2007, 2008 referred to al qaeda in iraq. just standing up last year and saying we are not part of this because we are worse than them and they don't like us anymore does not get you out from under who you are and what you are trying to do and how you do it. and therefore, yes, it is a span of years. it wasn't something any of us foresaw. but it doesn't affect the legality of the fact that this still is the same group that was doing what they did in iraq. they call themselves al qaeda in iraq, part of that, and now they are continuing to do the same thing in both places, iraq and syria. i'm convinced the long-standing relationship they had with bin laden, the long-standing relationship with al qaeda, the

continued desire to attack the united states and u.s. persons, two of whom they have already murdered, we have the authority without any question. and it referred to the affiliates, by the way. the language of the resolution refer to al qaeda and its affiliates. as no question these guys were an affiliate or are an affiliate. we are convinced we have it, but, yes, we're definitely stronger as a country, which is why the president came to congress with the syria authorization previously. >> i thank you. >> mr. michael mccaul of texas. >> thank you. we have known about this threat for well over a year. it has been festering. i believe when the beheadings of the american journalist lace, it was a real wake-up call for the american people about the evil or isil.isis

think thetched what i president went through a very tortured decision-making process , i think in part because it defies his narrative that he campaigned on, that he was going to end these wars, and it defies his legacy as well. having said that, i'm glad that he finally came around on the issue, listened to general dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs, that basically told him we cannot defeat isis unless we go into syria. we just heard today, and i had a briefing on the australian plot that was thwarted, this is an extra cooperation coming out of syria involving the beheadings of ulster earlier it's and the potential attack on their fbi.

as a chairman of homeland security, i don't want to see that happen in the united states, and i know nobody sitting here today wants to see that either. your pick ofnd general allen. i think that is probably one of the best decisions i've seen made. , and i've always said, the moderate muslims are the most effective weapon we have against the extremist radical muslim. at appears to be the strategy here, with the vetting process. i've had my issues with the syrian rebels in terms of throwing money and weapons without proper vetting and training. i know the pentagon was persuaded by the fact this is off-site, in saudi, that we do have the database efficient to properly train and bet them, but what turned me around as we are going to train the moderate sunni muslim to combat the extreme sunni muslim. .nd it's their fight

we can find assistance and capability in airstrikes, and we will have guidance, and rule probably have special forces, but at the end of the day it's their backyard. so my question to you is, when you met with these nations that quite honestly through a lot of money indiscriminately that created this problem, it seems to me they ought to be fixing it as well. what are they willing to put on the table to assist this effort? specifically, are they willing to put a ground force? because that's what's lacking in syria. we had that in iraq, but we don't have that in syria. 5000, overed that six months, when you're looking at 30,000 isis forces and growing every day, whether that's going to be a realistic, achievable strategy.

without more assistance from these other nations, particularly the arab world that i think has some responsibility to bear the burden. >> congressman, first of all, thank you for your leadership on homeland security and your service. at his key -- that is key to our safety, obviously, and we appreciate that. you know, i think it's unfair to confuse careful with "tortured." askedatched the president a lot of tough questions that are appropriate and look for consequences that need to be analyzed prior to making a presidential decision, and i think careful is what people want in a president. secondly, the president has accepted general dempsey's advice about syria, and he said that to the nation.

and i advocate the same thing. i do not think we can attack isil only in iraq. we just can't do it. if they seek refuge in syria and have a safe haven there, that is contrary to the policy we pursued about not allowing a sanctuary to al qaeda in pakistan or elsewhere. you cannot contain. there is no containment with this group stop there is no such thing as negotiation. there's nothing to negotiate. i think everybody understands that. that requires a willingness to get the job done. now, in that context, you are absolutely correct the money came from places it should not have come to some of these groups. and they morphed. and i think people would sit there in a moment of candor and tell you today they acknowledge that. but that's part of what's giving us the unity of purpose to rectify that now. so i'm very hopeful, you say

what basis growing every day and only 5000. you go get the classified numbers. but the classified numbers say to us there are tens of thousands of opposition fighters today, not 5000. 5000 is what the initial training can produce. and if we are successful, if this enemy of islam can get set back sufficiently, young people and possible recruits will have a different attitude about where they might want to be and with whom. and that could change very rapidly. so the numbers are something that could be in flux. am not going to sit here and tell you with certainty it's only 5000. that's the target. that i don'tl you think these guys are 10 feet tall. and the intelligence tells us as we have begun to hit them, we have been able to prove that to some degree. >> we go now to mr. ted deutch

of florida. forhank you, and thank you ensuring this committee has an opportunity to distress directly with the administration strategy for the isil threat. mr. secretary, thank you for being here today. before going into my questions about this topic, i want to join mr. smith in thanking you for your statement about the americans who have been held. in particular, i would note that as we approach the november deadline for nuclear talks with iran, we will also be approaching yet another thanksgiving that bob levinson will not be with his family. while i appreciate all your efforts, nevertheless i want to continue to urge you to press the iranians, as i know you do every meeting, for any information about mr. levinson and urge them to show some

byanity and some good faith permitting mr. levinson to be reunited with his family. -- administration has been the cop reigns of strategy for combating the isil terror threat cuts off isil's financial support, strengthens moderate forces on the ground in syria. undersecretary, yet personally traveled to our partners in the region. president havee helped to build is a strong coalition and i support your efforts, commend you for them, and i think we are grateful for them. i just wanted to follow-up on mr. connolly's questioning with a couple points. one, i would like to associate with myself -- i would like to associate my comments with his comments about the absence a year ago. i would also suggest while yesterday's vote was about authorizing funding to support

the syrian opposition, that we do need to have a broader debate about authorizing the use of military force. that is not what yesterday's vote was. and while you may be precisely 1ight that the aumf from 200 legally gives you the authority that is necessary, that there are an awful lot of us who are here to participate in that debate and who would like the opportunity on behalf of our constituents to engage in a debate about the type of force that should be used, can be used, and in fact ultimately, once that determination is made, to all verizon on behalf of america today for this purpose. -- to authorize it on behalf of america today for this purpose. i think it's something the administration should want and

should request. shifting topics. you reported in the press they we are leaving channels of communication open with iran. i would like you to explain, what we are communicating to iran, how much we know about for the shiite militias, whether it radiant forces are on the ground in iraq -- whether it radiant forces are on the ground in iraq. iran continues to be a state fonts are -- state sponsor of terrorism. mark a war in the region that would be so damaging as extremist groups are marching through the middle east. given there is less than two months from the november 24 deadline, the nuclear negotiation, if you could provide us with the necessary assurances that our shared goal of destroying isil won't be used by iran as a pretense for

extending negotiation or for pressing the administration and our partners in those negotiations to accept anything less than an iran that does not pose a threat in the region and to the world. --let me state unequivocally there is no connection, relationship, dependency between what we are currently about to be engaged in with respect to this, you know, so-called isil and these talks. and there is a real discipline on both sides with respect to the focus on the talks. now, everybody knows, because we ofounced it, on the margins the g5 plus one talks, there were some inquiry about isil and the position of iran and so forth. iran as opposed to isil.

it would be illogical, it would be almost diplomatic malpractice not to inquire what the ratted today is or what their attitude is about our engagement. at this not mean we are cooperating. we are not cooperating, there is no joint effort. but i think it's important. .iplomacy is communication and mistakes are avoided by communicating. so there is no coordination. there is no change in our attitude, there is no shift in policy, there is no linkage, but, yes, there has been and we are open to anything that could help solve this problem. we will listen. without compromising our values and our interests. >> we go to judge ted poe of texas. >> thank you, mr. secretary, for being here. the united states has made a commitment to protect ethnic and religious minority subject to

isis in iraq. the unarmed residents of camp liberty have been attacked, as you know, seven times, resulting in the murder of 100 residents, the winning of 1000 others. myself and 26 members of congress have sent you a letter asking you specifically what now will be done to protect those members of camp liberty. i would like for you to respond to the letter in writing as opposed to this hearing today. so i would like to move on to specifically what we are talking about with respect to isis. it, is armingtand people in syria that have been withd with the intent of inpect to the feeding isis syria and the counter strategy to defeat isis in iraq at the same time.

because webout that armed the rebels of opposition in libya, and now that has not turned out so well. libya, to me, is a failed state. . have a series of questions you have made it clear that this is not islamic philosophy. tell me and name eric and people me and the merit in people exactly who we are at war with. , islamic states of iraq in syria. what would you tell the american people, ok, we are doing this support, we are at war, the counterterrorism operation, whatever you want to call it, who is the enemy? define the enemy for me? what would you call them? well, coppersmith, let me say

quickly that i share your concern, the administration shares your concern about the mujahedin that have been too long in camp liberty, and we recognize that. we've been working to get 384 residents out of there. like you me, i would to respond to that question in writing. if you just go ahead and answer the question, who are we at war with? who would you call these? >> i call them the enemy of islam, because i think that's who they are and they certainly don't represent a state. should refer to them as the enemy of islam? >> well, i do. and i hope that you join me in doing that because i think that is who they are and i don't think they deserve to have a reference in their name. >> are they the enemy of the united states? >> they are an enemy of humanity. >> so the u.s.?

>> among many others. >> i'm just looking at the security interests of the united states. >> definitively, it is in the national security of our country, to the americans over there with passports learning to fight and taking part in this. >> i agree with you. >> for all of those reasons, yes. >> what is the long-term strategy? is it to defeat this group, isis , if you don't mind me calling them that? >> yes, it is. favor, my best in treaty to call them something other. >> but that is the long-term goal of the united states? >> the long-term goal is to end their capacity to engage in acts of terror and be a threat to the united states and others and to destabilize the region. >> we suspect, as long as it takes? is that really the position of

the united states? no matter how long it takes, we are going to defeat this group? >> well, the answer is if your goal is to defeat them, you better be prepared to do it however long it takes. but that doesn't mean it's going to have to take forever. we put together the right coalition, if we all join together and support the right strategy and do the right things and follow through, i'm confident we can do feet isil. >> by any means necessary, we are going to defeat them? or are we just going to defeat them with certain strategies? >> we have a strategy, and we think it can work. and we have other options within that strategy if the first steps don't. >> but the syrian rebels are not successful in defeating them on their own, we have contingency plans to follow-up? >> there are other options. we are not making those plans right now because we plan to

defeat them the way we are going. >> where going to the representative from new york. >> thank you. you had indicated, characterized the free syrian army asked secular and moderate. at the beginning of your statement. although that is certainly characterizing it as part of the story, i think there is a lot more to tell with respect to this organization. between 40,000 and 50,000 who are secular and moderate, their best fighters, are islamic extremists and al qaeda affiliates. a are not unified, they lack an effective command structure, they have no political center, and the problem is you when you have a thousand militias and obliterate the center, they are only sized to fit. i would have some concerns about our reliance on the free syrian army to provide the ground troop

strength to help us succeed in this mission. obviously we cannot depend on the iraqi army. the united states spent 25 ilion dollars to train and build a new army. the truth strength of the iraqi army was estimated to be a quarter million. when isis moved on them, they ran. my question is, you know, the kurdish military in kurdistan is estimated to be anywhere between 80,000 and 190 thousand fighters. they are regarded as pro-american, well equipped and trained and experienced. they are reliable allies as they have assisted us in apprehending bin laden in 2003. there is a stable political situation in kurdistan, they recognize minority rights. are we partnering with the right

organization in that part of the world to achieve our objectives? and why would we try to engage to a greater degree kurdistan, given their history of reliance? so i ask that question. >> let me begin -- very good question, congressman. i will begin by saying the numbers that you put out with respect to the size of the thatition, we don't agree those are the limited numbers, particularly with respect when the more islamic of those fighters. particularly when you include some of the bad guys in his group. we don't include those. when i tell you there are tens of thousands, i'm not including people we are not going to have anything to do within that we don't agree with, obviously.

so our numbers are a little different from where you begin. we are not relying obviously exclusively on them. we are working with the kurds. that's why you saw such a massive amount of support going into the kurds, with the permission of the government of baghdad, and that's why we bypassed and went directly to them with their permission. recognize you need to what is already happening. the kurds, indeed, can be a critical partner in this effort. >> >> yield back. >> we go now to matt salmon of arizona. >> thank you, mr. secretary for speak to this committee about this administration's plan to defeat isis. it's unfortunate you couldn't come and answer our in advance of the house voting on the very issue.

at leastpleased that we can get some of these questions answered today. first question is just five weeks ago, the president said the freea fantasy that syrian army could take up arms and lead the fight. of they're a corner stone our strategy to defeat isis. >> what the president said, that comment was made way back when. but he was referring when he made the comment, he was to the timeck originally when in the last administration people were talking in the very beginning about whether or not they should be armed and so forth. and he, as you know, had reservations about that at that time. at thatreason is that time there