of d.o.j.-approved enhanced interrogation techniques. what the study ignores, however, is the fact that abu glueda's earlier -- zubaydah's interrogation did involve use of techniques that were later included in the list of enhance ed interrogation techniques. specifically, the facts demonstrate that abu zubaydah was subjected to around the clock interrogation that included more than four days of dietary manipulation, nudity and more than 126 hours, which is about five days, of sleep deprivation during a 136-hour period by the time the f.b.i. finished up the 8 1/2 hour interrogation shift in which abu zubaydah finally yielded the identification of jose padilla. so during a five-day time

period, abu zubaydah got less than 10 hours of sleep yet the majority does not acknowledge this was an enhanceed interrogation. in light of these facts, the study's claims that the f.b.i. was exclusively using rapport-building techniques is nothing short of being dishonest. more important, the actionable intelligence gleaned from the enhanced interrogation of abu zubaydah that started in april of 2002 served as the foundation for the capture of additional terrorists and the disruption of the -- disruption of the plots those captured terrorists were planning. his information was also used to gather additional actionable intelligence from these newly captured terrorists which in turn led to a series of successful capture operations and plot disruptions. by the study's own count, the numerous interrogations of abu

zubaydah resulted in 766 sole-source disseminated intelligence reports. that's an awful lot of actionable intelligence collected under the c.i.a. program that this study tries to quietly sweep under the carpet in order to support its false headline that the c.i.a.'s use of enhanced interrogation techniques was not effective. the study also overlooked several crucial intelligence successes that prevented terrorist attacks against the united states and our allies around the world. al qaeda affiliateed extremists subjected to the program's enhanceed interrogation techniques made admissions that led to the identification of the man responsible for plotting the september 11 attacks, khalid sheik khalid sheikh mohammed or k.s.m. it stopped attacks on the u.s.

homeland and against our military forces overseas. al qaeda affiliate abu zubaydah's statements to interest raters led to the identification of jose padilla, tasked with conducting a terrorist attack inside the united states. the intergays disrupted al qaeda 's plotting against camp lemeyia in djibouti, and at that time home to some 1,600 u.s. military personnel. there is no telling how many lives this program saved in those particular interrogations alone. intelligence gathered under the detention and interrogation program also prevented terrorist attacks on our allies in the united kingdom. terrorist plots against london's

heathrow airport and canary wha wharf were disrupted because key conspirators were apprehended and questioned on the basis of intelligence gathered using several interrogation techniques, including enhanceed interrogation techniques. and finally, information from detainees held in the program was critical to ascertaining the true significance of abu ahmad al-kuwaiti, the facilitator who served as osama bin laden's personal courier and the man who led c.i.a. intelligence analysts and the navy seals to bin laden himself. for anyone interested in a nice chronological survey of the significant intelligence gained from the program and how it was used to capture additional terrorists and drupt terrorist plots -- disrupt terrorist plots; i would invite you to read pages -9d 6 and 97, which

delineate exactly a chrono milliochronologyof intelligencee that allowed for take joan of individuals. it seems the study takes every opportunity to unfairly portray the c.i.a. in the worst light possible. presupposing improper motivati motivations and the most detestable behavior at every turn. now the very enemies who the program helped keep at bay for all those years as well as adversarial nations will be able to sploi exploit what is essentially a dangerously inciteful and dangerous treasure-trove of information about our intelligence operations. now i'm all for pointing out and correcting problems with the intelligence community, and i have been very outspoken sonl on some of them, but i prefer that our oversight be conducted quietly and in a manner that does not yep dice the national security of the united states.

ultimately, our nart views examined eight of the study's most problematic conclusions, many of which attacked the c.i.a.'s integrity and credibility in developing and implementing the program. these problematic claims and conclusions created the false impression that the c.i.a. was actively misleading policy-makers and impeding the counterterrorism efforts of other federal government agencies during the program's operation. we found that these claims and conclusions were largely not supported by the documentary record and were based upon flawed reasoning. specifically, we found that, one, the c.i.a.'s detention around interrogation program was effective and produced valuable and actionable intelligence; two, most of the c.i.a.'s claims of effectiveness with respect to

the use of e.i.t.'s were accurate, three, the quia attempted to keep the congress informed of its activities and did so on a regular basis. and as a member of the committee, i can attest to that. four, the c.i.a. did not impede white house oversight. the white house was very involved in doing oversight of the program. five, the c.i.a. was not responsible nor did it have control over sharing or dissemination of information to other executive branch agencies or to members of the principles' committee. six, many of the study's claims about the c.i.a. providing inaccurate information to the department of justice or themselves totally inaccurate. seven, the c.i.a. did not significantly impede oversight by the c.i.a. office of the inspector general. and, eight, the white house

determined that the c.i.a. would have the lead on dealing with the media regarding detainees. these findings are not matters of defense of the c.i.a. the c.i.a. is fully capable of defending its own actions and i know will do so. rather, these findings are a critique of certain aspects of this particular study. as a general rule, i want our committee findings, conclusions, and recommendations to be unasalablunasalable in every investigation that we conduct. unfortunately, that didn't happen here and i'm very concerned about the unintended consequences that will result from the study's erroneous and inflammatory conclusions. i imagine that some members of the media may choose to repeat the study's false headlines contained in the report without checking the underlying facts. by doing so, they will only be damaging their own credibility.

i invite anyone who reads the study's executive summary and findings and conclusions to pay particular attention to how often the text uses lieutenantst absolutes such as "played no role, no connection, or no indication." please then read our minority views to find the clear counterexamples that disapprove most of these absolute claims. i suspect that the readers who make this effort will be disappointed, as i was that this study makes so many inaccurate claims and conclusions. our minority views also explain how thissitude was crippled by -- this study was crippled by irregularities that hampered the committee's ability to conduct a fair review of the program. these procedural defects resulted in a brie mature

committee vote in december of 2012 to approve the study before the text was adequately reviewed by the committee membership or subjected to a routine fact check by the intelligence community. typically once a senate committee report has been approved, staff are only authorized to make technical and conforming changes. the executive summary and findings and conclusions released this week have undergone such extensive and unprecedented revision since the study was approved back in december of 2012 that the traditional concept of technical and conforming changes has now been rendered meaningless. amazingly, the majority made significant changes in the substance of the study for months after it was voted on by the committee. in addition, after we mitted our minority views, the majority staff then went back and made a

few changes to specifically correct some of the more blatant errors that we identified in the views and that c.i.a. identified in their review. while i am pleased that our views led to some minor improvements in the study, those ultimate -- those untimely changes required us to add text explaining the validity of our initial conclusions and criticisms. simply put, the documents released today are very different from the documents that were approved almost exactly two years ago by the committee at the ent end of thet congress on a partisan basis. another significant weakness of this study is its disregard of the context under which the c.i.a.'s detention and interrogation program was developed. it is critical to remember that the intelligence community was inundated by a surge of terrorist threat reporting after the september 11 attacks.

the fear of a follow-on attack was pervasive and it was genuine. the nation was traumatized by the horrific murders of nearly 3,000 americans and at the c.i.a. there was no greater imperative than stopping another attack from happening. this congress text is entirely absent from the study. in addition, everyone must remember that the c.i.a. was directed to conduct this program by the president. i have spoken with a number of c.i.a. officers over the years who remember the contentious debates about the program at the time it was being considered, but at the end of the day, the agency did what the president directed them to do under color of law and based upon opinions issued and updated by the department of justice. many of my colleagues continue to discuss the brutality of many of the enhanced interrogation

techniques. while i agree with waterboarding which only occurred against three detainees is particularly severe, many of the other techniques were not. and by comparison, k.s.m., who was one of the detainees that was subjected to waterboarding, personally beheaded "wall street journal" reporter daniel pearl and a number of other u.s. citizens have been tortured by al qaeda-inspired groups since. the current threat level posed by isil and other al qaeda-affiliated terrorist groups may be greater today than what we face the prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. they are better-funded, better-equipped, and have recruited hundreds of terrorists who have american as well as european passports. isil terrorists are using social media to encourage new recruits to conduct lone-wolf attacks in

their home countries such as the united states. they are murdering and beheading captured hostages and planning terrorist attacks against u.s. citizens. in light of these significant threats, the president is still attempting to make good on a misguided campaign promise to close down guantanamo bay. itdon seem to matter to -- it doesn't seem to matter to him that we are now down it the worst of the worst or that his own review groups have strongly recommended against the release of these remaining terrorists. instead, he has returned to the pre-9/11 practice of treating terrorists like ordinary criminals. we are reading terrorists their miranda rights instead of conducting extended intelligence investigations to develop actionable intelligence that might lead to additional captures or plot droppings. i think -- or plot droppings. i think we would be better off if we would return to cap

tiewrpg the enemy and use authorized enteration techniques to obtain the actionable intelligence information needed to neutralize these dangerous terrorist organizations. while there is no doubt that there were indeed moments diewrpmoments duringthe c.i.a. d interrogation program where they exceeded their authorized limits, such were few and far between. in this, my last week of service here on the floor of the united states senate, and the vice-chairman of the intelligence committee, i want to thank the men and women of the c.i.a., the rest of the intelligence community, and the members of our armed forces who have served us so well since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. yieforts and your sacrifices have not gone unnoticed. i will be forever grateful for your patriotic service to our beloved country. may god bless you all and may god bless the united states of god bless the united states of

>> on our next "washington journal" we'll talk under about the release of the senate onelligence committee report c.i.a. interrogations. writer of the associated press joins us, we'll bradshaw.to john later north dakota senator hogan will weigh in on the report and calls on the government funding deadline. the xl pipeline and immigration. is liveton journal" each morning at 7:00 eastern and you can join the conversation on and twitter. now reaction from senate leers to the release of the committee's report on c.i.a. interrogations. we'll hear from republican much mcconnell and other republicans. then comments from senate

reid on leader harry the democrats' agenda. >> let me just say a word about democratic intelligence report. study, it is not authorized by the senate intelligence committee. i think it doesn't tell us much we didn't probably already know any way, but significantly americans around the world, this particular release, my judgment, serves no purpose whatsoever, other than around the americans world at a time of growing

ofcern about the rise terrorism. the president seemed to declare the war on terror over a while back, and it's clearly still the ingest threat confronting us the 21st century. >> following on senator mcconnell's comments, i can't greater disservice to the men and women in the military and in the intelligence last 13y who for the years have prevented another 9/11 type attack on our own shores. just think about what a for ourng tool this is adversaries. we know that they are way too successful in recruiting people is another tool in their tool box to help recruit people to the fight. terroristand other organizations. depend quite extensively on the cooperation of other

intelligence agencies around the help work with us to enemies, some of these adversaries of the united states and the civilized world, and about theiris say likelihood to cooperate with us in the future. so leon pa net that, among said thishn brennan program saved american lives. but unfortunately what senate democrats have done today will lives.r american >> i honestly just don know what possibly comes out of the release of that c.i.a. report. are some there disturbing accounts in there, but you cannot deny the what the nature of democrats have done here, and i that whited a quote house press secretary made, and somete, there are indications that the release of

gritterrt could lead to risk, that is posed to u.s. facilities and individuals all world.the it is very clear this appears to be simply an attempt to rewrite by the democrats to bash the bush administration, but clearly there isn't anything good that comes out of this. i want to speak briefly to the istinuing saga that obamacare, and obviously jonathan gruber is up on capitol who said that its with a lack of transparency and the stupidity of the american enabled obamacare to pass. if you look at what's happening after the louisiana runoff that occurred on saturday, you now half, 30 of the 60 democrats will be in the senate foranuary who voted obamacare. the democrats those who are still here steam to be distancing themselves as quickly as they can are the harmful effects that obamacare has had in this country.

when republicans take the majority in january we'll be to undoerything we can those harmful impacts caused by obamacare. issue that is not going away for democrats up here facts evidenced by the of them --alf >> i was on the senate intelligence committee when the report that was released today was completed. it was written without being involved. singlewritten without a principal being interviewed. incrediblyof that incomplete, but also it's unnecessary to release it at i thinke, and particularly unhelpful. to told by people who talked the state department today that they're getting calls from whond the world of people are, people who have worked with

us in the past that wonder what has for them.is i'm told that as people talk alreadyis report today, trying to figure out exactly where these locations are from glean froman try to the report, none of that is helpful. none of that serves a purpose. the report itself, as i recall and understand to still case, doesn't propose any additional actions being taken report.of the if you're going to take a chance like this with our national do it foryou should some purpose other than to create problems for americans serving us around the world, and people who have chosen to be on in this fight against terror, rather than people on side.her >> how was this report not authorized? >> my understanding, you were on the committee at the time, my understanding is that basically

democratic report or study or word.er the proper >> i think it wasn't authorized by the senate, so it's not really a senate report, what is leader washe referring to. there was a vote in the quickly,, but then that was before i got on the senate committee. quickly the republicans withdrew from the process, that there was no evident people -- no effort to interview people. this report didn't have any end game to change behavior, and site was written reportdemocrats, it is a from frankly democrats on the authorizedand it was by the committee, but quickly therepublicans on committee, it's certainly not a it's notport because authorized by the senate.

it is timing of obviously, you all object to the timing of it. the report hadf very specific details of the nature of of the interrogations. think that says about the u.s. government and should there be more reforms or are you confident with the reforms that have happened? >> i think what it does for the u.s. government is endanger our peopleover seas, every embassy flying an american flag. as several of my colleagues just pointed out, endangering the working relationship we've had differentiety of countries in trying to deal with intelligence gathering. in short it was a big step in the wrong direction. >> can you give us an update on are thinking about the senate rules for nominees? i know this is a subject of discussion. >> yeah, there's nothing to tell you. we're going to have an indepth of that later today.

(inaudible question). sorry, i'm having a hard you.hearing >> i was wondering if you have a comment on the tax deduction worked on.ng >> our only option once we get to the tax extender bill is what us.house send over to exactly what that package is going to look like beyond being i couldn't tell you. >> do you have any expectation of when that might be? before we leave here. the three things we're going to do. the nationalo pass defense authorization act. omnibusing to pass the slash c.r., and then we're going pass the tax extender bill before we leave this week. thank you.

>> the federal government is going to run out of money in two days. the governmenton should shut down, and we're year-longass a spending bill to take care of this. with been trying to work the republican leaders to avoid shutdown. there's going to come a time when they have to take yes for an answer. guess they're not there yet. there are still factions within the republican party who want extreme measures, you've all heard them just like i have. negotiations have targeted a few things, rights of course,ealth care, of

.nvironment going on some of the basics we believe in that have become part makeup, that is clean air, clean water. course really out there doing weaken dodd frank. and we heard the same thing in from a newspaper thatrday about the things senator mcconnell is going to work on next congress. so i guess there's nothing new sun. the for the extremists within the republican party, it has been so party,within their there's always a reason to take a poke at the president. one thing, it's some other thing. certainlyan people shouldn't be facing another government shutdown, but i guess that's what we're facing. no one wins from these cliff having.ights we're

the americanre people. with the negotiation, neither side is going to get everything they want. that's what compromise is all about, that's what legislation all about. anator mikulski has done remark my good job, she did such a good job explaining what she's with merely 100 writers that she's had to try to fight off. so i, in spite of all this, i'm optimistic that even the republicans don't want a shutdown. (inaudible question). been filed has not yet, there are still negotiations going on on a few things. (inaudible question). >> when we work through the defense bill and work through the omnibus, and i think that

the right time to do it. up to the republicans. we on our side can get them done quickly, but wee see what they want to do. >> i know you all want to move surge ungeneral, what's going to happen? >> maybe we'll have to work the weekend and maybe work next week. i know that's tough duty for have to dobut we may that. we have a number of nominations we're going to do. to, we have nine judges left, we're going to do those. going to do dr. murphy, do andhead of immigration naturalization, ice. do socialg to security administrator, and other things that i've given a list to the republicans and it's up to them to decide how long we stay.

>> separate from the one-year bill from the house already they're working on a bill to make permanent the charitable tax extenders, would that up on to get the floor over here? be hardnk it's going to to get any new legislation up. have tot stuff that we work through. at senator white made presentation in the caucus they, people know it's charitable donations things the house has. going to omnibus, i'm file cloture on the defense bill which means we can move to it immediately if they'll let us do, otherwise we'll have a cloture vote on thursday.

, and that takes us into friday. so i think that there's a very good chance we'll be here this weekend. bill,aking of the defense did you have any conversations with senator coburn about his objection over the land bill component, which i know you were involved had putting together are no, i had no conversation with senator coburn. >> have you heard anything relating to multiemployer pension plans to be on the omnibus? >> that decision has not been by the house yet. there's negotiations going on weeks, andor three understanding the issue .s still alive question).

>> we're going to, they're hearing today in the oneign relations committee a.u.m., they're going to perhaps onort a bill out maybe thursday. and each day that goes by it's to work on newer bills. (inaudible question scrrks. >> you don't have to worry about me pushing, there's going to be pushing forple that. one to you passed a two-day c.r.? to. hope we don't have question (.e >> i've had conversations with the congresswoman that district. the and i'm opposed to what the

house is trying to do. there, it'sit in going to be hard to take it out. one last question. tria, i don't think it's going in the omnibus. okay, thanks, everybody. john kerryy of state was asked about the senate report on c.i.a. interrogations senate hearing. secretary kerry testified tuesday about the use of force against the militant group, isis, that's next on c-span. this morning's "washington journal" we'll talk more about the c.i.a. interrogation report, calls, facebook comments and tweets. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 eastern.

>> this week on q and a, bresnahanraju and share sores about being on the campaign trail with senator mcconnell. >> he had planned for four years this campaign. this started in 2010, right after he saw what happened in the republican primary for rand paul, the kentucky republican senator. rand paul beat mcconnells hand anded guy in that primary, that at that point mcconnell realized i have to recalibrate abouthing i know republican primary politics in my home state and we started to key changes, he hired staff, started to build this sophisticated infrastructure knowing that this would be the most difficult race in his campaign. >> so they knew they were going onspend a lot of money technology, they had watched the obama campaign in 2008 and 2012. reid'stched harry re-election in 2010.

was going to have the latest technology and see he was thoroughbuild the most set of campaign ever. got there.ably >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern pacific. >> secretary of state john kerry said congressional authorization use of military force against the militant group isis should not be limited to iraq syria. secretary kerry testified at the senate foreign relations committee, which he used to the senate.e was in new jersey senator bob menendez now chairs the committee. hours and 20 minutes.

this is three hours and 20 minutes. it will come to order. >> welcome back to the committee. when you last appeared before this committee in september, you ask congress to write the use of military force against isis. we have, we will consider later this week and today we're asking you to provide the administration on this text. and on your strategic planning to counter

syria andagree and iraq of which it can crave the operational capacity to attack interest and america itself demand action. second, we need to understand ground troops would be groundhog

day all over again. we will have to hear what authorities the chief expects to achieve this political and military goals. now frankly, we undertake is not the one i sought, i hope to begin this conversation weeks senate, notntire just as committee would have time to consider a comprehensive bipartisan anti-you a mf but it did not happen and we are here to begin the process of taking action and i think the american people expect their congressional leaders to engage fully on this issue and to

understand the mission of parameter and the risk. i amhave said many times, not comfortable with the administration's reliance on the 9/11 and the 2000 and two iraq. nine he left was adopted to counter al qaeda in the wake of september 11 attacks and no member could've foreseen that we would still be acting under its authority 13 years later. i do not believe it provides the authority to pursue a new enemy in different countries undergo clearly different circumstances that -- and then exited 13 years ago. responsibilitye and we are the check and balance on power regardless of who the executive is and if we abandon the role, we would've done a grave disservice to the american people. the techs i have presented is on consultations with members of the committee and addresses for

the senator whitehouse. in my view and iso-should in broad terms authorize the president to use military force sil individuals or organizations, fighting for. it shall limit the activities so there will be no large-scale ground combat operations and the president feels he needs that and he should ask for a congress can consider it. they shall limit the authorization to three years and should require the administration to report to congress every 60 days. -- notted it will list allow ground combat operations except as necessary for the protection or rescue of u.s. soldiers for intelligence operations to a naval air strikes, operational planning or other forms of advice and assistance. the authorization will be limited to three years. the president has said it will

be a multiyear campaign but i do not believe the amf should be unlimited a three-year time frame would allow a new president time to assess the situation and make responsible decisions together with the congress about whether and how to continue military action. that said, we would love to hear from the administration, what the framework is what you see as the us-led strategy to categorize. let me conclude by saying i do not believe lazy limitations and this sends a message of weakness to our enemies. to authorization is intended provide the authority required by the commander in chief to do our part in this multinational effort to defeat isis. it is not only an american problem it is a global problem and no strategy can rely on american military power alone. we need to train iraqi security forces and kurdish forces and

stand up and train and equip for moderate fighters being defenseed and the authorization bill that the congress will consider this week and work with coalition partners to cut off financing and fighter flows and provide humanitarian aid to a dress the situation a million of people whose lives have been uprooted. we look forward to working with you and it ministration of our mutual goal of degrading and the ice and welcome you back to the committee. to senate record >> mr. chairman, thank you for allowing us to move away from what we consider last week which was an amendment to the water bill. i think that is a step forward and i appreciate you doing that. i want to thank the secretary for being here and i'm not sure that, i am pretty sure it is not

where he would like to be this afternoon so i thank you for killing before our committee and -- and iman again thank you for coming before our committee and the chairman again. occurred andnot understand that we, some of the things that will be discussed are things like books on the ground and yet we have no presentation here. no intelligent presentation here. that back inso say the syrian issue. the original about a year and a half ago where we were on the rising something that did these are my words that would last 10 hours. we were able to go for process that was much more serious than the one we are going to have this week. all of us know that whatever passes that committee this week is not going to become law.

agree with some comments that the chairman i had that at least it will be part of a process and i thank him for saying that and i agree with that. at the same time for what it is worth, i know we are not going to get to a place where the house and senate passes in authorization and i want to say that we weaken our nation when we began a process like that and we do not actually in accident law. we weaken our nation. nation we also hurt our when we attempt to pass something on a partisan basis. in one of the things about the earlier syrian amf was it had bipartisan support in bipartisan opposition. for what it's worth regardless of what happens in these worth, regardlesshat it is

of what is happening, my plan is to act in such a way that will not harden the positions. will build an opportunity for us to act in a more full way down the road. that the testimony will be helpful. i listened to the chairman and referred back to the authorization that was passed in 2001 that has led to outcomes that people did not anticipate. standpoint, i would like to have something much more full. i want to have laid out a way.

nation, we in our have had multiple conflicts. one thatd to remember ended up with a says factory outcome. start conflicts without teasing out how we are going to go about being successful. we start the process. in this particular case, it aumf wasthat the offered to a process that limits the commander in chief possibility to carry this out. what would happen under this is that, we can use all efforts, if you will, to go against al qaeda . were to pass the

authorization as written, we would say that, against isis, we will only do certain things. it is somehow viewed as a lesser evil than the group we have gone after and the tell a group we have gone after. i hope that we will all conduct ourselves in a manner that will not harden the positions. we are not going to do anything that passes. i do not think it is good for our nation. i think it is good to start this at a time when we can finish this with a congress that can deal with this from start to finish. i appreciate trying to make the process slightly better and i presentation he is going to make. >> mr. secretary.

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

is critical. as you know, the president is committed to engaging with the committee and all of your colleagues in the house and senate. regarding a new authorization for use of military force as weal call it the aumf. specifically against the terrorist group known as isil though in the region it is called dash. specifically because we believe deeply it is not a state and it does not represent islam. we are looking for authorization with respect to efforts against dash and affiliated groups. i want to thank chairman menendez and the committee for leading the effort in congress. and for all the important work you have done on this complicated and challenging issue. it's important that the committee lead a congress and the country. i think you know i believe that.

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

bipartisan basis to develop language that provides a clear signal of support for our ongoing military operations against dash. our position on the text is really pretty straightforward. the aumf should give the president the clear mandate and flexibility to successfully prosecute the armed conflict against dash and affiliated forces. it should be limited to the threat posed by that group and by forces associated with it. i will come back to the question of the aumf in a minute. we believe that as we embark on this important discussion, context matters. all of us want to see the united states succeed. all of us want to see dash defeated. we are united on that. i want to bring the committee up to date on where our campaign

now stands. mr. chairman, less than three months ago, perhaps two and a half months or more have passed since the international community came together in a coalition whose purpose is to degrade and defeat dash. two and a half months ago it didn't exist. not it dash, but the coalition. and 60 countries that assembled in brussels. i had the privilege of chairing the first meeting of the coalition last week. we heard prime minister abbatti describe the effort his team is making to bring iraqis together, strengthen security forces, take the fight to dash and improve and reform governance. we heard general john allen, our special envoy to the coalition review the progress being made in the five lines of coalition effort to shrink the territory controlled by dash, cut off financing, block its recruitment of foreign fighter, expose the hypocrisy of the absurd

religious claims and provide humanitarian aide to the victims of the violence. during the meeting i have to tell you i was impressed by the leadership activism. frankly the anger towards dash that's being displayed by arab and muslim states. governments that do not always agree on other issues are coming together in opposition to this profoundly anti-islamic terrorist organization. now, to be clear, isil continues to commit serious, vicious crimes. it still controls more territory

than al qaeda ever did. it will be years, not months, before it is defeated. we know that. but our coalition is already making a difference. to date we have launched more than 1,150 air strikes against dash. these on rags reduced its leadership. squeezed its resources. damaged the logistics call and operational capabilities and change its tactics. it's becoming clear that the combination of coalition, air strikes and local ground partners is a potent one. in fact, virtually every time a local iraqi force has worked in koord coordination with air cover they have not only defeated dash.

they have routed it. in iraq, progress also continues in the political arena. this is no less important, frankly. last week after years of intensive efforts the government in baghdad reached an interim accord with the kurd stan government on hydro carbon exports and revenue sharing. that's been long sought after. it is a big deal that they got it. it's good for the country's economy. it's even better for its unity and stability and for the imprint of the direction they are moving in. the new defense minister is a sunni. the appointment was an important step toward a more inclusive government. the process of securing the nation's security forces has a genuine chance for success. meanwhile the prime minister is taking bold steps to improve relations with the neighbors of the country including saudi arabia, the uae and turkey have been responding.

i want to under score it's too early to declare a new era in regional relations. but countries that had been drifting aparter or even in conflict with each other, are now in the process of coming together and breaking down the barriers that were create ed. that's helpful to our coalition and it is bad news for dash. beating back the threat is job one for our coalition and our iraqi partners. even if the baghdad government fulfills its responsibilities it will still face a dire challenge because of the events in syria. if you recall. the coalition's decision to carry out air strikes in syria came in response to a request from iraq for help in defending against dash's brazen attack. to date, we and our arab

partners conducted over 500 air strikes in syria, targeting areas where dash had concentrated its fighters, targeting on command and control nodes, finance centers, training camps and oil refineries. our objective is to further degrade dash's capabilities and deny the freedom of movement and resupply that it has previously enjoyed. at the same time, we will continue to build the capabilities of the moderate opposition. i want to thank the members of this committee and many in congress who supported these efforts, supported them strongly. our goal is to help the moderate forces stabilize areas under their control, defend civilians, empower them to go on the offensive against dash and promote the conditions for a negotiated political transition. recognizing recognizing, as i think almost every person has said, there is no military solution. now, mr. chairman, we all foe that dash

is a threat to americans' security and interests. it poses an unacceptable danger to our personnel and facilities in iraq and elsewhere. it seeks to destroy both the short and long-term stability of the broader middle east. it is exacerbating a refugee crisis that's placed extraordinary economic and political burden on our friends and allies in the region. one thing is certain. dash will continue to spread until or unless it is stopped. there should be no question that we with our partners have a moral duty and a profound international security interest and national security interest in stopping them. that's where the fight now stands. a coalition that two and a half

months ago didn't exist is now taking the fight to the enemy. it was cobbled together by strong american leadership and steady intensive diplomacy with country that is disagree on many things but all share an aversion to extremism. i think you would all agree we need to summon the same determination to find common ground here in washingtonment in the hours, days and weeks to come we are determined to work with you. first to develop an approach that can generate broad bipartisan support while ensuring that the president has the flexibility to successfully prosecute this evident. that's the balance. what do we envision specifically regarding an aumf? importantly -- and i think i will lay out today a clear set of principles that i i hope will be instructive. we do not think an aumf should include a geographic limitation. we don't anticipate conducting in countries other than iraq or

syria. to the extent that isil poses a threat to american personnel in other countries we would not want an aumf to constrain our ability to use appropriate force against isil in those locations if necessary. in our view it would be a mistake to advertise to isil that there are safe havens for them outside of iraq or syria. i know this is hotly debated with passionate and persuasive arguments on both sides. the president has been crystal clear. his policy is that u.s. military forces will not be deployed to conduct ground combat operations against isil. that is what the local partners and allies want. that's what worked best in terms of the iraq experience. that is best for preserving the

coalition coalition. most importantly it is in the best interest of the united states. while we certainly believe this is the soundest possible policy and while the president has been clear, he's open to clarification on the use of u.s. combat troops to be outlined in an aumf. it doesn't doesn't mean we should preemptively bind the hands of the commander in chief or commanders in the field and responding to contingencies that are impossible to foresee. finally with respect with respect to duration. we can be sure this confrontation won't be over quickly as the president and i have said many times. we understand, however, the desire of many to avoid a

completely open-ended authorization. i note that chairman menendez has suggested that a three-year limitation should be put into an aumf. we support that proposal. we support it subject to a provision that we should work through together. that provides for extension in the event that circumstances require it. we think it ought to be advertised as such up front. to sum up, mr. chairman, and members of the committee. i ask for your help in, above all, approving on a bipartisan basis with the strongest vote possible because everybody will read messages into that vote. an authorization for use of military force in connection with our campaign and that of our many partners in order to defeat a terrible, vicious, different kind of enemy. almost a quarter century ago when i was here, then a

47-year-old senator with certainly a darker head of hair, president george h.w. bush sent his secretary of state james baker to ask this committee for the authority to respond military -- to the iraqi invasion of kuwait. the country was divided. congress was divided. this committee drafted an authorization and it passed the congress with a majority as bipartisan. armed with that mandate. they built the coalition that won the first gulf war. that was a different time. it was a different conflict. it called for a different response. it was also this senate at its bipartisan best. what we need for you today to

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

and there is no debate about that. virtually every political element of of the spectrum from those considered dovish to those considered hawkish and everyone in between has a common collective goal of defeating isil. i must say they have not sent us five, six months into the engagement in aumf and had the administration sent an aumf maybe we would be better for congressional debate but that's not happened. if we wait for that and it's not forthcoming, by this or any other administration then the absence of getting an aumf from the executive branch and congress not acting because it's waiting for an aumf from the executive branch would create a de facto veto of pro rate of growth tifs and responsibilities the congress has. there are many of us on the committee for the purposes of understanding the administration's views felt it

is congress's responsibility to move forward and define it. no one worked harder in the last two years as the chairman of this committee to make this a bipartisan effort not just on aumf but across the spectrum. i'm proud to say working with a ranking member, we have virtually passed out every major piece of legislation on some of the most critical issues on our time from are the aumf on syria and the use of chemical weapons to oas reform to north korea, iran, a whole host of issues they have been bipartisan. virtually every nomination, except for three of hundreds have largely been on a bipartisan basis. no one has driven harder in the process. there are some principled views

here that may not be reconcilable. it starts with when the administration itself -- and i think you have reiterated what you said earlier in the previous visit that the president has been clear that his policy is that the united states military forces will not calm down combat operations against isil. that's what our local partners and allies want. what's best for preserving the coalition and what's in the best sbre of the united states. some in the congress have a different view. they would have a robust and open ended use of combat forces in this regard. if the administration wants that, it should come forth and ask for that. based on your testimony and on

what the president wants or has said he wants, i reject the characterization of my text as something that is constraining to the president. my text gives the administration the ability to do everything it is doing now. the text makes clear an activity on the grounder for protection of the members of the u.s. arm aed forces would be allowed. support of intelligence collection and sharing would be allowed. activities on the ground to enable air strikes by identifying appropriate targets would be allowed. activities on the ground to support operational planning would be allowed. activities on the ground including advice and assistance to forces fighting asill in iraq or syria would be allowed. obviously air strikes would be allowed. everything the administration is doing and has said it seeks to do and has said ewingyou using

the president's own words which we incorporated into the aumf when he said the president articulated five lines of effort in the campaign to counter isil including supporting regional military partners, stopping the flow of foreign fighters, cutting off isil's access to financing, addressing urgent humanitarian needs and contesting isil's messaging. nothing in the aumf constrains the administration or the president's efforts in any of that regard. indeed, authorizing u.s. ground troops is a subject of debate here. my next precludes america from being dragged into another unlimited and unending war in the middle east. it does preclude the deploilt of large scale combat forces done in iraq at far too great a cost in my view. unless i hear something differently, how would you have us reconcile the view of some members of the committee who want combat forces to enter into iraq and syria as well.

versus the president's own stated view that that's not what we or allies want. >> mr. chairman, first of all, i'm not characterizing your bill negatively whatsoever. it is very close to what the president could support with the exception of a few things i mentioned. those are a few. you have done a good job pulling together a broad authorization. and there is a fundamental core that the administration would absolutely be supportive of. i mentioned a few things we think we ought to reconcile with work amongst ourselves. with respect to when and timing

and all of this i will work with youen on behalf of the administration to get it done. the president has said he wants an aumf. there is nothing in the aumf they want to be the niche yayer tor of that. there is past record of this committee taking the lead and drafting it. we are delighted to have your draft. we think it is a good draft. there are limitations to the choices to the president.

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

>> let me suggest thisment again, we want to get a broad based boat. you said some of this may be irreconcilable. i'm not sure it ought to 00:37:31 be. the president could not have been more clear about policy. no one that i know of is in favor of open ended effort. we have just accepted the idea of the limitation of time with some capacity for review that we ought to work on together so it's sensible. it seems to me there is no way to go through the hypotheticals. you wind up tying the hands -- >> it sounds to me like you are making a case for a rather open ended authorization. which i would say to the secretary in fact the very elements of what the president described as the strategy has been rejected by members particularly on the other side of the aisle saying they don't believe it can succeed. that's a question of debate. they believe that's not a strategy that can succeed.

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

get relatively little in response. so if there is a desire to have language that can accomplish the mutual goal, we are certainly willing and open to receive it. in the absence of it, the absence of language is not going to create a permanent veto of the committee's actions or the members of the senate's actions and the administration needs to know that. >> the administration, i want you to know 100%, president obama, he has no intention of sending combat troops 00:40:04 in. there is a way to come together to work through how to resolve the difference in a way that isn't open ended and i think putting a time limit on it is pretty -- a serious statement about the administration. >> there is a famous movie that says show me the money. i say show me the language. maybe we can get there. >> let's work on it.

>> this conversation is interesting. do believe that i what the secretary said is true. if we sat down, understood what authority the white house, the secretary of state is seek ing, i believe there is a way for us to craft legislation but more importantly craft legislation that the administration supports. i mean, passing legislation, passing a bill out of the committee or an authorization is one thing. passing something on the house and senate floor is quite another. the only way that's going to happen is if the administration is firmly behind what we do. i would just say to every member here, i think it is harmful to our nation to begin the process and not see it through to the end. i thought the last effort harmed us greatly.

so, again, i understand the frustration by the chairman. i realize he's tried to have witnesses here and it hasn't occurred. i believe sitting down with the secretary and sitting down with the general counsel at the white house as we did last time. i believe we could come up with an authorization that passes the test for the bulk of the members of the party, of this committee and actually enacted into law. let me ask this question -- do you believe the administration today has the authorities that it needs to carry out the operations that it is carrying out? >> very clearly, yes. >> so i will say there are some members of the committee that believe otherwise. they believe that the best way we can make ourselves effective

and relevant is just to pass legislation that makes what you are doing legal and somehow that are doing legal and somehow that makes us relevant. that's beyond. i don't see how that's the case. it seems that part of what is missing here is an understanding. i don't think i am in the same place that they characterize. i would like to ensure we have an out come here that is worthy of the effort. i go back to what i said and we had multiple efforts since world war ii that did not end well. they cannot produce the out come. that's how you made your name. talking about that. i would say that for all of us to conduct this situation, it would be good to understand how the administration will go about it. is the strategy evolving, yes or no? the strategy of how you will go

about this. are you building on successes right now to try to morpho -- are we going to go against him? do we plan to militarily go against a sat? >> not at the moment, no. >> let me ask the question. do we pla know to go militarily. do we, the united states, plan, at this moment to attack as part of this? no. we are asking for isil-oriented authorization. you going to explicitly ask? >> let me finish. we are heavily engaged thanks to you and the passage of $500 million authorization act and now, the training and equipment after that all of the groundwork is being laid out, in addition

to other things that you are aware of to support those who are engaged in the fight directly. many of the partners are particularly focused on the a sat component. when i say are we, the united states, no, but as part of the policy. let me try to help ow this. >> help this way. are you going to ever explicitly seek an authorization from congress? >> we are seeking authorization now. >> and if you don't receive that authorization, will you continue the operations? that's an explicit seeking. >> the authorization for what we now in iraq and syria? >> that's correct. >> absolutely. we will continue it. we believe we have full authority under the 2001 and parts of the 2002.

here is where i want to help you, if i can. if congress passes a new dash-specific aumf, we will support the inclusion of language in the new one that will clarify that the did she-specific aumf is the basis for the use of military force. i think that will give comfort to a lot of people. number two, we will support the repeal of the 2002 as part of an effort to clarify that the isil-specific aumf is the only source of legitimacy for theus of military force. therefore we would live under the confines of what we pass here. that's a pretty clear and important addition to the discussion. >> do you plan to send us a draft to work off of? >> we think the cha chairman has

a draft and there differences of opinion about parts of it. >> there is a component that is more of a technical fix that refers to to the forces associated. we believe that the fighting alongside language that has been interpreted out of the 2001 aumf is important to a full explanation of how to fight this effectively. there are technical fixes like that. the fundamental draft that the committee has is a fair starting point. >> you are proposing they engage more fully to develop using language that has been draft and to edit and change that in such a way that you believe more fully addresses the issue that we are talking about is that , correct? >> i'm not proposing it. i'm here doing it.

>> what do you think would be the appropriate timeframe to work through it? >> i don't think it will be finished by thursday or friday, but we can engage in the effort . over the next days and as we come back in early january let's -- >> do you think it would be helpful? >> we are anxious to operate. this helps everyone. this is important for the conference and the country. >> other than not explicitly asking for an authorization to be candid, i appreciate what you are saying and think it's exactly the way we should go about it i know members on the other side feel differentlily about that and feel we should act this week and i understand that and appreciate it and i plan to conduct myself in a way that we don't harden ourselves prior to the first of the year.

>> senator, if we could do it, we are not trying to not do it. >> most of us would like to hear from the pentagon. you are talking about boots on the ground and that would the helpful to hear about to work through the origin. i appreciate you coming here and i understand where we are and hopefully will move towards authorization that most of us can get behind. >> thank you for the work you do. i believe president obama has the authority because i voted to give any president the authority to go out to the outgrowth of al qaeda. i feel he's got it, but having said that, this is a threat to

humanity that i don't think human kind has ever seen before. i'm assuming you understand why many of us want to go on record as a former senator, can you understand that, not getting into the details which i think our chairman working specifically with all of us here and in particular senator cain has worked so hard that reflects what the president said he wanted. i won't get into the details because that's our job to do. now it's your job to do something else. you do it well, but we have to do this. i would say from the standpoint of a former senator, you understand then why so many of us would like to go on record on this threat, is that correct? >> absolutely, senator. i have total respect for it and i understand it and welcome it. the president does too. >> good because let me be clear.

>> the president wants an aumf. >> he may have it from the majority and last time it was more of a bipartisan 00:50:44 vote. i hoping it can be bipartisan and having to do with syria. it can be enacted with the chairman and ranking member. we set forward that had limitations on it. it had a tremendous impact. we didn't wait to talk and talk and talk. we knew that assad had the chemical weapons. i say to my friend, even without it going to the floor, it had an effect on what happened. i want to talk to you about an amazing hearing i had with the senator this morning. about isil and the abuses specifically. we had an amazing panel including a woman who is the only member of parliament talk to us about what it's like. it appeared today in the daily beast.

hi it is taken from a question d answer. it's unbelievable. that answers questions of the recruits as they come into isil or dash or whatever they want to call them. can i put this in the record? i will give you a sample. i want people to not be upset and i think we can't not talk about this. can all women be taken captive? there is no dispute. it is permissible to capture unbelieving women. question, is it permissible to have intercourse with a female captive. answer, it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with a female captive. they quote alla.

if you do, you are free from blame. question five, is it permissible immediately after taking possession of her. he, her master can have intercourse with her immediately after taking possession of her, however if she is not a virgin, her uterus must be purified. this is disgusting garbage. i understand your desire to put this off and control. i need to be on record. because of what i am learning. they say their knife and they will quench their thirst for american blood. the language is evil and vicious

and as tom said from your administration, when it comes to being terrorists, they are in a league of their. and there so many other groups out there. he will speak for himself. i made the point today. when i was a kid growing up rks, i want to make a point that there is a lot of room for plexibility and we don't limit it to four exceptions. we say including these exceptions. please look at it, mr. secretary. i think it's very important. i didn't vote to go to war in iraq. i treasured the fact that i voted no. this cannot be boots on the ground and another invasion.

it can't be. if it is, i won't vote for it. the president is working with others on the ground, particularly the kurds and hopefully we can do it with the syrian moderates. we are on the right track here. i am sad frankly that we haven't been able to work with you to craft something. i understand you want to do more work and bring in more parts. i have no problem with that. i want to say to you, i hope you understand the passion with which everyone that i talked to view this is question. i hope the administration won't take it as some kind of act of an unconstitutional act if we go ahead without you.

it's clear what our responsibilities are. i hope you will take it if we do this and i hope we do to cotify what the period said. instead of being westerned as you think you are concerned about it, hopefully you can embrace it and that you can work with us to make it better, but i don't think we should put this off. i'm done. i have to go on record. my constituents expect me to go on record. >> senator? >> we appreciate you coming here and have been anxious to do it for some time they are asking for an aumf. is that correct? is there a reason this has taken so long? >> we asked for it last time we were here.

we were prepared to work. >> this is different. >> you have to look at what is going on here. mosul fell months ago tomorrow. we took our flights up from one a month to 60 a day. way back. we started pouring in and no one anticipated the fold that took place in mo actual. that has been pushed back and the point i'm making is the first step was to get a government they could work with. since then we are prepared to work work to do it. >> this is the first time they asked for an aumf. the letter would have been responded to and someone like yourself would have come up and said this is what we wanted to

do. what angers me about this, our enemies have to be looking at this and saying look what's going on. this is not a republican democrat thing. this is not a first or a second branch thing. i'm with the chairman and feeling aggravated that this is playing out like this. we have to pull the wagon together. this is a serious american problem. not a republican-democratic problem.

you can understand our frustration on this. admittedly, we do have a difference in what the rules of each party -- the founding fathers were very wise when they put in the hands of the first branch of government the power to declare war and not give it to the second branch which is the military -- one of their responsibilities is military. we take this seriously and i think the american people take this seriously. -- if senators passes, it is resolution passes, with the president signe tjhahat? \ >> i haven't asked the president because he is hopeful we can work through the differences that do exist and the president wants to have -- once the preserve the flexibility that he believes we

need and within the prerogative of the president but he is prepared to work with you to say we are all prepared to work to try to arrive and understanding of how we can do that. >> we have some disagreements in that regard. if he believes the 2001 solution gives him the authority, we have a basic disagreement and that's why i think it gave us the first branch of government to do this. i guess the question, what would be your opinion as to whether or not the president signed the senator's resolution if we pass this this week? >> i'm not going to suggest that i share the advice with respect to what his choice is if it came to the president. i think we are missing the point that that's the road we go.

from the moment i opened my mouth, and i mean this, as does the president. we don't want it to be a bare minimum majority. you want one that way. we agree we have it and we are committed to working towards that. this shouldn't be a partisan vote or hopefully divided. i am convinced we can get there. the term proposal as i say covered a lot of bases. we think the president needs plexibility that is not reflected in it. i think he is owed that constitutionally. we are not here to make the argument and get into a place where we find a way to have a level of flexibility to meet the

needs of something you are not voting for and creating the loophole for the president. i don't think anybody wants to get into a long-term ground operation, but we don't want to hamstring the generals and the commanders and the president who is commander in chief from their ability to make a decision they need to make and that doesn't need to take you into a long standing operation. >> are you concerned at all about the mechanics of this? it's highly unlikely we will be able to pass through both houses during this week. now then we are gone until the first of the year. what message does that make? i'm with you. everybody needs to get behind this. in fashion or another and get to express their continues.

here we are now where the request is before us and it's probably not going to get done. how does that affect things? >> to be truthful, i don't believe that's going to be read except for what it is to get the right end result. the fact is that we will continue this operation because the president and the administration are absolutely convinced that and i respect your opinion, we have the authority. no question about it because the 2001 resolution addressed itself to al qaeda and the taliban and associated forces. the courts have decided this in the cabuous decisions that have been made. all three branches of government have been in agreement. fundamentally that the aumf

applies to al qaeda, isil -- i prefer dash because the arab world as a real meaning with that. the fact is that they fully understand that we are on the track we are on. in my judgment everybody knows that this group merely changed its name. it was al qaeda in iraq. it has been from 19 -- 2004 or 2005. wherever they were we are doing that now and those are all part of the same. that authorization fits, but we agree. we have an argument here. we agree with you that it's better and i have come to you

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

stop the ability to cause the type of instability in the region. always stronger when we speak. we are in agreement that we need the military force. the president stated he is doing. i think there is agreement on that. there is agreement that the 2001 and 2002 authorizations and 2002 needs to be repealed and 2001 needs to be motified as it relates to dash. we are in agreement that. i do think there is a great deal and i thank you and your testimony has helped us. understand that there is a fundamental difference. i do think there is fundamental

differences with the separation of powers and branchs of government. i do believe in the war powers act and that congress has the constitutional authorization of force. there have been too many months that have gone by and they have a support to weigh in. i would love to have your response. the reason why i am so concerned about the language that we put into this authorization being too broad, the explanation you have given at the 2001 authorization. several members of this panel, the force against those nations and theyed aed the terrorist

attacks 2001 or harvard such organizations and prevent further attacks against the united states by such nations and organizations or concerns. i go throughed reading that and i think back that after coach of our military battles, this could be used in a way that could be used, they drafted that authorization differently. i think it's our responsibility to make sure we draft him appropriately and recognizing that they have to deal with the uncertainties. they will give you the authority. you can always come back to seek

the authorization. i would like to get your response as a former member of the committee and former chairman. we want to work together. we agree on what we are trying to accomplish. in the authorizations that they passed. they allow you to do what they need to do. they won't cover every contingency in the world. the two areas that seem like they are in disagreement and geography and the use of forces. i would hope that you would gave us clarification so that we can be together. i respect your position and your

long history of clarity on the issues in the senate. and the work we did together on these things. i disagree with respect and very respectfully that the 2001 aumf authorized this. what started in 2001, 2002 and you kind of get going. we had a presidential race in 2004, a debate about this issue. the fact is that it was in 2004 that isil came into our focus and was targeted.

as what it was. and at that time osama bin laden publicly endorsed the group as the a failiate in iraq. so we had a formal affiliation with al qaeda and that's when we began to take it on. the troops took it on. we were fighting it all that time. it's late to come bang and say we didn't have the authorization to fit it in 2014 when a punch of folks died fighting it and we put our efforts into it. they changed their name. are we going to suggest that any groups can veto because they changed their name. they gave the terrorist organizations the right to get

out from under by changing their name. these are the same people. with the stamp and support by bin. we have been fighting them since 2004. i don't think there is a question about 2001, but we are wasting our time to go back and fight about it. we agree we have to refine it. number two, we need an aumf. number three, we want the exclusive vehicle of authority not relying on that. >> we agree that where we need help are the two areas where we disagree. >> on the geographic location. >> there is no communication in one area. it's one area then. it seems like. i'm confused then.

that's the only area we are in disagreement. >> two areas. one is in the definition with associated forces. we believe that that requires to you make a definition of ideological association or other affiliation. we believe that gets complicated certainly for a commander in the field or instant decision about retaliation. that's the language used in the interpretation of the 2001 eumf. that's in the application of force. the biggest challenge here is what is the appropriate level of restraint on the president of the united states as commander in chief and congress's micromanaging of what the

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

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

seek. your point is you do not believe that you require authorization. you think we act stronger when we have that and i agree with that point. you outlined what they should have no geographic limits. you agree that in a minimum you don't want to telegraph the limits we have. third is that you don't -- you are hoping a time constraint and last but not least it's important to find out that they are broad enough to encompass alongside isil. that is critical because of the group in libya. they are operating in an ungoverned space. there is no one to fight there. not to mention the emergence or any other groups in the area. here's my question.

such a clear idea of what it should look like. as others have done in the past, as least as a starting point to debate, what happened in the ak absence, three proposals that tend to micromanage. i oppose all three. that's not congress's roll to micromanage the tactics. the role is to approve or disapprove or fund or not fund if you don't disagree. the other problem is that it clearly telegraphs to isil and the enemies what we won't or will do. where we will or won't do it and how long we will do it for. that takes a lot of the advantage away from our engagement. i blame all of this on the lack of presidential direction and

leadership. i don't understand why with such a clear idea about what it should contain. as far back as september. here's the other thing that is problematic. this is a complicated conflict. as you talked about repeatedly, it involves a coalition. this includes people that wants to target assad. they think it will extend to getting rid of assad. how does that fit? these rebel elements are being attacked and they may not be able to take the beating. how does that fit in? we heard testimony that these militia are going into communities and attacking sunnis, burning down the homes and wiping out the influences. last but not least, the kurds.

we heard testimony talking about the role they provided in playing a safe haven. they have been highly effective fighters. all the pieces they failed to put together a strategy that we can understand about how it fitsing to and for the life of me, i don't understand with such a clear idea of what they should look like, you don't have anyone that can type that up real quick so we begin a debate? this committee seeks that presidential leadership on the matter and previous administrations drafted such damage. all of these proposals. when does the white house intend to send it to us as a starting point for the discussion that you seek? >> senator, i was around here long enough to know even if the

president set up language there would be just as many bills and just as much debate on what he set up. let's not kid each other. that's the same debate. if you say the president didn't show leadership, they said they could have drafted it two or three months ago. it can go both ways. >> the president is the commander in chief. >> he is beginning to win the fight. >> he has the authority to win the fight, he has to tell us what the fight looks like. >> the sole basis that we would make this. we would make the current state-of-the-art basis. as i have said to you, the president doesn't need to have the authority to do what he is doing. he believes and i believe he has the authority constitutionally and has the authority with respect to the 2001 aumf as i have shown you. that aside, he is going further

to try to provide the precise clarity that you are looking for. saying he will make it clear that the aumf has passed and will be the designated thrd with respect to what we are doing. >> where is the damage. i said we have a couple of differences. they are not incidental. it's fundamental between the two sides of this, i think. what we are suggesting is we try to work that through in a way that balances it adequately for both sides that we could be important. this could in fact with the

proper effort become the preliminary down payment on what happens subsequently. that would be a good out come if it were possible. my respectful suggestion is that in answer to your comments about the strategy there and the president has a strategy. the general is leading that effort. and they are doing extraordinary jobs with respect to the military. the delegitimatization with respect to the religious claims and the financing. there a series of efforts that are under way. >> the administration position, the amf they would like to see is the chairman's language with some amendment. >> with some changes, that's correct. with efforts we work on

hopefully to try to work this. >> senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you, mr. secretary for all of your efforts on behalf of this country. much has been around authority of the congress versus authority of the president. this is important for another reason. i think it's about the people to know what's entailed in the use of military force against i till including the scope and duration. we weaken our country rather than strengthen it when we begin a loss like the discussion we are having today. this debate strengthens resolve

in this country and our enemies should not assume that this is weakness that we are having, but it's our ability to debate issues of war and peace. if the committee worked and oobd have agreed with this, that if the committee worked with the and understood what the administration wants we ould probably craft language with some back and forth that we could all agree to or at least a majority, bipartisan majority, could agree to. i agree with that. we have caulked about a process that would have this hearing today and have time this week to

discuss among ourselves and we were hoping to work with members in a classified setting to hear more about what is currently under way with respect to that if we are committed to having that discussion, should we assume that there members from the it was and the communities who could be part of working with us on that kind of a back and forth and is that something that we could get set because my understanding is that one of the challenges has been what the committee had.