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

i can't imagine that as i said, the administration is prepared to work with you and see what's doable. >> i appreciate that and it is very important to have this debate for the committee to act and work and see if we can find an acceptable language in a way that is not open ended so that >> but to do it ommittee said in

the past, we rare waiting for language that may never come. let me ask what's going on with the current operations with the fight and recognizing that you may more may not be able to answer this. can you talk about the extremists and the reports that that opposition is in the process of totally collapsing? is there intention to expedite

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

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

some of which are a part of the training effort that we want to get underway. the base is complete and ready and we have to get more going and the saudi component needs work to be ready. people are seized of the urgencey and it's important to get a number of things in place as rapidly as possible. while they are doing well, the north is a challenge. >> i don't want there to be an impression that we have not

tried to engage with the administration and have withins and witnesses. they have been here on several occasions and we appreciate that and we -- i don't think he has the wherewithal to talk about this no matter how well he tries. there military questions and this is what we have. for time purposes, let's understand that the first powers notification came to us in june. then on september 23, we made it

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

think wow, it seems like they are doing rambo by themselves. there has been an effort. requests remain for this hearing as well as classified hearings for others for them to be able to further inform. they were not for whatever reasons, logistics and travel, they were not being pursued. senator johnson. >> secretary, i wanted to back up and we talked about an authorization of military force and at that point they wanted to engage with the congress and a number of us discussed that and the white house council was finding a 10 jus connection to previous authorizations and they were after all that time, why hasn't the administration sent us a proposal.

the commander in chief would want to pursue the actions he thinks are necessary. why have they given us a draft. answer the question of why? >> i think we have get draft. why doesn't he write it up? >> there have been about seven meetings. i wasn't present at any of the meetings, but the seven meetings

discussed the draft with the chairman himself who went down and talked about the draft. there is no requirement for the president to send it out. as i said earlier, would it have made life easier and changed the debate. it's the same debate. you have language in front of us which we are working with and the president said by and large, it's good. this is the first time that the committee has exert leadership. the president asked for it. >> won't get an answer and that's fine. the reason we need to review past authorizations is there is differences as to whether or not the authorization justifies right now. it's all past tense. committed or harbored. there is nothing describing him. there is legitimate concern. my understanding in the white

house, they have the section between the current use of force and the authorization. world war i and world war ii. they had two and we had six. they gave the president what he needed to defeed the enemy. to bring it to successful termination. even in the 2001 authorizations, they are authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force. that's what they wanted. the authority to be commander in

chief and accomplish the goal. has president obama deviated from the goal to defeat isis? >> not in the least. >> what are is the goal of his process? is it to have a bipartisan authorization? is it to have members put themselves on the record, or is it to produce an authorization that gives the president the authority to accomplish that goal. >> the purpose of the aumf is to authorize in the new context, the challenge we face with a different extended threat.

the discomfort with the reliance on 2001, the discomfort that exists should be clarified. and the american people are a 2014 commitment. >> another thing they are owed is a draft to work from. what i would argue is we need an authorization. this is not what it will look like. we need a discussion about what does defeed lock like? we need an authorization that is good not only for president obama, but a future president. this is not going to be a war or

a conflict that ends quickly. i'm looking for what he believes he needs and what the suck suszor might need to grapple with to keep the nation with this grand new threat that is not a nation state, but ideology that wants to till americans. i look forward to the draft. it would make it a lot easier. >> we are close as we sit here. we have to sit down and work through the differences. in general terms.

>> does the president really believe that isis or the new name dash will be defeated in three years? does he believe that's the case? >> the president said this will take a long time. >> why would we limit ourselves? why would you want to hamstring his successor this disfunctional body. we had this hearing in may. this will not be concluded. we will take a show of vote, but this will not give president obama the authority he needs. >> first of all, look. it's hard to have the argument both ways. there is no way he didn't send it up. that's not the reason. i don't mean to make fun of it. that's not the reason and it's not where it is. the president for 2 1/2 months now have been precouped in trying to focus on putting

together the strategy and implementing and building the coalition and doing what we need to do. >> why not? >> i'm not in those meetings. >> they are not giving you a briefing or sending you a memo? >> let me come to your other question. you asked about the time frame, would we limit it. why would we limit it? if you listen carefully, i am not in favor of that limitation without the ability, but i'm trying to balance. what we are trying to do, all of

us must not get dragged down. we want to see if we can meld the differences into something that is acceptable to both sides. we did that. we ought to be able to do it now. some have an interest in protecting the open endedness and others who by virtue of experience and bad experience, they want to give a fixed president of time where you take stock of it. it's not open ended, but so it's a responsible process that it won't end and work out. how does that work?

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

leadership in assembling and helping the coalition. i believe the american people deserve and our values demand this sort of robust debate. we have raised important and difficult issues. as you just commented, it's in large part because of the difficult history, the lessons learned from the cost and the reach and the scope and complexity of our conflicts in iraq and afghanistan and the 2001 and 2002 authorizations that were the foundations. and this is the sort of debate, the sort of give and take between executive and

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

conversation about how to offset the cost of this war through a reduction in spending will help americans have a more direct connection to the conflict and an awareness of its impact not just in terms of our spending, but our steadily growing national debt. i'm aware this responsibility doesn't fall just on this committee, but the duty of congress as we debate the strategy for this conflict to also look squarely at its cost and how to pay for it. so i will continue to raise that issue as we move forward with the debate about the iumf. if i might just bare oun down on an issue that i haven't heard a concise answer to. if we're trying to come up with an aumf that recognizes the challenges of the 2002 and that puts some restraint on the use of ground troops and that strikes you as unacceptable in this effort to balance a restraint against an open-mended

con applicant while allow inging the commander-in-chief to prosecute this conflict successfully i think one of the reasons their there remains resistance to an open-ended commitment at the conduct of any kind is we haven't had a full debate at the strategy. we can't go home and clearly defend what the strategy is. although you laid out the five core areas in which there's ongoing and effective activity. could you accept that initially had a limitation on large scale ground combat. but required an examination of strategy and reconsideration to remove that limit nation on the scope to conduct this and prosecute this one. >> i think by implication the way the administration is looking at it, there's some

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

the wrong message is sent and you're not going to prosecute the war. some people still have struggled with that terminology. that's where it is. so i would suggest there is a balance and i think we can work that out. i don't think you have to have the ground troop limitation by virtue of the three-year peace. >> mr. secretary, i join many of colleagues in express inging a desire for a bipartisan aumf and a proud discussion and debate about strategy and what the direction is going to be, but i want to make it clear that i support the conduct, but i think they are a real and present threat to the united states and i do think we should be supporting our armed forces. but weeks have turned into months since the notifications came up here and i think this congress needs to be more actively engaged in being accountable for authorizing this conduct. it was announced today that 1500 will join 3100 americans in the train and mission in iraq to train.

how else will they assist in a previous conflict in the region, many of our partners contributed significantly to the financial cost of the operations. will we be complimenting them? i was encouraged by your comment that many of our allies and the administration believe that ground troops are most likely to be effective in this conflict and in this context. >> the answer, senator, is that -- the answer is yes. a number of countries are committed to providing financial input as well. some of them that depends on what we choose to do. but the answer is yes, and

already are in some ways. for instance, the training facilities in some of their territory, they are taken care of. in addition to that, there will be a variance as to who is doing what. five arab nations are flying with us in the missions over syria. saudi arabia, united arab emirates, bahrain, jordan and qatar. and in addition to those five, countries all over the world -- whether it's to training, providing direct assistance, providing humanitarian assistance, providing equipment, providing arms. and in some cases presence on the ground in the case of a number of our close allies in the actual training activities.

australia is a case and example, great britain, others are doing that. there's a full fledged broad based engagement. >> thank you, thank you for being here, mr. secretary. you're a very good diplomat. you've mentioned that the president doesn't need to outline his own aumf because we have one here. but then in your testimony, you state pretty clearly, at least, diplomatically, that we need to do far better than that. and senator johnson, if you go beyond that, i'm looking at a few of them here, 1955 with defense of taiwan, president authorized to employ the armed forces as he deems necessary.

look at 1957 in the middle east. authorized to cooperate with and assist any nation or group of nations. 1964, southeast asia, take all the necessary measures to repeal any armed attack. then we come to this one, where the president is authorized subject to the limitations to subsection c. i would submit that's not just very comforting and not very strong aumf. more accurately may be an authorization for the use of not too much military force. when you signal to our enemies and to our allies that we're not going to use ground troops. we certainly don't want to. we may not anticipate that we will. but to put that aside and say we're not going to doesn't strike me as wise.

the commander-in-chief can have that policy, but he can change his mind as conditions warrant. it's far more difficult once the congress has spoken to go back to the congress and say now conditions have changed on the ground and we need a new aumf. what do our enemies do in the meantime? what do our allies do in the meantime? i would respectfully say that when my colleagues here are saying that the president needs to show more leadership and actually put an aumf together and present it to the congress, one that is in keeping with the history and what we need for the future -- i've drafted my own. i'll be glad to give you a copy. that doesn't substitute for one that will come from the president. for him to make the strong case to congress that this is what we need, that's what we need as you

put, our allies deserve it. our enemies need to understand it and we need this country together. so again, i would ask you why in this context can't we get the president to put his own bs aumf and all do respect to the chairman and others who tried to put something together here that can pass, i would submit that it's not worth it to get something that so limits our president and his options that it's not comforting to our allies and it is too comforting to our enemy. >> senator, thank you for your comments. i said at the outset that the problem that the president and the administration has with this is this question of the limitations and restrictions. but i also said i think there's a way to try to work with you. we don't want to sit here and stop all capacity to be able to get a strong resolution by

simply being we're not going to accept any kind of appropriate calibration of this. so we think that there's a way to try to figure that out. now i don't disagree with you. i don't know what your second example -- what did you say? you went back. >> 1957 in the middle east. >> at least from 1964 on to iraq and others, i think there's been a strong reaction in the country that unfettered openness has resulted in some bad judgments that have cost the country an awful lot of money and other assets.

and i think with the tension in this debate, obviously, is between those who are willing to provide that bloated constitutional authority that the president can make those decisions and shouldn't have any restraint with those who are cautioned by the past and want to have some adequate congressional restraint with the american people to get into another open-ended deal. so how do you balance that? part of the balance comes in this three-year duration notion with congress's preordained and defined input. that's a pretty measured way to try to do it. maybe there's some notification requirement that we can work through here. i do think, and the president feels, and i know that the members of the military feel very strongly that in terms of actually implementing -- i mean,

we all decided we have to defeat these guys. everybody has agreed we have to degrade and defeat isil. i don't think the congress is going to sit here and tell you exactly how you're going to do that. that's what we have the professional military for. >> if i may, we need to make sure that there's a balance here between the president's rights as commander-in-chief and the military's ability to implement and achieve our goal. that's the balance we're looking for. >> post-1964, there's been an attempt to balance this because of some situations we have had. those have been more on any conditions that have been with the aumf, we can only authorize use of force after all diplomatic measures have been exhausted. that's typically what's done on the front end, but once we commit ground troops or our military forces, i should say, then in every case that i have

seen unless i'm not aware of others, we have never tied the president's hands, or as you put in here, that we have not preemptively bind the hands of the commander-in-chief. i just don't think it would be wise to do that here. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. chairman and mr. thank you secretary kerry. senator mid and is, you pushed to get us here to this point. and i know the ranking member did too and so that is important and secretary kerry, we would not be here without you because we needed at least one witness to try to address this and i appreciate you helping us works or it. i have a couple of questions just about how things are going now. maybe you cannot answer them but the success of our u.s. strategy in iraq appears predicated on

the shift of sunnis away from the islamic state and into cooperation with the government. to what extent is that shift occurring if it all right now and what factors will determine the extent of the alteration in allegiances? >> it is a good question and an appropriate one. because essential to the ability to be able to be successful in iraq will be the inclusivity of the sunni population. the commitment of the sunni and the tribal leaders to take on this fisa -- fight and join the national army to push isil out. there are a number of italians

that are in training. they will allow those that are experienced and held together to go out into the field. there is work being done with the tribal leaders right now. the tribes, a certain number of people are coming together to provide a sunni fighting force as part of it. there is a plan to be implemented to be put into place a national guard which will be more reflective of people and where they live so cut there is an inherent investment by them in defending that community which there did not exist -- >> is the shift taking place and to what extent? >> it is beginning to take place. i do not want to promise you something that is beyond where it is but it is getting and it is legitimate. and there have been successes. refinery has been -- it is

not complete that it is a success so far. the relief effort that took mosul dam,ozilla -- that are areas successes. we believe that they are .romising signs moving in the right direction and we feel confident it is the right strategy. >> when we announced that we were going to when the president announced to degrade and destroy isil, a number of groups around the world alleged you know i

believe that. . how should the authorization of force treat groups who have pledged i realize we may not get their allegiance to the islamic state including there overnight. as of december 2014 groups in algeria, libya, egypt, yemen, and saudi arabia. >> they should be associated forces. have outlined here the three areas of the authorization of force. one of them is duration. you mentioned in your testimony that provides for an extension under certain circumstances so you're willing to go with three years. senator paulser to with one year but assuming you're willing to go with the three years, who is the choice of, ishe

that the administration or congress or do you want a provision that allows the administration -- >> that is the precision of the language that we have to sit down and work through. i would want white house counsel and others to weigh in very heavily. is a policy question. >> it is always a policy question. congress always has the ability to cut off money. you have the power of the purse and the president has the power of the commander-in-chief and executive authority and he will make his decision and that is the debate. if you sit down and work this through it, with an equation that works effectively. >> you will not say that provision should be congress revisiting in three years or the administration. >> there is no question. it ought to be done in a real way.

>> you want -- >> i do not think congress will sit here will say that you ought to continue it and the executive says i will not order troops to do that. the commander-in-chief will make a decision as a matter of the administration's foreign-policy and its war fighting policy but there needs to be i would assume for you some manner of weighing in on that and how that is affected and the language is what we ought to be working through. it is not for me to casually throw it out here. that is inappropriate. i know there is a way to balance this. >> the important thing is that ingress needs to re-way back , be involved, be engaged in terms of where we are at that particular point. you outlined,reas

my opinion is what we're talking about is an open-ended authorization. there is no geographic limitation. i think there should be a geographic limitation. i just think we should allow the administration to go on to libya or a number of other countries surrounding this area. this language, and a hotel the ground. the president has. language very specifically over and over again. that should be sufficient, it if you wantrong and to have its on the ground you should come back to the congress american troops on the ground. as far as the duration i mentioned that earlier. one year would be more appropriate because it has been very difficult for us to get the information we need in order to find out whether we should leave

him not. and just as the final issue, i want to mention the issue of paying for this. there is node doubt that we are in this a third war particular region. you do not have to look for a to know that it is a war. the cat -- look at kobane and the troops. war?o you pay for the generation that fought a war paid for the war. and i believe we started a policy which was a very misguided policy. we put afghanistan and iraq, week with them on the credit card. as the president prepared to present the plan to the congress to pay for this war, the president said it will be lengthy and it will be three years. ware willing to put forth

bonds, a terrorism tax, is he willing to put anything on the table to pay for this? >> the president has put on the for $1.52request billion was additional resources for department of state, usaid to degrade. >> i am talking about paying for it with like all the other wars have been paid for. >> it was paid for within the context of current budget. and that is what we are doing. in addition. let me say one thing. i respect the motion -- and the strongat you have feelings about the geographic, but i will say to you if you limit this geographically you are saying and we did not limit

al qaeda geographically. we have been able to do very real damage to al qaeda and keep that and i respect your opinion, . andchristmas bombing plots other bombing plots. one came out of vehement, --ther out of a northern another location and one out of northern africa. i will tell you that we have a much bigger problem today if we were and it would be terrible to send a message to these guys, you have a safe haven over here and if we do not take this seriously, this is bigger than just where it is in iraq in syria. secondly, let me be crystal clear. we did not start this. we are not about to start third war. some of been lot and started this in 9/11 and he has continued it in censure through what what al qaeda does.

that is an extension. it is part of the same thing. it is clear what they want to do which is why they have -- we have this extraordinary: russian. it is not the u.s. trying to start something and there is not a country in the region that is leadership.for they are at risk. ask any of them. that is why they publicly stepped up and they are part of this effort. i think we have to understand this is the fight of a generation. that is what i believe and president obama believes it. we understand need to understand what a big challenge it is and it will take a lot more than trying to do with it through this military component. there is no ultimate military solution.

if a lot of young kids are left to their own devices and do not have options for jobs and education and a decent life and respect and dignity, this will continue. the u.s. and our allies need to work at that side of the ledger also. that is something we agree on and i know my time is up. >> i agree with your comments about the parameters of the a your math -- aumf. will act in the next couple of days. i have been involved in many aumf's and not a single one were generated from the congress. the reason the constitution calls for the commander-in-chief is because he is supposed to lead. hehe wants an authorization should lead intel of -- and tell

us why he wants that authorization. we go through this charade whether we have a vote or not in the next day or so before we go out is -- makes it all irrelevant. hope we are working with the new chairman and ranking member that the president would aumf but it has to be led by the commander-in-chief. that is how the system works and that is how it has worked every time. i would like to switch gears. new post. time is running out for obama in syria. western backed syrian rebels are

in danger of collapse before helps arrives -- help arrives. all of these are well known media experts and they are on the verge of collapse and they are being beaten very badly. one of the major reasons they are getting eaten very badly is because they are subject to barrel bombing and era tax from assad. ambassador james jeffrey says time is not on our side. we consider the decision. you may have to renege on that or you may have to follow up your important mission of destroying isis. isis is not something which drone strikes or f-16 strikes is going to contain because the islamic state, it is a state. you do not just -- destroy a state. you will require boots on the ground. what you are saying is the

theementalism that i saw in vietnam war. we're seeing decisions made in a tight circle. we are seeing them incrementally in fermented. and additional troops and than 1000 more. our syrian rebels honestly why you willtand bashir'sct them from campaign. we're asking these and people to is a and die and assad major enemy and we not doing anything to stop him from barrel bombing them and slaughtering them. this is the guy who has killed 200,000. this is the guy that has 150,000 which he his presence has treated with great

atrocities. one of the mysteries are these out.s that were smuggled they got no response from the president or frankly from you. villiuld have in a casas -- causes beli. -- belli. the version of collapse. now you're telling me we have a strategy to defeat for sure side ssad even though we are treating them as two separate battles at least as far strategy is concerned. maybe you can respond to that and tell me how you justify morally telling young syrians to go and fight in syria and yet allow them to be barrel bombed

by assad whose intensity of airstrikes increase those greater than u.s. airstrikes on isis. >> thank you. i think everybody, there are certain frustrations here. syria in oneack to quick moment. in point of fact, if i can correct you, you are not correct. the have not been instances where authorizations did not originate here in the committee. , andear before i came here lebanon it did. in 1991 when i was here, it originated in the committee. sent --alker bush >> it has been led by the

president. i appreciate if you would go on and justify how we continue the massacre of right young syrians. >> i will come back to it. >> i did not ask a question. it was a statement. please move on to the slaughter in syria. >> i will not sit here like a ping-pong ball. i think your statement was incorrect. everybody is accountable for what they say and so are you. the fact is you are incorrect. 1991, there was a request to adopt a solution and congress gave him what he asked for. >> i was there and he came over with a proposal. he did. we can argue that. he came over with a proposal. not and the record will show that. >> the record will show that he

did. >> the committee likewise did it. i served on the committee. i think i know what happened back then. we can let the record speak to that. ath respect to my think i was front and stated in the narrow -- north, they are seriously challenged. the fact is more is being done and more is being gunned i can talk about here in this hearing. there are greater capacities being provided to the opposition , and our hope is when we work things through with the turks and over the next days, certain decisions will be made that in fact will provide greater capacity. but yes, they are challenged today in the north but here is the reality. what we are doing to train them, the opposition and was being -- theyh respect to

the regime.ghting >> we are allowing them to be barrel bombed. >> we're not. >> is the committee ready to vote? >> that is in my answer. my answer is to give them the weapons they need. they do not have those weapons. it has been three years. and on theon syria palestinians and now you will hit it on iran. they're still nuts. giving the support they need and 200,000 have been butchered. >> we are in the process right you know this, there are certain things that are happening and it is a little this ingenuous to suggest that nothing has been considered and

nothing is happening when it is. the fact is any classified precisely you can go through what is taking place. >> there are people dying who are please to know there are things we cannot talk about. >> the rules of the senate. classified information is classified information. if you want to fight about that, you can. >> i want to know why we have not help them for the last three or four years. >> the time has expired. >> we are helping them, there's a lot of for help being given to them. >> thank you. thank you for taking this process so seriously. i think whether or not we pass this through the house and

senate, this has been a forcing mechanism without a submission from the administration for whatever reason they may have. we needed these the liberations in order to get to a text that while it may not pass, it will be much more easily passed because of the work that this committee has done and the discussion that secretary kerry was two-part to -- proud to be part of. we are talking about the distinction what the administration believes to be preferable and what many of us believed to be necessary which is an authorization. i think there is a difference in terms of what we believe isis to be. many of us respectfully do not believe this is a matter of a name change. organization whose name is different but who had a very specific tactical and with alc difference

qaeda. there is a change in hierarchy. many of us worry that if a change in name and tactic and strategy and a change in hierarchy does not prompt us to pass a new authorization, we are sure however get out from underneath the original 2001 aumf. on this question of limitations. ofy rattled off a list .uthorizations i can rattle you off a similar list of authorizations that the that haveas passed limitations. you can start in the 1790's for authorizations against the french navy. in 1993 in somalia.

2013. the authorization passed by this committee. all had different kinds of limitations. it should be in statutory language. it is referable to have a bipartisan bill and it is preferable to grant substantial damage but there are considerations that are deserving of a statutory limitation and that is why we have the struggle over this question of ground forces. many of us believe that the deployment of ground forces in the middle east today would be fighting a fire with gasoline. itwe have learned anything is that the massive deployment twicerican forces creates

as many foreign fighters and extremist fighters as they and they provide a crutch for governments to stand down and let us do all the work. stew in theirto dysfunction. part of our worry is the reason we do not have a department of is there isess substantial disagreement within the administration. there is an element of the military that would like to have a serious conversation about the deployment of ground forces area -- i jotd you have have a doubt that you are committed to keeping ground forces out but many of us worry that the balance could tip. my question would be simple. it would be helpful to hear why you think, when the policy is

such that you think it is a bad idea, that it would be counter to our policy of degrading and isil.ing that is a debate happening in foreign-policy circles. howould be helpful to hear strongly that view is held within the department of state house.hin the white >> thank you for a very articulate statement of what the tensions are here. what is at stake. i do not disagree. it is important for congress to have that statutory statement of some kind or another. and i assure you president obama, who saved -- served on this committee and senator biden

, now vice president served on this committee for 30 years or both are huge supporters of the war powers act. they lived by it. even in situations where he did not have to set it up. moved on the side of caution and compliance. believe it is important to have an appropriate authorization of military force. as president he also believes that this constitutional authority is vital and his ability to fully empower his military to be able to effect what he needs should not be micromanaged and restrained in a somehat might eliminate

option they may need at some point in time. it would be hard to imagine given the experience of iraq and all that we learned about our forces on the ground and these reactions that you talk about. have a major ground force for a long time. what we are talking about is exigencies,gainst emergencies, certain circumstances that may or may not arise. like a rescue effort tragically that did not work the other day. there are other circumstances that may arise. we cannot predict them all. nobody can. so all we are trying to do is preserve and i say the duration, the time frame is such and you have to trust your own power.

i cannot imagine it being funded. there is not going to be a hue and cry that would be overwhelming and reaction to that. absent some extraordinary circumstances that merited that kind of response but do you want to pre-guess that, do you want to predetermine, then you are statutory nota and try to get out of it it is the better part of wisdom to try to maintain an adequate level of flexibility but at the same time , preserve your purgative -- prerogative. the president is prepared to carefully,ople's it work through this language, try to see how to balance these equities. what he wants is the broadest

vote possible. get everybody in a place way they are comfortable if that is achievable and it out to be. >> the more that you review the draft you will see that specific hypothetical is covered by one of these exceptions. i would imagine almost every hypothetical will be covered by revisions in the draft. there is a reason to be scared of these limitations as you may be. >> if you're covered maybe it is varying during activity. maybe there is a way to cover it in one sentence. agree to try to find a way to talk this through without posturing. issue, pagey on the and transferraft

provide for the protection of members of the armed forces or citizens. you do see the language of that can be envisioned. hearing is critically important. declaring war authorizing the use of military force is one of the most serious responsibilities of congress. i believe president obama has an obligation to congress to spell out the direct threat posed i request the authorities he needs to successfully complete the

mission. i believe it is a threat to the homeland and i support efforts to eliminate this terrorist threat. has been taking offensive military actions for months. he has not submitted a request outlining the authorization that he is seeking. normally when the executive branch wants -- they formally request that authorization and is involved in negotiating over the language and advocating its passages. we see no similar effort on behalf of the obama administration. in the absence of the administration costs specific requests or proposal, so members of congress are more interested in placing the limitations in and tying the hands of

our president and nations generals. the limb tatian's -- limitations are misguided. congress should be authorizing the use of force or not. congress should not try to micromanage a war through an authorization. the administration had provided military and intelligence witnesses and the chairman has made a comment about your willingness to come forward but not having all the abilities to ask -- answer all the questions i would ask how the use of ground troops would impact the ability to respond to conditions on the ground. how do we ensure that any could respond. >> that is why we are trying to work out this question in the

limitations. >> you believe there should not be limitations. a we are prepared to embrace clarification by which there is an understanding of how we can balance these equities. it may require some kind of restraint which would not abrogate the commander in chief responsibilities. ahink example, what about non-u.s. hostage or prisoner? that might be a situation. you can run through all kinds of things here. we're trying to preclude sending restraint messages to folks we're trying to defeat and degrade and balance the equities

the concerns people have about the open and didn't miss that we have lived within the past. everybody ought to try to help find a way to work that through and in the doing so, we can ensure that we have the kind of broad-based bipartisan resolution that we deserve. >> do you think there are additional authorities that the administration needs that they currently do not have to degrade and destroy isil? >> no. the president feels he has the full authority. we acknowledge that it needs refining. we acknowledge there is a gap in time and a sufficient differential. that is what the president is

saying we should have. >> your predecessor at georgetown university stated that america needs to show respect for our enemies and empathize with their perspective and point of view. terrorists are not going to simply go away. we certainly cannot empathize and show respect to people who have really murdered brave americans. do you believe that a key solution to our enemies such as isis and al qaeda is showing respect and "empathizing with there were -- perspective and point of view. >> i missed the first part of the quote. hillary at georgetown said the american needs to show respect for our enemies and empathize with their perspective and point of view. >> i know she was not referring cash. -- dash.

was referring to those out there with whom we are not actively fighting or engaged in are behaving in ways that are clearly opposed to our interests and there are plenty of people in that status whether it is in the middle east or in other parts of the world. we have a lot of tensions with russia. it is clear that any analysis of what is happening in ukraine and how you deal with it requires at to look very carefully all their posturing and where it comes from and what may be involved and how one might be able to diffuse it create i have no doubt that does not include a dash.like

been made about replacing restrictions on aums. that most aumf's have committed the type of harm's way.yed in it's declarations of war which is not what we are doing nor what the administration has asked us for that have typically authorized the president to use all military means available for unlimited duration. my texas not a declaration of war. several of my colleagues have noted this. aumf's that have included restrictions is the somalia aumf.

aumf thatebanon prohibited offensive actions and aumf, they did not express the use of ground forces for the purpose of combat operations. we have a span of nearly 30 years to take recent history. in which they have had no limitations. it is a historical operation. that is not the case. senator mccain who has been greatly involved with this issue , their amendments have driven us to this moment. >> you have not been before us

to receive the thanks of this committee for some of your diplomacy. the efforts to help reform the government in iraq. i want to thank you for those because those efforts were important. i wanted to thank you for your efforts to build a coalition to an airbasewent airwent to the combined operations center and we witnessed the cola should an action. full-screen videos, data coming in. all trading information in making decisions together. very impressive. you deserve our thanks create we cannot do military action without congress and we are currently in what the

administration has described as a war against isil. the embassyed from in an effort to take it back in the middle of august, we have gone on offense against isil. five. on month assistmbat train and advisors on the ground in the theater and another 1500 authorized to go. to taxpayer is in excess of a billion dollars. why out to mention their names. october 1, marine corporal jordan spears. neal and23, sean

an air forcebois, captain. we are at war and congress has not done a darn thing about it. i respect the comments that the ranking member, senator corker said earlier that the process is not ideal. congress has been silent about this. i do not think we weaken our nation so much with an unwieldy process as we weaken our nation when we do not take seriously the most somber responsibility that congress has which is to engage around the declaration at the beginning. not five months in. at the beginning about whether initiate war. it is required, not riven by a more important value. it is not important -- fair to

ask people like these three to give their lives in a mission if congress has not had a bit -- had a debate and put their thumb on it. how can we ask people to risk their lives? it would be fully to adjourn and wait until january when we come back, january 8, we would be into the six-month of war without congress taking any action. this is not about a quest to seem relevant. for those of us who do not believe for -- that the authorizations give this is legal authority, everyday we , it is a congressional obligation of our fundamental responsibilities. there is a difference of opinion on this but this is about an argument about what power the to theture gave

executive and you might not be surprised to know that those of us in the branch have a strong opinion about with that power was and what wasn't. we should act. the administration has not done your own draft. we have a deadline tomorrow to file amendments to this one. offer your own wordsmith and i am sure we can consider the administration's position. i want to ask you a question about whether the administration's position have changed from what the president has said and i will redo five statements. i have been very clear that we are not going to have u.s. combat troops in iraq again.

september 10. these american forces will not have a combat mission. we will not get dragged into another ground war. it will not involve american combat troops fighting on foreign soil. september 17. the american forces that have been deployed do not and will not have a combat mission. and theot commit you rest of our armed forces to be fighting another ground war in iraq. on september 18, 2014, i won't commit our troops to fighting another ground war in iraq or in syria. the president's position or has the administration's position as evidenced by these clear and unequivocal statements have changed? no. let me address the constitutional question that the

chairman brought up. it is important. is there president for restrictions and limitations and authorizations? i would recommend an article, congressional authorization and the war on terrorism. the harvard law review. it is an extensive review of the constitutional power of congress with respect to military authorizations and it begins with a case that dealt with the launchedrs that were against french authorities in the 1790's. notauthorizations did authorize the president to use all of the armed forces of the u.s. or conduct military incursions beyond specified military targets in the limited the geographical scope of the authorized conflict. navy only. note roundtrips. most authorizations have in of this limited or partial nature.

the cursed -- constitutional argument is clear. intent as stated repeatedly to the american public and the military is clear. there has been no change in that position. ae language is not restriction at all. carry outmpting to the mission. i get a lot of praise to the chairman for trying to listen to all of us, listen to the administration and put a mark together that covers the contingencies orc sadducees -- or exigencies. that power is absolute. no one on this committee questions it.

in terms of putting restrictions into this it has been done since the 1790's without any constitutional suggestion. i would hope you would offer some thoughts so thursday we can do this. we cannot wait until the six-month without congress to word.s the -- their could i just make a quick comment? --.iculate cas historically in most debates about whether we should be using force or not, depending on who is president, depending on the balance in the senate and house, there tends to be an argument do novo. people can say presidential

power and article two and that is going to apply to every situation as we are now debating. the question is, is there an effective way to achieve this goal that, given the balance of interests in the situation at this moment, given this particular fight, could achieve the goal. differently perhaps from the way it has been laid out, but without losing the impact or the effect. i think there may be some ways and i suggested a couple. another may be through some kind of language that talks about no enduring combat operation or whatever but that is different and that avoids having to get into this specific discussion of all the kinds of instances that you are trying to cover. with allust say to

genuine effort to try to achieve this goal of getting a maximum vote, i suggest that may be a better way then doing it by amendment is to pre-work the amendment or to find out if you can get an agreement so that you are doing it either by consensus or agreement on that amendment rather than just finding out the amendments and it is up or down and you do not resolve the fundamental problem. all the administration is saying an aumf.sn we would like the strongest possible result. the goal is to get a result that has an impact for our allies and troops on the field who are deployed and particularly for to coalition and for isil

understand our intent. i do not want to see that diminished i whatever amendment process without the adequate input. >> thank you and thank you for your testimony. there is no greater responsibility for any legislator than the debate over when we send our brave young men and women to war. the constitution is quite clear that this responsibility lies with congress. the federale in papers that the executive branch is the branch most prone to war careherefore we have with vested that power in the legislature. we have been derelict in our duty. we have had great leaders in the jointrea became before a congress to ask for war. george w. bush came within two weeks after 9/11 to a joint session with the same request.

this president has been derelict. there is enough blame to go around for congress who has also been derelict in their duty. there has been some gnashing of teeth that some senators had the anerity to offer this as amendment to the water bill. had we not, there would be no debate over war at this point so i except that blame as a badge of honor and pledged to continue in the new congress and to amend any bill that comes before the foreign relations committee with the use of authorization of force until we do finally have a debate and a vote before the full congress as we should. there was some discussion and you have said the administration is opposed to a geographic limit. some on our side are basically for no limits at all. after watching what has happened and watching the gymnastics that tries to use an authorization of force that was intended to be used against those who attacked us on 9/11 to say isis had anything to do with them is an

absurd notion and an argument for why we need to be careful and strict in what authority we give to the president. said theystration believe no geographic limit area there arer udall said groups in libya, algeria, yemen, and saudi arabia will have pledged allegiance to the islamic state. you said of course, that is why we need no geographic limit. medina, saudi arabia to isis. there a lance is that the message you want to send to the world that you want the authority, the unlimited authority to attack geographically anywhere in the world if someone pledges their allegiance to the islamic state? that is why i cannot vote for

any resolution that does not have a geographical restraint realized message we send if that is the message we're sending that if you data or lack of pledges allegiance to the islamic state, they are open to being bombed. and as a very scary wrongheaded message to presenting to the middle east or comments, please. click i think there a responsibility to technological and legitimate kinds of options. and to make the assumption in a [indiscernible] no one is talking about everywhere. that is precisely what the constitution, you are a student of the constitution and you it,e yourself in upholding

being a strict constructionist. i do not think you should put those limitations on the power of the executive. if you want to get into it as a declaration of war you have the right to do that but i would counsel you that no declaration of war has taken place since world war ii. and no president has come here including george bush who you cited erroneously as having done so. he asked for an authorization. >> i did not. but he did come. beif you are going to strictly constructionist and adhere to the constitution in terms of what you are arguing about it would be a mistake to ask for a declaration of war. a declaration of war has been used against states. >> i am making the argument for geographic nature.

if any city declares an allegiance to islamic state you would be justified and have the authority to bomb them. >> that statement is being made without any impact or the limits andor strictures within which the united states of america is currently operating. we have some of the most extraordinary self-imposed restraints on our checklist for where and when and how we might use force. even where we have been authorized and you need to review that. you need to go find out what restraints are -- our military is operating under. you have been at war for five months without constitutional authority.

franklyterm of war is -- we're not going to war in the in iraq we went to war or afghanistan. it is very restrained and different which is why we are in forr of an authorization the use of military force which defines what it is but this is different. you need to look at the check list our people go through with respect to whether or not they might take a shot at something. you need to look at the restraints the president has put -- >> it is about the division of power and the balance of power

between branches of government. >> it is bigger than that. it is about what you're trying to achieve and how you can howeve it and also about you use power. if you do not look at what you're trying to achieve and methodologies are, the tools that you have at your disposal, you're not going to get very far. year when youst came before the committee for the syrian aumf. problem --ere was no this is against a regime that is , more would argue formidable than isis. many would argue much greater. you are willing to accept that you would have a prohibition on ground forces but today you are unwilling to accept a

prohibition on ground forces. how would you compare the strength of the opponents and why would you accept no ground forces against the syrian regime that has more weapons and a larger army than isis? >> are you going to let me answer this in full? very specifically because it is an entirely different situation. what we were asking for in the case of the limited authority to have a limited strike against a at that time was entirely hissed on degrading capacity to deliver chemical weapons and sending a limited we came here with great specificity about serious limitations on what we were seeking. allowing that restraint at that had no imposition on the capacity to carry out the

mission. be mission was going to without troops, without ground forces -- it was designed that way and would have been executed that way, and we were losing absolutely nothing whatsoever because we had no intention of putting forces in do what we were going to do. >> but that is similar to your statements you have made about this for. -- this war. >> this president knowledge is as any president would -- as any ask anyoneuld -- whether they feel comfortable knowing whether they have been limited on what actions might or may not be available. the president has made it clear it is not his policy. i have never seen anybody more adamant about that and more clear in every statement he has made. they were all quoted. he has reiterated it. but that doesn't mean that you want to take away what might be

conceivably necessary -- the president is absolutely clear about his policy. president's the decision to use force -- and thank you to this committee for voting and having made clear that congress was moving in that direction -- guess what? instead of one or two days of bombing, in order to send a message that you shouldn't use these, we got a deal with russia to get 100% of the weapons out. that is because you didn't limited. -- didn't limit it. that was another moment where for the first time in history during a conflict we removed all known declared chemical weapons from a country, and believe me -- thank god we did.

today, isolate is in their controlling half the country and imagine what would've happened if they had gained control of those weapons. it is a completely different situation, senator, where you have a limited goal and are willing to live under it and the executive says i will live under it. who you have an executive has said already that he is going to limit his means of achieving the goal but doesn't want to be hamstrung in every other way with respect to the --stitutional >> a senator -- that.nderstand >> i know both of you would like to engage in a debate but i have to get to the other members. there was a limitation on ground forces.

>> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, mr. secretary. we thank you for your incredible service. i am one of the few members of congress who voted for the authorization of military force in 2001 and 2002. when i look back at that, i never contemplated that it would authorize 2.5 million american military personnel to go to iraq and afghanistan. envisionedld have that 670,000 of them would be declared officially disabled or treated for ptsd. that the health care bills would now have risen to over $1 trillion, separate from the

trillion spent on those conflicts. so it is from my perspective, -- we are trying our best as a congress to ensure that we don't. i never imagined that george bush would interpret the 2002 authorization the way he did, but he did. even as we debate this authorization it will go into the next presidency will stop we have to be careful, necessarily.

i think that is why we are all being very cautious. we have lived through this recent american history that we don't want to repeat. i'm looking at iraq right now, looking for hope. you have had some breakthroughs. they named a sunni defense minister. there seems to be some progress that would obviate the need for american combat troops on the ground. could you talk a little about that in the hopes that you have that the iraqi sunnis would start fighting isis and stop fighting the iraqi security forces? could you talk a little bit about that and how hopeful you are that we are on the correct path? you, senator, and thank

you for your generous comments. i appreciate your comment very much about your vote and what you did or didn't contemplate and i certainly would agree with you. that is why president obama and vice president biden are both aumfy so committed to an that appropriately if rights -- appropriately reflects where we are today. i do believe that we will be stronger as a country if we have this broad vote that i have talked about. i would say to all of you, notwithstanding the passion with which you approach this sense of mistakes made and the open-ended miss of war, etc.. i do believe there are ways to craft this so that it's not open ended and so that there are

without getting into something that would be impossible to get that broad vote for. and i ask you to keep that in mind. here is at for a vote very important part of what we are trying to achieve, the unanimity. it is a message to everybody involved, the coalition, our allies, andclosest even to the people we are fighting. i appreciate your focusing on iraq. we were deeply involved from the moment the president made the comment that we have to know we had a government to work with in order to be able to commit to doing something. we would be in a really difficult situation here.

who knows whether isil would have been in baghdad or whether iran would have decided to go further in. but, we became deeply engaged diplomatically and a superb team worked hard, working with our allies in the region to help the iraqis be able to make the choices they made and they made them. they got a new speaker. that took a lot of effort and that opened up the door to the selection of the president. and when ayatollah and others wait in there were a whole series of events that took place that brought about the change in government. and just last week we were in

brusels with a new prime minister speaking to some 60 countries about his efforts to bring people together to recognize that there was no room for the kind of sectarian divide that had torn the place apart previously. there is an impact in iraq, because iraq is 80% shia and there are interests. and other interests, i might add. religious sites and other kinds of things. hopefully the militia with whom the current administration is currently working to try to restrain them for violence and the chiefs can come together with confidence that the military is evolving in a way that together with their concept of a national guard and with new

president within the government itself -- our feeling is that the training is coming along , that's with the oil deal and other measures being taken there is a constant effort being made to try to unite the government. importantly, regional efforts are taking place. when we had the meeting which was the beginning of the organization the coalition within the region, the foreign minister promptly stated we will recognize the new government, open up diplomatic relations and exchange visits. that's happening. the prime minister of turkey visited iraq. the foreign minister visited

iraq. so there's a regional shift taking place. undoing the sectarian divide that has taken place. building confidence is going be a long process. but it has started. and it is having some impact and it has the potential of having a profound impact as well. >> that is what the american people want. they want a diplomatic resolution of this issue among the people that live in iraq and syria and surrounding companies. that is what they want more than anything and they don't want another open ended opportunity for a commitment of another 2.5 million americans into that region.

the potential is there. there are some members on this committee who believe that it should be open-ended and i just think that that debate is the debate that we have to have this time before we go more deeply and i thank you for your great service. >> can i just say that president obama deserves credit. >> we're going to have to synthesize this because we have been here three and a half hours and i still want to get to the next senator. >> president obama deserves credit for having made the decision, which i think was key, that he wasn't going to move until they began to make the moves to put a government change in place. that is really what leverage this entire effort -- i think he deserves credit for having done that. >> my apologies. we have a hearing on the state of civil rights in america that was scheduled that coincided with this i presided and couldn't attend this, but i have a good summary

of what happened from my staff. some of us who voted against the invasion of iraq felt that we did the right thing, voting to go after al qaeda. i don't think anybody visioned we were voting for the longest war in the history of the united states and that our pursuit would take us into this situation today and apparently some within the administration believe that my vote then was an approval for what we are doing today. whether i agree or disagree today, i think that is a stretch to call this an al qaeda operation. even after al qaeda has disavowed isis. mr. secretary, what it gets down to is this. the president has said there

will be no ground troops. the administration was quick to correct it and said we have no plans for ground troops. many of us believe we ought to standby the president's statement about no ground troops. our fear is that if we don't, either this president or some future president will drag us into another deep, long lasting bloody almost pointless conflict. i am troubled that that is the new position of the administration to want authority for ground troops. i thought that issue was clear. >> it is. it is absolutely clear. there is nothing that has changed. the president is not planning to, there is no thought in his hand of using ground troops. >> i object to saying clearly in our objection to use of military force. >> what is contemplated by that is clearly this notion that we're not going do some big deployment and get involved in an enormous war.

if there is some one-time operation that requires it -- you try to cover them. you have tried to make that clear. but the issue is can you provide an adequate guarantee for an exception for everything that may or may not arise? there is no effort here to slide or try to change this. not going to be an effort to do that. all we're suggesting is we think there is a capacity to clarify to try to work this through in a way that could bring both sides of this together in a an effort to have a more powerful message in this vote and a clearer aim. -- a clearer aumf. i am not going to ask any further questions other than to say, mr. secretary this is , important. critically important. it is not just important for those who lives are being risked

but it has an importance. it relates to our constitutional responsibilities, each of us. i think if we do not assert ourselves and our constitutional responsibility, when it comes to this conflict, we are remiss. i don't want to be condemned by future generations by walking away from this responsibility. if we can work out an agreement, fine. if we cannot, we still have a responsibility to pass this authorization. i hope we do it before we leave. >> we have three former members of this committee who are asking for the authorization who agree who would like to see us do it in a way that gets the vote we talked about. >> final remarks? >> i want to thank you for having the hearing. i think this is much better than what was contemplated last week. i want to thank the secretary for coming in today and providing some principles that i really believe we can all build

on. and i do applaud the president and you for making sure that in iraq we had a different government situation there before we committed and i think that was a good thing. i do want to say again, i think that we can get to a place where there is that broader support i really believe that. i'm going to say something that my friends on this side of the aisle will disagree with. the reason we're here is a total failure of the president to lead on this issue and set something up here. we find ourselves divided when in essence we all want the same thing. we want to authorization the president to be able to do the things that are necessary to deal with isis. i think we're united there. the reason we're in this cluster, which is where we are, is because the president has not really sought that

authorization. today you came closer, not quite all the way through, but you came closer to asking for an explicit authorization. came closer. a better approach would be to send up the language. there might be some common ground, more than we think. but the one piece that i think is missing by not asking explicitly is we don't have the opportunity to really delve into the strategy of this. we're talking about limitations in writing but one of the things we have not had the opportunity to do and anyone who attended the briefing we had a month ago with military leadership and others, i don't think anybody left there believing that we understood how we were going to deal with isis. i think there were a lot of gaps that we didn't understand.

what is missing is not just the document, but it's also what's missing as when you seek something explicitly, we have the opportunity to probe how you're going to go ahead doing that. we just heard from leaders in the region. i know there is tremendous division over the assad issue. that is the magnet for isis in the first place. i do hope that we will continue. i hope that you will end up -- that you will send up explicit language and i hope that we will have the opportunity to understand how we are going go forward. one of the reasons we ended up in a 12 or 13 year war is there wasn't any of this discussion. it didn't happen. it's not just the language. it's actually understanding how we're going to go about dealing with this and that is a massive missing element. i think he is conducting himself fairly well except for evading the issue of the explicit

request. i thank him for the principles. i do look forward to working with you to achieve in spite of all the things that i just said to achieve a more broadly bipartisan support of something that i think we all agree needs to be undertaken. but i don't think you have come to us in a way that is appropriate in making that happen. but i thank the chairman for having us. >> can i just -- i'm surprised by that. i want to get a better grade from you, senator. i quote my own testimony -- >> he's a tough grader. >> we ask you now to work closely with us on a bipartisan basis to develop language that provides a clear signal of support. the authorization should give the president the clear mandate and flexibility he needs to successfully prosecute the armed conflict. we have requested that we work

together. we are requesting an aumf. >> mr. secretary, i look forward to working with you a little more closely. i will grade on a curve. and give you a little bit better attaboy. >> i hope the curve goes up and not down. >> i'm not even going to go there. let me just say that i want to thank you on behalf of all the members. you have a great deal of respect here. you have equipped yourself most admirably today. i think some of these questions are beyond the role of the secretary of state. and yet you have done a very admirable job of trying to explain to the committee where we're at, where we want to go and how hopefully we can get there. i certainly continue to welcome as i have for month to try to

evolve language that can put the administration in a place that is in sync with the congress. i have no concern about our collective goal. our goal is to defeat isis and i am convinced that we will. i think there is a very compelling reason for congress to act. i think this hearing has helped us crystallize some of the core issues that are still in difference between the legislative and executive branch and i would hope that we could find a way to broach them. it is the chair's intention to continue on thursday. if we can work from here to thursday to further narrow those, that would be great, but it is the majority of the committee's desire to express

themselves on a vote on an authorization of the use of military force. i am going to honor that view and move forward, and we will see where we end up from there. i am not sure if we are going to end this session in in the senate. if we don't, then i would actually argue that there should be a broader debate in the senate as well. but in any event we look forward to working with you. this hearing is adjour

>> he had planned for four years this campaign. he saw what was happening in the brandican campaign stop paul had a hand-picked guy in that primary. at that point, mcconnell realized he had to recalibrate everything he knew and he started to make changes. to build key staff. he started to build a sophisticated infrastructure difficultis would the case and his campaign. >> they had watched the obama 2008.gn in would --they knew they they would have the latest technology.

he was going to build -- most >> in american history. in american history. and he probably got there. >> sunday night on c-span's q and day. we are airing one program from each year does -- starting at december 22. >> washington journal begins in a moment. we will look at the blue's news and take your calls. a federall look at terrorism insurance bill. watch coverage here on c-span. >> coming up, we will hear more about the senate intelligence report. ken of the associated press will join us shortly. johnll also talk to

bradshaw of the national security network. later, we will discuss the government funding deadline, the government funding pipeline and more. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. ♪ >> good morning everyone, this is wednesday, december 10, 2014. the talk of cia interrogation techniques dominates the headlines this morning. somer cia officials and republicans refute bad and save some of it to saved american lives and releasing it now could put it at americans overseas at risk. we will talk about that this morning.