the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. rogers: i verve. >> pursuant to the rule, i'm claiming my time for the next 20 minutes of debate. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 83, the omnibus appropriations bill for 2015, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i want to commend the members of the house appropriations committee, all of them, especially the committee's distinguished chairman, hahl rogers, for their hard -- hal rogers, for their hard work that will fund our national priorities and stop a government shutdown. i'm glad the bill will include critical reforms that will avert our nation from having a looming financial crisis. mr. speaker, roughly 10 million americans are involved in a

multipension plan. men and women who continue to move our country forward, builders, truck drivers, carpenters, store clerks, to name a few. those people worked hard and earned a promise that a pension would provide financial security in retirement. yet, for many that promise is now in jeopardy. pension plans are on the brink of bankruptcy. employers, workers and retirees are stretched thin and the federal insurance agency is on the path to insolvency. the multiemployer pension system is a ticking time bomb. when the bomb goes off, business also close their doors, workers will be laid off, taxpayers will be on the hook for a multibillion dollar bailout and retirees will have their benefits cut or wiped out entirely. a crisis is staring us in the face and the question we have to answer is, will we act? will we do what's right and necessary to help fix this problem or will we simply kick the can down the road?

i believe we have a public duty and a moral responsibility to act. my democratic colleague, george miller, and i have worked hard to craft a bipartisan legislative response to this looming disaster. with the help of our friend, dr. phil roe, and the work of many employers and union leaders, we've offered reform that will offer the best chance we have to protect taxpayers, working families and retirees. our bipartisan proposal includes tough medicine for a pension system in critical system. it -- condition. it requires higher premiums so the federal backstop will meet its obligations without taxpayer assistance. it also provides new tools to trustees to help plans avoid insolvency, including the ability to adjust benefits. let me be clear. if we reject this bill and continue the status quo, benefits will be cut. it's only a matter of time. as plans go under, the federal

government inflicts maximum pain on the maximum number of people. but if we offer trustees more flexibility, they can avoid inolvensy and provide re-- insolvency and provide greater stability. we have a choice of an ax in the hand of a first-year scalpel for a seniored doctor. it ensures retirees are better off than if we did nothing. this isn't a perfect solution. i'm disappointed we couldn't do more to modernize the system, to provide workers more options to plan for their retirement. make no mistake, this is the first step in addressing a tough problem, but it won't be the last. despite its shortcomings, this is a strong proposal that deserves our for. we cannot let this opportunity pass by. this problem will be harder to solve after the bomb goes off. i urge my colleagues to do

what's in the best interest of workers and employers and retirees by supporting this bipartisan agreement. before i close, mr. speaker, i want to thank some members of the staff who work day and night to make this happen, starting with my staff director, julie ann sullivan, and work force policy director, ed gilroy. i want to thank brian, megan and julia of mr. miller's staff, for all their hard work. and last but certainly not least, i'd like to offer my deep appreciation to a trusted member of my team, andy banducci. he's poured more time and effort than anyone else, and he's earned the right to a good night's sleep. finally, i'd like to extend my sincere thanks to my colleague, george miller, who will leave this chamber after 40 years of public service. without his courage and determination to do what is right, this effort would not have been possible. through it all, he's been a trusted friend and ally. george has long been a tireless advocate for working families, from the start of his distinguished career down to

these final moments in congress. he will leave behind a lasting mark on the house and on the education and work force committee. we haven't agreed on every issue, but in the fine tradition of our committee, we have always found a way to disagree without being disagreeable. i have no doubt he will remain a powerful voice for students, teachers and working families. george, thank you for your service and your friendship. i wish you and your wife, cynthia, and your family all the best and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota reserves his time. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. miller: thank you, mr. chairman. to chairman kline, thank you so much for your very kind words and for your friendship and for your willingness to work together. and you're right, we haven't always agreed but we tried to honor that by not becoming disagreeable with one another.

and my service on the education and work force committee has been the joy of my life in the congress of the united states and thank you for steering this committee for the last several years and i want to join you in thanking all of the hardworking staff, not just on this piece of legislation, but year in and year out, hearing in and hearing out, amendments, changes and all the things that this staff goes through, they've really been -- acted in a very, very professional manner. they, too, have been able to work back and forth across the aisle and all the rest of it and served as a buffer every now and then when the members got out of control. so thank you so very, very much. this pension agreement that was added to the bill before us today is based upon a proposal developed nearly two years ago by labor unions and employers who wanted to find a path forward for severely distressed and failing pension plans. this provision will give plan

trustees, labor and management, the tools they need to avoid impending collapse of many and multiemployer plans. it will also provide new funds with the premium increase for the insurer charged with backing up these plans which is also facing bankruptcy. the kline-miller provision is the only available option to save these failing plans, and it is the last chance that labor unions and their members and employers have to gain some control over the future of their pensions. throughout my 40 years in congress, i've worked to strengthen pension protections and expand retirement security for all americans. i have fought for workers and i have fought for their benefits. i've fought for the right to collectively bargain over their retirement and i fought to prothem from the hidden fees in the 401-k plans. i fought -- it is my commitment to workers and their retirement security that brings me here today. we have an obligation to reform

the multiemployer system so we can protect the retirement security of workers nationwide. the approach we have put forward, which is backed by business and labor leaders will secure the multiemployer pension systems for millions of current and future retirees. it includes important consumer safeguards that give participants in these plans a voice to protect their most vulnerable retirees. most importantly, it gives employers and the employees the option, the option, the choice, not a mandate. they get to choose. they get to decide that they want to design a plan that they think can rescue their currently failing pension system. that's an important right to grant them. many local unions have already made this decision with their members, but they can't do it. they can't cut their own benefits because they're prohibited from doing it by law. who are we to tell these -- these workers that they can't take the opportunity to stretch their pool of pension money,

their savings so that it may cover more people for a longer period of time, if they make these adjustments? they want to make these adjustments, the law says they can't. if we trust labor unions, if we trust the workers, if we believe in the dignity of the worker, we should give them the opportunity and the responsibility of trying to save their own pensions. this is all this bill does. it gives them the option. it gives them the opportunity. it lets them take on the responsibility for trying to design a rescue plan that may increase the longevity of their plan. it may allow retirees a better pension than they would get if they just fell into the government rescue system. that's what they're asking us to let them do. it's not a new idea. it's been here for two years of hearings. it's been under chairman kline. we've had exhaustive hearings on this provision. we heard from the employers. we've heard from a cross-section of unions.

some who agree with this plan and some who disagree. that's why it's an option. those who don't want to do it. those who have written you letters that said, don't do this, what about the guy that wants to do it? so this is an option. they will have to talk to their members. they will have to talk to their employers. they'll have to talk to their trustees and they'll have to make a decision and if they can come up with that rescue plan, do ought to be allowed to it. these plans are losing altitude every day that they can't make these adjustments. hopefully a pickup in the economy, an increase in employment, an increase in enrollment all will help them. but they still need the option to be able to make these judgments. i would hope that my colleagues here in the congress would trust these workers enough to give them this opportunity and this responsibility to make these decisions about their retirement, not our wish list of how we would like it to be, t their retirement today

that's at threat of collapse. i urge my colleagues to support this provision and to support this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves his time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. now i'm very, very pleased to yield three minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee on health, employment, labor and pensions, the gentleman from tennessee, dr. roe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for three minutes. mr. roe: i thank the chairman. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of the multiemployer pension reform act, contained in the underlying bill. this bipartisan legislation will strengthen and in some cases save retirement benefits for more than 10 million americans who are enrolled in a multiemployer pension plan. let's say that again. this legislation will save retirement benefits. while many multiemployer plans are in strong financial shape, the number of financially distressed plans is a cause for great concern. among these troubled plans is essential states plan covering

410,000 participants, which the pbgc projects will become incol vent in the next 10 years. the pbgc's own finances are in dire straits. the report released just last month shows that its multiemployer program has a deficit of more than $42 billion, an all-time high. the agency also believes that there's a 90% chance it becomes insolvent by 2025 without change. taken together, these financial challenges pose a clear and present danger to the retirement of those who receive those benefits from the pbgc and those who expect the pbgc to serve as a backstop if their pension plan fails. it's not a question of if the worse will happen for some of these questions, it's only a question of when. the proposal before us today is a product of six subcommittee hearings over four years, countless hours of discussion and debate between management

and labor and thoughtful negotiations between republicans and democrats. this legislation will give pension plans the tools to save themselves without a taxpayer bailout. and for those plans who are beyond retare, this proposal will strengthen the pbgc's finance to help ensure retirees will continue to receive a benefit. what we're asking of these plans is hard. if there was some other way to resolve this problem without a taxpayer bailout we would have pursued it. but there's not another way. and we have to do what's necessary to protect the retirement benefits for those americans who earned them. businesses and unions alike understand this. that's why the kline-miller proposal is supported by companies including kroger, nestle, u.s.a., as well as labor unions, including the ufcw, the north america's building and trade unions. i commend chairman kline and ranking member miller for their

tireless efforts on that issue. they've shown all of us that bipartisan compromise for the greater good is possible. also, i want to thank ed gilroy and andy and both staffs on each side of the aisle for the long hard hours they've logged on this effort. this desperately needed pension reform is good for workers, it's good for retirees, it's good for business and it's good for america. and i encourage my colleagues to strongly support this. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from .ew jersey, the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. >> it's irony that we are having this discussion today. first i want to thank ranking member for yielding the time. mr. nor cross: i was sworn in just a few weeks ago.

-- mr. norcross: i was sworn in just a few weeks ago. prior to that my entire career has been working in system a multiemployer plane. i wept home last night and opened my mail. i received my first pension check which happens to be from a multiemployer plan. i understand how it works. i understand how it doesn't work. that's what we are here to discuss today. he fact of the matter is multiemployer's a very different animal than what most people traditional people think of as a pension plan. multiemployer the employee groups, unions, working together with management to make these decisions and in a perfect world, which i have been blessed with with my plan, that check arrives on time and it will be there. but there are other plans that are certainly not in that

condition. and had not been that way for a very long time. we continue to bury our heads in the sand and wait for that implosion because it is going to happen. or we can do the right thing and give people their voice back. let those plans have the ability to ask their memberships what they want to do. they got their -- there through that cooperation, might not be their own fault that the plan is failing. there are many conditions that cause that. but the way the rules are now, they have no voice. they are silent and i am just here to make sure that we have an absolute clear understanding this is about giving the employers and the employees their voice back. i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. klein: thank you, mr. speaker. -- mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. now i'd like to yield a minute and a half to another member of

the committee, the gentlelady from indiana, mrs. brooks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from indiana is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mrs. brooks: thank you, mr. speaker. first of all i want to thank chairman kline, ranking member miller, and dr. roe for working tirelessly on this incredibly difficult piece of legislation that i know impacts so many people. as you have heard on the health subcommittee we had over six different hearings on this matter examining the difficulties facing troubled multiemployer plans and the looming insolsen have i of the guarantee benefit corporation that is taxed with back stopping pension plans. during those hearings i heard from the president of the north american building trades union that said ultimately, quote, in order for individual pensioners to receive benefits from our plan, the plans themselves must be preserved. end of quote. mr. speaker, without this kline-miller pension reform, the insolvency of these plans is exactly what will happen. ultimately hurting those most in need.

just last month pbgc released its annual report which showed the deficit in this insurance program, it's increased from $8.3 billion to $42.4 billion in just one year. at this rate the pbgc anticipates the plans will become insolvent in the next decade. that meanings pensioners won't even be able to count on the minimum to backstop programs that are terminal. we must act now to give the trustees of these plans the tools necessary to allow the unions and their members the opportunity to salvage these multiemployer pension model. the longer we wait, the more the problem grows and more painful it becomes for pensioners and employers alike. our constituents didn't send us here to take the easy path. but rather to do the hard work that must be done. and that is why so much is at stake and that's why this provision is so necessary. i urge its passage. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as

much time as he may consume. mr. miller: i would like, so my colleagues fully understand this, to read the list of some of the uneson supporting this legislation. north american building trades union, international council of employers, brick layers and outlie craft workers, international union of operating engineers, united association of journeymen apprentices and pipefitting industries, united food and commercial workers, international union. united brotherhood of carpenters and joiners of america. actors equity association. the american federation of musicians. a very diverse group of american workers who are asking us to give them the option to make decisions about the future of their pensions. some of these pensions are in better shape than others. but they are all asking for this right. for those who may be opposed to this legislation, don't like this legislation, they don't have to exercise their right. but we cannot deny these workers

this opportunity to make this decision about their very hard earned pensions. as mr. norcross says, they made these decisions together where they are today, and they ought to be able to make the decisions together to change direction and to head off for an opportunity at greater solvency and longevity. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. i want to again thank congressman kline and all of the staff and all those who have cooperated and all these organizations that have spent many years trying to investigate the best way to answer this nagging question of how to save these plans. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back his time. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. kline thank you, mr. speaker. in closing again i want to thank the staff and republicans and democrats working on this. we talked a lot about what this does for employees, for

retirees. it also does an awful lot to strengthen the position of employers. you need strong employers. they need similar relief from the crushing liability on them. strong employers and a strong plan in order to guarantee the pensions for all of these workers. i have a long list here which i will not read of employers who are supporting this because they understand that they like the employees and like the retirees need relief from the broken system we have today. i encourage all my colleagues to >> >> next comment debate on a bill to authorize limited military force on isis. on thesecretary of state brookings institution. then, cia director john brennan holding a news conference on the senate report agencies interrogation tactics. then, federal spending.

>> here are some of the programs you will find this weekend. "q&a,"evening at 8:00 on money roger and john bresnahan share stories on the campaign trail. 2, political fundraiser wednesday mark lewis on money in politics and how it has grown and changed. shane 10:00 p.m. eastern, harris on the military pause use of cyberspace to wage war. and on american history on c-span 3, a panel including david keene on how ronald reagan's career helped hone his communication skills and be a successful politician and president. gannon showsfrank

clips of his 1983 interview with the former president about vietnam, watergate, and his resignation. find our complete television schedule at c-span.org. let us know what you think. us, percent is a tweet. -- or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. >> today, the senate foreign relations committee approved a draft resolution that would authorize limited military force against isis. 8, with mostl, 10- democrats in favor and public ends against. the chairman said he would seek a vote on the measure on full senate over the next few days. the committee meeting ran an hour and 45 minutes.

>> let us now moved to my proposed resolution authorizing the limited use of the united states armed forces against sil.i have a manager's amendment that incorporates a number of ofndments including versions and other senators may wish to offer amendments as well. following the unanimous agreement of the members of the committee we work expeditiously to stand up a process and invite administration officials to engagement this committee on an eight umf. -- on a aumf.

it included repeated invitations to our most senior diplomats and military leaders to actively engage in briefings with the committee on the anti-isil strategy. secretary kerry represented regarding the use of military force and we appreciate his frank and substantive testimony. but we heard from secretary kerry is that the administration largely supports the aumf with some reservations. the chairman smart authorizes the president to use military ande against isil associated persons are forces, meaning individuals or organizations fighting on behalf of isil. as i said yesterday, the president feels he needs that and he should ask for it in congress can consider it.

this text limits the authorization to three years in wires the administration to report to congress every 60 days. as drafted, the text limits the authorization by not allowing ground combat operations except as necessary for the protection or rescue of u.s. soldiers or citizens, for intelligence operations, operational planning, or other forms of advice and assistance. president has said that this will be a multiyear campaign but i do not believe it should be unlimited. that would allow this president and a new set -- in a new president to assess the situation and make decisions with congress about whether and how to continue military action. i know there is much more to discuss a let me call upon the ranking member.

want -- i want to thank you for last week for on an on the aumf unrelated bill and trying to put a process of place that would cause us to be more informed. i think we have honest, thoughtful opinions about this issue. i think the hearing we had this week was helpful in that process. you for theto thank way you have let this committee. i think this is a committee that for many decades was one of the most sought after committees and the united date senate. i think it waned for a while because substantive legislation was not dealt with and i really do think over the two years you have been here you have continued to elevate the committee substantially and i think all of us are very proud of the leadership you have shown , proud of the bipartisanship, and today we passed some bills out where people really worked

together, the hong kong bill, others to make things happen. i thank you for your leadership and for trying to conduct these meetings in a way that brings out the best of the united date. we thank you for the way that you have called this committee , just as some slight philosophical differences going into the private sector -- good luck to you. this is, as has been mentioned, probably the most important type of legislation that we will ever deal with. how theo earthly idea administration plans to go about

degrading and destroying isis in syria. i have no earthly idea. mckirk yesterday, the assistant to our envoy said over in the house there is no way, no way, the moderate opposition could be decided. no way. i read today in the washington most where ambassador ford talked about what a fantasy it was to think about that. so i know there have been attempts by my friends on the other side of the aisle to place limitations on what it is that we're doing, but what we have no idea of at the present, no idea, is how the administration tends to go about doing what we plan to do in syria. we have some understands in iraq.

we have zero understanding in syria. we've talked about the fact that since world war ii we've had so many conflicts where we and administrations go forward with activities. then end up having an outcome that is far from where we began. yet, in this case, and i know the chairman has tried to have testimony, tried to have people come in here. i know we could subpoena and maybe that's what we need to do this next year to make sure we actually have people come in and explain to us where we're going. i don't think there's a person on this committee that can lay out with any degree of how we plan to go about doing this thing of degrading and defeating. we have no idea. in many ways, as senator mccain has mentioned, it almost reeks of the incrementalism that began with vietnam years ago. it seems to me that one of our great responsibilities here is to -- when administration needs

an authorization to go forward, it's for us to tease that out, to understand, to get a sense of what they're after tempting to do and whether it's plausible or not. we had a leader of a nation involved in this with us today who was just in two weeks ago. he's sharing with us many allies in the region, people involved with us today think we need to be taking on a side right now for this to work. yet the secretary came in the other day and said that's not going to happen. yet assad is the magnet for isis to exist in syria today, the magnet. we have no idea what attempts are going to be made there. yet, on the other hand, we want turkey to be involved with us. we're talking about what essence no fly zone in the northwest portion of syria to try to bring turkey in. yet turkey really probably isn't near as interested in isis as they are assad itself. yet we have not had any

testimony that explains how we plan to go forward. on the other hand, the in a way of trying to limit what we're doing, i know that the chairman and people on your side of the aisle have attempted to talk about no boots on the ground. you've out a limit on length of time. you've defined associated forces in a more narrow way than typically is defined. we have the secretary of state come in and say that the president won't agree to that. he came in and testified here and gave excellent testimony actually better than i thought he would be able to give and yet amuf being offered today we know they won't support. it has no chance in the world, even if we had time. this is going nowhere because

we're going to be out of here in two days. even if we had time, we know the administration would not support what is before us today. then as i understand it in a manager's package, many have been to the white house and tried to deal with 01amuf which is 60 words, written in a rush september 18 of 2001. many of us have talked about changing that in such a way to meet today's situations. as i understand it, the manager's amendment sunsets it. we have nothing to replace it, but we're going to sunset the aumf. i don't want to harden sides. i believe there are changes that need to be made and understands that need to be had. i'm disappointed that we are where we are. i will not support knowing this administration that -- let's

face it at a minimum has been cautious in foreign relations activities -- says this won't work for them. what i propose is we vote, deal with this today. i thought about tabling this. i don't like motioning to table. i don't like this process, where we are. i appreciate the strong feelings that everyone has, but i just assume go ahead and vote and be done with this and then hope the good will that we have here today on other issues will carry into next year, figure out a way to have a process each of us can articulate to constituents how we're going to go about defeating. not a single one of us has an idea of how that will happen in

syria. that we know that first and then vote on authorization to cause our nation to go forward in appropriate way. mr. chairman, thank you for your leadership. i to know there will be debate over what i just said. i look forward to carrying this forward today. >> mr. chairman? >> i'll recognize you in a moment. let me make very brief remarks. i appreciate the nature of both your views and your goal. in some respects i share it. let me say the following. as i said at the hearing, if we wait for an administration, this or any other one to send us their language on an authorization for the use of military force and is they never do it, then by virtue of not doing that, they have a veto over the constitutional imperative and prerogatives on the power to declare war. i'm not going to submit -- i

speak only for myself. i am not going to submit my responsibility of people of new jersey or the nation to an executive that does not send an aumf and is by doing so could conduct a war without pursuing the congress. while i certainly want to be as closely as in sync with this commander of chief or any other commander-in-chief, i do not believe the president can send sole legislation because it may be be a different view of congress. there may be elements he'll choose to veto. it's the congress's imperative to ultimately make that decision as to how we're going to send america's sons and daughters to harm's way. while one would try to get there and be in sync. i'm not sure at the end of the day there's a disagreement that congress sold succumb to what the president wants. i don't know how long we're

going to stay here. maybe i urge our leadership to this committee pass out amuf to have that debate on the floor of the united states senate and try to push forward. let's be honest, i don't think we would have gotten anybody to crystallize ideas about where there is comedy and difference unless we started this process. i think that does a service to the american people to debate at the at least it can begin and people start to think hard about what our engagement is going to be under what set of circumstances and what risks. i respect the ranking chair's views. we have a fundamental disagreement about the timing in terms of moving forward and trying to create a process that ultimately maybe will get in sync. i don't know at the end of the day whether that can be achieved with the executive branch.

i want to do this as part of the manager's amendment. at least we can be poised. i'm happy to entertain all member's comments. let me move the manager's amendment to begin a process here. it does a number of things. it includes the amendment filed by senator boxer to the language horrific abuses by isil of women and girls. the hearing senator boxer held with -- >> senator paul. >> senator paul was, i think, incredibly illustrative of the incredible terrifying acts isil commits and particularly against women and girls. it includes language from senator kuhns that makes important finding a way to pay for activities authorized. it includes a version filed by senator carton that would sunset after a period of three years of enactment unless it has been

reauthorized. this period of duration mirrors the legislation. at that point, i think it's tremendously important we work together in a serious way to refine the 2001 amuf. i think a three year window is a responsible amount of time in which to do that. i support the three year sunset because i think without a forcing mechanism, we would find it virtually impossible to come to an agreement on how to refine that 2001 authorization. we have seen how difficult that process can be. i believe clearly it must be done. i think that on that goal i think many of us are having a common view about the 2001 authorization. the manager's amendment is before the committee. i'm willing to entertain comments. >> member of this committee. each of us have strong views.

some are nuanced and some are quite different. i want to go on record with a conscious issue. i'm respectful of the relationship you and ranking member have developed and soon to switch gavels. it makes me very proud because i think it's so key. these are difficult moments, but it's not -- they're not moments we get angry at each other. we direct anger at people cutting off the heads of our people and who are taking girls as sex slaves. we may differ on how to go about taking the fight to them. this is a day i've been looking forward to. i'm one that believes the president does have the authority under the aumf i voted for. that does not speak for most democrats. i still believe we need to update that. i am grateful to my chairman.

this took a lot of guts on his part. this is really in many ways a stand off not within the parties in the committee which is understandable but also with the administration who i think we all admit with senator kerry, i didn't see sense he was thrilled with we were going forward. mr. chairman, you are just standing up for the rights and prerogatives of members of the united states senate and the congress. i appreciate it. i'm strongly supporting your mark for two reasons. one, congress can't sit back and take no action in the face of this evil that we see in isil. a threat to all humanity as one of the administration witnesses said at the hearing senator paul and i had. when it comes to human rights abuses, they are in a class of their own. we cannot sit back and not speak out against them. and the second reason, after

years of a war in iraq that i believe was based on false pretense which i believe killed and named thousands our best and brightest. i draw a line in the sand as far as another ground war. i think those two messages are important. basically this amuf is the president's strategies put together. i know senator corker doesn't like that strategy. i find that to be -- that's an understatement. i find it to be something i can embrace. let me tell you why specifically. we have 60 countries on our side. we have the u.k., australia, francisco, germany, canada to name a few of our allies. we also have saudi arabia, u.a.e., jordan. that's just a few of the 60 countries. if you read the president's comments which i will at this point, "going forward we won't

with hesitate to take action against terrorists in iraq and syria. this is not america's fight alone. it is more effective to use our capabilities to help partners on the ground, secure their own country's futures. we will use our air power, train and equip our partners. we advice and will assist, and we will lead a broad coalition of nations who have a stake in this fight. this isn't america versus isil. this is the people of that region versus isil. it's the world versus isil." i thoroughly agree with that. if there are folks that a think we ought to put our troops on the ground in another ground war, so be it. speak out now. offer an amendment. that's your right. i respect it. i strongly disagree with it. i think you have mr. chairman and all the work with us, you have crafted something that while every one of us would

write it a tad bit differently, in general we stand with the world against isil. i'm very happy that we're doing it. last point. our ranking members soon to be chairman said this is going nowhere. why are we doing this? the chairman answered it. that's what people said when we worked together in a bipartisan way on syrian air strikes. people said why are you doing this? at the end of the day we had impact on the ground. syria got rid of chemical weapons. i think what we do here matters. i want to send that signal today. we take the fight to isil. we don't use our ground troops to do it. >> now, we have a vote going on. i think there's still time for at least one more member to speak. then i recess, have the one vote, come back and finish the rest of our work. is there anyone else -- any other members?

senator carden and then we'll recess. i'll recognize any other member then that wishes to speak. >> thank you. i want to underscore how proud i am to be a member of this committee under the leadership of menendez and senator corker. this is operated in the best traditions of the foreign relations committee in the united states senate. i think we're a stronger nation as a result of it. i thank you both for your extraordinary leadership. i just want to underscore a couple points. first, president obama and former presidents would probably agree that they don't need congress to pass any further authorizations that they have all the power they need. i look at this resolution, carrying out appropriate oversite we have. one of you mentioned vietnam and expanded u.s. involvement in the

war. i think this resolution helps prevent that. president obama's interpretation of the 2001 authorization would allow him to use our military force including ground troops pretty much anywhere in the world against extremists. i think that's why it's important for us to act. this is a specific authorization in regards to our military operations against isil can consistent with the president's military operations. the international coalition's needs and understanding of u.s. military involvement. it makes it clear there's no ground combat troops. i think that's important. it requires reports as to the strategies being used by the administration and international partners as well as providing us financial information and how the war is being cost and paid for. it requires also the reports on the international partners and

provides for a three year sunset unless reauthorized. now, i heard my colleague senator corker talk about the repeal, sunset on 2001. the bill does repeal the 2002. we all agreed to 2002 iraq's specific resolution is no longer needed. in regards to 2001, let me just state the obvious. those of us in congress in 2001 never envision had the authorization would be still utilized today the way it was in 30 separate military operations. we were interested in going after those that attacked our country on september 11. it was not the only piece of legislation that was passed during that period of time. we passed to give our civil authorities the intelligence tools they need, patriot act. fortunately we put sunsets on the patriot act. as a result, that's been refined over the years including most recently.

if we did not have that sunset on those law, i dare to say it would have been difficult for us to come together as to how we can make sure we have the contemporary tools we need in order to fight terrorists in this country. we all acknowledge we need tools against terrorists including military operations. we should refine it to meet the current needs. that's our current responsibilities as congress. that's why a three year period for refining the isil campaign militarily as well as our war against terrorists is not only appropriate but i think required. i'm pleased the chairman has included that in his chairman's mark. senator kerry's interpretation and the obama administration's interpretation of the 2001 authorization which said that we could use our military against those nations, organizations or persons the president determines planned authorized, committed or aided attacks that occurred september 11, 2001.

in other words against al qaeda. is using it now against isil even though al qaeda said isil is not a branch of al qaeda. we have no organizational relationship with it. the group is not responsible for its actions. all i point out is it's a stretch. we have a responsibility to clarify that as part of congress. now, yes the administration is not all together where we are on this resolution. they would like to have broader authority. secretary kerry talks about unpredictable circumstances and wants to make sure they have maximum flexibility. that's our responsibility. for those that believe the purse strings are adequate to deal with that, it's the not.

we all know that. it's this committee's responsibility. the senate foreign relations committee to recommend to the full senate what the appropriate authorization should be on the use of military force. i think that what the chairman has brought forward carries that out in the best tradition. giving president obama the authorization to use our military but to restrict it and have oversight to make sure it's used with the appropriate authorization. >> if i can say one thing? i know we're going to leave and

go vote. i realize some of this may dissipate. i don't think there's any difference on the two sides about our strong desire to take the fight to isis. everybody understands there's no difference there. i think the concern is we haven't done our oversight. we haven't had the officials that are going to conduct this operation come in and even share with us how they're going to do that. i don't want to embarrass anyone, but i don't think there's anyone on this committee, people that spend hours and hours and hours in intelligence briefings that has yet heard the administration come forth with anything that's plausible. to me, that's the problem. we're rushing to make something legal for those that think it's illegal. we're rushing to make something legal as if that makes us relevant. what makes us relevant is to

have the administration come forth, lay out what they're going to do, let us tease that out. let us understand it and then authorize it. mr. chairman, i thank you. appreciate you. >> let me say on that vote, and then we're going to recess. my intention is to go directly to the floor votes. one vote and then come back. i urge all members to come back to be present, make comments and offer amendments. we've had now two hearings by the secretary of state. we had an intelligence hearing that included members of the department of defense as well as the person in charge of our coalition. in addition to that, the armed services committee has held hearings of which i have looked at transcripts since i'm not a member of that committee. there are several members here of that committee and have been informed of information received there. now, one could argue that despite all of that, one may not

fully gleam what is the totality of a strategy, but it isn't a totally uninformed view at this point in time. this committee stand as in recess in order of the call by the chairman. >> we will come to order.

is there any other member who wishes recognition? senator shaheen? i would just like to respond to senator corker but before i do let me add my appreciation to both u.s. chair and senator corker's ranking member for the way you have let this committee and for the inclusiveness with which you have treated all of the members. i have very much appreciated of all your encouraging our working together has been very helpful. what i wanted to say in response to your comment is that i would disagree that we haven't heard a strategy from this administration.

i think there may be disagreement about whether that strategy is the correct one, but i feel -- and i do serve on the armed services committee so i may have had a few more pacified briefings and hearings -- but i do feel like we have heard a strategy and we may not all agree, but i do think there is one in place. authorization is not about trying to address that strategy it is about trying to make sure that we do exercise our right of oversight and in particular, i think it is important to weigh in and limit -- ability to thing that without coming back to put tens of thousands of troops on the ground to fight isil. i very much appreciate the opportunity and the debate we

are having right now. >> district chairman. -- mr. chairman. >> i understand there is a difference of feelings there. for what it is worth, i think we have a pretty good sense of these sensibilities that people are trying to express that are going to vote for. theso think administration may have a good sense of a way to break that. at the end of the day, in spite of those comments -- and i would like to hear a little bit more about how we are actually going to move ahead. we don't have a way to deal with the ground, at present and i would like to understand how we are going to go about that. just now as we take this up this is one step in the process and i hope that together we are going to figure out a way to bridge the differences in such a way that people can come together and feel good about it and try to pass. >> i appreciate that, thank you.

>> senator johnson. >> i have a number of things i'd like to talk about. at the heart of my opposition to this particular use of military force, i don't believe it commits us to victory. i would ever vote for an authorization for use of military force -- put the finest among us at risk if we as a congress are fully committed to victory. an example that has weighed in my mind was when president obama announced a surge in afghanistan, and said he would withdraw in two years. i really provide some comfort to our enemies. i asked atimony, question -- does the president really believe that we can defeat isis in three years? no.

why would they to put that restriction? why would we authorize the use when we are not fully committed to victory? i think that is the wrong thing to do. we are really not defining what defeat is, which i would argue -- what is the end goal? what is the achievable goal we are trying to achieve? as i look through the authorization, about the only goal as he stated in here is "to counter the greatest threats to regional stability." that is not the same as degrading into defeating isis. i would say that is a deficiency of the 2001 authorization. we authorize the use of military force that we deleted pretty open-ended, and i agree that who certainlyals, have a question about whether that authorization is applicable. the way we handled in world war ii -- i think we should look

back to history. totally different circumstance, but there was a stated goal. it was to bring the conflict to a successful termination. --idn't totally defy that, defined as, but people understood it. now we have a totally different circumstance. and omega have to say too much more other than thanking the chairman for holding this. i think this was a very good and necessary discussion. you're not going to bring this to conclusion but this was a good first step. discussion, in the reopened the debate next year, i am really going to encourage my colleagues -- if you are going to have a strategy, there is a process. you have to first recognize reality. and sometimes that's not very

easy to do. by the way, we had an excellent hearing the other day with senator boxer, and the witnesses that the majority called described reality -- let me give you a couple of their statements real quick. the witnesses said that isis is gaining strength. they're worse than ever. bombing's not doing much. we're having very ineffective aid efforts. the military mission is not sufficient. isis will be around for the foreseeable future. now, that's painting a pretty ugly reality that we're not really recognizing in this authorization. so if you're going to have a strategy, you have to recognize reality, then you have to set yourself an achievable goal. people need to understand what is the goal. again, president obama has laid it out -- degrade and ultimately defeat isis. we haven't really described what defeat looks like. and i would argue that then limiting actions, first of all, not particularly wise. i don't know why you'd ever signal to your enemy what you will or will not do to defeat them.

you're limiting that activity. i would urge, let's understand reality, which is going to require hearings, require the participation of this administration, let's understand what the achievable goal is. let's understand what it's going to take to achieve that goal and then let's craft the authorization for use of military force specifically to achieve that goal, not tie the hands of the commander in chief, who's going to be charged with that awesome responsibility of committing the finest among us, putting their lives at risk. let's make sure the commander in chief, the president of the united states, has the full authority to achieve the goal that we all agree on. that's the way to proceed in this. but, again, i appreciate this hearing and appreciate the thoughtful discussion and debate. >> thank you, senator jones. before i recognize senator koonce, let me say we are committed to victory.

we are collectively committed to a victory to defeat isil, and we say that in the second page of the aumf in the fifth "whereas." it is the policy of the united states to work with regional and global allies and allies to degrade and defeat isil. it goes on to talk about other elements of how that is achieved. now, there is a difference between a commitment to victory and what some would be committed to maybe an endless war with tens of thousands of ground troops. that can be a fundamental difference. but a three-year authorization ultimately creates the greatest accounting of the administration, this or any future one, to the congress to come back knowing that authorization can be renewed and may very well will need to be renewed if the fight has not been fully achieved to degrade and defeat isil. but without that end date, there

would be no real accountability no matter how much we try, only the necessity of an administration to have that authorization would do that. i don't see the three years we're only going to fight you for three years. it means in three years we're going to make sure we've defeated you or we're going to recalibrate to make sure we do whatever is necessary to defeat you. so i think there are different ways of looking that the three years. senator koonce. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to all the members for your engainment in this vital and important debate. i think how we ensure our security, how we demonstrate our collective commitment to fighting and defeating isil and how we sustain our core values is by engaging in this open and democratic debate. and i for one think we should stay and continue this debate until we have crafted an aumf that can succeed in being taken up and passed by the congress

and that we should have on the table in this debate and discussion another issue that hasn't yet been raised. i filed an amendment to the aumf for this debate and discussion today, a provision that would call for a plan for how the funds required for the conduct of our war against isil would be offset through reduced spending, increased revenue, or both. all of this debate, this discussion today about revigs to the aumf from 2002 or 2001 to geographic restrictions or time restrictions or the scope or the strategy are done in the context of a nation that is weary of 14 years of war in iraq and afghanistan and wary of not understanding at the outset the scope and the costs and the challenges in front of us. and i think all of us share a goal that we secure from the administration a clear strategy in what is a very difficult region where clear strategies are hard to come by, and that we have a sense of the scope and cost of the conflict which is

already under way and which i believe we should authorize. paying for our war against isil is not just fiscally but also i think morally responsible. it is not right to expect the men and women of our armed forces and their family, our veterans, to bear the full cost of war and have no discussion about how we will either raise the revenue or reduce the spending that will achieve an offset of those costs. s i'd like to say i'm grateful or the the chairman for including in the manager's amendment a provision that calls on the administration not just to present a military strategy but a fiscal strategy so that those of our constituents who question what is our path forward can have a full and informed insight into the strategy, the costs, the scope, and the duration of this. as we try to work together to achieve a broadly supported bipartisan aumf in this debate and in the debates to come. it is my hope we will also keep right in front of us how we will pay for that war.

>> senator rubio, then senator durbin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, i am grateful that we're having this discussion. it's an item of extraordinary magnitude not just because of national security implications but because of the power we would be -- we're authorizing the president to pursue, perhaps the most important power he has, and that is to commit men and women into combat pip think it's important at the outset to remember why we're in this to begin with. isil, despite the horrifying acts that they've committed and we've certainly been outraged by them, the reason why the nation is engaged in this conflict is because we have correctly surmised and concluded that left unchecked this group poses an unacceptable risk to the national security of the united states. this is perhaps the best armed and best funded terrorist organization in the history of the world who seeks not simply to carry out insurgencies and attacks but to control territory. and their aims are not simply limited to syria and iraq nape

seek to establish a caliphate that extend into places like lebanon and jordan and potentially -- and israel as we know today, obviously that would be a big fight, but that would be something they would endeavor to do. we already see them springing up in plays like north africa. we already see groups in southeast asia beginning to pledge allegiance to isil and their aims and goals. the point is that left unchecked, if we didn't get involved and if we're not involved this group will destabilize. many of our regional allies, and they would do so rapidly. i don't think i need to convince anyone on this committee how important our relationship is with jordan, what an important position jordan plays in the region. and what could very quickly happen to jordan had isil's progress that they were making through iraq gone unchecked. so we've concluded, and rightfully so, and the president's concluded that this group, left unchecked, poses an unacceptable risk to the national security of the united states and therefore they must be destroyed and defeated. that is the objective. senator johnson was talking about that a moment ago.

but when i read through this aumf and some of the amendments that are filed here, it strikes me that what we're saying if they're to be approved is we are committed to defeating isil but only if we can do it with air strikes alone. or we are committed to defeating isil but only if we can do it in three years or in some cases in a couple of the amendments in one year. we're committed to defeating them but only if they stay where they are right now or if they stay organized the way they are right now. i recognize that doesn't fully describe the manager's amendment and what the chairman has proposed. i'm also including some to have amendments that will appear before us today. and i just think what that basically says is unless we can beat them with only air strikes in three years and where they're currently located then isil gets to stay? and this to me sounds like an unacceptable position for us to take. by the way, i am not in favor -- i am not call farg ground war, although i do recognize ksh and we have ask ourselves this if we're being honest -- we all hope the ground forces currently there now, the iraqi army, the

militia, although some have big problems we should be concerned about as well, some of the rebel groups engaged, we would hope regional partners engage in this conduct. turkey is more impacted by this from a geographic perspective than the united states would be. we would hope they would get more involved. but if they do not, if the ground forces that are available today are unsuccessful, does that mean that isil gets to stay and continue to grow? that's an important question for us to answer. and if you want to take this to a level of absurdity, think about this. if we pass this proposal here today or any of the other amendments associated with it, what we would be saying is we're not allowed to use ground troops but you could use nuclear weapons? there's no prohibition against using nuclear weapons in this aumf or any of the other proposal, and i would imagine some would say amendments are in order, so perhaps someone will offer that. my point is this is a big problem for us because if we put forth something that basically says we are willing to fight isil but only up to a certain point after if which they get to

stay, potentially, i think we've created a big problem for ourselves in terms of putting together the kind of coalition we're going to need to success. my last point -- congress does play an important role in all of this, and here's the role we play. the role we play is in deciding whether or not we should go into war. but our role is not to decide how to go to war. our goal is to decide whether or not to go to war and to pay for it, to fund it. it is up to the commander in chief to carry out this war and the tactics associated therein. the truth is if he does a poor job doing, of course the united states would pay a price, but that's why we have elections and oversight. i think we've extended -- when we do this, i think this effort to micromanage the tactical pursuit of the objectives that we've laid out is a grave error. and i hope that we'll continue to work on this. i echo the sentiments of senator koonce and others that we would stay here as long as possible so we could come up with a document that empowers the commander in

chief of the united states to achieve the objective that we all agree is so critical. and that is the deg regags and ultimately the defeat of isil. thank you. >> let me turn to senator durbin. >> thanks, mr. chairman. this is my last mark-up for this committee for now. i hope someday to return. but i'm glad it's on an issue and subject of this historic moment. i can recall many sleepness nights as a congressman and senator contemplating decisions on war, knowing that at the end of the day my vote would result in the loss of life, even american life, fighting valiantly on our side. and i'm glad we're taking this seriously and we have good attendance to debate it. it is true the commander in chief has authority and we give valiantly on our side.

it to him or her, if the case may be, to protect our nation. there's never any question that a president needs to respond quickly to protect our borders, to protect our people, to protect our vital national interest. but the constitution goes on to say that when it comes to war congress, -- let me take that back. when it comes to war, the american people through congress will make that decision. it is a limitation on the power of the president. it is a limitation on the commander in chief. it is written in the constitution that we have all sworn to uphold and defend. by our nature we limit this commander in chief. that is who we are. and if we forsake that constitutional responsibility and say to a president it's yours, report to us how much it cost, i think we have walk aid way from a basic responsibility. we tie the hands of the commander in chief regularly when we exercise our constitutional responsibility.

i think about the cost of this war. there's one cost that has not been mentioned. beyond the cost of human life, 4,484 died in iraq. hundreds of thousands came home injured. a lesser number in afghanistan i think about the cost of this but still tragically high numbers. we need to show those people in the middle east once and for all just what america has to offer if you want to challenge us. look what happened. look what happened. after years of engagement there,

searching for weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist, after deposing a terrible dictator, we made another enemy, iran, even stronger. and as we left the country realized they couldn't maintain their own. we had to come back. this is not -- this debate is not, in my mind, about the current isil crisis. we all agree they're bloodthirsty, ruthless people, and they need to be stopped. but if you put it in the context of history and get to altitude and look down, this controversy started 35 years ago with the deposition of the sha of islam. that triggered extreme islam in our time, in our generation, and it has been unfolding ever since in countries, in stages, and it

will continue to. as the people of the islamic faith fight within their own ranks about true orthodoxy, as countries question whether or their first allegiance is to their view of guard or to a nationality, as they challenge boundaries written by colonial empires decades ago that p of them don't believe are valid, so as we engage now in this conversation about isil, today, trust me, i'm afraid 10 or 20 years from now another senate foreign relations committee will be viewing the latest chapter in this unfolding saga. i think the president is right in one key element, and i hope we'll give him credit. he has built a coalition. it is no longer the united states doing it alone. he has said i am going to engage the arab and muslim states. if you do not share our belief that there should be stability in your region and if you're not

prepared to sacrifice your lives and your treasure to achieve it, we cannot do it. the united states cannot do it alone, as we have shown. so i think it's important we have this debate. i would hope, and it probably won't be the case, that at the end of the day we will have a common view on what we should do here. i don't view a three-year deadline as the end of any commitment. i view it as the renewal of our responsibility to review what has occurred and under the constitution decide on behalf of the american people how we go forward. >> senator murphy, then senator caine. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i think there is much more unanimity than disagreement on this committee in the sense that i think senator rubio better than anybody and more succinctly put it to us what the threat is and why we are united today in a way that we frankly have not

been in some of our previous authorizations behind the idea that there is an absolute necessity, an imperative to authorize military action. our disagreement is over the wording of the authorization. i don't share the idea that we don't have enough information to make this decision. i think there's going to be disagreement with the strategy that the president has put forward and there's certain lay lot of dissatisfaction on this committee as to the specific witnesses that have been brought forth but in a variety of different forums i think, just personally, that i have enough information with which to make this decision. and i also don't want us to set up what is an impossible expectation, the idea that the president is ever going to be able to put forward a plan that gives any member of this committee 100% assurance that we have what it takes to defeat this enemy. why do we know that? because some very smart people with unlimited resources over

the past decade have been trying to root out sunni extremism in the very region we're talking about, and at the end of that period of time it's not better, it's worse than it ever has been before. it's very difficult to take on this enemy from thousands of miles away. and so i think all of us are going to ultimately not be satisfied with the plan and the strategy that's put before us because we can't ever have that level of assurance. i think that we're here for a number of reasons because we think this is important, but also because many of us, myself included, believe that the president today is operating outside of the bounds of the constitution. i believe that. i believe that the war powers authorization has expired and while i certainly understand that we could wait and come back and do this in january i think we'd be abdicating our responsibility as a congress, as this congress, to put constraints on a president that right now i believe doesn't have the authority under the constitution to launch this action. but as senator durbin so aptly said, our responsibility is not just simply to declare when we need to open hostilities.

our job is to learn from history and put parameters and restrictions around that authority when we think we have learned such lessons that it rises to the necessity of doing so. and i think there are two clear lessons over the last two years. one is that an open-ended authorization will never expire. we are going into the 15th year of the 2001 authorization being used today in a way that very few members of this committee or of this congress ever contemplated. and by putting a three-year expiration or a one-year expiration, we aren't saying that we're going to walk away from the conflict if it doesn't work during that period of time. we're just saying that we think there needs to be some forcing mechanisms to allow us to re-evaluate the policy if it isn't working. i think the patriot act is a

perfect example of how that has worked. and i think that we should learn some lessons from that when we're authorizing wars moving forward. we don't sign peace treaties any longer so, we don't have neat, tidy ends to these conflict so, we have to think about authorizations in a different way. second lesson is the massive deployment of ground forces in the middle east ends up creating more enemies than it ends up killing. that's an air-tight, take it to the bank lesson of the last ten years, and i think that's why i feel so strongly about putting this language in the underlying authorization. it serves as a crutch so that domestic governments don't need to undertake the political reforms that ultimately will be what roots out extremism like what we're seeing in syria and iraq and ultimately it provides bulletin board material for people to fight in an endless war against the united states. i think we've crafted a commonsense restriction that has plenty of allowances for the kind of insertion of temporary ground forces that may be necessary to protect american

personnel on the ground, conduct rescue missions, do counterterrorism activities. but i think that if we are doing our due diligence as a committee we need to accept that we have learned lessons over the last ten year, that we need to put into law when we contemplate an authorization of this force and effect. and so i thank the chairman for bringing this to a mark-up today. i appreciate all the great work that the ranking member has done. i assume this conversation will continue into next year. but i actually think what we've done, and i said this in our hearing the other day, has been a forcing mechanism to get members of this committee to really think about what we could support in an authorization moving forward, even if it doesn't get to the president's desk by the end of the year, i think that we have sped up our ability to work in a bipartisan way next year perhaps to pass an authorization that does live up to our constitutional responsibility. >> senator corcoran.

>> with that said, i mean, i think the tone of what the senator just mentioned, the fact is we all know that this is a process that will continue. i would like to understand the administration's concerns about the language. it seemed to me that same language offered by them and trying to understand why they have concerns about the associated forces language would be helpful. i mean, i don't know why we would want to vote on something and not understand what the issue is there. they obviously have concerns about the limiting components and i'd like to understand that even though i know the chairman's done a really good job of trying to state exclusions. but i hope we can do that. i think we will do that. and i think we ought to go ahead and vote and move on with this and know that this is something that will continue as we move into this next year. >> i appreciate that. i think there's only one or two more members who want to speak,

and considering the gravity of the issue i'm going to allow that to happen. senator caine. >> just briefly, chairman, and thank you for doing this, and to the chair and serving on this committee, you've led it ably. this is so necessary that we're doing this today. i speak for myself and for others and certainly speak for virginians. we're so connected to the military in my state, as you all are in your jurisdictions. it's necessary for us to do our job after four-plus months of basically a unilateral war. there's differences of opinion certainly between the executive and us, and some within this, many of us passionately believe there's no legal basis for the military action that's currently under way, that's led to the loss of u.s. lives, led to a billion dollars in expenditure and 1,100 air strikes and now nearly 3,000 advisors either on the ground or on their way to be on the ground in iraq. we need to do this to do our duty constitutionally, and we need to do it to support our

troops. i think of the troops there who will be missing their holidays with family as we are adjourning. we send them a message if we stand up and say this mission is worth it. but if we don't stand up and say this mission is in the national interest, we send them a message too. and i think the message that they get by congressional inaction on something like this is a powerful one and a debilitating one. we need to stand against isil as a committee and as a senate, and even if we can just do it as committee and start that process, i think that process is the message it sends to our troops. the treatment of the annual aumfs is important. this mark would repeal the iraq 2002, which the administration supports. they've testified to that here in may. and that would be important so that there aren't dueling iraq resolutions out there that would create ambiguity. second with senator carden's amendment as part of the chairman's mark amendments, it would put a three-year sunset in place where we could do exactly what the president asked the nation to do in may of 2013 in a speech to the national defense university, we need to be taking

the 2001 aumf and figure out how to refine and improve if i want three-year time provision gemts us into that discussion in a way that senator corker mentioned earlier. and i believe we will be able to find a revision. on the ground troop limitation, i know that some wonder if it's legal. i circulated a fairly extensive article reviewing the legality of such restrictions. they've been litigated up to the supreme court and the legality of such restrictions are clear because the framers took the whole power to declare away from the president prior to the constitution of the united states being formed, the declaration of war was executive. it was for the king, for the monarch, for the sultan, for the executive. we took it away uniquely, still to some uniquely in the world, and we put that power in congress, and limitations are fully in accord with the constitutional responsibilities we have. but there's another reason why the ground troop limitation is important, and i'll just it on

the table because we veal a process about this, first the president committed to the american public, looked them in the eye five or six times and said there will be no ground troops. when i asked senator kerry the other day has that policy changed, he gave one-word answer, which he doesn't often do. the answer was no, it hasn't changed. but importantly, i would encourage you to go read the speech that secretary robert gates who served six presidents gave at west point, his last speech as secretary of defense, gave a speech at west point and said the next time the secretary of defense suggests to a president that we put significant american troops into a land war in the middle east, africa, or asia, the president should ask the secretary of defense to see a psychiatrist. he's said similar things in his autobiography. no ground troop limitation is not just a limitation because it makes us feel a little better or because it's played well, it's a limitation that expresses the thought of very important people abou what ground troops do,

don't do, and in some instances can even harm us in the this region. so i encourage folks to read, that because i think the no ground troop limitation, which is a limitation, an authorization of the mission as the president described it, makes a great deal of sense strategically and militarily. i look forward to this vote, and i hope we might find the time to get a floor vote on this in some way. i thank the chairman for his indication we may look for such an opportunity. >> is there any other member who wishes to speak? yes. >> i was going to say, mr. chairman, i planned to offer an amendment today, but i will withdraw it. i just wanted to get some language out. listening to the secretary of state the day before yesterday it struck me when he was saying that i like the chance mark. it's kind of like saying i like the meal but not the entree. the central part of the chairman's mark is limitation on use of ground troops. i agree with everyone who says we really don't want to use ground troops there but to put

in an aumf that the congress decides a limitation there, fine for the president to say he can change his mind at any time if conditions warrant it, but to have it in an aumf i think is not the right way to go. i have proposed language that doesn't go there. it also i think takes into account where we are and where we should be. but i'll just have it for the record and withdraw my amendment. thank you. >> senator markey? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, mr. chairman and i thank the ranking member as well for helping to make it possible for us to debate this most important of all decisions which congress must make, which a country must make. and i want to thank you, senator paul, as well, for creating a dynamic by which we have begun this debate.

i want to thank senator cainer as well. i think this is a very important moment in congressional history. i want to thank each of you for helping to create this moment and this debate. i voted for the authorization for the use of military force in 2001. i voted for the authorization for the use of military force in 2002. i never envisioned, nor did the american people ever envision, that we would still be engaged in conflicts related to those two authorizations so long ago. we now have had 2.5 million americans serve in iraq and afghanistan. 400,000 of them have served on three or more tours of duty in

those two countries. 6,600 of them have died in those conflicts. 670,000 of them have now been actually classified as disabled. 270,000 of them are now, in fact, being treated for posttraumatic stress disorder. this is an important debate. this war -- these two authorizations have now triggered a cost of at least $6 trillion to the united states of america. $6 trillion. $1 trillion in medical care for those who served. the total federal debt is $18 trillion, $6 trillion authorized in 2001 and 2002. and we did not raise taxes, by the way, for those two

authorizations of the use of military force. this is our greatest responsibility. this is what the american people expect their elected officials to do, to ask the tough questions, to try to look over the horizon. so this debate which we're having is historic, and it's just beginning. and it's about time. it's about time. i cast 22,000 votes in the house of representatives, the 11th largest number of 17,000 members of congress in history. but those two votes in 2001 and 2002 are amongst the five most important i cast in 22,000. and everyone here will know that when they've looked back at all the votes they've cast as well. you bear the responsibility for what happened.

so, yes, we have authorize this conflict, but we also have to put the limitations on it as well and revisit these decisions. so we have to decide if we want combat troops on the ground, we should say so. we should decide how long this authorization is going to go. we should decide whether or not, in fact, we should be operating under a 12-year-old authorization authorization which is where we are right now nap's for us to decide. what i heard from the administration actually in testifying was they're willing to accept reasonable limitations, and we should work with them to reach that goal. but we should not pass up our historic responsibility. this is our moment on this

committee in order to make these decisions. and i thank you, mr. chairman, for having this hearing and for forcing this debate. because i think we'll look back at this as a very important moment. and i yield back. >> any other members? if there are none, then let me just say as we go to a vote on the -- on the managers amendment, and i appreciate the intellectual and thorough and heartfelt discussion on all sides. i, too, voted for one authorization, 2001. it was the right one. support president bush, it was bin laden, al qaeda, and the afghan-pakistan border. those were the ones who took 3,000 american lives, including 700 new jersians. i'd be willing to send my son and daughter, which means i'll vote to send anybody else's, but

in 2002, i didn't vote for the iraq one because i felt that there was -- i spent the time looking at the evidence. there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, no clear and present danger, no imminent threat to the united states, and i think it was one of the worst blunders ever done, although i respect the men and women who served who answer the call without asking is this the right or wrong engagement. so i've learned from both of them. but i never expected 2001 to still be alive today, to take us to so many different countries and so many different iterations. i would simply say to my friends that to look at the three-year limitation and suggest we're only going to fight isil for three years, we're going to have an accounting, and then we're going to figure out if we haven't defeated isil, we're going to go back to it and figure out what else do we need to do that we didn't do number one. number two, the president of iraq has said he will not permit troops, foreign troops on his ground.

so unless we are going to invade against the will of a country, i think that's -- the iraqi prime minister, not the president. the prime minister said that, and unless we're going to go ahead and invade in opposition to a sovereign country who in this case is taking the fight themselves, which is a whole other complicating factor. thirdly, i do envision boots on the ground, but they're just not american boots. they're iraqi boots, they're kurdish boots, modern syrian forces boots and maybe other allies who will put boots on the ground with the engagement of and cooperation of those countries in which the fight presently takes place. and finally, i know some people have referenced on both sides of the aisle that we -- that we tie the hands of the commander in chief, that that is actually envisioned by the founders. my view, we create checks and balances on the commander in chief as is envisioned by the

founders. so with that, the omnibus, the manager's amendment is before us. since no other member is wishing to speak, i would say that all in favor will say aye. aye. opposed, no. the ayes have it. >> let's have a vote. >> that's fine. the clerk will call the roll. >> yes. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> rubio? >> no.

>> johnson? >> no. >> no by proxy on mccain. >> mr. barrasso? >> no by proxy. >> yes. >> mr. chairman? >> yes. >> 11 ayes, no's are 7. >> are there any other amendments? senator udall, i understand you have an amendment? >> yes, i do. let me call up the one. i think the one that deals with the limitation, the

authorization that we've just passed or the manager's amendment has a three-year limitation. and this amendment that i'm merging is we go to one year. but let me, since i didn't give a statement on the manager's amendment, let me say a couple of things. first of all, i want to thank chairman menendez and ranking member corker. i think you've helped us push this a long way to get consensus. and at this point it's looking like some bipartisan consensus on many of these issues. i really appreciate the tone and the civility of the debate. i think that's something that's very important to the foreign relations committee to see that kind of interaction. and so i think that the leadership you have helped set that tone, and i appreciate that. i also very much agree with

senator markey that senator kane and senator paul deserve credit for pushing the issue. feeling strongly it had to happen. chairman felt that also. but you've brought us to this point that we're debating it.

resolution, the brutality of this group and the threat that they comprise. but i believe it's our responsibility as a congress to exercise real oversight, to try to do everything we can to make sure there aren't unintended consequences. and this doesn't morph into some situation that none of us could imagine. and that's the way i feel. i was there with bob menendez in the house when i voted for the 2001 resolution. and i can't believe today that we are where we are and believe that what we passed then we concede this was going to be utilized to get us into conflicts years and years later. and so i'm also supportive of an amendment and supportive of the manager's amendment that tries to put a limit on that 2001 authorization and do it in a

short period of time. but the issue here for me, this isn't about, and i know you know it's going to come back, people are going to say, oh, well, this is tying the hands. this is -- this is preventing our ability to achieve victory. it isn't about any of that. this is about congress staying involved in this. and if there's any lesson that i've seen in these wars in iraq and afghanistan is if congress had stepped in earlier, if we had had some kind of limits, if we'd had us revisit the issue because there was a time line, we would've ended them a lot earlier. because the american people would want them to be ended. so that's -- that's the position on this. it may not -- it may not prevail. but i really believe that we should be doing our job when it comes to war and peace and we should revisit this. and so with that, that's my statement.

thank you. >> mr. chairman. >> senator? >> i would like to make it known for the record and be listed as a co-sponsor for this amendment. >> without objection. >> the thing is that when we look at whether or not we should limit this, many on the other side say you're planning on the war lasting one year. no, i'm planning on reasserting congress' authority to review how long this war lasts in one year. this isn't a limitation of one year. this is limitation of the authorization and we'll debate it again in one year. and that's very important. the reason it's important is because the wars, frankly, have gone on and on and on. some say de-fund it. you know what the argument is about de-funding a war. well, you're going to take away money from the troops in the field? it's very, very difficult even for those opposed to war to cut off funds because people will say you're cutting off funds for people in harm's way. it's almost impossible, you know, to de-fund a war. so our only ability to reassess and reevaluate is to time limit

the authorization. i wholeheartedly support this amendment. i have a great deal of respect for senator udall. to assure there'd be oversight of the congress and the executive branch, particularly in the conduct of a war. but i'm not comfortable with the one-year authorization simply because the president, secretary of state, and others have said that this is going to be a multiple year conflict. as such, we try to bridge the divide between a multiple year conflict and having an open-ended authorization. and to do it in a way that allows this president to prosecute and allows the next president whoever that person may be to still have time to come to the conclusion, that doesn't mean we should sit back during those three years and not

have the most vigorous oversight that is possible during the course of those years. also, we have now hooked the 2001 authorization to expire in three years. so it coincides in that regard in what i think is an appropriate period of time. i respect the senator's desire, but i cannot support it at this time. with that, unless there's any other member who wishes to speak, does the senator want a roll call vote or does he accept the voice vote? clerk will call the vote. >> yeah. >> no. >> no. >> mr. durbin? >> aye. >> mr. udall? >> aye. >> mr. murphy? >> aye. >> mr. kane? >> no.

>> mr. markey? >> aye. >> mr. corker? >> no. >> mr. rubio? >> no. >> mr. johnson? >> no. >> mr. mccain? mr. barrasso? >> no. >> yes. >> mr. chairman? >> recorded as a yes. >> any other amendments?

>> yes, this is paul amendment number three. this amendment would set geographic limits on this aumf. it reads, nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed as authorizing the use of force against the islamic state outside of the geographic boundaries of iraq and syria, and no action may be taken outside such area without congressional authorization. now, many have made the argument that we've added too many limitations. there should be no limitations, and they've argued historically that we haven't done this. the national security network looked back at all of the uses of authorization of force since the beginning of the republic, and they found that 60% of those actually did have a geographic limitation on them. some would say, well, you know, we just don't need this. it's too confining. the problem is when you look

back at 2001, we are now using it to mean anything. the words have become meaningless, the authorization has become so blanket that we are now authorizing a new war in the administration maintains that a war resolution has something to do with isil. i think that's absurd on the face and almost embarrassing that anyone even makes that argument. i don't believe an objective observer would say that the vote in 200remotely has anything to do with what we're doing now. i do think we do need to militarily respond. but i think in a way that limits the president's actions in order to have congressional oversight. the original use of force resolution in 2001 was 60 words. and doesn't mention who we were going to fight. eventually interpreted to mean al qaeda and associated forces. but here's the ing about the associated forces in the imprecision of that target.

the current administration will not tell you who the associated forces are from 2001. it's either classified or i believe they won't even define who the associated forces are. we have that in this resolution also. we have associated forces. who are associated forces? we define them as successor organizations. and to me, it's loose enough to really encompass anybody in the world that sort of has allegiance with this group. so for example, the group called terrorism analysis research consortium. and you made allusion to this two days ago, they now list 60 jihadist groups in allegiance with isis or the islamic state in 30 different countries. so realize that language is important, words are important, and there's a tendency for executives from both parties to

abuse this wording and to make it mean anything they want. so i understand and i sympathize greatly with the resolution being forward and having limitations on it. i just simply fear that the limitations won't be enough, that executives will abuse this, even with its limitations, beyond the scope of this. i asked secretary kerry this question the other day because after senator udall made the question. i was like, oh, my goodness, he mentioned four countries, we looked now and found 60 groups in 30 countries. listen to the list. and realize that there will be executives, maybe from this party or from the other party, who will interpret it to apply to other countries. jordan, saudi arabia, pakistan, egypt, gaza, libya, lebanon, morocco, tunisia, kurdistan, uzbekistan, indonesia, the philippines.

we have to be careful with the language here, and that's why i think there should be a geographic limit. if you're imprecise with your target, and i think you are being imprecise by allowing associated forces -- something that hasn't been used in any legislation before. it's been interpreted from the 2001. but 2001 did not list associated forces. so i would prefer we strike associated forces and that would make your need for a geographic limit better. i think with an imprecise target with associated forces, you ought to have a geographic limit. this would limit it. people say what if they go to another country. what if they're in isis in six months? let's vote again. if they're in jordan, i'll vote to defend jordan. they're a great ally of ours. if they invade israel, i'll defend israel, as well. let's limit where we're going and not have a worldwide war. currently, it's a disaster in libya. there's a civil war going on with a significant portion of

those involved in the civil war having declared allegiance to the islamic state and the caliphate. we have to be careful. i know you think you're doing the right thing, but i'm very worried this will be open-ended enough that we could be involved in war in 30 countries. now, the secretary's response to this was, well, you're not reading all of the limitations we've set upon ourselves. well, yeah, that's great. i'm glad they've set limitations, but the limitations have to come from a co-equal branch or they're not of any value. the president when he was first running for office was very clear on his position on war. he said no president should unilaterally go to war without the authority of congress. but his position has changed on this. and i would be saying exactly the same thing if this were a republican executive. i'm very bipartisan in my belief of limitation, whether it's a republican or a democrat. but i would respectfully put this forward and say that we should have a geographic limitation if we truly want to limit the scope and impact of

this use of force resolution. thank you. >> mr. chairman? >> senator boxer. >> thank you so much. i so appreciate senator paul's leadership on this whole thing, but i do part ways with you, senator, on this one. here's why. words are important, but so is taking the fight to isil. and this is a group without a country. they're trying to start one. and we don't know where they're going to show up. and you know, if you look at world war ii, if you had restricted what we do against the japanese, we couldn't have gone to the philippines. if you restricted where we'd fight the nazis, you know, we couldn't have gone to other european countries. i just think that it isn't wise. and i could envision a situation where the king of jordan is in desperate situation and he calls upon us because isil's about to do something, they have the intelligence, and they want our allies to conduct some air strikes. i can envision that happening.

so i really hope that we can not go this route because this is a very different -- this is a group without a country trying to get one, we don't know where they show up. and if we're going after them, we've got to take the fight to them and not to some mythical two places because they could show up in these other places. and so i just hope that we would not go along with this restriction. >> any other senators? >> well, if i could make a quick response to that, it wouldn't be so important to make the geographic limitations if your target definition was more precise. so i'm not opposed to taking the war to isis where they are. if they're going across borders here and there, you wouldn't be limited. but because you've allowed your definition to be successor groups and associated forces, there are now 60 associated forces in 30 different countries.

so you are authorizing the executive and giving the executive power to be at war in 30 different countries, currently. not prospectively, but currently there are 30 different countries that have groups in alliance. >> senator, let me respond, and i hear you very well -- and that's why i voted for the one year so that we can revisit this. i'm with you on that, we really should. but what if tomorrow isil changed its name. if you're confining this to just isil, now we don't know what to call them. are they dash? are they isis? isil? i.s.? so we have to be careful here. that we don't restrain too much so we can go where they are. >> senator rubio? >> thank you. i'm going to -- there's another amendment i think has to do with the associated forces. and i think senator paul's argument is if we did that one, this one would not be as necessary or is it vice versa? either way, i think they're associated with each other. i wanted to take them and block and talk about it.

to limit it geographically would be a terrible mistake. if we're serious about achieving the objective of this undertaking. this is a group that has clear territorial aims by their very definition. they're not a group saying we want to take over syria and iraq. this is a group that says we want to establish the pre-eminent caliphate. from spain into the middle east and asia, and they say so openly. let me give you one real world example we've already seen develop. they're not just in libya. they control an entire province in libya. and unlike iraq or syria, they have no one to fight there. there is no government to push back against them. they're already implementing a court system. they're already implementing their laws and enforcing them. they're implementing basically the outlines of a real government in an entire province in libya where they're completely unchallenged. it's not outside the realm of the possible that in short order and faster than the ability of this committee to come back

together, have a debate, bring a vote, take it to the floor, have it pass out of somewhere else, as well. it is quite possible they could shift many of their operations to a safe haven such of that. especially we've identified safe havens in writing in law. which is the biggest concern that we should have. this is a situation that has the potential to develop much faster than any language we could craft to deal with it. the second problem we have with it is success in this endeavor and everybody in this committee i would hope everyone agrees with this. will require us to put together a coalition. a coalition that involves other interested parties, other nations, etc. in order to put together such a coalition, we have to exhibit seriousness and commitment on the part of the united states. and to put forth something that says we are willing to fight isil but we're not willing to do it here, there, or the other place i think imperils that effort as well. i understand some of the examples that senator paul has given -- 30 countries, 30

groups. but i think in -- if we look at this from a realistic point of view, that's not what the president is going to do. that's not what's going to happen here. but i do think it is important that he has the authority to target isil wherever they emerge as a threat to the united states or to our national security interests. >> let me go back and forth, senator udall. >> thank you, and i would ask to be joined as a co-sponsor on the paul amendment. >> without objection. >> i think the issue, senator rubio, in terms of libya and having a province being controlled by isil -- if they decide to attack the united states, the president has article two authority. so we don't need to deal with every one of these situations,

but i think it's -- it's looking at the countries in the region that are beyond the area that isil controls right now. we should be very careful in terms of agreeing to any president going to war in some of those areas. and that's once again, i'm back to limitations, congress doing its job, pulling in and saying if we're going to expand this war farther than the territory it is right now, we need to -- we need to be involved in that decision. >> so you'll be joining the amendment? >> yep. >> do you want to -- >> i want to address. it's a really important point its job, pulling in and saying you talked about. if libya's used as a staging ground for the attack. here's the problem -- that isn't necessarily how this works. a perfect example is how they use syria to stage attacks in iraq. it's not just staging it from there. what they look for is a safe haven to establish a command and control operation center. a place where they now know that

they're not going to have to interact with government forces that will push against them, where they're not at risk of being hit overhead by the united states or someone else. they are actively looking for a safe haven where they can conduct, command, and control, raise money, where they could establish the elements of the state. part of the strategy and you're starting to see them develop it, now they're saying they're going to print money or mint coins. they want to establish themselves as a state. people take them seriously as some sort of state. to do that, they've got to be able to show a resemblance of a government and government organization. they're actively looking for a safe haven where they could establish that. they may not launch attacks directly from libya, tunisia, or some other part of the world, but it could be the command and control center that gives legitimacy to the cause. and we cannot allow that to be off limits to the commander in chief and our efforts to defeat them. that's my point.

>> i would argue that's a conflict. the bombing in libya has implications that are different ones we've been debating in the context of a fight inside iraq and inside syria. it may be worth while. but it should involve this committee coming back and relitigating what that means for american national security going forward. so given the fact that we are talking about very different conflicts with potentially very different implications for the states, i'm in support of this amendment because i think we have the ability to come back make a different decision. to for score senator udall's this, nothing this amendment abrogates the president's articles of authority. an imminent threat