and the rest. we may differ on how to go about and take the fight to them. and this is a day i have been looking forward to. i am one who believes the president does have the authority under the aumf i voted for. that does not speak for most democrats. but i still believe we need to update that. so i am grateful to my chairman. this took a lot of guts on his part because this is really in many ways a standoff not only within the parties in the committee, which is understandable given our differing views, but also with the administration who i think we could all admit with senator kerry i didn't sense that he was thrilled with we were going forward. so mr. chairman you are just standing up for the rights and the prerogatives of members of the united states senate and the congress. soy appreciate it.

i am strongly supporting your mark for two reason one congress can cannot sit back and take no steps against this evil as isil that is a threat to all of hue manty. when it comes to human rights abuses they are in a class of their own. and we cannot sit back and not speak out against them. and the second reason, after years of a wake that -- war in iraq which i believe was based in false pretense that i believe maimed the best and brightest. i want to be strong that i draw a line in the sand against another war. basically this amuf codifies the president's strategies put together. i know senator corker doesn't like that strategy. but i find it to be that's an understatement. i find it to be something that i can embrace. and let me tell you why

specifically. we have 60 countries on our side. we have the u.k., australia, france, germany, canada, to name a few of our allies. but we also have saudi arabia, qatar, bahrain, uae, jordan, and that's just a few of the 60 countries. and if you read the president's comments, which i will at this point "going forward we won't hesitate to take action against these trerts but this is not america's fight alone. i won't commit our troops to fighting another ground war in iraq or syria. it is more effective to use our capabilityst to help partners on the ground secure their own countries' futures. we will use our air power, we will train and equip our partners. we will advise and we will assist and we will lead a broad coalition of nation who have a stake in this fight. this isn't america versus isil. this is the people of that

region versus isil. it is the world versus isil. now, i thoroughly agree with that. if there are folks who think we ought to put our troops on the ground in another ground war so be it. speak out now. offer an amendment. that is your right and i respect it. but i strongly disagree with it. and i think you have mr. chairman in 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. and i am very happy that we are doing it. very last point. our ranking member soon to be chairman said this is going nowhere. why are we doing this? i think the chairman answered it. but that's what people said when we worked together in a bipartisan way on this syria air strike. people said why are you doing it? it's 6:00 in the morning. why are you meeting why are you doing it. at the end of the day we had an impact on the ground. and syria got rid of its chemical weapons.

so i think what we do here matters. so i want to send that signal today. we take the fight to isil and we don't use our ground troops to do it. >> now, we have a vote going on but i think there's still time for at least one more member to speak. and then i would recess, have the one vote, come back and then finish the rest of our work. s there anyone else? any other members? senator carden. and then we'll recess, i will recognize senator coons and any other member who wishes to speak when we return. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to underscore how proud i am to be a member of this committee under senator menendez and senator corker. this committee has operated in the best conditions of the senate relations committee in the united states senate and i think we're a stronger nation as a result of it. i thank both of you 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 that they need. so i look at this resolution as carrying out the appropriate oversight responsibility that we have. one of you mentioned vietnam and the expanded u.s. involvement in the war. i think this resolution helps prevent that because 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 any extremist. and 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 consistent with the president's military operations , the international coalition's needs and understanding of the u.s. military involvement.

it makes it clear there's no ground combat troops and 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 how the war is being cost and paid for. and it requires also the reports on the international partners and provides for a three-ee sun set unless reauthorizeded. -- three-year. i heard him talk about the repeal sunset. the bill does repeal the 2002. longer agree that's no needed. in regard to the 2001, let me state the obvious. those of us who were in congress in 2001 never envisioned that that authorization would still be utilized today the way it was

utilized in 30 separate military operations. we were interested in going after those who attacked our country on september 11th. 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 the 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 i dare 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 the terrorists in this country. we all acknowledge that we are going to need tools against terrorists including our military operations. but we should refine it to meet the current needs. that's our responsibilities as congress. and that's why a three-year period for refining the isil campaign militarily as well as our war against terrorists is not om appropriate i think it is required. and i'm pleased that 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 use our military against those nations organizations or persons the president derments planned authorized committed or aided terrorist attacks that occurred on september 11, 2001 -- in other words, against al qaeda -- and is using it now against isil even though al qaeda said it is not a branch of al qaeda we have no organization with it and the brupe is not responsible for its actions. now, i will point out it is a stretch. we have a responsibility to clarify that as part of congress. now, yes, the administration is not altogether where we are on this resolution. they would like to have broader authority. secretary kerry talks about

unpredictable circumstances and wants to make sure that they have maximum flexibility. are we surprised? president nixon vetoed the war powers act. congress overrode that veto because it's our responsibility to speak with specifics. the president has article 2 powers. the president has the right to come back to congress if he needs additional authorization. i dare say we will respond promptly to any such request. so i believe this is in the best traditions of what the responsibility we have not only toforce but to oversight that authorization. that's our responsibility. and for those who believe the purse strings are adequate to deal with that, it's not. we all know that. it is this committee's responsibility. the senate foreign relation's

responsibility to recommend to the full senate what the appropriate authorization should be on the use of military force. i think what the chairman has brought forward carries that out in the best tradition giving president obama an future presidents the authorization to use our military with the restricted and to have oversight so we make sure it's used consistent with the congressional authorization. >> if i could say one thing. i know we're going to leave and go vote. i just -- and i realingize that 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. i think everybody understands there's no difference there. i think the concern is that 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 who spend hours and hours and hours in intelligence briefings that has yet heard the administration come forth with anything that's plausible. so to me that's the problem. we're rushing to make something legal for those who think it's illegal. we're rushing to make something legal as if that makes us relevant. but 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. so mr. chairman, i thank you. i appreciate it. >> let me say on that note and then we're going to recess. my intention is to go directly to the floor vote, one vote, and come back. so i would urge all members to come back who want to be present and make comments and offer amendments. we've had now two hearings by the secretary of state. we had in intelligence hearing that included members of the

department of defense and as well as the person in charge of our coalition. and in addition to that the armed services committee has held hearings of which i have looked at its transcripts since i am not a member of that committee, although there are several members here who are members of that committee and have been informed of the information that it 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 stands in recess subject to the call of the chair.

>> the committee will come back to order. when i last left, i think senator coons had asked for recognition and i am sure he is on his way back. in the interim is there any other member who wishes recognition on the manager's package? senator shaheen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would just like to respond to senator corker. but before i do, let me add my appreciation to both you as chair and senator corker as ranking member for the way you've led this committee and for the inclusiveness with

which you have treated all of the members. i have very much appreciated that. and your working together and your encouraging of all of our working together i think has been very helpful. so thank you very much for that. what i wanted to say, though, in response to your comments, senator corker, is they guess 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 like -- and i do serve on the armed services committee so i may have had a few more classified briefings in other hearings that other members of this committee but i do feel that we've heard a strategy and as i said we may not all agree on that strategy but i do think ere is one in place and so this is for me this authorization is not about trying to address that strategy. it's about trying to make sure that we do exercise our rights

of oversight and that in particular for me i think it's limit nt to weigh in and the ability without coming back to congress to put tens of thousands of troops on the ground to fight isil. so i very much appreciate the opportunity and the debate that we're having right now. >> mr. chairman. >> senator corker. >> if i could. i understand there's a difference of feelings there. just for what it's worth. i think we have a pretty good sense of some of the sensibilities that people are trying to express in this aumf that are going to vote for it. i also think the administration may have a pretty good sense of a way to brinl that and so 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 really don't have a way to deal with the ground at present. i would like to understand more fully how we're going to go about doing that. but just know that as we take this up this is one step in the process and i hope that together we are going to figure out away to bridge the differences in such a way that people can come together in an authorization that we feel good about and that we can try to pass in both the house and the senate. >> i appreciate that. >> senator johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a number of things i would like to talk about but let me say at the heart of my opposition to this particular authorization to use military force is that i don't believe it really commits us to victory. i don't think -- and i don't think i would ever vote for an authorization for use of military force -- in other words, put the finest among us at risk of their lives -- if we as a congress, if the commander in chief isn't fully committed

to vict rifment an example that has always weighed in my mind is when president obama announced his surge in afghanistan and in the same speech said he is going to withdraw in two years. that really provides some comfort to our enemies. and in our testimony in senator kerry's testimony i asked him the question does the president really believe that we can defeat isis in three years? no. why would we want to put that restriction? why would we authorize the use when we are not fully committed to victory? i just think that's the wrong thing to do. another deficiency is we're really not defining what defeat is. which i would argue is -- what is the end goal? what is the achieveable goal we're trying to achieve? as i look through the authorization, about the only goal i see stated in here is to counter the grave threat to regional stability. that's not the same as

degrading and ultimately defeating isis. i would say that is -- that was a deficiency of the 2001 authorization. we authorize the use of military force but we did leave it pretty open-ended. and i agree with those individuals who certainly have a question as to whether or not that current authorization really is applicable in this situation. now, the way we handled it in world war ii -- and i think we should look back to the past history, again, totally different circumstances, a nation state. but there actually was a stated goal. it was to bring the conflict to a successful termination. now, it didn't necessarily define that but back then people pretty understood what that was, unconditional surrender. now we have a totally different circumstance. so i don't think we have to say too much more other than to thank the chairman for holding this. i think this was a very good discussion. i think it is a necessary discussion. we're not going to bring this

to conclusion but this is a good first step. and as we open -- reopen the discussion, reopen the debate next year, i am really going to encourage my colleagues here to go -- if you're going to have a strategy, there's really a process to going through to developing one. you have to first recognize reality. 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 a couple statements here real quick. the witnesses said that isis is gaining strength. they're worst than ever. bombing is not doing much. we're having very inefisketive aid efforts. the military mission is not sufficient. isis will be around for the foreseeable future. now, that is a 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 reafment then you have to set yourself an achieveable goal. people need to understand what is the goal. again, president obama has laid it out degrade and ultimately defeat isis but we haven't really described what defeat looks like. and i would argue that then limiting action -- first of all not particularly wise. i don't know why you would ever signal to your enemy what you will and will not do to defeat them. but you're limiting that activity. so again, i would really urge as we continue our discussion in the next congress let's understand reality which is going to require hearings. it's going to require the participation of this administration. let's understand what the achieveable goal is. let's understand what it is 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 is