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 going to be charged with

that awesome responsibility of commiting 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. i think that's the way to proceed in this. but again, i appreciate this hearing and i appreciate the thoughtful discussion and debate. >> thank you, senator. before i recognize senator coons let me just say, we are committed to victory. we are collectively committed to a victory to defeat isil. and we say that in the second age of the aumf in the fifth whereas. it is the policy of the united states to work with regional and global allies and partners to degrade and defeat isil. and 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 in divide. 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 that autization 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 autsdization and congressional buy-in would do that. so i don't see the three years as saying we're only going to fight you in three years. it means in three years we're going to have defeated you or we're going to recalculate to do whatever is necessary to defeat you. so i think there are different ways of looking at that three year. senator coons.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to all the members for your engagement 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 through increased revenue or both. all of this debate, this discussion today about revisions to the aumf from 2002

to 2001 to geographic restrictions or time restrictions or the scope or the strategy are done in the context of a nation that the weary of 14 years of war in iraq and afghanistan ard wary of not understanding at the outset the scope and the cost 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 morley responsibly. tt not right to expect the men and women and their families our veterans to bear the full cost of war and have no discussion about how we will raise the revenue or reduce the spending that will achieve the jaust set of those costs. so -- offset of those costs so i am grateful the chairman

including in the manager's amendment a call for the president to present how they're going to have a strategy. so that way we 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. >> first i am grateful that we are having this discussion. this is a matter of extraordinary magnitude not just because of the national security implications but because of the power that we would be giving for authorizing the president to pursue which is perhaps the most important power he has which is to commit men and women into combat. i 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 some miesed 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. they seek to establish a cal fate that extends 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 places like north africa. we already see groups in southeast asia beginning to pledge allegiance. if left unchecked 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 to iraq gone unchecked. so we had concluded and rightfully so and the president has conclude that had this group left unchecked poses an unacceptable risk to the president of the united states and therefore they must be destroyed and defeated. that is the objective. mr. johnson was talking about that a moment ago. but when i read through this and some of the amendments it strikes me what we're saying if they were to be ap proved 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 are committed to defeating them but only if they stay right now or if they stay organized the way they are right now. and i recognize that doesn't fully describe the manager's amendment and what the chairman

is proposed. i am also including some of the amendments that would appear before us today. i 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 that to me sounds like an unacceptable position for us to take. by the way,. ot calling for a ground war. i do recognize we all hope that the ground forces currently there now the iraqi army, the militias, although some of them have big problems that we should be concerned about as well, some of the rebel groups that are engaged. we would hope that region yol partners engage in this conflict. turkey is more quickly impacted by a geographic perspective than the united states. 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 amendments associated with it what we would be saying is we're not allowed to use ground troops but you can use nuclear weapons? there's no prohibition against that in this or any other proposals and i guess someone would say amendments are in order. but this is a big problem for us. because if we put forward something that basically says we are willing to fight isil but only to a certain point i think we've created a big problem for ourselves in terms of putting together a coalition that we need to succeed. here's the role we play. the role we play isn't 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 the this war and the attacks associated

therein. and the truth is if he does a poor job the united states would pay a price but that's why we have elections and oversight. so i think we've extended this effort to micromanage the tactical pursuit of the objective that is we've laid out is a grave error and i hope that we will continue to work on this. i echo the sentiments of senator coons and others that we will stay here as long as possible so that we can 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 degreegation and ultimately the defeat of isil. thank you. >> let me turn to senator durbin. >> thanks, mr. chairman. this is my last markup on this committee at least for now i hope some day to return but i'm glad it's on an issue and subject of this historic moment. i can recall many sleepless 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 am 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 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 interests. 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 foresake that constitutional responsibility and say to a president it's yours, report to us how much it costs, i think we have walked away 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 but still tragically high numbers, we will pay for those two wars for a long long time. and we should. we promised those men and women we would stand by them. so when it comes to cost of war i know we're all sensitive to that. but i think about it and i think that's why we need to sit here and make this an important

and relevant debate. there was a moment after 9/11 when someone in the white house under another president said the most important thing we can do now is to invade iraq. 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 realize 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 blood thirstty, 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 conflict started 35 years ago in my mind, with the depp position of the shaw of iran. that triggered extreme islam in our time. in our generation. and it has been unfolding ever since in countries and 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 not their first allegiance is to their view of god or to a nationality, as they challenge boundaries written by colonial empires decades ago that many of them don't believe are valid, so as we engage now in this conversation about isil today trust me i'm afraid ten 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'm 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 is important we have this debate. i would hope and 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 to decide on behalf of the american people

how we go forward. >> senator murphy. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. i think there is much more unanimity than disagreement. in the sense that i think senator rubio than anybody more succinctly put 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 is going to be disagreement with the strategy that the president has put forward and there certainly a lot of dissatisfaction on this committee as to the specific witnesses that have been brought forward but in a variety of different forums i

think just personally that i have enough information with which to make this desifplgtse and i -- decision. and i also don't want to set up 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 very smart people with unlimited resources over the past decade have been trying to root out extremism and at the end of the 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 outsides the bounds of the constitution. i believe that.

i believe that the war powers authorization has expired. and while i certainly understand and we could wait and come back and do this in january i think we would be abdicating our responsibility as a congress, 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's 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 just think there needs to be some forcing mechanisms to allow us to reevaluate the pollsy if it isn't working. the patriot act is a per fkt example. and i think that we should learn some lessons when we are authorizing wars moving forward. we don't sign peace treaties any longer so we don't have neat tidy ends to this conflict. so we have to think about authorizations in a different way. but i think the second lesson is that the massive deployment of ground forces ends up creating more enemies that it ends killing. i think that's an air tight take it to the bank lesson over the last ten years and ink that's why i feel so -- i think that's why i feel so strongly about putting this language in the underlying autsization. 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 material for people to fight an endless war against the united states. i think we've craft add common sense 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 counter terrorism 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 10 years that we need to put into law when we contemplate an authorization of this force and effect. so i thank the chairman for bringing this to a markup 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 today -- 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 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 corker. >> with that said, 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 seems to me that seeing language offered by them and trying to understand why they have concerns about the associated forces language 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 scommonents. i would like to understand that even though i know the chairman has 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 members who want to speak and considering the gravity of the issue i'm going to allow that to happen. senator kaine. >> just briefly mr. chairman and thank you for doing this. it has been a huge honor and you've led it abley. this is so necessary that we're doing this today. i speak for myself and i speak for other and i certainly speak for virginians. we're so connected to the military in my state as you all are in your jurisdiction. it is 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 but many believe there's no legal basis for the military action that's currently under way that's led to loss of u.s. lives, that's led to $1 billion in expeppedtur and 1100 air strikes and now nearly 3,000 advisers either on the ground or on their way to be in iraq. we need to do this to do it constitutionally and support our troops. i think of the troops who will be there who will be missing their holidays with families 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. 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 snat, even if we can just do it as a committee and start that process i think that is salutory and the message it sends to our troops. two message are the treatment is the earlier aumf is

important. this would repeal the iraq 2002 authorization which the administration supports. they testified to that here in may and that is important so there aren't dueling iraq missions out there that would create ambiguity. and second, 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 we need to be taking the 2001 an umf and refine and improve it. the three-year time provision gets ut us into that discussion in a way that senator corker mentioned earlier. and i believe we will be able to refine and revision. on the ground troop. i think some wonder if it's illegal. i reviewed an article reviewing the legality. 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 for the king, the monarch, to the sultan. for the executive. we took it away 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 porn and i will put it on the table because -- important and i will put it on the table. first the president committed to the american public. he looked them in the eye five or six times and said there will be no ground troops. when i asked secretary kerry the other day has that policy changed he gave a one-word answer which he 45rdly does he said no that hasn't changed. but importantly i would encourage you to read the speech that secretary robert gates gave at west point his last speech as secretary of defense. the next time a secretary of defense suggests to a president that we put significant

american ground troops into a land war in the middle east africa or asia the president should ask the secretary of defense to go see a psychiatrist. he has said similar things in his auto biography. the no ground troop limitation is not just a limitation because it makes us feel better or limitation because it polls well. it's a limitation that expresses the thought of very important people about what ground troops do, don't do, and in some instances can even harm us in this region. so i would encourage folks to read that because i think the no ground troop limitation, which is 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 mite 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 cain, 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 member 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 overwhelming under a 12-year-old authorization 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 reference 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 managers 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. and the big question is what we're going to do now. and i -- i think we should pass this out of the foreign relations committee, but i think

this is so important that the senate ought to speak on this. i think we ought to stay. we're in here as a congress, and we ought to debate it and do it. and so that's -- that's what i would prefer to do. it may not be the popular position now, but that's the position i would take. the reason -- the reason i urge a one-year is because this is an extraordinary situation. we're not declaring war on a country. this is a terrorist group. and we're all in agreement. and we put it into the 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 pass 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 whole heartedly support this amendment. >> 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?

>> 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 2001 remotely has anything to do with what we're doing now. 6:00 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 thing 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 to apply to other countries. jordan, saudi arabia, pakistan, egypt, gaza, libya, lebanon, yemen, 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? i'll recognize -- >> 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. 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. so i wanted to take them in block and talk about it. 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. into the middle east and -- 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 a 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, et cetera. 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, thought if it was 30 countries or 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. and that -- 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, 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. we, 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 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. and 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. >> let me recognize someone who hasn't spoken. senator murphy and senator johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's very briefly. i would argue that's a different conflict. that if we're talking about, for instance, a massive new long-term bombing campaign in libya that has implications for american foreign policy that are fundamentally different than the implications in the context of a fight inside iraq and inside syria. and it may be worthwhile. but it should involve this committee coming back and relitigating what that means for american national security going forward.

and so given the fact that we are talking about very different conflicts with potentially very different implications for the united states, i'm supportive of this amendment. i think we have the ability to come back and make a different decision. and just to underscore senator udall's point. nothing in this amendment -- if there's an imminent threat to the united states, if isil is plotting an attack inside libya against the united states still gives the president the authority to conduct whatever military operations within the confines of the war powers act necessary to protect the united states. and so that gives me, i think, pause to be confident that with this geographic limitation we aren't putting the security of the united states at risk and that we will be able to come back and make an independent decision. if isis poses a threat to the united states in another country in the region as to whether it is a good idea to bring the fight to that country, as well. which may involve a completely different set of factors.

>> senator johnson. >> i think much of this discussion really kind of underscores my primary point is we should spend a lot of time on definition. you know, spend a lot of time defining exactly who the enemy is as opposed to name one group and associated forces. that's too ill to find. if we spend a lot of time defining who the enemy is and exactly what the objective is. because -- and then, be 100% committed to the objective. don't tie anybody's hands, don't place limitations. define the objective and be 100% committed to it. if we do that, it'll be a whole lot easier finding the coalition partners that will also be 100% committed to the exact highly, you know, properly defined objective. let me use an example. the first gulf war. when the first president bush said this will not stand when saddam hussein invaded kuwait.

very clear defined objective, drive saddam hussein out of kuwait, and he was able to assemble a phenomenal coalition that by and large paid for the war. over 200,000 other troops were involved in that coalition. again, that was because it was a very clearly stated objective. and this country, america, was 100% committed to that objective. no limitations. we were going to make sure that saddam hussein was driven out of kuwait. again, i would just suggest that in our next discussion and the next congress, we really spend a lot of time in this committee defining exactly who the enemy is that we're going to declare war on or authorize the use of military force against and then clearly define the objective.

spend a lot of time on that and then an awful lot of these limitations and concerns go away. >> any other members? >> if i could just briefly. i haven't vigorously debated because i realize we'll be doing this again in january. i would say that i guess the limitations would then apply to drones? i would like for the author to clarify that if the commander in chief wanted to utilize drones to potentially deal with isis in one of these countries, is this amendment intended to limit our ability to do that? >> i think it's not specified. and i think also that most people have used the 2001 resolution to justify that. >> but we're sunsetting that. and i want to go back to what senator johnson has said. there are some details here that are important.

and we are going to be limiting, we're sunsetting the 2001 aumf, which i think limits the ability over time, we're limiting it geographically, does that mean drones. i do look forward, again, us -- they want no restrictions, really, on the geography of this because they already can

conceive of places that they think were -- will need to be entertained. so you can see how an executive who wants to expand this is going to say, well, you know, yeah, we got libya, 30 other countries, 60 jihadist groups around the world. i think it's important if you want to really place meaningful restrictions and limitations on this war to one region and one enemy that we're going after, it's important that we'd either define the target more precisely or the geography more precisely. >> let me speak to this and then we'll vote. this definition, first of all, the amendments about geographic specificity. but we've had a whole conversation about the associated persons and forces. i think the definition tries to broach the concerns here. it makes clear that the authorization applies only to isil and only to individuals and organizations fighting for or on behalf of isil. and a potential closely related successor entity. surely we have to account for the possibility that this group changes its name. it's been called several things here during the course of the process.

but it's still the same group at the end of the day. so that's one way in which we try to control not an endless pursuit across many different boundaries. and the other is, as it relates to the geographic limitation, that's not an amendment i can support. while i appreciate the effort of what the senator's trying to do, it would in essence create the possibility that isil could establish sanctuaries in other countries other than iraq and syria. and in doing so, would not be able to feel the power of america might with its allies includeing simply air strikes. so i think that is -- that is not something that is the wisest way to achieve the goal. with that, i assume the senator wants a recorded vote. clerk will call the roll. >> no. >> no. >> mr. durbin? >> no. >> udall?

>> aye. >> mr. murphy? >> aye. >> mr. kane? >> aye. >> mr. markey? >> aye. >> mr. corker? >> no. >> no by proxy. >> mr. rubio? >> no. >> mr. johnson? >> no. >> mr. flake? >> no by proxy. >> mr. mccain? >> no by proxy. >> mr. barrasso? >> no by proxy. >> yes. >> mr. chairman? >> no. >> please record me as no. >> mr. chairman the ayes are five, the noes are 13. >> is there anyone else willing

to offer an amendment? if not, the vote is on final passage of the aumf as amended. clerk will call the roll. >> aye. >> aye. >> ms. shaheen? >> aye. >> mr. coontz? >> aye. >> mr. durbin? >> aye. >> mr. udall? >> aye. >> mr. murphy? >> aye. >> mr. kane? >> aye. >> mr. corker? >> aye. >> mr. rubio? >> no. >> mr. johnson? >> no. >> mr. flake? >> no by proxy. >> mccain? >> no by proxy. >> mr. barrasso? >> no by proxy.

>> mr. paul? >> no. >> mr. chairman? >> yes. court will report. >> mr. chairman, the yeas are ten, the nees are eight. >> i ask the staff be able to make changes before reporting to the senate, is there any objection? none so order. and danny, we've already feeded -- feted you before, but here's a resolution signed by every member of the committee. congratulations and thank you for your service. >> i want to thank you again for your service as a chairman. all the committee members for the tone and seriousness, and i look forward to continuing. thank you all. >> thank you all very much. this hearing is adjourned.

>> at, kentucky senator a mitch mcconnell outlines the republican agenda for the next congress. then, the democrat majority leader. and live at 7:00 a.m., your calls and comments on ."ashington journal today, businessman donald trump will speak at the economic club of washington, d.c.. he is expected to talk about his

political aspirations and business goals. he is well known for his business developments and is the creator of the television series "the apprentice," and "the celebrity apprentice." tonight, on the communicators, mary gray on harvesting personal data and the economic research. >> the creepy question, it is a great question for all of us, or somebody who uses a computer every day, we have certain expectations when we fire up our computers about who sees what we're doing, whom we share information with, and at any moment if the expectations i are shifted because i realize there might be another party who sees what i'm doing, save for an example if a message

asks if is up and need help making a purchase, there are certain lines that to we do not know who has crossed them until it is too late. that is true for researchers and companies. culturallyt a clear specific line. one person in a park talking loudly may have no problem with someone listening. but at the same time, you may privateeone having a conversation into they want to go to somewhere completely secluded. we're not just dealing with cultural issues, we talking about individuals. 8:00 p.m., at eastern, on "the communicators." >> mitch mcconnell of kentucky spoke at the wall street

journal's meeting in washington, d.c.. he outlined the republican agenda. this portion is about 10 minutes. >> thank you very much senator mcconnell for being here he had to work harder than you all know to get here because it is washington and it rained. washington doesn't cope with many things well including rain. thank you for persevering. congratulations you had a pretty good november by which i mean the kentucky wildcats and louisville cardinal paschal -- basketball teams are off to a great start -- oh and you won control of the senate. >> one of my better months. >> let me start with at the 10,000 foot level and washington, the words of and congress have gone together a lot in the last two years. you've talked from the minute you won the majority about fixing the way the senate works. talk about how your point do

that and what you have in mind when you say that. >> rarely does an issue like functioning resonate with the american people that it clearly did. there are two things we heard all of the country, people were very upset with the administration. you can figure that out pretty quickly but they were also not happy with the fact that we don't seem to do anything anymore. it was clear to those of us in the senate that the reason we weren't doing anything was the senate. we have evolved over last three or four years into a body that basically never passes anything except in an emergency situation. i feel like we have an obligation to the american people to be responsible -- right of center, governing majority. which allows votes on matters. your to freshman democratic senator and alaska running for reelection who never had a rollcall vote on an amendment of this and in six years.

his opponent dan sullivan brought that up on a routine basis. not only did it not work politically but it did not work for the government. will be working longer and working harder and there will be an opportunity for members of both the majority and the minority to offer their ideas and to get votes. that sounds revolutionary i know, but we will pass individual appropriation bills rather than ball everything up into a continuing resolution which only further underscores the dysfunction. >> one of the things that helped to blow up the senate was the democrats invoking what is known as the nuclear option which is a rule that says you cannot filibuster presidential nominees, you can get them approved with 51 votes and your side hated it and you will be in

charge in a matter of weeks, are you going to stick with that rule or are you going to get rid of it? some people say let's keep it in place and let the democrats get a taste. >> the worst thing about it was the way that it was done. the rules of the senate require 627 votes a high threshold to change the rules of the senate. very clear. the senate is a continuous body it does not adopt rules of the beginning of every session -- every congress like the house does. what was done is they moved to change the rules of the senate and it was overturned and they set a precedent that any majority at any time for whatever reason can change the rules of the senate. it is impossible to unring a bell so the president is there regretfully. your question is, what you do about it? were going to have an in-depth

lengthy discussion on this on december 9, we invited our freshmen to come back and there are points of view on both sides of this. leaving aside the way it was done, there are those who argued this was the way it was until 2000. even know the rules permitted filibustering executive branch and judicial appointments, it essentially was never done for the purpose of killing a nomination. that was possible it was never done. there are those who are arguing that put aside for a moment the way that it was done, this is the way that was up until 2000 when the democrats decided to start filibustering george w. bush's circuit court nomination. i can't give you an answer but will have a discussion shortly. >> multiple would agree the most important relationship in this town is between you and the president, talk about what that relationship is like from your

point of view and how you think it evolves. >> we don't have any personal difficulties, in fact i've negotiated the only bipartisan agreement we had in the city ministration involving the vice president and myself and of course he was not a free agent, he was allowed to do so by the president. the two-year extension on the bush tax cuts in december 2010 and the budget control act in august of 2011 and the fiscal cliff deal on new year's eve of 2012 were bipartisan negotiations. i don't have any fundamental problem with negotiating with the other side and we don't have any personal problems. there is however a deep philosophical difference. if you look at the way the president has reacted --

if you joined the governor of massachusetts, or illinois that by any objective standard the president got crushed in the selection. so i have been perplexed by the reaction, a sort of in your face dramatic move to the left. i don't know what we can expect in terms of reaching bipartisan agreements, that is my first choice to look for the things we agree on if there are any. at least on trade i think there is the potential for agreement, trade agreements are more popular in my conference than they are in the democratic conference.

tax reform, we all think it ought to be done, and so far the president's view has been he wants a trillion dollar ransom to do it. he was a trillion dollars in cvo, horrible revenue or the federal government as a condition to do copperheads of tax reform which reagan and tip o'neill believes would be revenue neutral to the government. we're not going to pay a trillion dollar ransom to do something that would make the country more competitive. we certainly need to do it, want to do it but are not going to under any circumstances give this administration $1 trillion more in revenue to do it. i would tell all of you to lobby the president to agree with us what the purpose of this all is. to make america more competitive. they already had plenty of tax increases, we had a tutorial in the last six years of her

spending, borrowing come a taxing and overregulation. on the front page of your paper today. it points out how much regular americans have fallen behind. we know this stuff doesn't work we have had an experiment for six long years. if the president wants to make a country more competitive the single best thing he could do would be comprehensive tax reform. you notice i keep saying comprehensive, it will be tricky if not impossible to convince my members that c. corps get a rate down here. two things we ought have an understanding about at the beginning that large and small businesses should be treated the same and that it ought of the revenue neutral to the government. if we had those can of understandings before we start down the path we can get there.

>> but you can separate it from personal tax reform and have to. >> i know the president enjoys higher rates and wants higher rates. ideally, we would have the same top rate for everybody but at the very least we don't think big business deserves a rate down here and pass through businesses deserved to be up here. >> the other thing is to please stop the unpleasant surprises, no more government shutdown fiasco scenarios. pick the term you want. give us predictability no more market rattling events, can you offer assurances on that front? >> i made it very clear the day after the election that no more government shutdowns and threats to default on the national debt. we need to quit rattling the economy with things that are perceived by the voters as disturbing.

having said that, there is still a lot of change -- there's no way to work around and i like to remind people he is the only person in the country to consign something into law and in the old days deliver the members of his party to vote for a deal that he makes. they are having an internal circular firing squad in the wave of the election. what i hope is that regardless of the direction the president takes that there will be 10 to 15 senate democrats who want to get back to normal and want to try to do things in the political center. who seem to me to be more willing to do that even when the president doesn't want to do it. >> although that senator got a little wiped out in the election?

>> i don't think so, look at the vote on the keystone pipeline. this should surprise all of you in the room but about half the calls i got after the election were from senate democrats. they were not happy that i won that they were saying they are happy we would begin to get back to normal. that people's work would be honored and they would have a chance to offer amendments and ideas and committees would function again. i think there is a lot of enthusiasm about those changes in the senate. if you look at the keystone pipeline vote, there is a core of senate democrats who don't like dysfunction and do think we ought to work together to try to achieve at least those things we can agree on. >> q and a is 10 years old. show fromusing on one each of those years starting on december 22 on c-span.

>> this week on q1 day, reporters share stories about being on the campaign trail in mcconnellith senator when he first won a primary and defeated a another senator in the election. >> this experiment of government has lasted long enough. [applause] it is time to turn this country around.

[cheering & applause] >> manu raju, when you interviewed mitch mcconnell, what was he like? >> it was the most complex race of a 30 year career. he was attacked -- right off the bat, he had his first primary challenge. he had democrats that made him the top target. he knew that going in. mcconnell is a guy who looks around corners, and he had planned for four years this

campaign. that started in 2010, right after he saw what happened at the republican primary at rand paul. rand paul beat mcconnell's handpicked guy in that primary. at that point, mcconnell realized, i have to recalibrate everything i know about republican primary politics in my home state. he started to make changes and hired key staff and started to build a very sophisticated infrastructure, knowing this would be the most difficult race in his campaign. he said to me, this is the most complex challenge i've ever had to deal with. and he won big. in both the primary and the general election. >> we're going to talk about mitch mcconnell for the hour and what he is like as a leader. when you see him up close, what is he like compared to what we see on a national basis? >> he is very, very smart. very intelligent. he knows what he is talking about in terms of policy, politics. he is exceptionally bright. he is a tactician, very sharp. you can never get him to say anything he doesn't want to say. i don't care how many ways you ask him. if he doesn't want to say it he is not going to say it. he is funnier than people think. he is more personable and charming. he is never going to be warm and