then lid on the debate for the use of force. we will speak with danielle plet ka and brian katulis. ♪ ♪ (202) 737-0001host: good morning. john kerry and martin dempsey will be on capitol hill this morning testifying before the senate foreign relations panel on the request for the use of force against isis. live coverage at 9:30 a.m. eastern. more to come on the fight against isis and before we get to that, we will begin with hillary clinton in new york yesterday answering questions about her private e-mail during

her tenure as secretary of state. she complied with the laws, admitting she deleted nearly 30,000 personal e-mails. your thoughts on all of that is warning. you can also send an e-mail journal@c-span.org. phone lines are open. i want to show you how the former secretary of state began the news conference in new york yesterday. here's what you have to say. [video clip] >> when i got to work as secretary date, i opted for convenience to use my personal e-mail account which was allowed by the state department. i thought it would be easier to

carry just one device for my work and for my personal e-mails instead of two. looking back, it would have been better that i simply used a second e-mail account and carried a second phone. at the time this is not seem like an issue. second the vast majority of my work e-mails went to government employees at their government addresses. they were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the state department. thirsds, after i left office, the state department asked former secretaries of state for our assistance in providing copies of work-related e-mails from our personal account. i responded right away and provided all my e-mails that could possibly be work related which totaled roughly 55,000

printed pages even though i knew that the state department art he had the vast majority of them. we went through a thorough process to identify all of my work related e-mails and delivered them to the state department. in the end i chose not to keep my private personal e-mails. e-mails about planning chelsea's wedding or my mother's funeral arrangements condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines family vacations, the other things you typically find. no one wants their personal e-mails made public their it i think most people will understand that and respect that privacy. i took the unprecedented step of asking that the state department make all my work related e-mails public for everyone to see. host: the former secretary of

state at a press conference yesterday in new york. she put together this press conference. there were hundreds of reporters in this room trying to get access to the news conference to ask questions. she took about seven questions. what are your thoughts on this? caller: good morning. people talk about hillary clinton. hillary clinton is not barack obama. a lot of people have forgotten that barack obama has been more than open. you know what? our enemies do not play fair.

you have to protect yourself at all times. she found a loophole in this e-mail thing. she took advantage of it. she knows her out of the use it against her. they have gone through this. you have got to remember they tried to get this president in each test impeached -- p over personal infidelity. resident impeached. host: the layout but she has done this before. levy ask you this to you are a democratic dollar. do you trust her on this? caller: yes. it is one thing to say you should be like a new poor and born babe. sometimes you have to deal with

people that take advantage of that. host: carl think she is protecting herself. we will go to another carl virginia, republican caller. caller: she did not take advantage of a loophole. there is definitely one set of rules for the platinums and the one set of rules for everyone else. this is typical of this administration. deleting e-mails. i remember when the republicans disclosed the identity of a cia agent. i felt the same way. this is just not a good thing for our country. this lady down in texas had four government agencies come down on

her back because she started an organization. when an administration uses the power of the government to punish their political foes this is getting to the point where it is getting downright ridiculous. host: on this personal e-mail and system that hillary clinton set up, you think republicans should keep pursuing this? caller: absolutely. a private investigator has to go in there and get that server and go through it. i am a neutral party. . dachshund needs to be a neutral party. -- it needs to be a neutral party. host: independent color, peter. caller: i watched the full

episode of hillary yesterday. i was in no way convinced. it is another step along the way to becoming our president. i would like everybody to watch on you to the -- youtube the clinton chronicles. it will shed so much light. host: the republican response to what hillary clinton had to say yesterday. trey gowdy put out this statement --

he went on to say that it took the lives of our four brave fellow citizens. on twitter, darrell issa saying "clinton says in four years a secretary at stake and at least 85,000 pages of e-mails, she never once reference classified information?" the chairman of the national committee saying hillary clinton should hand over her server to an independent arbiter, show her influence is not for sale to a foreign government. nothing is deleted. it is all there on the server. delete it does not mean gone. it is all retrievable #han doverthesserver

that is reaction from some republicans. arden, what do you think? caller: i think you just answer the question about hillary. you keep reading these republican statements about a lady that has proved herself in this country. another thing i would like to tell you is you sit there and you keep your hands on your little facebook thing but when a democrat calls in they are reaching for the off button. host: republican, florida. caller: good morning. thank you. i would just like to say that regarding hillary everybody says you are supposed to trust her and every ink. she told the parents are dead

ambassador that we're going to get the guy that made the video. there's never a video. they knew it was never there. they knew it was a terrorist attack and she lied about that. the american people get lied to so much. obama stood in front of a camera how many times and told us prices were going to go down for doctors. hillary gets up there and the more she talked yesterday, the worse it sounded former harrir her. host: lee what do you think of this? caller: i and 65 and retired from a federal agency. i went right into the proper shops -- barbershops for the veterans coming home.

the democratic party is doing rebuilt at the grassroots level to assist her. we need someone who can deal with all of the countries of the world. she has a world vision which is needed in the party to deal with these foreign entities. right now labor has conquered it. the european, we are hoping hillary comes to the rescue, as a barber i see it. the fashions are coming into new york from france. she has to rescue the european to bolster our historical

societies and beware of the industrial complex. there is always a tendency to use it. host: let me jump in. you are saying her experience trumps -- we'll move on. hi arthur i appreciate. caller: the forum. i listened to the press conference live on the radio. then i found it interesting enough to watch on the c-span networks. the whole thing reeks of arrogance, and air of superiority. it is pure clintonian. she was asked by a reporter is she deleted the e-mails and she

is shaking her head in a circular motion. i am sure someone will make a meme of that. host: did you vote for clinton when he ran? caller: i did not. i was not educated enough to vote at that time. host: have you ever voted for democrat? caller: not that i can think of. host: why do you call yourself an independent ? caller: i will look at the issues and assess the candidates and whichever one the bills and when i would vote for. host: if hillary clinton decides to run 2016, is this a dealbreaker for you? host: not in but it is a pattern. i get the impression that there are things being hidden there.

the united states is not need four years of a lightning rod of controversy. i just get the feeling there are things being hidden here. host: we will take a look at what the former secretary of state had to say when she was asked by a reporter why she did not have an independent arbiter go through her e-mail account. here's what she had to say. [video clip] >> when the search was conducted, we were asking that any e-mail be identified and preserved. this is exactly what we did. we went beyond that. the process produced over 30,000 words e-mails. i think we have more than the request from the state department. the server contains personal communications for my husband and me.

i believe i have met all of my responsibilities. the server will remain private. the state department will be able over time to release all of the records that were provided. host: secretary clinton addressing the issue of a private e-mail on the server. she's answering questions about heaven and in an arbiter -- independent arbiter go through. the headline on usa today -- they note she turned over 30 490 e-mails in december half of the total e-mails she sent or received at secretary of state.

a congressman said this. he commended the former secretary of state for addressing concerns raised over use of personal e-mails and urges the state department to quickly review and make them public. the state department saying it will take them a while to go through all of the e-mails they will put them on the website for the public to view. good morning arthur, independent. you are on the air. caller: iparty commented. -- i have already commented. host: i apologize. republican. caller: i believe the clintons are way smarter than people think. they are above the law.

the american people will never know what she has got online. host: ok. you don't believe her when she says she went through in only deleted the e-mails that were personal about chelsea's wedding or her yoga routine? caller: i don't believe that. they are above the law. they say they are going to prosecute them. that is throwing a bunch of stuff out for the american people. just to throw them off of what is really going on up there. host: take a look at this rollcall feed.

gainesville, virginia, democrat caller. you are on the air. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a couple of comments. i am a big fan of mr. clinton. i am a democrat but i do not think i will be voting for mrs. clinton. i do not like to see another

power family in the u.s. i think this country should have different people. when you go to get a job or you work for an employer, you always get a handle of what you can it cannot do. there is no such roles for -- riules for the secretary of state of how to handle e-mails here and it seems unbelievable that the protocol sis set on that. this is going to tie back to been ugly -- to benghazi. other republicans will try to get her on that. they are worried about the three americans that killed in benghazi. what about bush? hundreds of thousands of troops

because of the weapons of mass destruction. benghazi seems like nothing compared to that disaster the republicans created. host: all right. robert. alabama. hi, robert. what are your thoughts? caller: there is something about our whole political system where we had democrat that have hidden agendas as well as republicans. republicans are biased and do not want to see this country really strive to be a great country. until hillary comes clean as far as the things they do, she will

never be the right democratic president in the first place. they need someone to have a little more honesty up there. host: as a democrat who do you think i should be? caller: we have a few people out there who really would thebe that appeared i cannot say they would do the job adequately. you have to go through so many channels. elizabeth warren would be one. joe biden is decent. he is in the same good old boy clique. if we look at the whole political scheme of things, we do need another party to break up the whole structural element

of our people. you get behind these close the doors. they say they're going to do what rain and is another thing. host: a lot was made of the press conference held yesterday. folks noting it took the secretary of state eight days to respond to one tweet she sent out. the story broke eight days ago. a lot was made about how this news conference was put together and where it was. this is from " washington post" --

this is 17 minutes ahead of the reported first deadline. less than thrilled. it was only the beginning. let's see. where shall we hold our first presser of 2016. it should be somewhere that is hard for the media to get access to. first came the monday night news conference that clinton would address the controversy. her team officially confirmed late tuesday morning asking that those who western this by 8:45 111:45 am. a little bit about how it was put together and how it all worked. take a look at this tweet that was sent out by michael coulter on about why the first question went to a turkish tv reporter. by tradition the first question is asked why the human

correspondent association. the president was out of town. probably protocol, next in line would be vice president of the human correspondent association. that is the new york respondent for turkish radio and tv. that is why the first question went to that reporter. reporters tweeting out ahead of the news conference yesterday pictures of what it looked like in the room. those tweets coming to show this. you can see the reporters lining up. a lot of people trying to get into that news conference. the reporter said that access to the un's list of pull. it looks like a folks were able to it in. cnn put this picture of all the reporters.

this will take several months for the department to review hillary clinton's e-mail. they are sorted by hand. republican, california. walter, go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span. at first i was displeased that hillary used a personal e-mail account. however, late yesterday the fbi released a statement saying that the russians had hadcked they entire state department's e-mail account. hearst for not there. it seemed to be the most secure. it would be interesting to see what they congressmen have to say about this. an interesting turn of events.

caller:host: hi jason, democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call. i found the press conference to be interesting and informative. i found some of your commentary. since i work in i.t. at can make a couple of comments. when she communicated with government and boys, what she says is correct. this would be captured in the system and would be retrievable on the system. some questions have come to about classified balloons. i'm surprised that a simple point has not been made. that is classified information. if it is e-mails or transmitted

electronically that it comes over a separate system you can only access it through the encrypted communication. they are on the state department. they handle these transmissions. >> others were saying that even if it was not classify it there is still information that presumably foreign government would love to see. who was she talking to? when? even our allies with what you know. maybe germany would like to know when hillary clinton was talking to another head of state. caller: let me say this.

i will let the experts report. if there were any communication strictly between her and the head of state they would have been very generic. this was something that it was important it would be one of her assistance of the foreign leader. there would not be in the classified communications that are going to shed any light on foreign secrets or anything like that. >> she was asked by reporters yesterday about this private servers she had at her house in new york. she gave us a little more detail. she goes on to answer whether or

not this whole story would have an impact on any future presidential bid. >> the system we used was set up for president clinton's office. it had numerous safeguards. it was guarded by the secret service. there were no security breaches. i think the use of that server which started with my husband certainly proved to be effective and secure. with respect to any sort of future issues, i trust the american people to make their decisions about public matters. i feel like i've taken unprecedented step to provide

these work-related e-mails. they will be in the public domain. i think americans will find that interesting. i look forward to having a discussion about that. >> they have a system that she had in her home in new york. the washington times also has the headline about fundraising in the clinton foundation. she was asked about that as well. scrutiny is growing for a fundraiser for those who follow the secretary to the state department. this opens a new chapter in that target. inside the washington times this morning, the story continues with a look at dennis who was a key fundraiser for the

successful campaign or senate. it followed her to the state department where he served as the chief keeper work for an dignitaries and had this way to start visits with the president and secretary of data. -- host: independent, good morning. what are your thoughts? caller: i just wanted to state that if it was one of us that broke the law or rules, they

would come and take her computer and phones and go through them. she gets to decide what she is going to give. >> good morning. caller: just from hillary clinton's own words answers each that she gave, she stated the server was a presidential server. my question is what it paid for with taxpayer money? if so, it is not even to the her server. that should mean the government has access to it. i can understand her reluctance and wanting to hand over any e-mails just because of the brutal settings of politics. i think she should hand it over.

i think it should be handled with dignity injuries that were her in her family's. -- dignity toward her and her family. host: do you think there should be independent commissions to look into different matters? you think it calls like something like that which would be paid for by taxpayers? caller: yes, i do. i would assume someone from the fbi do it. there are leaving paid. assist is a spinning more money on it. i think there should be, technically thinking, even her personal e-mails could be considered classified because we are vulnerable to possible blackmail. we all have vulnerable points in our life and vulnerable conversation with family members.

that itself could be considered classified. caller: all right. first page of the "washington post -- mackey with her piece in the new york times saying the same thing. she asks the public to trust her and her word -- as many of you noted, hillary clinton and her husband are used to the scrutiny and have been investigated many times throughout the years.

newspapers noting this morning that when hillary clinton was the first lady in 1990 tells a news conference in the state dining room at the white house. she took questions for over an hour from reporters about whitewater. i want to show you a little bit about what reporters are referencing. it's something she set about being a public official but trying to remain private. [video clip] >> if they said anything to me more than a million times it was to listen to what other people will say. do not be guided by other people's opinions here and you have to live with yourself. i think that is good advice. i am glad i got it in the acid onto my daughter. i do think that advice in my belief in the combined with my sense of privacy led me to

perhaps be less understanding than i needed to of the press and the public interest. you are right. i've always believed in a zone of privacy. i told a friend the other day i feel after resisting for a long time i have been rezoned. i have a much better appreciation of what is that did not only what i have done because i am extremely comfortable and confident about everything that i have done that about my ability to communicate that clearly and to give the information that you all need. caller: the former first lady there back in 1994 holding a news conference in the state dining room at the white house.

then about whitewater. she talks a little bit about privacy. if you would like to watch the whole thing you can find it on our archives at www.c-span.org. republican. hi, chris . what do you make there? caller: i am very impressed you got this together. she is not a movie store. she does not get to pick in choose what the people have to see. i can understand her wanting to have respect for her privacy but she holds a political office. she is entitled to more because of the position she has held. i think she has to go through the process and surrender to the process.

she expects the american people to have trust in the system so she should have trust in the system. host: some potential 2016 can tenders -- contenders. rand paul tweeting this out "if you are not ready for hillary." also in the news, the washington post with this headline. it is starting to look like a rivalry at the top of the gop field between jeb bush and scott walker. it says --

minnesota, democratic caller. what do you think as a democrat about this whole story on hillary clinton and the e-mails? caller: i truly believe in my heart that this is a very sad day for our country. here this lady went over one

million miles to travel to make peace for this country and there is no way i am going to concern myself about her e-mails. i do not believe this lady is hiding anything. she made a mistake. she said it. she also said it was allowed. after that would john kerry they changed it. give me a break. we've got scott walker. we have other people that are running for the republican party. please. do me a favor. paranoia will destroy you. you travel -- she traveled all those miles. if her a break.

host: her experience trumps an issue like this? you believe her experience trumps an issue like this? caller: absolutely. i believe this woman is credible. she traveled over one million miles. maybe she made a mistake. maybe she did not. good luck with that one. this woman would be absolutely dynamic at this point in our history. possibly we could have a chance of peas.

the thing that they have done over there to make a problem for us. host: peoplesoft about that more coming up. i want to dig to this topic this morning here at nearly 60% are looking for a change in 2006 team. will they get it? they asked them about who they would like to see run on that ticket. they found extraordinary democratic support for hillary clinton. 86% of democrats say they could see themselves supporting clinton. good morning to you. caller: i am calling. i am an independent. i'm calling in regards to it, it

made yesterday on the bloombergpolitics.com. is said john boehner praise the benghazi committee. secretary clinton did not hand over her e-mails out of the goodness of her heart. i think this all ties back into that she is a female. throughout history, i'm a graduate student of history they are second-rate citizens in most countries. we're just not progressing in this country how e-mails are trying to get even equal pay. it is an offense against her because she is a e-mail. she's a candidate for the upcoming presidential election. this is something they are trying to attack her with. host: explain this. what's this have to do gender? caller: i think it has a lot to

do with gender or do we actually gingerly holiday has come -- gender equality has, to level in america. it has a lot to do gender because she is a female running. i feel like her personal account s were discussing her daughter's wedding in funerals. they do not want, i feel like most of the conservative party are scared that she could win the presidential election of 2016. host: you see it as an effort to sabotage in the campaign she might announce. move it to anthony, is city, democratic caller. caller: how are you doing? host: good morning. go ahead. caller: i want to touch on a few things. i think the republicans are trying to find any thing that

they can to bring her down. i just want to touch on a few inks about what is going on in this country. we've got a lot of racism going on in this country. police brutality. we've got the isis think going on. we are working about the e-mails of hillary renton. -- hillary clinton. we've got the bush administration that started a war that, you know, nobody never brought that up about why he started the war and what he's been a trillion dollars on that war. host: the front page of the "new york times" this morning -- 47 republican sent a letter to

officials in any deal record with this administration would be no and void if and when there is a different president from a different party here. it threatens to unravel the bipartisan coalition that have been building. the democrats also confronted the choice between challenging tehran and rallying behind the president. also in the paper this morning the news analysis piece inside the time says this. he writes that it would be an extraordinary breach of tradition for lawmakers to undo any sort of agreement that the previous president has made. one that most presidents have avoided. presidents generally do not break international agreements. it could call into question their reliability of other agreements. if you occupants would like

their packs honored after they leave office. this would be a break and tradition if the next president were to undo any sort of agreement that the u.s. and the other countries would broker with iran. the opinion section of usa today is this subverts these nuclear talks. they write the opposing view from arkansas. a member of the armed services committee spearheaded this effort to get the other 46 republicans to sign on. he says it is not often that i agree with vice president biden but his words are clear.

will not hesitate to do this ourselves. he is in the newspaper this morning. i also want to share with you the front page of the wall street journal this morning. a couple of headlines and reporting that the fed is eyeing june for a key rate decision. more to come when they meet march 17 and 18th. they have gone into their premeeting blackout period where they sat making comments on the policy. we should learn more. also many of you are familiar with the story. the headline about the two students at the university of

oklahoma expelled because of racism. it is the latest in a series of incidents that have plagued the fraternity. one of the usa's largest since 2010. it details 131 instances in which chapters have violated other regulations. sometimes suspended for years. back to your cause. william and martinsburg. thank you for hanging out on the line. what do you think? caller: good morning. thank you to c-span. i am an information security professional with over 25 years experience government and private sector. i lifted it to the whole briefing that hillary gave. i have to say deleting the

e-mails in part was a mess they. until she actually chances over to a forensics team, you will not actually know that it has been compromised. this could be an initial step. it could use to inspect other devices. someone around the world could actually be listening and reusing the video on her mobile devices. you see what is going on around her. examining that is very important . the e-mails she deleted could have contained compromise messages. she would not know. she's not a security professional.

it needs to be examined further and in great detail. host: let me ask you this. she said she deleted the e-mail but the server still exists so can the e-mails be found? caller: in some instances they can be found. there is space on the server. unless it is overwritten, and even it is overwritten it can be redone cycle by cycle and reproduce. is extremely and arduous process to do it. it can be done under the right circumstances. depending on how the e-mail system was configured and the security protocols that they have on it. there are certain swipes that could be done that could render it is recoverable. it was deleted. host: democratic caller, john.

caller: to me it seems like this whole thing with hillary's e-mail is a minor issue. i feel like there another issue we could be talking about. in regards to deleting her personal e-mail i delete my e-mails on a regular basis. some of them are spam or ads. i think it is misplaced gurnee on the media's -- misplace christening on the media's part. host: what are your thoughts this morning? caller: i believe hillary clinton lied to the american people. this does not stand the credibility test. she and her team said that

server up. i hope they find that out. i would like to make a statement. when you have april ryan on the show the other day she said "race matters." it does to a racist. when i see people i see people, not color. there are good and bad in every race. myself, my wife, my children have never been made position to discriminate against anybod we treat people for who they are. y. host: i do not want to go too far down that road. i want to stick with what we are discussing. missouri, independent. hi, jesse. caller: i have a three-part thing. it is very short. the american people always fall and washington never admit the obvious. hillary and bill are very intelligent.

we should not give them any credit for giving up something that she never should have held back to begin with. she knows the rules. i do not think that they are involved in the elite group. we have given them the position to represent us. they have wrapped themselves of in the world of politics that i do not think they know the difference between their public and personal life. they should never be allowed to delete things or even have mixed them up in one server. they do not know when they are sending some ring public percent government related. i do not think they should've been put together to begin with. host: some of the quick headlines. "wall street journal was" obama floats bankruptcy process

for some student bill. next to that open utah passes bill allowing execution by firing squad." several other states including wyoming, alabama, and oklahoma are debating me that alternative means of execution because of concerns about the performance of lethal injection wrecks. also in the papers, as election day news, netanyahu talks of a worldwide effort to defeat him. the election just around the corner. netanyahu campaigning in his country, talking about a worldwide effort to defeat him. some other headlines and want to share with you grow quickly. democrats ponder post-localmikulski options.

cap and in belmont, north carolina. let's get to you, republican. go ahead. caller: thank you for your time. democrats are losing their mind a little bit today. one says she traveled one million miles. she did that she accomplished nothing. another one brought back george bush. and the third one was talking about a female. the press is in on this, too. where was the outrage when sarah palin's e-mail were all being looked for? the press went after her with a vengeance. i guess because she was a real pennant was ok. winky. -- thank you. host: coming up, john kerry martin dempsey, and ashton

carter will be up on capitol hill testifying about the strategy again isis and the authorization to do so. later we will continue the conversation with danielle pl etka with the american enterprise institute. first the senate foreign relations committee held a policy committee in ukraine. testifying before committee was victoria nuland. here is a little bit of what she had to tell lawmakers. [video clip] >> russia and the separatist people have controlled the kremlin, fueled by a russian tanks and heavy weapons and finance at russian taxpayer expense. it has cost the lives of more than 6000 ukrainians and

hundreds of young russians have also lost her lives in eastern ukraine. when they come home in coffins their mothers and wives and children are told to not ask too many russians or raise a fuss if they ever want to see death benefits. throughout this conflict, the united states and eu have worked in lockstep to impose successive rounds of tests sanctions on russian in its separatist cronies. our unity with europe remains the cornerstone of our policy toward this crisis and the fundamental source of our strength. it is in that spirit that we salute the efforts of german chancellor merkel on february 12 to try and get into end the fighting in eastern you think.

-- in eastern ukraine. they offer a real opportunity for these, disarmament political normalization and decentralization and the return of ukrainian state east at border control. for some eastern ukrainians, conditions have already begun to improve. the osce reports that the cease-fire is holding on many lines of contact, and there have been significant withdrawals of government of ukraine heavy weapons and some separatists heavy weapons have also been withdrawn, although that process -- in the little village in southeast -- in the southeast de-mining has already begun under osce auspices. but the picture is mixed. just yesterday, shelling continued in a key village on

the way to marielle -- and outside don't ask -- and outside donetsk. and we can confirm new transfers of russian tanks, armored vehicles, heavy artillery, and rocket equipment over the border to the separatists in eastern ukraine. [laughter] -- host: if you missed yesterday's hearing, go to c-span.org. joining us now is benjamin wittes senior fellow at the brookings institution to talk about the war authorization, the isis war authorization, debate over war powers. let's begin with the history. why have presidents gone to congress to ask for authorization to fight a war or to fight terrorism when they are the commander-in-chief? guest: the constitution gives congress the power to declare

war, so the war powers are shared between the president and congress. it makes, as you say, the president, the commander-in-chief, but the decision to go to war is a shared decision. over the years since world war ii, the declaration of war and the very formal -- the declaration of war in the formal sense has lapsed. we do not use them in international affairs anymore. what is left of it is the authorization to use force which is a domestic law permission by congress to invoke the war powers of the presidency. in the 1970's, congress passed the war powers resolution, which was an attempt to regulate the circumstances in which the president had to ask for authorization. it has been a document of, shall we say midweek success -- middling success. host: how has it worked?

guest: the president always goes to congress to ask permission to use force, unless he doesn't. often when he does, he does not admit that he has to. like this is a good situation. a good example of that sort of situation, the president has gone to congress and asked for a resolution for authorization to fight isil, all the while claiming he has already all the authorization he needs from the previous 2001 fight against al qaeda. host: you were talking about the war powers act of 1973 commander-in-chief introducing u.s. armed forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement is -- in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances are exercised only pursuant to a

declaration of war, specific statutory authorization or national emergency created by an attack on the united states." guest: think of the exit and circumstances in which you do not really have time to get congress involved. you have to do something right now, and congressional deliberations are lengthy. on the other hand, if you are thinking about conflict where you have got some time to think about it, it is always prudent -- and many scholars believe constitutionally or statutorily required -- to go to congress to seek authorization. and the war power that tries to regulate and balance those two basic ideas by requiring that when the president introduced forces in a nonexistent situation, he then -- in a

non-exigent situation, then he comes back to seek authorization. host: when it comes to isis where do they fall under those three circumstances that are outlined in the 1973 war powers act? guest: this is a tricky move that the administration has played. the administration claims congress already authorized the fight against isis when it passed the 2001 aumf in response to 9/11. they claim they do not need to come back after the war powers resolution and get another authorization because they already have it. the problem is that they have come back anyway so they are asking for what they think of as a supplemental authorization devoted to the situation in particular. host: what does the 2001 authorization say? guest: the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force to attack

the person's, organizations, or states groups, or states -- or persons responsible for the attacks or for harboring those people. that has been interpreted to refer to al qaeda, the caliban and their associated forces. the administration -- the taliban, and their associated forces. the administration regards isis as an off branch of al qaeda. host: we were just showing our viewers the 2001 authorization -- the 2002 authorization is up. the 2001 authorization says "the president is authorized to use the armed forces -- is this a declaration of war, the 2001 authorization? guest: it is not, in the formal

sense, a declaration of war declaring a state of hostility as between nations. it is the domestic law of equivalent of a declaration of war. it is congress saying for separation of powers purposes you, the president, have our authority to use the armed forces of the united states in pursuance of these objectives. host: why is not the word "war" venues and what are the legal ramifications of using the word "war"? host: -- guest: the reason we do not use declarations of war anymore is an international law history question that i don't know the answer to. it has to do with the creation of the u.n. charter which sort of changed the landscape in international law. i am probably the wrong person

to ask that question two. -- to ask that question to. to get rid of the declaration of war, it does not change the domestic level separation of powers question. that changes the international law landscape, but what you are left with is this separation of powers issue -- who has the power, and under what circumstance, to initiate armed conflict? is it congress? is it the president or is it some shared responsibility between them? the way the system has involved, -- the way the system has evolved, congress' role is smaller than it used to be, but not unimportant. host: the 2001 authorization, written broadly, no limitations on it. so why did congress go ahead and authorize force in 2002? guest: the 2002 aumf was specific to iraq and the then in

pending, now completed, invasion of iraq to depose saddam hussein. that was the purpose of that aumf. it was not, if you look at the text of the 2001 aumf, saddam hussein was not one of the ones who planned and carried out 9/11 , so it was not covered, that goal was not covered by the aumf here until president bush went back to congress and said give me authority for what i now want to do, which is to invade iraq and take out saddam hussein. that aumf has been cited sometimes for the current isil fight because it does, after all, take place in iraq. but it is not particularly strong support for the current mission, so the president has asked, in the context of congress, passing a new aumf, to have that one repeal. host: have the 2002 repealed,

and the 2001 stands -- if at -- if that happens, then what? guest: first of all if you leave in place the 2001 aumf -- which, remember, the president claims gives him all the authority he needs for current operations -- and you pass a new amf -- a new aumf with restrictions -- and the new one has ground force restrictions, it has time restrictions. it sunsets after three years. a lot of people -- and i am one of them -- believe those restrictions are meaningless if you leave in place an underlying document that you claim gives you all the authority you need for everything you are doing and does not have those restrictions. so a lot of people -- again, i am one of them -- have argued that you need to think about if

you are going to restrict current operations in any way you need to think about how the previous document interacts with the new authorization for those purposes. host: that will surely be part of the debate on capitol hill when the secretary of state, john kerry, the defense secretary, ashton carter, and the joint chief, general martin dempsey, appear before the senate foreign relations committee to talk about authorization for using force against isis. we will in end the "journal" a little bit early to bring you coverage of that hearing. that is our conversation with all of you, then woody's -- benjamin wittes -- here to take your questions and comments about this debate. let me show you what the president sent up to capitol hill. here are the limitations that he wants to put on any new

authorization to fight isis. the authority does not authorize the use of the united its armed forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations -- ground combat operations. host: herb in orchard park, new york, a democratic caller. go ahead. caller: i have a question that relates to what you alluded to a couple of minutes ago, mr. wittes. that is the united nations. when we joined the united nations, drafted most of the charter, we agree to abide by the charter. in that united nations charter as you know well, they have codified and defined international law. which, in effect, without going into detail, a military conflict must be authorized by the united

nations security council, unless a country is attacked. then they have the right to defend themselves, but they still must go back to the security council. i would, in summary, submit to you for your comment that every military action the united states has taken since the korean war -- the korean war was within the security council united nations house rules -- everyone since then has been in violation of international law. host: ok, ben wittes? guest: you are certainly correct that there are a great number of international armed conflicts that are not sanctioned by the un security council. it is not correct that no u.s. operations have been sanctioned by the security council or in some have, some have not. generally, depending on how the

united states has been to get the votes it needs, to show permanent members -- to persuade and permanent members not to veto things -- it is also the case that the question of whether you can militarily intervene on behalf of a country of its own territory consented -- this is a military operation done in collaboration with a sovereign iraqi government -- is not exactly the situation the u.n. charter is -- this is a set of operations done -- you are correct that the u.n. charter has not in fact governed a lot of states actions all the time, including the united states'

actions sometimes in the military, and the military's fear, though most countries including the united states spend a lot of time and energy arguing that their actions are in conformity with the charter. host: hilliard, florida. a democratic caller. hi, bruce. go ahead. caller: what i would like to point out to everybody is, you all have a graphic on your tv that says, "isis war debate." they are not debating war, they are debating the use of force. also, this man said a while ago that the 2001 authorization was to go after saddam hussein. it was not to go after saddam hussein, it was to go after weapons of mass distraction. thank you. guest: so there is a difference,

you are correct, between the uses of armed force, which can be sort of limited and less than full-fledged war, and in fact in international law, we generally do not talk about war anymore. we talk about armed conflict. that said, what is -- what congress is being asked to authorized is major military operations particularly from the air, so i think for colloquial purposes, it is not unreasonable for people in the press to talk about this as a war authorization rather than just a use of force authorization. host: here is a tweet from a viewer.

guest: isis has not attacked us. i don't think there is anything preemptive about the attack. isis has sees a lot of territory from the iraqi government, and the iraqi government has requested our help in recovering that territory. so i do not think there is anything preemptive about the attack except in the limited sense that part of the hope of course of defeating isis now is that you do so before they then reach a level of strength in which they can and want to attack you. host: "the wall street journal" has this story -- "drop in oil threatens iraq terror fight." host: kim, cedar park texas.

caller: i have been hearing in the news -- and i am going to change the topic just a little because i could not care less about you quibbling over this iraq contract we made 10 or 15 years ago. i speak to all the men in texas because i think all of you all are acting so juvenile. what you have done is just ridiculous. i am 53 years old camera -- i am 53 years old, and i can speak with authority to you. host: we don't know what you're talking about. by jumping across and usurping powers, it is the most disrespectful thing and it is dangerous. i speak on behalf of what is right and what is true. you know it, and i hope marco rubio -- you pay attention.

this is not what you all need to do. you all need to -- host: i think she is referring to 47 republicans -- what are your thoughts on the letter that was written that is saying this only last about 22 mths. guest: my colleague, jack goldsmith, on the website that we have run -- it is a constitutional error in the letter, purported to lecture foreign leaders about the u.s. constitution, vastly misstating the operations of the treaty clause. look, this was not a good idea. to have an independent foreign policy communication with essentially an enemy state. that said, i think there is a --

i think it is overblown. host: where speaking to benjamin wittes. he is the chief and cofounder of the law fair blog. you can follow him on that website as well. a member of the hoover institute's task force on national security and law. we go to daryl. good morning. caller: basically i see the united states of america has a tremendous amount of investment into the military. it looks like no matter what happens, we search for situations and problems, of which right now -- i notice there was a commentary mode with the senators, and some of the senators have called the group a thug and a criminal, even though our athletes went to the winter olympics.

it seems like when world war iii starts, the united states will be 50% responsible, do you think? host: let me throw in this headline on ukraine since darrell brought that up. the headline in the new york times, obama said to resist growing pressure from all sides to arm ukraine. what do you make of his sentiment, the caller? guest: i actually am not a foreign policy scholar. i work on issues regarding conflict, and i often do not have a especially strong view about what the right u.s. policy should be, for example, with respect to ukraine or with respect to isys actually. -- two isis, actually. i work with what is generally given as a policy. right now what is given with the policy, with respect to isis is the president wants to use

military force. congress, if anything, wants to use more military force than he is inclined to use. the question i confront is, if that is the policy objectives, what should the law be? how should the law implement the policy objectives that we set? if the question is, how involved should we be in iraq, a lot of people know more about iraq honestly, and that is certainly true of the ukraine. host: does the law exist on the books for any future strategy? guest: i think if you want a good authorization that is solidly on point for the

authorization that we are fighting now, rather than the fight that 12 years ago we thought we were likely to be fighting, congress needs to be involved. it reflect our current reality more than the 2001 aumf did. host: what language would directly reflect our reality? guest: we are currently fighting two classes of enemies. one is al qaeda, the caliban and associated forces. the other is isys and its associated forces. we have one resolution that sort of speaks to the former, and no resolution that directly refers to the latter. that refers to both classes of groups, and reset every three to

five years so congress would not be able to do what he did last time but would have to come back and think about, is this still the right document for the war that we are fighting? host: similar to what they did in 2002, addressing security concerns in iraq with an authorization tailored to isis. guest: yes, but also go back and look at the authorization, the 2001 authorization and say is this still well describing what we are doing in yemen, a country that we were not thinking about when we passed the 2001 aumf. in certain actions in somalia. we are not fighting a war against osama bin laden anymore. or merely against osama bin laden. we should have an authorization that reflects the conflict we

are actually involved in. host: thanks for hanging on the line, benjamin. you're next. guest: great name. caller: how are you doing? good morning. i was just wondering, the debate with the war powers -- how necessary is it to have all of these laws about war powers? guest: the war powers resolution has been around for a long time. we have missed -- the executive branch has always had constitutional questions about whether it is a proper law. it has generally sought to comply with it in a limited sense on the grounds of respect for congress basically. without acknowledging it is appropriate or constitutional. you know, congress has always been frustrated that it does not

get more deference in this process than it does. on the other hand, congress does not exercise the powers that it has very robustly. a great example of that is -- you just sit there for 14 years. the executive muscles over 10 -- the executive branches of the time have regarded themselves the principle actors in this space. my message to congress is if you believe that you have a role to play in this, play it. host: we have about 10 minutes left here. benjamin wittes is previewing a

hearing that will happen on capitol hill in about an hour. secretary of state john kerry the defense secretary, ashton carter and the joint chief general dempsey, will be before the senate foreign relations committee on the senate side, talking about the president's request for authorization to fight isis. we will have coverage of that on c-span at 9:30 a.m. eastern time. benjamin wittes helping us out take your questions and comments ahead of that hearing. what are your thoughts on the president's request to have congress, granting him the authority to fight isis? thomas in las vegas. you are up. caller: the way iran is acting, i think isys is iran's enemy, and we should let them take care of each other. thank you. host: common in illinois, independent. hi, carmen.

caller: i would like to ask the gentleman -- the 2001 war powers authorization said to go after people, the 2001 attacks against the u.s. -- host: the u.s. -- guest: the u.s. saudi relationship is complicated. there are a lot of factors in whether the saudi regime are a bunch of nice people, whether you think that is a good thing or a bad thing. have all kinds of strategic energy relations with the saudi's, and i don't think the possibility of syrian reaction was seriously entertain. host: the lines are on your screen. democrats, 202-7 48-8000.

elkins 202-748 -- republicans, 202-748-8001. i want to go to political headlines recently that said no one is really happy with this draft. what language would you need to be in it for be flexible for the president? host: there are a few bases in that law for people's anxiety. the body who wants to authorize very robust presidential action, here are the things that you do not like. one, it sunsets in three years. so you are anxious. 22 months from now, all of a sudden the authorization to use

force is about to expire. number two, it has restrictions on ground forces. you say, hey, why would you tie the president's hands behind his back if you are sending him to do a fight? on the other hand, if you are somebody who wants as many democrats really to send the message that we want to authorize a limited involvement but we do not want to get involved in a long-term major new invasion of iraq. then you look at this authorization and you say it does not have geographic limitations. it is not limited to iraq and syria. you also have -- you also say, this entering ground operation i don't know what that means. maybe anything could be

authorized, it could be -- anything could be authorized as enduring. host: charles milton, florida. you are on the air. caller: yes, ma'am. guest: i didn't hear you. caller: hello. i was just saying, it is getting attacked four times. guest: look, there is no doubt -- and i don't think anybody on the hill who has anxiety about the aumf is arguing that isys are nice people -- that isis are nice people or that they do not have ambitions to attack americans in a serious way. you are correct. they have beheaded or murdered a

number of people, including americans. and if you are looking at the draft aumf that the president had sent up, those killings are listed as the set of findings that congress would, if it passed -- these are not people who like americans, and i have no doubt that if given the chance there is an organization that would probably want to conduct significant operations against americans, and perhaps the american homeland. host: another tweet from south fork who asks this, or said this -- when the constitution was written, congress was in session rarely. the president had authority to deal with sudden threats when congress was not available. guest: that is absolutely correct. host: what does that mean, that? why does that not stand today? guest: again, many people would

argue that it does stand today. and in fact, the administration would concede that. the reason, in its view, that it has the authority that it needs is not that the president has some inherent power to do this it is that congress has already acted. host: romeo, hi. you are on the air, sir. caller: i just have a question. i do like our freedoms here, but i also -- i am curious, why do you think jihadists want to kill various people in america here? it is not that they want to kill various people versus leaders of foreign policy and people aligned with various political

conspiracy -- bankers and things of the sort. strictly speaking, it is the leaders of this vast global conspiracy trying to attack and destroy fundamental islam. you see that in the news and the media all the time. i am curious, why is there this war against the base of islamic? host: i don't know -- on the base of islam? host: i don't know if that is in your area of expertise. guest: among the people i have talked to, none of them expressed the desire to have a war with islam. host: max in mechanicsville maryland, a republican. caller: that was an interesting call there. he did mention the base. it seems like the administered

has this cake-and-eat-it-too mentality. you change the name of it for your purposes, but then you claim that the authorization still includes that near enemy. i guess you are saying rewrite the roles to restrict them to money for an enemy they want to fight. i don't know how it authorization that allow them to fight one enemy and then by their own choice they have changed the enemy they are fighting for no reason. think about it -- there is no reason they needed to change the name of the enemy because they had already proven that the 2001 enemy, which was al qaeda and the taliban, had -- was in some way responsible for creating the mess in iraq. al qaeda in iraq. it is frustrating to hear the administration change the words around, but at the same time

having their cake and eating it, too. even though it is under the assumption that president bush made, it is a contradiction. guest: i think the contradiction is not on the part of the administration. the group's fractured, rejoined and the groups that it -- the groups that existed and congress authorized a force against in 2001 do not really exist in the same form anymore. let me give you a couple of examples of that. we have conducted a number of operations against al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, which is a group in yemen that is very active and that poses a significant threat. it did not exist at the time of 9/11, but it has sort of grown-up and matured in the interim, and how does that fit?

the agency has decided that it does. a harder example, what used to be called al qaeda in iraq that is now called isil. this is a group that broke off. it was originally an iraqi branch of al qaeda, but it broke off and it now fights with the syria and iraq he branch office of al qaeda -- the syria and iraq i branch of al qaeda and it claims to be the caliphate. is it one branch of the tree, or is it not covered because it broke with al qaeda? there is no good answers to those questions, and that is why you need a more modern document. host: benjamin wittes is the

senior fellow for brookings institution. he has a new book out yesterday. "the future of violence." go to our website, c-span.org, for coverage of that. thank you very much for talking to our viewers. guest: thank you for having me. host: we will continue this conversation with two perspectives, from danielle pletka and brian katulis. we will be right back.

>> here are some of our featured programs this weekend. saturday at 1:00 p.m. eastern, booktv is live from the university of arizona for the tucson festival of books featuring discussions on race, politics, the civil war, and magazine writers will call in. sunday at 1:00, we continue our live coverage of the festival. the future of politics and the issue of concussions in football. saturday, american history on c-span3, we are live in farmville, for the 16th annual civil war seminar talking about the closing weeks of the civil war in 1865. sunday, we continue with remarks on the surrender of the confederacy and the immigration of confederates to brazil. find our complete television schedule at c-span.org, and let

us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us at 202-6 46-3400. e-mail us at comments@ c-span.org. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. this sunday on "q&a," how pharmaceutical companies lobbied doctors and what -- in what medications to describe -- in what medications to prescribe. >> while it is illegal for a company to market the drugs before it has been approved by the fda, it is not illegal to market a disease. so drug companies have sometimes invented diseases or exaggerated the importance of certain conditions or exaggerated the importance of a particular

mechanism of a drug, for example , and then blanketed medical journals and medical meetings and other venues with these messages that are meant to prepare the mines of clinicians -- to prepare the minds of clinicians to accept particular drugs. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and spit -- 8:00 eastern and pacific on q&a. the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress. not only are there 43 new republicans and 15 new democrats in the house, and 12 new republicans and one new democrat in the senate, there are 108 women in congress, including the first african-american women in the house and the first -- the first african-american republican woman in the house. the congressional chronicle page has useful information including voting results and statistics

about each session of congress. new congress, best access, on c-span c-span2, c-span radio and c-span.org. "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with more debate on the president asking congress to give him authorization to fight isis, the terrorist group. here with two different perspectives, danielle pletka, from the american enterprise institute, along with brian katulis, senior fellow at centers for american progress. danielle, your overall thoughts on what the president sent up to congress recently, this draft of an aumf, authorization for military force. guest: on the one hand, he was a good thing that the president went forward and sent up a draft. there was the eight on whether it was a good thing to do that or not. -- there was a debate on whether

it was a good thing to do or not. in many ways, it was a lose-lose , because there are some things republicans hate in it, and some things the democrats hate. even the limited goals that the president himself has put in there, it limits things for three years, which is a little bit unrealistic, although perhaps excusable. it has other limitations on the president about the kind of force he can use on the ground and yet it has no limitations on the limitations of using that force. with the kind of environment in washington, that is a pretty bad recipe for progress. host: what do you like? guest: i like the fact that the president is committed to this fight. what i don't like is that there is no particular strategy. there appears no -- there appeared to be no challenges, no nonmilitary challenges.

i do not want to pretend to be an expert like benjamin wittes but as a constitutional matter, i hate that the president sends up an aumf that ties his hands. i think it sets a bad precedent for future presidents. guest: i think certainly what daniel has said, there are pluses and minuses to it, but the politics are more complicated than what danielle just said. the republicans are quite divided on key issues. if you look at the votes last year, the votes on funding of the syrian opposition, both caucuses are actually split. i think that demonstrates that we are in a somewhat different moment. i am glad he did it. i want -- the bombing of syria started seven months after we in reengaged in iraq.

it looks like congress is about to perhaps do something here, but we have really been in this limbo territory where essentially u.s. personnel, men and women are at risk. they are part of a campaign against a deadly terrorist group . if something were to happen in this political and legal limbo it will cause all sorts of controversy. i hope we can get a consensus but i worry we might not. host: danielle pletka, we just learned from benjamin wittes, that 2001 may cover with the president is doing. guest: there's an argument in this town that isis is not covered by the authorization. is it hair splitting? are all islamist extremists al qaeda? the answer is no. they are two different organizations even though they have similar ideas.

i think it is hairsplitting to suggest that one is imperative and the other is not, but i agree with brian. it is important to set something out that makes clear that the president is authorized that congress is behind him in what we are doing, and perhaps get congress to do its job and get the president to better define what strategy is, what his ends are, who he is fighting, and more importantly, the president likes to say there is no military solution. i could not agree more with that. the problem is, what is his post military action? i don't think any of us have a clue what they are thinking. what we have really seen from them, other than this brief sort of summit on countering violent extremism, we have really seen military options. guest: i think we have mainly a

clearer idea on the pathway in iraq. in part because there is more to work with, quite frankly. we have spent so much time and so much money wasted but there are training efforts for years. there are groups to work with. we have seen this week the iraqi security forces along with other groups, taking back the city of tikrit from the islamic state. there is a pathway there, and the president has the clear of pathway since last summer, trying to use additional u.s. support security -- use additional u.s. support security support, to defeat isis. i think that is wise. where the strategy is quite unclear, and i think people in this administration would admit it is on the syrian side of things. we are in a dangerous limbo, and since the islamic state essentially tore down the border between iraq and syria, it is hard to have a copperheads of strategy in that part of the world, and that does not raise the question of migrating or

having affiliates in egypt, in libya, in parts of africa as well. host: in a little over 30 minutes, secretary of state john kerry and general dempsey will go before the foreign relations committee and answer questions about what we are talking about here. if you were sitting at the dais what would you say, as a senator? guest: the umf -- the aumf gets very little guidance. brian is right, if you have isis ,an iraq isis strategy, that is ok. we may have some disagreement about the reliance that the administration is putting on iran to help the iraqis fight but at the same time, it is -- i

have a strategy inside the beltway, but outside the beltway don't really have one. they are not discernible, and isis is crossing the border and has erased that border. i would press hard on that and on the follow-on. do we need more troops? do we need more assistance for folks on the ground. those are all legit questions. host: is there support for putting more troops on the ground in the way that we understand it, not the special advisors, etc.? guest: they are already there. i think the three questions i would focus on -- what would be the end state? under president obama we have defined -- we have never defined

with clarity what is the end state that we are driving for. i think that is telling. the second thing, what are others in the region doing? i think there is wisdom in the approach in iraq and al qaeda having others pull their weight. and what is demanded of us, defining that with greater clarity. the ensigns of billing -- the essence of building a coalition. this force, the islamic state, really will not be defeated -- i think it needs to be defeated. it will not be defeated solely by us, but it needs to be defeated by other allies like jordan and places like that. what are we trying to achieve here? host: our cameras will be here to hear what lawmakers ask of

the obama administration to fight isis. nine: 30 eastern time. we will in end "the washington journal" early. let's go to richard, an independent. caller: good morning, greta, and thank you, c-span, for taking my call. we have a serious problem when the president has a problem defining the enemy and defining what strategy we need to win or to achieve whatever over there in the mideast. i was reading some kind of scary statistics not too long ago that said that basically up until 2009 we had lost in afghanistan and iraq about 3500, 3500 wounded and dead up to 2009. since 2009, obama, to almost

present, 17,000 wounded and dead. this is a drawdown. and president obama's rules of engagement are obviously not working. host: i am going to have brian katulis jump in on that. guest: i am not certain about those statistics. i have not seen them. but to your basic question, are they not working -- the u.s. has tried many different things over the last 15 years in iraq, afghanistan. we tried light footprints early on in the bush administration. we tried heavy counterinsurgency, which was extremely costly, and i believe in that period in iraq and afghanistan from 2007 until 2011, it was the deadliest because we were demanding our young men and women to be social workers one moment, warriors and the others, and they were living in the neighborhoods. that bridged both the obama and

the bush administration. the real thing that is missing is not solely the military rules of engagement. there is a role for the u.s. military to play. it is the thing that we talk about a lot, the political, diplomatic, and how we get the countries in the region to defeat this. a very good move, but where is the follow-up? where is saudi arabia? where are our allies that are part of the isil coalition that defeat these groups politically. if there is one lesson learned from bush -- from the bush administration and then the obama administration, you do need some military role. but the strategy has always been wholly and complete. we are missing the wider landscape, which is not look -- which does not look very positive. host: next, a democratic caller. caller: i recently saw an

interview with king abdullah of jordan by for reed zakaria. -- by faried zakaria. i know nothing about arabic, but basically they are outlaws. they are outlaws of islam. he feels it should be a regional fight. i think that what we should do is be in a support role. we can provide weapons to the kurds, for example, a peaceful and civilized people. the countries in the area like saudi arabia, for example, have the fourth-largest military in the world. these people have the resources to do the fighting themselves. i really do not think this idea of going in there and storm trooping our way through the region and winning the fight for the people in the region makes no sense at all.

the gentleman there has touched on this. i want to know how they feel about that. the people in the region themselves if king abdulla and others feel it is there fight why don't we let them do it back up guest: -- why don't we let them do it? guest: i think she asks a really good question. this is a fight within sunni islam. the problem is, when you let things fester, as i think the administration has done, it becomes a threat to the united states. that is when the united states started to engage. we had a real hands-off policy for quite a long time while isis grew and grew and spread to iraq, throughout syria, to the cities taking control of resources. they were extremely powerful. what brought us in was the beheading of james foley and

several others. that is the problem. were there people on the ground who were going to fight? yes. were they optimal people? were they perfect people? no. but the syrian army and others, particularly at the outset, were people that i think we could work with, to back up. i think the arab states could do more. the problem is, we left it to the point where if we had not intervened, it was too greater challenge. host: danielle pletka, iran is involved now. is that ok? guest: there is a lot of debate on that in washington. on one side, people support you in the people that they believe need to be killed. brian and i have talked about this often, and i am sure he has something valuable to add. the first is that there is this perception, this growing problem

in the middle east. it is personified by iran versus turkey, saudi arabia whatever it is allowing iran to come in and do this does not help bridge that divide. it also gives iran an enormous amount of power, power that the iraqi government expresses profound concern about. the battle of tikrit that you mentioned would not have been won if they did not have the support on the ground. that is not good for us. guest: i don't disagree with much of that, but we have to go back to 2002 2003, when iran and iraq were contained by a strategy of the u.s. at that point. one of the strategic consequences of the iraq war in 2003 unfortunately was that we eliminated -- i am glad saddam hussein was gone, but we opened

the door for iran to expand its regional influence. more or less, there is a lot we could have done from 2003 to the present. more or less, you are watching gravity take place. it is a shiite majority country, not that there is -- there are generally tensions between iran and iraq. there is a consequence to the strategic shock that there was in the iraq war. we did not get democracy in the region, we got an expansion of the iranian influence, and the expansion of terrorist groups as well. we are where we are now. host: brian, if you could talk about the center for american progress -- their new report. we are talking about religious freedom and sort of the different views of islam and the different tribes.

how does the united states support sort of this coming together of all these different factions? guest: very carefully. the report we are releasing tomorrow highlights the plight of christians in the middle east. the middle east is the cradle of christianity and most of the great religions of the world. they are about anywhere from 7.5 -- there are about anywhere from 7.5 to 20 million christians in the region. in part, it opened the door to his treason is him -- it opens the door to extremism and lawlessness. what we are recommending is, how do you beat her mac -- how do you be pragmatic about it. the middle east i think will not be a region we are living in if pluralism and tolerance and acceptance is not sort of the rule of the day. unfortunately in many countries in the middle east like iraq and syria, people are being murdered simply because of what they

believe in. we do not talk about that as much as i think we should. we have to be careful about it because extremists would say look, they are crusaders. they want to come back and fight in fight in support of those who support tourism and tolerance and basic freedom. and that is one thing, quite frankly, both the last two administrations have not featured as highly in their actual policies of engagement. host: eric is in california. an independent color. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i think the president has a plan. he is going to come down -- developing a forces on land that are going to do the occupations. i think it is good we are letting them know this is not a battle on islam. because when i think it comes it is going to be bad. host: danielle pletka? guest: i think i was the same as

the color. i would love the think there is some element of struggle or we are going to be defeating our enemies on the ground. i think the real thing we're seeing on the ground is a kind of crawling incrementalism that is not -- that is not contending with the challenge that we face them in an effective way. guest: i think a lot of our military effort has not only been supporting to kurdish forces, but much of it has been air campaign. i think most secret he analysts believe that a group like isis, you cannot defeat them solely from the air. we need have partners on the ground. i tend to think, and what one of the callers said earlier on, it is not important point because at this point, six, seven months, there is a real debate about whether we have killed more militants than they have replaced with people who are coming from around the region and around the world.

there is also a debate that if you had a much more visible u.s. presence there, would it become like a rock 2004, 2007? because it really became a training ground for terrorists that are not exist before. host: al in portland, or gone. on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: yeah, my grandfather with was -- was with the cia in the 1950's. i think we fail to see the big picture because we are never given it. but the right-wing everywhere in the world -- they want the same thing. isis might as well be a pawn of the republican congress. they are doing exactly what -- you know -- the republican

congress would want. host: in what way al? caller: well, they are attacking. they are building of the regiments. they're building up the right-wing in every arab country. host: how so? how so? caller: well, they are doing everything possible to offend anybody. they are doing the most offensive things possible. almost like a hollywood movie. host: ok. we'll go to bob in jacksonville florida. good morning to you, bob. caller: yes, good morning to you folks. let me make a short statement and ask one question please. remember that great man eisenhower? his last payment to the mecca people was remember the industrial military complex. core the sending the checks to?

-- who are they sending the checks to? they said we finally found the weapons of mass to structure. they are in iran! host: ok, bob, got your point. guest: i don't think i have been more militants than you have brian, but perhaps a senators have a secret conspiracy together that eisenhower can come back from the grave. otherwise i'm not quite sure. i think all of us tried to look at the facts from the ground. we tried recommend good policies. we try to be creative and thoughtful with answers. and we try to do the things that government can't do very often. and that is what you will see in the hearing that you will show after we are done. it is very hard for government which lives in the day today, to ask or think of the medium and long-term to think about things

that aren't as pressing. questions of christians in the middle east. questions of what to do after the military action. i don't think any of us are doing it. i should find someone else to work for. host: reid in union, washington. caller: hi, good morning. i just wanted to make a few comments. i watch c-span every day. i watch the washington journal everyday and other parts of c-span. as usual, a lot of the people far on the left cannot define it. thank you for that. iran is really the main thing care, believe it or not, because of the amount of power they have. maybe a thing like, you know, isis is giving terrorists a bad name because they're so extreme. so, i don't think they're acting

in the world's interest at all. and i don't want to digress into the issue, but i don't think the president should be offering any agreement right now. the last point i would like to make is that is lobbied to go through a sort of old testament to new. maybe the egypt leader started to get that process going, but i think that is what needs to happen. the religion itself, without carrying on, is based on mohammed, a warlord who chopped off 600 to 900 heads at a time on a beach. just like they are doing today. a concubine, ok? a revision in islam that needs to take vice. host: let's have brian jump in on this first. iran acting on the ground. can we trust them? also, and we can delve into this a little bit, this agreement that is happening right now. this negotiation i should say between the united states and iran and five other countries.

guest: i think the letter we saw from the republican senators, 45 of them, this week was really unfortunate. maybe it was a sign that they should be more briefings from the administration with folks. but at this point in delicate negotiations, i think it is important to try to exhaust all of those averages to make sure iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon. we don't need that in the middle east. and really the most effective ways to go about doing this. and i think what is interesting to me about that letter is that i actually think two things. one, it makes many of the signers look a little more erratic and not study because i think congress will have a voice in this. senators corker and mccain have a piece of legislation that make sure they are proposing an idea that congress has actually bought in.

look, they are already implicated because if we are going to list some of the sanctions, congress is going to have a role. but i think, you know, that episode -- we need to be concerned. danny had a good piece in the "washington post quote -- "washington post" last month that i think everybody should read. we have to wait to see what an agreement will look like. guest: and let me just note, senator bob corker, he has not signed -- he did not sign this letter that the 47 republican colleagues sent. brian called it unfortunate. i want you to jump in because some democrats have gone the other unfortunate and called it sabotage. some have even said treason. guest: yes, i think people need to get a grip on themselves. people who have called it treason really don't know this

is a law of the constitution or frankly, when to shut up. you know, i spent 10 years on the hill. addressed a lot of iran sanctions, legislation. i think it is important to remember that it has never been the executive branch and the forefront of our iran policy. it has always been congress. they take credit for the sanctions that a, of course, he opposed all the sanctions every step of the way. so, you know, i think we need to give congress its piece of -- its piece of the action here. i also think that the president has, in many ways, made his bet on this matter because, you are right, they haven't briefed to congress. half and kept them looped in. in the beginning, there were efforts to keep people informed. those efforts have largely ceased.

not only that, but the state department has a legal opinion about how it can really sanctions on the iranians. that hasn't been shared with the congress yet. that is the can of thing that really irks most members. i think this was nothing of it there -- nothing other than truth in advertising. host: the committee hearing room, where secretary of state john kerry will be here in about 20 minutes, starting to fill up. he is going to be sitting before the foreign relations committee. he is the lead negotiator for this iran agreement. and more than likely going to be asked a question or two about this letter and what is going on with these negotiations. what are you go-ahead and talk as we show our viewers the room. guest: two points. the first 20 draw together the isis with the eye ron diplomacy. -- with the eye ron -- iran

diplomacy. there are some who say we need an executive branch of the presidency that has no restrictions at all. we don't really want to have a vote and all of this. sort of like commander-in-chief, you do that. but when it comes to diplomacy that is still unfinished, and still a work in progress, they want maximum constraints and lack of maneuverability. i think that is the fair, sort of analytical, statement. what i think is unfortunate, and have seen this over the past years, is the perceived costs of making national security issues. i do think that the real costs in the world, how we argued around the world because of these letters, because of almost shutting down parts of the department of homeland security to protect us from terrorists, the perceived costs have gone down. and i hope we can rebuild that

center of internationalism. host: we are going to dig our viewers in about 15 minutes to capitol hill. the senate foreign relations committee will be gaveling in, a hearing to fight isis. secretary of state john kerry general martin dobson, and defense secretary carter all testifying up there. sue is in illinois. a democratic caller. caller: yes, i wanted to know did we declare a war? and what debate does the need to be about war powers according to the constitution? people talk about everyone else. we do dealings with saudi arabia. the worst slavery state of the world. clinton peoples head off doing everything else everybody is doing. americans just in the 60's -- 1960's were burning people

alive. what are we stand together as a country and stop talking about each other? the rest of the world agree are prophetic. host: ok, sue. can you take the first part of it? are we at war? doing it to declare war? guest: the fight over war powers is one that is never going to be resolved. it is the sort of age-old tussle about what the constitution means and what it says here people who wrote it are to live. we go back and forth. after vietnam, there was a big shift in the direction of congressional oversight. that was when the willpower's act was actually passed. i am not a lawyer, i'm just a former hill staffer, so that can range my perspective to it. i think we are the middle -- where the middle ground is here is that everyone wants government to be on board. the white house wants the backup from congress so that if

something goes wrong he can turn around and say you are in with it too. and it is better for our country when that happens. are we at war? people don't even say war anymore. it is really true. we have developed euphemisms for absolutely everything. are we at war with isis? yes, i would say we are at work isis. i think they perceive we are at war with them. host: in cannot a, mississippi. an independent. hi jeanne. caller: hi, a quick question for both of your guests and you, as far as that is concerned. on this issue of publishing on international television etc. all of the politicians and the talk shows.

and any free -- and everybody is expressing their opinions, which in turn goes to anybody who wants to use it against us. and i would appreciate your opinions on what might be a beneficial or detrimental about all the publications of all these opinions. host: i think what he is getting at is a lack of unity when it comes to fighting terrorists. a criticism of the president. the country not rallying behind the commander in chief. guest: look, we are democracy and that is what makes us great, but it does have some downsides we have leaders, or opinions leaders who don't actually take that responsibility as seriously as they think they should. i think -- i am of the mind that we should try to build that vital center between the left-center and right, but i am also of the mind that we should have vigorous debate when we disagree. unfortunately, when you had, i

think am with this president and with president bush, as well , allegations that he is a week commander in chief. especially strong under president obama. that lack of trust does send a signal not only to the world but also to the american public. there is something that has been lost i think that existed before. and when you worked on the hill in the clinton administration, there were fights. but there was a certain degree ever spect that people comported each other with. and with tough questions like isis and i ron -- iran. host: chuck in new mexico. caller: hello, i would like to make a comment. i would like to make to -- two, but maybe we'll cut me off. and all of these issues, like the letters. the confusion about what to do on the ground. and all these other issues is because there is no communication between the

president and the rest of the community. without leadership, you have chaos. and with chaos, all of these bad things are happening. i think the young lady mentioned that there is communication there. but the confusion and the mistrust is because there is no communication. host: and i think danielle pletka, you touched on that a little bit. guest: we need -- he referred to i hope me, and not to you, as a young lady. because i have not heard that in a while. [laughter] but more seriously, i don't think there's any question that relationship have -- relationships have deteriorated between the various parties in washington. and i think that action happened under the bush administration, as well. i think particularly secretary of defense rumsfeld and others had terrible terrible relations

with capitol hill that were very corrosive. i think that has only continued and deepened under president obama. not just between the republicans on the hill and the democrats and the white house, but between democrats on the hill and democrats in the white house. and i also think the caller does make a fair point about leadership. one thing, i have lots and lots of negative things to say about church bush and his leadership and his management, but the one thing i'll say is that he spent a lot of time getting up and talking to the public about what we were doing overseas. he gave a speech a week. whether it was at a military installation. you may not have liked what he was doing, but he was out there and he was using the pulpit. it disappoints me and him wesley, not because i don't like what the president is doing, but because i'm someone who believes in america leadership -- american leadership. the president failing to stand

up as much as he needs to. to talk about these issues as strongly and as frequently as he ought to. host: elliott in d.c., an independent color. -- caller. caller: i am a 56-year-old african-american. as long as i have been in this country, the government has lied and did everything they can to keep us that war or bring us to war. i want to know with these warmongers and america has to relies, too, because they cannot be heard without being told the truth. if we look at the history of the europeans, everywhere they went they destroyed. this right here is getting out of hand. the truth needs to be told. wherever you are in -- wherever europeans go to is garbage. host: the sentiment about not trusting the garbage -- government. to not turn around and ask the american people to get behind the government to fight this new

threat of isis. guest: there is obvious distrust out there, and that is why it's important to strike the right balance. the last two questions were what are others doing as a of this coalition, and what should we do? both of those questions into be answered because i do think we made some mistakes and overreach in the previous decade. after 9/11 and especially after the iraq war. then we spent trillions literally, and lost thousands of lives. to make them have meaning, we should next we learn from what mistakes were made it mistakes are made also by the obama administration in afghanistan and other places. and i think what has been missing all along, and i see it several worries, that our military tools, our intelligent tools actually get way out in front of what our political and diplomatic strategies are. our strategies. they need to be synchronized together. in part, resource disparities

between the defense department and state department, but also a lack of strategy that defines what our and goals -- end goals should be. letting others set the agenda, as opposed to using our unrivaled power to set the agenda with our partners in the middle east. host: and today's hearing is titled the president request to use force against isis. military and diplomatic efforts. that starts in about 10 minutes. marvin, colorado. a democratic caller. caller: yes, i am a a fox news sake. i listen to fox news seven to eight hours a day. i want to comment c-span on being neutral. neither the left nor the right. other people have called in and said they were republican. you get both people complaining you know you are independent.

they were very concerned about the obama administration, and i know a lot of able don't like fox news, so anyway i just others on c-span just last week. this was by a navy seal. the navy seals were the ones that action went in and -- i think you the best that we have. his name was scott taylor. he was betrayed. the subtitle, barack obama and silly -- hillary clinton. the selling out of america to the other countries. and this was on c-span. i don't know whether you saw it or not. it was on twice. i don't know if you can get it. that was one thing. and i believe this was pretty much political. and another thing. i was actually brought up as a democrat in the 1950's and

1960's. at that time, -- i believe that if kennedy was the president now, most of the stuff wouldn't be going on. the prime -- israeli prime minister wouldn't have to come to the net is dates. host: ok, marvin. as you take a breath, i'm going to take that chance to move on to another color -- color -- caller. hi, everett. caller: good morning. i would like to comment on this islamist problem we've got. if you remember 4, 5 years ago we had a big problem in the sudan where they killed christians. but not hardly a word was said. whether it was on fox news or any news network. that in the philippines they have been fighting since the 1980's. how -- i am a retired marine.

i was over there in that time. and it bosnia, they have been taking western europe for the muslims. everywhere they go, they want their own country. until people realize this is all about a religion and they learn to fight this, they are never going to win. thank you very much. host: you have any thoughts on that? guest: well, i just -- i disrespectfully disagree because -- i do think there is a challenge in terms of the debate within islam. it is actually happening, and really people do misuse their religion. i am not muslim. i was raised in the christian face -- faith. it is important, i think, to approach this properly. at a framework that tries to use a war of religion exley doesn't get you to pragmatic solutions because that are -- the vast

majority of muslims in this country and around the world -- who don't want with these crazy people are doing. and as the king abdullah of jordan has had, they are not even muslim. if we turn to the vast majority we are going to go down a path that is very, very dangerous. host: ok. yes? guest: i am not fond of people who like to tout islam with the brush of terrorism. i believe it is wrong. and it dishonors a lot of people. but it's also wrong to suggest that somehow the islamic state and of five -- and al qaeda are not muslims. it is not up to barack obama to decide whether -- where is the conversion of faith. it is not up to king abdullah, either. they have taken on themselves dismantle. it would be as if to suggest to you that the crusades were not somehow carried out by

christians. they were christian. they did a bad thing. these people are muslims. they are doing a bad thing. it is our fight because they are threatening us, but it is the muslims's fight as well. i am most disappointed to see people suggest that somehow they are not muslims. because there is a problem. we all recognize it, just as the saudi's and king abdullah do, as well. host: john in new mexico. a democratic caller. caller: hello. i find it interesting in a couple ways, but i will give you just one point because c-span is about to go off the air. i think because of the elections coming, we have a distortion of a problem. and we have a ramping up of our rhetoric, and people are talking about isis as if they are coming to america to get us. well, they are not coming to america to get us. there is always somebody being the head.

look at saudi arabia. host: ok. i want to have our guests weigh in on whether or not isis is a threat to the united states. guest: i think most intelligent analysts, and we had a global threat assessment, the ss right now that isis's capability to attack the homeland is, by and large, constrained. but nobody should be complacent about that, given what we saw to be al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. yes, we need to strike the right balance here. we need to use the right tools. but i don't think we should stick our head in the sand about a potential threat. host: the hearing is about to gavel in, so -- guest: i will say it quick. what gives the terrorist groups to -- the potential to attack a country is the world to discuss this and planted with impunity. that is what isis has.

sooner, later, we can't dismiss it. host: sorry to rush you both, but thank you very much for the conversation. danielle pletka, the vice president. and brian katulis, senior fellow. we will bring you live now to the senate foreign relations committee. the chairman there, bob corker from tennessee. about a gavel in there. the defense secretary, as well as general martin dempsey. thank you all for watching live coverage here on c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

[indistinct chatter]

>> live on capitol hill. as the senate foreign relations committee is preparing to hear from secretary of state john kerry, ashton carter, and martin dempsey. they will be discussing the ongoing russia, ukraine conflict. we have seen -- we have exley seen defense secretary ashton carter arrive, along with chiefs chair martin dempsey and we are still awaiting the secretary of state john kerry. the senate foreign relations committee will question three of america's top national security officials about new war powers. that is being crafted to fight militants with the islamic state group did the white house must reconcile demands from democrats who don't want another ground

war, with concerns of republicans who want the options left open. the secretary of state john kerry, who is arriving right now, defense secretary carter, and general dempsey will likely be asked questions about drafting a new authorization for military force. senator corker: i want to welcome our distinguished witnesses here today, and thank them for being here. this is an important topic. we know that each of you have been traveling extensively, and

was again want to thank you for being with us once again today. i think everybody on this committee cares first and foremost that we have a policy, a strategy to deal with isis that isn't in relation -- that is in relation to our national interests. and that is paramount to what most people in america care about, and certainly everyone in this committee. secondarily to that, from my perspective, is the authorization process itself. and yet we find ourselves in an interesting place. the president, which i appreciate, has sent to us an authorization for the use of military force. that was welcomed, i think, by both sides of the aisle. as we have received that authorization for the use of military force, what we have come to understand is that -- and this is not a pejorative

statement, it is an observation -- we don't know of a single democrat that supports that authorization for use of military force. on the other hand, the authorization for the use of military was that has been sent up is one that is limited in some ways, both in duration and relative to the activities that the commander-in-chief can carry out. and so, what that does on this side of the aisle is put republican senators in a position of looking at a limited authorization for the use of military force that in some ways ratifies a strategy, especially in syria, that many people did not believe is effective. one that shows -- does not show the commitment necessary to really be successful in the short term. so i think this hearing today will be very helpful in trying

to come together and to understand, number one, that we have a strategy in syria that is in our national inches. that have a strategy in iraq that is in our national interests. and we understand that isis is propagating in many other places. i was in baghdad three weeks ago. and regardless of how we have gotten to where we are today and i know a lot of things have been said about decisions that have been made along the way one of the things that jumped out at me very glaring is that in many ways every single thing the united states is doing right now in iraq, things that i support, i might add, to deal with isis -- every single thing we are doing is really entering -- benefiting iran. in other words, we are making iraq a better place for i ron -- iran.

one foot and i ron -- iran, and no doubt he is looking for our assistance in looking to us for balance. but when you look at the way iran has permeated parliament's there, and the fact that he is a celebrity and iran's efforts, it is something that jumps out. i hope that during today, all of you will be able to eliminate how we feel about that. i know we have had them is of people getting exercised about the fact that we have iranian led shia militia dealing with isis. because of the observation that i have made, i am not sure that should even be an issue. and since we are working towards the same and, but i would love to hear your thoughts on that. and in the event there isn't an agreement with iran over the nuclear program, how that will

affect this year militia who are in very close proximity to our own men and women in uniform, how that might affect them. and in closing, i hope that what you will do today is also delineate to us some of the citizens -- decisions that are key. i know a decision memo has been in front of the president for some time relative to an air exclusion zone. and decisions about how it may or may not deal with protecting those that will we are training -- that we are training and equipping right now to fight isis. i don't agree have made those decisions yet. too many of us here that shows a potential lack of commitment, if you will, to do with isis in a more significant way. i hope we will be able to understand more fully the lack of those decisions being made. what that means relative to the overall efforts.

i welcome you here. i think all three of you have been highly regarded members of the united states. and we trust her testimony today will be very beneficial to us as we move ahead. with that, i will turn to are very, very distinguished member, senator bob menendez. senator menendez: thank you, mr. chairman. make your for being with us here today. on last december, this committee reported a resolution to authorize the use of military force to counsel -- counter isil. many of us shared a view, then and now, that we stood with the president to defeat idsil. that was not and is not intended to reply to our current engagements in iraq and syria. we believed then, as now, that it is imperative that congress authorized any further military action against isil. it is important that we don't shoehorn this conflict into an

old umf. it may be convenient, but it is not right. we have an obligation to the families were sending their children into harms way to authorize or not authorize the use of force. this committee had extensive discussions of many of these issues last year. in theaumf, we passed a restriction on the -- in the aumf we passed a restriction on the number of forces. including search and rescue pilots, -- it also repealed the 2002 aumf in iraq and set a three-year -- set a three-year timeframe. what it didn't do, and what i think democrats are not willing to do, is to give this or any other president in open ended

authorization for war. a blank check. as someone who opposed the 2002 iraq aumf, and who has seen the 2001 authorization that it did support go far beyond where anyone would have contemplated, this is the critical question moving forward. so i look for to getting some answers from eyewitnesses that will allow us to move forward in writing and pass in authorization. but we need to know what combat operations maybe -- may be undertaken by combat troops on the ground. we need to know whether associated forces that come under this agreement could include forces affiliated with isil. we need to know whether a new administration could revert to relying on the 2001 aumf in three years, as this aumf would expire. and we need to know how long we expect to be there, and what our exit strategy will be, what

metrics will indicate success. we have heard from general alan two weeks ago that under the president proposed language that u.s. troops to be deployed for as little as two weeks, or as long as two years. before they would trigger the restriction on no injuring offensive operations. on the other hand, general dempsey said last week that he does not give this language as time restrictive. but as mission specific. children will dempsey believes the language in this aumf would allow, for example, u.s. ground forces to accompany iraqi ground forces into mosul. it would seem to me that legally, there is at least the potential for large numbers of u.s. troops to be deployed in iraq and syria and maybe beyond, with the authorization as submitted. so, mr. chairman, i look forward to hearing the answer to these and other questions from our distinguished witnesses. senator corker: absolutely.

thank you for your comments. again, we have three outstanding witnesses. we want to welcome you here. as i understand it secretary kerry is going to begin, followed by secretary carter, followed by chairman dempsey. we are honored that you are here before us. we look for to your attempt -- testimony. keep it to about five minutes if that is possible. and we will ask questions after. take your for being here. secretary of state kerry: senator corker, members of the committee, we are pleased to be here. i am pleased to return here, and particularly so in the distant was company of defense secretary question carter and are chairman of the joint chiefs of staff martin dempsey. from my 29 years of service on this committee, i have nothing but respect for the committee hospira are good if -- committee

possible -- committee's prerogative. we are very simply looking for as i think both of you, mr. chairman, ranking member, have said the appropriate present day authorization. not, as you said, senator menendez 2001, but 2015 statement by the united states congress about the authority with which we should be able to go after, degrade, and destroy as the president has said, a group known as isil. mr. chairman, in our democracy, there are many views about the challenges and opportunities that we face. annette is appropriate. that is who we are. but i hope we believe there is an overwhelming consensus that isil has to be stopped.

our nation's strongest, always has been, would react together. it is a great tradition in this country a foreign policy having a special place. that politics and at the waters edge -- end at the waters edge, and we will react as a nation without regard to part it -- to party politics. will not allow these murderers and their thugs to achieve their ambitions, which includes, by the way, most likely the death or submission of all those who oppose them. the seizure of land. the theft of resources. incitement of terrorism across the goal. the killing and attacking of people simply for what they believe, or for who they are. and the joint resolution that is proposed by the president provides the means for america and its representatives to speak

with a single powerful voice at this pivotal our -- hour. when i came here last time, i mentioned that -- >> the american people are speaking out. we are tired of the endless war. senator corker: the committee will be in order. look, we appreciate -- >> the killing of innocent people. senator corker: if this happens again, i would ask the police escorts to immediately leave people out of the room. >> creating more terrorism. secretary of state kerry: killing more innocent people? i wonder how are journalists who were beheaded and the pilot who was fighting for freedom burned alive, what they would have to say to their efforts to protect innocent people.

isil's momentum has been diminished, mr. chairman. it is still picking up supporters in places. obviously, we have all observed that. but in the places where we have focused, and where we are asking you to focus at this moment in time, it is clear that even while savage attacks continue there is the beginning of a process to cut off their supply lines, to take out their leaders, to cut off their finances, to reduce the foreign fighters, to counter the messaging that has brought some of the fighters to this effort. but to ensure its defeat, we have to persist until we prevail in the broad-based campaign along multiple lines of efforts that have been laid out over the course of the last months. the president already has statutory authority to act against isil.

but a clear and formal expression of this congress's backing, at this moment in time, would dispel doubts that might exist anywhere that americans are united in this effort. approval of this revolution -- resolution would encourage our friends and our partners in the middle east. it would further energize the members or prospective members of the global coalition that we have assembled to oppose isil. and it would constitute a richly -- richard vote of confidence in the many women of our armed forces were on the front lines prosecuting this effort on our behalf. your unity would also send an unmistakable message to leaders of isil. they have to understand, they cannot divide us. don't let them. they cannot intimidate us. and they have no hope of defeating us. the resolution that we have

proposed would give the president a clear mandate to prosecute the armed component of this conflict against isil and associated persons or forces, which we believe is carefully delineated and defined. while the proposal contains certain limitations that are appropriate in light of the nature of this mission, it provides the flexibility that the president needed to direct a successful military campaign. and that is why the administration did propose a limitation on the use of during combat operations. i might add, that was after the committee -- then committee sarah, -- then committee chair senator menendez, would forward with their language. we came up. testified and responded basically to the did amex -- to the dynamics that were presented to us and the congress itself.

so the proposal also includes no geographic limitations. not because there are plans to take it anywhere, but because -- but because there would be a mistake to communicate to iso- -- isil -- >> the united states is killing innocent civilians with jones. senator corker: i would just ask those in the audience, we live in a country where people have the opportunity to express themselves in democratic ways. we would hope that you would allow this hearing to proceed in an orderly way, and respect other citizen's writes to be here and observe -- rights to be here and observe what is happening in a civil matter. i don't think you are helping your cause at all. i would say you are hurting your cause. hopefully, you will remain in an appropriate manner. thank you. secretary of state kerry: mr. chairman, thank you. the point of these no geographic

limitations is not that there are any plans. i think the president has been so clear on this. but what a mistake it would be to send a message to isil that there are safe havens. that there are somehow just a two country limitation, so they go off and put their base, and then we go through months and months of deliberation again. that is why there are no limitations. mr. chairman, we know that there are groups in the world affiliated terrorist groups, who aspire to harm the net is dates our allies, our partners. isil is, however, very distinctive in that. because it holds territory. and it will continue if not stopped to seize more. because it has financial resources. because of the debilitating impact of the activities in the broader militant -- broader militant -- broader militant --

middle east. and i don't need to preview for this committee the full impact of the outrages that are committed by isil.4 but among them, scratching the surface, are atrocities against syrian christians and religious communities. the crucifixion of children. the sale and enslavement of women and girls. the hideous murders of captives. from as near as jordan and as distant as japan. and the destruction of irreplaceable cultural and historical sites. the plunder and destruction of cities and towns in which followers of islam worship. and raise their families. now, i testified before this committee just a couple of weeks ago regarding our strategy for disrupting and defeating isil.

that strategy continues to move forward on all fronts. secretary carter and general dempsey will touch on the military elements, but i can take from a diplomatic perspective that the world is strongly united in seeking isil's defeat. our coalition is receiving help from governments throughout and beyond the middle east. governments that may disagree on other issues, but not about the need to take decisive action against isil. to date, we have a coalition of some 62 members, including 14 nations that are contributing directly to the operations against isil. in iraq or in syria. 16 of which have committed to help train or otherwise assist iraqi security forces. since the coalition came together less than half a year ago, we have stopped isils's surge, we have forced it to change its communications and its movements and tactics, and heavily damaged its

revenue-generating oil facilities. if you have a classified briefing, i think you'll get a very good grounding in the progress that is being made to date. we continue to see progress in governments in iraq. when you leaders are working to strengthen and reform the country's security forces through the purging of a competent or corrupt officers, and more extensive inclusion of's -- of sunni fighters. there are nearly 1000 sunnis taking part there. so, mr. chairman, just to respond and move rapidly here -- senator corker: we are not moving that rapidly, actually. secretary of state kerry: that is why i'm going to cut the chase. spotting to the threats posed by isil is just not a partisan issue. at least, it should the -- shouldn't be. it is not even a bipartisan issue. it is really a task that

transcends political affiliations. and it is a tremendous challenge to the security of our nation, and to the values of our citizens. so it is really the kind of talent that this committee -- challenge that this committee is here to deal with. and my hope is that we will live up to the tradition that we have never failed to meet in the past. when we had this kind of challenge, the congress came together. the senate, in particular, i think in this format, and i'm confident we can do so here again today and in the next few days. i am happy to respond to your questions, but first i will turn to secretary carter. defense secretary carter: thank you for giving me the opportunity to be with you here today on this important subject. before i begin, i am sure your are all aware that a uh 60 black hawk helicopter was involved in

an accident last night in florida. we know there were four aircrew from a national guard unit in louisiana, and seven marines assigned from north carolina onboard that helicopter. with me, our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families as the search and rescue continues. just as i know we are all proud to have the finest fighting force the world has ever known that is why, at the end of my first week as secretary of defense, i have traveled to afghanistan and kuwait, where i think to our men and women in uniform for their contributions to important missions. and and kuwait, i talked with our ambassadors and our military leaders about the campaign against isil.

the trip confirms, for me, that isil represents a serious and complex threat. especially in our interconnected and networked world. it has also confirmed to me that the enemy can be defeated. we will deliver isil a lasting defeat. and i'm happy to share my thoughts about that campaign with you, but let me turn to the subject of this hearing, which is the authorization for the use of military force. in reviewing the president proposed aumf as secretary of defense, i asked myself two questions. first, does it provide the necessary authority and flexibility to wage our campaign , allowing for a full range of likely military scenarios? and second, will it send a message to the people i am responsible for, our brave men and women in uniform, severe

personnel who will wage this campaign, that the country is behind them? i believe the president aumf does both. and i urge congress to pass it. and let me explain why. first, the proposed aumf takes into account the reality, as secretary has noted already, that isil is -- as an organization is likely to evolve strategically. morphing, rebranding, and associating with other terrorist groups, while continuing to threaten the that is its and our allies. second, the proposed aumf wisely does not include any geographical restrictions. because isil already shows signs of metastasizing outside of syria and iraq.

third, the president proposed authorization provides great flexibility in the military means we need as we pursue our strategy, with one exception. the proposed aumf does not authorize long-term, large-scale offensive ground combat operations, like those we conducted in iraq and afghanistan. because our strategy does not call for them. instead, local forces must divide the injuring present needed for in injuring victory against isolated and forth and finally, -- against isil. and forth and finally, the proposed aumf expires in four years. i understand the reason for the proposed sunset provision. it derives from the important principle stemming from the constitution that makes the grave matter of connecting an authorization for the use of

military force a shared responsibility of the president and congress. the president's proposed authorization of force the american people the chance to assess our progress in three years time, and provides next president and the next congress the opportunity to reauthorize to me, this is a sensible and principal provision, even though i cannot assure that the counter isil campaign will be completed in three years. in addition to providing the authority and flex ability to wage a successful campaign, i said i had another key separation. -- consideration. ascending the right signals to the troops. it will demonstrate to our personnel that their government stands behind them. as secretary kerry explained, it will signal to our coalition partners and adversary that the united