r 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 states government has

come together to address a serious challenge. we all took an oath to protect the nation and its interests but to do so we must work together. i know everyone on this committee takes the isil threat seriously. everyone at this table does as well. we encourage a serious debate. i ask you to pass the presidents amf because it provides the authority and flex wage and recurrent campaign and because it will demonstrate to our men and women in uniform that all of us stand behind them. thank you, mr. chairman. >> distinguished members of this committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. let me add my personal thoughts and prayers to those at the loss

of folks on that helicopter. a reminder to us that those who serve put themselves at risk in training and combat. we will work to which were those survivors -- their family members will be well cared for. >> the committee will join in. >> i appreciate the opportunity to be here today. i just returned yesterday from a trip to the middle east. i spent a day in baghdad with iraqi and u.s. leaders discussing our strategy. i spent a day with our french counterpart. aboard the aircraft carrier charles de gaulle in the arabian gulf. these two great vessels sitting side-by-side, there can but --

their combat aircraft and their crews are a powerful image. the solidarity of all of our coalition members is fundamental to the strength of our campaign against this transit regional threat that isil represents. the government of iraq has a lot of work to do to make sure that isil stays defeated. that will take time. i have been consulted on the proposed authorization for the use of military force against isil. it is suitable to the campaign. we should expect our enemies will continue to adapt their tactics and we will adapt our spirit bipartisan support for an amuf -- i met with some of them over this past weekend and they are performing magnificently as you would expect. i thank you for your commitment and i look forward to your questions. senator corker: thank you all

for your testimony. let me begin with secretary carter. secretary kerry mentioned he felt the amuf we have from 2001 and 2002 gives the nine states legal authority to do what is now occurring. i want to know whether you believe that to be the case. from your perspective, you will make a unanimous -- everyone is that has come before believes currently we are operating under a legal premise with what we are doing against isis today. secretary carter and chairman dempsey, has there been any indication to the people we are dealing with the congress today is not behind what is happening on the ground with isis?

defense secretary carter: i cannot speak to that, mr. chairman. the folks i have talked to do in fact believe the outrageous secretary kerry described on the part of isil warned the operation they are involved in. we don't do anything that is -- senator corker: there is no when you deal with that congress -- defense secretary carter: i have talked to people. they know a hearing like this is going on and they know its purpose. i presume they welcome a good outcome of it. senator corker: chairman dempsey? german dempsey: i have no data to sit just they have any doubt about the support of congress or the american people. senator corker: we have had some

great conversations and always appreciate your candor. should there be any concern of people here that iran is influencing the outcome against isis? does have she and militia on the ground, does have some of their own personnel -- is that a concern anyone that cares about u.s. national interests should have? chairman dempsey: of course. there are six things that concern us about iranian influence. the four regional concerns are circuits and proxies -- surrogates and proxies, weapons trafficking, ballistic missile

technologies and minds they have developed with the intent to be able to close the straits and certain circumstances would cause them to. the two global threats are there nuclear aspirations for a weapon, which is being dealt with through the negotiations on a diplomatic track and ciber is the upper -- other global threat. -- cyber is the other global threat. they are concerning, of course. senator corker: as it relates to dealing with tikrit, should we care that iran's militias and others are involved in helping move isis out of those areas? chairman dempsey: there is

concern that anything anyone does to counter isil is a good outcome -- the activities of the iranians is a positive thing in the military terms against isil but we are all concerned about what happens after the drums stopped beating and isis is defeated and whether the government of iraq will remain on a path to provide an inclusive government for all of the various groups. we are very concerned about that. senator corker: when it appears isis is on the -- towards their end come the shia militia and others would turn on our own military and negative things could occur at that time. >> we have no indications that

they intend to turn on us. what we are watching carefully is the popular mobilization forces, when they recapture lost territory, whether they engage in acts of retribution and ethnic cleansing. senator corker: i know we have talked about syria. this is a term even the administration has begun to utilize themselves. we are in a containment mode. we are not taking aggressive steps to turn the tide there. we are involved in some aerial attacks. it is more of a containment mode. we have a train and equip

program right now. i wonder if you could talk to us about two major decisions. if we are going to try to equip folks in other countries that are being trained against isis -- there has been an alleged other program that is against us on himself. -- assad himself. if we are going to have a program that is going to deal with isis, i would assume we would consider it only moral that if we are going to train them and bring them in what we would supply air power and other support to protect them, especially from assad's barrel bombs. senator graham may have asked a question about whether this amuf provides that legal authority. does it provide the legal authority for our military to protect those we are training in other places against isis, to protect them against assad.

talk to us about why we have not yet agreed into the air exclusion zone that turkey has asked us to approve that would more fully bring them in on the ground and get something much more positive occurring as it relates to having some ground effort there. chairman dempsey: i take it you are looking straight at me so i assume the question is for me. let me briefly describe the way we characterize our campaign against isil. i would not say that our goal is to simply contain isil inside syria, but in main effort and supporting effort. our main effort is in iraq because we have a credible ground partner for whom we supply this airpower to distribute and degrade and

defeat isil inside of iraq. we don't have that credible partner inside of syria yet. we are taking steps to build a partner. we are attacking isil where we can you was using isr. it is intended to disrupt their activities so they cannot complement each other. they are no longer able to do that -- they are isolated and degraded in syria while we can talk -- conduct our main efforts inside of iraq. to your question about whether the amuf provides legal authority to perfect -- protect the syrian forces, the answer is no. the administration has not added any syrian regime or assad component to the amuf.

we are in active discussion about what support we would supply once the new syrian forces are fielded. militarily, there is a pragmatic reason, a moral obligation -- let me speak to the -- senator corker: we are spending congress's money to train and equip people to go against isis and we know assad will barrel bombs them. the president has sent us an amuf that does not allow us to protect them against what we know they will be facing down the road. that to me is somewhat odd and does not think congruent with previous steps relative to train and equip. chairman dempsey: i'm not

discounting the moral obligation. i'm giving you military advice. militarily, there is a pragmatic reason to support them. we will not be able to recruit men into that force unless we agree to support them at some level. senator corker: militarily, we have had a good crop that signed up on the front and. we cannot recruit more if we are not able to protect them and the amuf we have before us does not allow them -- allow us to protect them. senator corker: we are under active discussion -- part of that discussion is the legal authority to do so. senator corker: i know i am way over but the air exclusion zone, what is keeping us from those types of -- chairman dempsey: we have been in two rounds of discussion with our turkish counterparts about that.

we are continuing to develop that option should it be asked for. >> senator boxer had to go to be part of that hearing. i asked that her statement be included in the record. i have heard all of you refer to no geographic limitation. but it reflect that the amuf passed out last year that the democrats put together has no geographic limitation. although that was a subject of debate. nonetheless, they came to the conclusion that it has no geographic limitation. to that extent, i know you have all raised it and i want to deal with it. let me ask you, general dempsey is it fair to say that iran's

sponsored shia militias in iraq fighting isil is definitely their immediate interest? do they have others beyond that? chairman dempsey: that has not become evident but is of great concern to us who have served in iraq since 2003. iran is not a new entrant into the crucible of iraq. they have been there since 2004. in some cases, their influence their economic influence has contributed to this -- it has been disruptive to the inclusiveness or potential for an inclusive government. i share your concerns. we are watching carefully. the decree operation will be a strategic inflection point. in terms of using our concerns or increasing them.

>> i would like to believe it is only to fight isil but i don't believe their purpose is -- at the and of the day, we have different goals as it relates to iraq, both in the short term and long term of a democratic multiethnic government. chairman dempsey, you said in your remarks something to the extent that the authorization is proposed by the administration. it deals with our campaign as we hav presently devised ite. does it also deal with a campaign that may alter? chairman dempsey: it deals with

the campaign as presently designed and has statements in their. i'm not sure what part of it you might -- senator menendez: if your campaign as presently designed it needs to change to the realities of what is happening. do you believe the authorization will allow you to do that? chairman dempsey: as most of us who have studied and served against these kind of threats at we believe the primary way you defeat these groups is with partners in the region and through sustainment of a rock coalition. -- broad coalition. the u.s. forces involved should be enabling, not necessarily leading the effort.

i will always go back to the commander in chief through the secretary of defense of defense and recommend whatever i think is necessary to accomplish the task. as i presently can s conceive of this thread, this amuf is adequate to the task. senator menendez: i appreciate that answer because it underlines the challenge that members of the committee have in getting to the right point to support the president, to degrade and defeat isil and not to provide the open ended nestness. if you believe it has the wherewithal to be a feature criteria, that is the essence of the challenge. last week before the armed services committee you in response to questions set your view of what and during combat

operations would mean -- chairman dempsey: it is not a doctrinal term. it is a statement of the commander in chief's intent. senator menendez: we all know it may be the intent of someone not to have any large-scale, long-term offensive combat troops. that intention can change along the way. that is part of our challenge here. general allen testified before this committee last week and we asked him -- he said that could mean as long as two weeks or two years. considering his experience, it was not an insignificant statement. secretary carter, what does it mean to you as the secretary of

defense who oversees all the armed forces. what does no enduring offensive combat operations me to you? defense secretary carter: there are two ingredients to this. the how and the when. the amuf as proposed is -- provides for a wide range of activities to defeat isil. it has one significant limitation. the one you refer to. it does not authorize the kind of campaign we conducted in iraq and afghanistan.

that is not what we foresee as necessary for the defeat of isil . it means my objective of having necessary possibility. there is that limitation. that is what the meaning of those words is. in regards to the three-year limit that is not based on assessment of how long the campaign will take but how long that's how our system works here. senator menendez: it can still commit thousands of troops or a long period of time. it may not be the size of afghanistan or iraq. secretary kerry, one of the criticisms of the residence proposed amuf is that it does not make clear that it is this amuf and not that he doesn't

want that the 2001 -- and not the 2001 amuf that governs this situation. the isil amuf precedes any other amuf? secretary of state john kerry: only if it was absolutely clear that there was no limitation whatsoever with respect to the other activities authorized by the 2001 amuf. that is the principal authorization with response to al qaeda. the president has made it clear if a congress passes -- senator menendez: there is no reason -- secretary of state john kerry: as long as it is clear.

senator menendez: over the weekend, boko arouharam declared allegiance to isil. with a be a target -- would they be a target? secretary of state john kerry: thedefense secretary carter: the language indicates the possibility of other groups aligning with isil. the text says the amuf would cover such groups that associate with or fight alongside if they also have the attempt that intent of threatening americans. senator menendez: swearing allegiance would be enough, then? secretary of state john kerry: if they are -- defense secretary carter: if they are associated

with my isil and threatening americans. >> i want to thank you all for recognizing what happened this morning in my home state of florida. it is inherently dangerous work even under training. our thoughts and prayers go out to them and their families and loved ones. i want to ask you about iran. iraq's goal is to become the regional -- most ominous regional power. -- most dominant regional power. they see american military presence in the region as a threat or impediment to that goal. defense secretary carter: yes. >> they are never excited to see additional american troops. defense secretary carter: i

cannot imagine that bombing isil is unwelcome to them. >>-- i believe much of our strategy with regards to isis is being driven by desire not to upset iran so that they don't walk away from the negotiating table. tell me why i'm wrong. secretary of state john kerry: the facts completely contradict that. i'm not at liberty to discuss all of them here for a lot of different reasons. at this delicate stage, i'm not sure that is advisable. >> can you state that iran's

feelings about our military presence in the region and -- could you tell me today that under no circumstances is how iran would react -- they are not fans of us bombing isis because it involves our presence in the region. are you telling us that is a nonfactor in the negotiation? secretary of state john kerry: they would welcome our bombing additionally of isis. they want us to destroy isis and they want to destroy isis. isis is a threat to them and the region. you are misreading it if you think there is not a mutual interest. >> if the u.s. sent more military personnel, they would support that? secretary of state john kerry:

they are not going to come out and openly supported. obviously, they would be nervous about it, but they are not going to object to it. we have bigger problems with that because the shia militia might have something to say about it. other people might react very adversely to that. what is important -- understand this. this has been a misreading by a lot of people appear on the hill. there is no grand bargain being discussed here in the context of this negotiation. this is about nuclear weapon potential. that is it. the president has made it absolutely clear there will not -- they will not get a nuclear weapon. the presumption has been that some out that somehow we are not aware of that goal even as we negotiate that goal. our negotiation is calculated to makes sure they cannot get a

nuclear weapon. it is almost insulting the resumption here is that we are going to negotiate something that allows them to get nuclear weapon. >> i believe our military strategy towards isis is influenced by our desire not to cross redlines-- secretary of state john kerry: absolutely not in the least. we will do what is necessary in conjunction with our coalition -- we have 62 countries. five sunni countries that for the first time ever are engaged in military action in other countries in the region. >> general dempsey outlined the need to have a broad coalition that involves these sunni countries like the jordanians and saudi's and others. these are countries that are deeply concerned about iran and they feel we have kept them in

the dark about our negotiations with iran. the way we proceeded with negotiations and iran have impacted our trust level. secretary of state john kerry: that is flat wrong, also. i just came back from meeting in the gulf -- i met with the king who complete was supported what we are doing. i met with all the gcc members and they sat around the table and they all articulated their support for what we are doing and they believe we are better off trying to prevent them from getting a bomb diplomatically first, provided it prevents them from getting that bomb. a whole bunch of people are trained to get a grade before the test is taken. >> our allies in the region are perfectly comfortable -- secretary of state john kerry: i did not say that. they are not perfectly comfortable. they are nervous and

apprehensive. they want to make sure that just as numbers of congress want to make sure that the deal that is struck will in fact prevent them from getting a weapon. we have shared considerable details with them. >> on the apprehensive about that? secretary of state john kerry: wethey are comfortable with what we shared with them. he publicly sat with me at a press conference in which he articulated their support. >> we talked about the same moment ago. part of what's happening here -- we have seen that emerge in libya appeared we are starting to see signs of it emerge in afghanistan. can you comment about what isis that's what we are seeing with isis in regards to competition between them and al qaeda and the taliban?

how does this amuf allow us to form a strategy that allows us to deal with out that second ring up threats? the chairman dempsey:chairman dempsey: the ttp is the splinter group of the taliban that has rebranded themselves to the isil ideology. the amuf would give me the authority to make recommendations how to be a with isil wherever it shows up if the first two conditions exist. that they have affiliated themselves with the ideology and that they demonstrated intent to threaten u.s. interests regionally or globally. >> we still have a significant presence of servicemen and women where there are now -- they are

now getting groups to align themselves. the group of isis affiliates could potentially pose a significant threat to american personnel in afghanistan. potentially. chairman dempsey: it will initially pose a threat to the government of afghanistan and could over time through -- pose a threat to us. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman and thank you for your incredible service to our country. i supported the use of force resolution that was reported from this committee in the last congress, as did every democrat. as i was listening to secretary carter explained the objectives of the amuf and thought about what we had recommended, and satisfied everyone of your concerns.

i was somewhat surprised because i think some republicans were reluctant to support a use of force in the last congress because the it missed ration had not come forward with a request. -- this administration had not come forward with a request. i was surprised that they did not bring forward a resolution that was more consistent with what we developed in the last congress and would have accomplished every one of the objectives that secretary carter pointed out let me bring up three concerns. i will try to get through as much of this as possible. first, dealing with the 2001 authorization and why there is nothing included in your request that deals with the 2001. to deal with the interpretation of and during offense of ground combat operations. there, how you will determine associate forces. all three give me concern. in regards to the 2001

authorization, it was passed rather easily by congress to go against those responsible for the attack of our country on september 11, 2001. many of us are surprised that that authorization could be used today against isis in syria. the 2001 authorization is now the longest running use of force in american history. four years longer than the vietnam war, eight years longer than the revolutionary war, 10 years longer than world war ii. one third of the authorization have included limitations of time. that is not an initial provision to be placed -- unusual provision to be placed in the resolution because congress and the administration need to work together. circumstances change and it's important to congress and the ministration -- i wasyou fully

understand it for your sunset -- a three-year sunset. this is sensible and principal provision of the amuf, even though i cannot ensure that it will be completed in three years. we have introduced a bill that would limit the 2001 authorization to the same three-year provision. if congress chose to include a three-year sunset on the 2001 authorization, would it be your view that that would be a sensible and principal provision for congress to include even though you cannot ensure that the military operations against those responsible for the attack on our country on september 11 can be completed in that time? it would be up to the next

administration. defense secretary carter: thank you for that. i cannot give you a clear answer to that question and let me say why. the 2001 authorization covered al qaeda and its successive generations which have now extended for 14 years. there is still an al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. they intended to attack this country and we need to protect ourselves. >> isn't that also true of isil? defense secretary carter: there is now a 14 year history of the tenacity of al qaeda and its offshoots and their intent to attack our country. you have to take that into account as to whether it makes sense to put a sunset on that one. this one we are embarking on is a new campaign, a new group.

as i said in my statement, i respect the desire to have a sunset clause that does not derive from any characteristic of the campaign that i know of yet that would predict it would wrap up within three years. we have history in the case of al qaeda that it has lasted quite a long time and that element will form whether a sunset -- >> if this is a new campaign, i don't understand how you can use the 2001 authorization to justify the use of force. you cannot have it both ways. i don't understand the distinction when you are saying it's a new campaign, we don't know what's going on yet but we will use the 2001 authorization. defense secretary carter: maybe another way of getting at your question, the president has

indicated a desire and willingness to revisit the 2001 -- >> we are kind to help that along -- trying to help that along. defense secretary carter: which i also think makes sense in view of what you said, it has been 14 years. the only thing i would say annually reason i'm hesitating here is that we have to protect ourselves against al qaeda. they are still out there 14 years after 9/11. >> our congress will meet again. i want to get one more question in on the enduring offensive ground combat troops. i looked at my app on my phone to get a definition of "enduring." it came up as "lasting endurance." would you tell me why the term

enduring offensive ground combat operations could not be interpreted to include operations such as our military operations in iraq afghanistan since we did not intend our troops to be there on a permanent basis? why couldn't you interpret that language to include a ground campaign similar to what we saw in iraq? defense secretary carter: i will let senator kerry answer. i'm not a lawyer. the interpretation i gave to that phrase is the interpretation that those who drafted the amuf make of it. it is intended to rule out the kind of campaign we waged in iraq and afghanistan because we don't foresee that kind of

campaign is necessary and that is one of the things those words are supposed to cover. let me ask secretary kerry to add to that. secretary of state john kerry: the president has been particularly clear about this. there is a huge distinction between the kinds of operations we are conducting in afghanistan and iraq where we committed a significant number of troops for a long period of time. the president has ruled that out. what he has done is offer you confining definitions that provide the limitations here. the english language provides them also, frankly. i don't have to agree with the comment about two weeks to two years. i don't think anybody can't place a year just contemplates a

year. that is not in the thinking of the president. what he has thought of and what general dempsey has been clear about is not giving up the option under some particular circumstances where you might want somebody on a special forces nature or embedded nature somehow to be accompanying people. i don't want to go into all the parameters of that but it has been clear how limited it is. an effort to rescue people in some particular instance. perhaps a specific targeted operation against leadership, for instance. perhaps intelligence collection and sharing. there is a range that has been laid out. the whole purpose here is to have a concept that is well

understood that is extremely limited but not so limiting that our military cannot do what he needs to do in some situations to protect america's interests or american personnel. it is not contemplating years not even months. it would contemplate some current operation along the lines i just described. >> the language we use in 2001 most of us would not have used today. this authorization goes to the next administration. they would have the authority and may have a totally different view on that. secretary of state john kerry: it may indeed, which is precisely why president obama said i will put it in a three-year range. i don't want the new president to come in and faced the kind of choice i've based on my desk day one, which had to be made within

30 days with respect to afghanistan. he gave it the distance of the year to allow the ministration to get his people in place and evaluate and make a decision. most important, this is where there is a broadly accepted and absolutely clear congressional possibility. -- responsibility. you will have the authority i think you would be welcoming this opportunity to double check the next menstruation. -- next administration. i would think this would be automated by congress in that respect. i understand there are principles where people say we don't want any limitations at all. this certainly fits within capacity to get a major vote out of congress. that is something else you have to think about here. when i testified in december and testified two weeks ago, i think i made it clear that our

interest is best served if there is a powerful poets of this. -- powerful vote in support of this. >> thank you. we do welcome this opportunity and welcome the opportunity to weigh in on any final iran deal. with that, senator johnson. >> words matter i know we. this is puzzling. secretary kerry said this needs to be extremely minut limited but show the commitment of the united states. there are a lot of loose statements. let's talk about the joint resolution passed in 2001 and why the current activity is tenuously connected to that.

that joint resolution was to authorize the use of unite states armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the united states. the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations come organizations or persons who planned, authorized committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on september 11 2001 or harbored such organizations or persons to prevent any future attacks against the united states. i don't hear anything about successor organizations. i'm puzzled by the fact the administration is firmly of the view that they already have statutory authority to conduct what they're conducting. i guess there is nobody pushing back that hard on that. now we are talking about a new resolution -- authorization.

i'm puzzled by the fact that any commander-in-chief if they already have the authority to do what is being conducted, why would they want to limit that? particularly when you said you wanted to dispel any doubt, send an unmistakable message -- this is the authorization we are discussing. let's talk about the specific words. the president is authorized subject to the limitations and subsection c to use the armed forces of the united states against isil or associated persons or forces as defined in section five. the authority granted in subsection does not authorize the use of an eye states armed forces in and during -- that is not a real dispelling of doubt.

duration of this authorization shall determine three years after the date of the enactment. let me read you one other authorization. this was passed on december 8 1941. the president is hereby authorized and record to employ the entire naval and military force of the united states and the resource of the government to carry on war against the imperial government of japan and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the congress of unite states. if we are discussing language to dispel all doubts, send an unmistakable message, which authorization would you want to have in your back? chairman dempsey: i am not going to compare something from 1941

to the conflict with a nonstate actor. i was consulted on this amuf. >> it has always puzzled me, why would anybody want to pick a fight with united states? why is ice issis on videotape to be headings of americans? why would anybody want to pick a fight with united states? defense secretary carter: i can only say and read as you can hear and read what they say. they intend to create an islamic state and they regard us and our friends and allies as standing in the way of that and therefore they have shown their willingness to attack americans and attack our allies and interests. >> i would never pick a fight with chairman dempsey's military .

the only way i would pick that fight is if i didn't think america would be serious about coming back to defeat me. i do want to talk about the current ground forces currently allied against isis. do we know what the force structure is? how many iraqi security forces are there, how many kurds, how many shia militias are sponsored by iran? what is the current structure of boots on the ground? chairman dempsey: i will have to get back to you on the exact number. >> i'm happily with ballpark figures. chairman dempsey: there's approximately 1000 sunni tribal folks, one brigade of iraqi security forces in tikrit. a couple hundred of their c.t.s.

, the mod sponsored forces. there is approximately 20,000 of the popular mobilization force the shia militia. >> the shia militia dramatically outnumber the iraqi security forces. chairman dempsey: they do. >> there pretty much iranian sponsored, correct? chairman dempsey: iranian trained and somewhat iranian equipped. >> secretary carter, you said the outcome of tikrit will explain an awful lot of things. what do you mean by that? defense secretary carter: i believe it was general dempsey who made that statement. i will let him explain himself but i agree with it. chairman dempsey: there is no doubt that the combination of the popular mobilization forces

-- they will run isil out of decree. the question is what comes after in terms of their willingness to let sunni families move back into their neighborhoods whether they work to restore the basic services or whether it results in atrocities and retribution. >> senator rubio's line of questioning was laying out our concern that if iran is at the tip of the spirit hereear, they will have influence in iraq and there will be difficult, tenuous dangerous -- it will be difficult, tenuous and dangerous. arch you concerned about iran's growing influence -- aren't you concerned about iran's glowing growing influence? secretary of state john kerry:

i'm concerned about their growing efforts in the region. their influence in yemen, beirut and lebanon and syria and damascus and hezbollah and their influence in iraq. a lot of things are happening right now in the region. the history between persia, the persian shia and arab world and arab shia is complicated. iraq and iran had a 10 year war. people were gassed. iranians did not respond with gas. there were a lot of interesting facets of how that played out. iran's influence has bred at this moment and we are deeply concerned about it -- has spread

at this moment and we are deeply concerned about it. think of what happens -- we heard it recently and you hear it elsewhere. if they had a nuclear weapon and they were doing that. that's why this administration believes the first step is to prevent the access to the nuclear weapon or prevent their ability to develop a nuclear weapon. that is our goal. first, to try to do that diplomatically. if it cannot be achieved diplomatically we have a lot of options available to us. we are i slight open with respect to what's happening and all of those issues, we have made it clear, they don't disappear. -- we are eyes wide open. we still have all these other issues with iran.

we will all need to be working on the ways in which -- gcc members will be coming here next month to continue the dialogue we had in the region last week. i'm confident we will take the steps necessary to counter what iran is doing in other ways. >> i'm not seeing the full commitment out of this administration. we are seeing the growing influence of iran. >> thank you to the witnesses. we are now in the eight month of a war that began on the eighth of august. there has not been a congressional authorization of the war, except for the foreign relations committee voting -- there has been no floor debate and i view that as highly challenging and disturbing in terms of the way the nation makes the most grave decision

we're supposed to make. i do agree this authorization is needed. count me among many members of congress and others who believe that 2001 and 2002 authorizations are not seem to forget -- are not significant. there is precedent for congressional authorizations after the beginning of military conflicts. if we do not act to authorize it, from a legal an standpoint, it would be somewhat catastrophic. i agree with the testimony of the witnesses that the authorization should be strong and bipartisan. for those fighting this battle i cannot imagine asking people to risk their lives with us not having done our job. if we were to pass it in a narrow or partisan way, that would not send a message that would make people risking their lives feel good about the risk

they are taking. i want to talk about the ground troop provision from a definitional standpoint. the language is in the proposed authorization and it has given some tone and color -- it would not authorize long-term large-scale ground combat operations like those our nation conducted in iraq and afghanistan. you have used that as a limitation. in the first global war was six or 90,000 american troops were deployed overseas -- 690,000 american troops. would that be an enduring combat operation? defense secretary carter: i think an operation that large, a state on state operation is not

something that we foresee has the kind of campaign we would mount against isil. not foreseen by this amuf. the fundamental nature of this campaign is one in which we are seeking the lasting the feet of isil -- defeat of isil. we have to have somebody on the ground who sustains the victory after the isil forces are defeated. that's why our fight is enabling fight. we are try to develop the ground forces that would do it. >> i want to ask you about that point p i'm try to figure out, is there some meaning to this definition that we can apply to say this is not contemplative?

chairman dempsey: it would not be to to the defeat of isil. i can say with credibility no. >> that would not be allowed. isildefense secretary carter:secretary of state john kerry: i agree. >> the foreign relations committee has had two meetings recently with some of our very strong allies. king abdullah of jordan and the sheik of qatar. the location of the current air operations center. the king of jordan said to us this is not your fight, it is our fight. this is not your fight, our

fight. isis is born and bred in this region. they are claiming the mantle of a religion that we revere and they are perverting it for a horrible end. we don't want american ground troops because it could send the message that this is the united states against isil with the west against isil, which could be a recruiting method for isil. it needs to be our battle and ground effort and we ask appreciate your support on the airstrike side. i'm looking for metrics. if we agree that this needs to be a region policing itself with the assistance of the united states tell me what that means with respect to what ground troop levels could be

appropriate or inappropriate. in the airstrike campaign of the 20th hundred airstrikes u.s. has an 80% of the airstrikes. we have done 80% of the airstrikes, it is the u.s. what i am worried about is less the words but the concept. secretary carter, you are getting -- were getting at it. it needs to be the region. if we have to contemplate a significant number of ground troops, it almost means it has been lost from the beginning if the region will not weigh in on the battle. there is no amount of ground troops that we could put in iraq or syria. we can't create a recruiting bonanza for isis. i would rather have an authorization that said --

i see a real danger of a ground troops creep converting this not into the region policing its own terrorism. i would love your thoughts about how we guard against that, as a matter of thinking how to potential give this flesh in the definition. >> i think this authorization itself, in its current form guards against that. but the most significant guard against that is what king abdullah said and secretary carter and general dempsey and all of us believe that, the enduring transformation that has to take place here is not going to take place if the united states just comes in. we have the capacity.

but we're not asking to do that and they are not asking us to do that. i think they understand that the applications of that would actually be to aid in the recruitment, to create a bigger problem than we face today. to answer the question asked earlier, why do these guys like taking us on? if it is just us, that is how they grow and that is what they want. we are not getting suckered into that. that is why we built the coalition and worked so hard to get these arab countries engaged in the kinetic activities with us. it is precisely to deny them that narrative. as we go forward here, we think the best thing that could happen is what is happening now. this is in fact indigenous. it is springing up. the sunni are gaining confidence in anbar.

two out of three where it is making a difference. as long as we continue to work on the integration, the internal inclusivity of iraq and its government. as long as we continue to help the iraqis to do this themselves help the region feel empowered, that in the long -- is a long-term method for us to not have as much risk and put ourselves on the line as we have historically. the very strategy we are pursuing adheres to the very standards you most want to have in place in order to protect against mission creeds. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman.

the committee had asked particularly the chairman months and months ago for an aumf. we're glad it is here and we think it is overdue. it would avenue sold had that language or some kind of language from the administration early on. i know the administration was not comfortable with the anchorage past -- language passed. we all recognize that we may have to endorse him -- endure some sort of ambiguity in the language. we see it here when we talk about what is enduring. in exchange for legislation that can pass with the bipartisan majority. at what point does it become --

since the administration believes it had the authority to move under the old aumf at what point does it become unuseful to have an aumf that would pass with the partisan vote? is it worse than no aumf at all? secretary of state kerry: is it worse than no aumf? absolutely. we are convinced we have authority. that is not the issue. we have the authority because isil was al qaeda but. what the 18 and then grew worse. for 13 years going back to

2011 it called itself al qaeda in iraq. that is who they were. al qaeda in iraq. they had an extensive history of conducting attacks against u.s. coalition going way back in that time. they had a long relationship between al qaeda and osama bin laden. they viewed themselves and still do as the legitimate heirs of the osama bin laden mantle. they see themselves in a more aggressive term. that is why they have had some disagreements and tactics with al qaeda from whom they separated from. but separating does not change who they are and where they came from in the first time that we engaged in a fight with them. there is legitimacy to the 2001

effort because it began a long time ago against this very group which simply changed its name and some of its captactics. it does not change the threat to the united states. we will continue to prosecute that. senators have raised the concern that we are operating under the longest aumf ever. there is a much greater clarity and forced that comes from a statement from the congress that this reincarnated entity and this current, this current missed has to sizing -- metastasizing that is taking place is not going to be tolerated. that is important. are there some questions from some people about the sustained power of the united states of america? sometimes you hear that.

i hear that, in the course of diplomacy. and i think it is important to answer that in this context at this time. >> like secretary carter's formulation. second, the message he just sent, it needs to send the message to our allies and adversaries that we are in its for the long haul and backup the efforts of our allies and that the understand what their role is as well. andi do believe an aumf is certainly needed if we have a campaign that is going to go on a long time. and not --i'm not troubled by the sunset provisions.

i might wish for more firm language with regard to what an enduring force is but we also need to value language that can get a good bipartisan majority that can send that message. that is important to. as we know, we never get everything we want. i commend the administration for coming forward and listening to us. and for consulting and listening to others as well. i hope we can move forward and i appreciate your testimony. >> senator murphy. >> thank you mr. chairman dent thank you to all of our witnesses. thank you for your extraordinary gestures. the congress takes up the

question of when to commit u.s. personnel into war. i remain as frustrated as many of my colleagues over the definitions. every different member of the administration that we talk to seems to have a slightly different interpretation of what these words mean and i can't blame them. as secretary carter said, there is no historical operative definition of these words. the lack of consistency has hampered our efforts to get on the same page together. if we resort to just an understanding that these words mean something less than what happened in iraq and afghanistan, that really is no limitation at all. i am barely a lawyer. i practiced for four years, but i pr remember statues being --

i want to ask, one point of clarification on the piece of this terminology. that is back to you secretary carter. i was pleased by the language in the draft from the administration defining associated forces, including this limitation that it would be restricted to organizations that are actively engaged in fights against the united states. i just want to clarify, you said in your testimony it would be limited to associated forces actively engaged against the united states but the language actually says engaged in hostilities against the united states or our partners. the question of boko haram it if it is covered under this. so long as they are engaged in

hostilities against the coalition partner isn't it true that this authorization would give the united states the ability, subject to the other restrictions in the authorization, to engage in hostilities against that organization. >> i think you are reading it right. >> given that reading, let me ask again, would bow boko haram pledging allegiance to a isis be covered if the country in which they were engaging in hostilities was a partner to the united states. defense secretary carter: i can't give you a legal answer but i can give you a commonsense answer. it focuses on isis. we have authorities already alluded to in the 2001, which

also cover other situations which also might cover boko haram which allows us to take action to protect ourselves in that case. but this is focused on isil and the associated forces there. when they engage in operations against our coalition partners. , that can be interpreted but has not yet been interpreted to cover other groups like boko --boko haram. there are authorities under the 2001 also that could extend to boko haram depending on their behavior and the kinds of actions we need to take to protect ourselves. these are always in my experience, and again, i'm not a lawyer, just observing this as secretary of defense our

councils try to interpret the law and such a way that we are acting lawfully and consistent in the intent of the legislation and are able to take actions to protect ourselves. sometimes they get to those determinations when a particular instance arises. i think it is important when we have this -- this is the last point i will make -- to air on the side of caution of flexibility. i think someone said earlier that this language could allow an awful lot. the "how" part of the provision. it does. the president, if you're hearing different things, the thing i would listen to is what the president says. he does not foresee and this language does not authorize the kind of thing that iraq and afghanistan represented. he and examples of the kind of campaign that we intend to wage,

which secretary kerry noted earlier. we are enabling a force which provides lasting victory against isil. that is our approach because that is the right approach to get a lasting victory against isil. but i think in my role and the chairman's role, some latitude there in the language is appreciated because we need to be able to do what we and need to do to protect ourselves. this encompasses the campaign against isil as we now foresee it and one can reasonably foresee it. that is essential because we need to win this campaign. >> a minute remaining. there has been a lot of talk about sending assistant bipartisan messages to our enemies. i agree. i did not think there has been much division on the message

that we have been sending diocese. we stand united that we should take this fight to them. in the last few days there has been significant division on the message we're sending to a iran. an unprecedented letter from 47 of our colleagues to the ayatollah itself but many of us has the -- that's many of us believe has the effect and intent of undermining the president. this is a subject of great debate within the senate today. what do you believe are the ramifications of this letter? what do you believe is your interpretation of the facts of that letter, that state that any agreement by the president expires when another is sworn in?

secretary of state kerry: my reaction to the letter was utter disbelief. during my 29 years here in the senate i have never heard of nor even heard of it being proposed anything comparable to this. if i had, i can guarantee that no matter who was president or what the issue was, i would have certainly rejected it. nobody is questioning anybody's right to dissent. any senator can raise any of the questions on the floor. but the right -- but to write and suggest that

they are going to give a constitutional lesson, which by the way, was absolutely incorrect, is quite stunning. this letter ignores more than two centuries of precedence in the conduct of american foreign-policy. formal treaties obviously require the advice and consent of the senate. that is in the constitution. but the vast majority of international arrangements and agreements do not. around the world today, we have all kinds of executive agreements that we deal with. protection of our troops, the recent agreement with afghanistan, any number of noncontroversial and broadly supported foreign policy bills. the executive agreement is a nexus necessary tool used by

presidents from both parties used for centuries, literally. it is recognized and accepted from congress -- by congress from the earliest period of american history. with respect to the talks, we have been clear from the beginning. we are not negotiating a legally binding plan. we are negotiating a plan that will have a capacity for enforcement. we don't even have diplomatic relations with iran right now. the senators letters erroneously asserts this is a legally binding plan. it is incorrect when it says that congress can actually modify the terms of an agreement at any time. that is flat wrong. they do not have the right to modify an agreement reached executive to executive, between

leaders of the country. could another president come in with another attitude? no president, if this agreement meets its task and does what it is supposed to do, and in conjunction with china, russia france germany, great britain all of whom are going to sign or not sign off i would like to see the next president is always country say this is good, turn around and nullified on behalf of the united states. that is not going to happen. i have to tell you, knowing what we know about this, this risks undermining the confidence that foreign governments in thousands of important agreements, commit to between the united states and other countries. it purports to tell the world that if you want confidence in

your dealings with america, have to negotiate with 535 members of congress. that is both untrue and profoundly a bad suggestion to make. that aside from the legalities this letter also raises question of judgment and policy. we know that there are people in iran opposed to any negotiation. we know that a comprehensive solution is not going to happen if iran's leaders are not willing to make hard choices about their nuclear program. we know that a nuclear armed iran is unacceptable. >> mr. secretary, i know that is a well-written speech -- >> this is not a speech. this is about the impact of that responsible letter. it does not have legal authority. i think you have to ask, what are people trying to accomplish

that goal author of the letter says he does not want the agreement to be made and he wants that -- says that before the judgment is made, it is a mistake. i'm asked by one senator what the impact is and i am laying out what the impact is. >> five minutes and 26 seconds later, i would say that i did not sign the letter and i am very disappointed that you were going back on your statement that any agreement must pass muster with congress. the way we passed muster is we vote. i think all of us are very disappointed with the veto threat and the stiff arming that is taking place. >> let me just -- >> you have the right to vote any day. >> secretary carter, secretary kerry, general dempsey, i want

to thank you all for testifying today. this issue of authorizing military force is one of the most serious congress can consider. concerned about perhaps mixed messages from the administration regarding the isil threat. on march 3, general austin stated that isis is losing its fight that week later, director clapper said the organization remains for middle threat and is increasing its influence. the threat from isolate israel and acquires a carefully coordinated strategy to ensure its complete destruction. i look for to hearing -- forward to hearing how we can ensure its i partisan success. i want to understand the details and fully know that you're not unnecessarily restraining or restricting our ability to win.

secretary carter, in your remarks, you said that you cannot tell us that -- you leave the sunset clause is sensible and provisioned. you heard the senators all talk about this. if the aumf is not authorized and three is, the president can continue? >> that is correct. that is the legal interpretation of the 2001 aumf. the stated intent of the president is to revisit the 2001 a umf after this one as well. that is a totally different subject. >> in your verbal comments, you stated that, what a shame it would be to have a safe haven.

and i believe you are referring to the geographic limitations. could the three year time limitation be interpreted as a safe haven as well? defense secretary carter: it certainly shouldn't be. it has not by anyone involved in drafting the aumf. it is not a number or time period derived from our thinking about the campaign. it is derived from the constitution and the election cycle. it is for sure and our system that there will be a new president in three years. it is for sure that he or she will have had one year to get themselves on their feet. it foresees and leaves latitude for this to be revisited. that is something i respect as a consequence of our political system.

it is not the consequence of a battlefield dynamic or campaign we are waging. obviously, we hope to wrap it up as soon as possible. but i specifically said i cannot tell you it will be over in three years. >> we have had testimony from others who have talked about the ability to go for three years that we would not be able to defeat in three years but what we would be able to do in three years -- is it the right time? should there be no time limit? secretary of state kerry: numbers -- defense secretary carter: number three has to do with our political system, not the defeat of isis. i respect the people who do not want his son a sunset, but i think the logic of three years but it derives from our political system.

>> secretary carter, you said in your comments that enduring, i believe it was in response to senator cardin, that enduring is not in respect to afghanistan and iraq. could you give a clearer definition than the term and during? defense secretary carter: the president, when he explained the provision which describes how the campaign is authorized to be waged, explained that he was not he was not saying, and this was very sensible to me, enumerating the things that we could do. he was setting a limit, which is the language of enduring offense of ground operations, to mean

something like a rockiraq and afghanistan. >> just to go back. that is the definition that is the best the leaking get on the term and during -- as we can get on the term enduring? >> it make sense to me not to try to enumerate everything we may find it necessary to do in the course of this campaign. instead, the text sets an outer limit. it does not try to enumerate everything. the president's language did illustrate some things and secretary kerry did cite them but it is not try to say everything we might have to do. that is a good sensible thing for a military campaign. >> two more questions. secretary kerry, in response to senator rubio, you said i

believe that some several of the middle east counterparts that you have been talking to, you have shared with them details are some details of the negotiations with iran. am i misunderstanding your response? secretary of state kerry: we shared with them an outline. actually, we briefed them. we had our team go down and brief them. >> are those the same details that we have been briefed on? secretary of state kerry: you have been getting it much more in depth. >> talking about the peshmerga. in terms of percentage, if you look at the iss overall, the fights undertaken against isil, what's weight of effort would you say that the peshmerga or

others fighting in the region are currently pursuing against isil? >> the early successes were largely through peshmerga. they have been caring the majority of the effort so far. >> are they carrying out a third? >> the early effort to blunt isil's momentum or with peshmerga -- were with the peshmerga. >> have a been getting 10% of the arms? >> i don't have the percentage. there was friction early on with the government of a rack to

provide weapons to peshmerga but we have managed our way through that. >> you can confident and has been settled or resolved? >> it does not mean it will not recur. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you secretary kerry and secretary carter and general dempsey for being here. i was very pleased when the administration sent over language for the aumf. i supported the aumf that passed at of this committee in the last congress because i think as you all said, it is very important for our men and women who might be putting themselves at risk in the fight against isil to know that they have the support of congress. i think it is very important for the american public to know, to hear this debate, and know congress is supporting whatever

actions we take. with respect to that, one of the places where i think i would have issue with the language that was sent over by the administration is with respect to the r reporting on the ongoing actions. you all know the language in the a umf that the administration sent over said the president shall report to congress at least once every six months onto specific actions taken pursuant to this operation. in looking at the a umf the past the committee in december, the reporting requirements are much more robust and much more comprehensive. it requests reporting every 60 days and it's also requests a comprehensive strategy report that would be clear to congress

and therefore to the american people specific political and dramatic objectives of the united states in the region. it asks for a clearly defined military objective and the list goes on. whenile i appreciate there might be concern about the level of detail requested, it still things to me that there is a benefit from providing additional detail about the mission and more frequent periodic reporting. i think that is important not just for congress, i think there are also some benefits to the operation, because it makes it very clear in writing at some level, what the plan is. i was taught, a plan is not a

plan unless you have written it down somewhere, you have something that you can refer to. can i ask you secretary kerry to respond to that and perhaps secretary carter and general dempsey might want to as well go ? secretary of state kerry: first of all, believe me, the plan is reduced to writing and the president reviews its and there are an enormous amount of analysis that goes into this. you are right that it needs to be specific. but i think there's a bouncer between -- a balance between the effort put into reporting and fighting the war and getting the job done. i have asked the state department to do a review of all the reports we have to do and the numbers of people and hours that are put into reports that frankly, don't often get

thoroughly read and digested. i think there is a briefing process that my memory here, works pretty well. six month, when you think about it, is a fair amount of time. it is not so much time in the course of this in terms of the review process that it does not do the job. when you mix in the numbers of classified briefings, hearings that will take place and so forth. we are not trying to resist accountability, i assure you, but surely we can find a way to balance so that there is not an excess of paper turning and process that actually gets in the way of getting things done. i think there is a balance personally. i think they might feel the same way. >> certainly, i might agree that there should be a balance. i'm just questioning if

the balance in the language sent over is the right balance. general dempsey: i think balance is the right word and you are both seeking that and i agree with the principle. general dempsey: i would add, it is for you to determine how to exercise your oversight authority. there was a logic in that. >> i want to make sure anderson something that i think you said, secretary carter. and that was that -- i didn't get this quote down exactly right you said something about believing that the 2001 aumf gives us the ability to protect ourselves if we are attacked? defense secretary carter: it is more specific than that and the legal interpretation is more

specific than that. i recently saying that the existence of that since 2001 has provided the authority under which we have protected ourselves. it is quite clear we need to protect ourselves. >> the question i have is do we need that a umf to protect ourselves if attacked. what i'm try to figure out is why -- is whether we should insert specific language in this aumf that i colleges -- acknowledges that the fight we are engaged in now is covered by this a umf and therefore the two dozen one is not part of the action that we are doing now. >> i will expand my understanding and ask secretary kerry to add. the text explicitly states that this supersedes the 2002 ars.

the president has also indicated his willingness and desire to revisit the 2001 aumf. the only thing i would say is that it is important that as we do that, i understand the desire to revisit the 2001 aumf. we do need that continuing authority. that this new one does not continue to provide to protect us against others not isil. in order to protect the country. if we replace the 2001, that is fine with me as long as a gives us the authority to protect ourselves. >> i've seen press reports that the white house is open to congress inserting legislative language on this point as we did when we passed it out of the committee in december.

secretary kerry, do you know if that is correct? if the administration would accept the kind of language? secretary of state kerry: i don't know specifically if the decision has been made to accept the language, though i do know specifically the president has said -- it would sort of invite the notion of having language, because he has said if you pass the aumf with respect to isil now, he would rely on his authority on isil aumf on that aumf -- on isil on that aumf. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. have a question for chairman dempsey but i want to thank you personally for your lifetime of service and i hope you will take my echo of condolences for the

heroes who lost their lives last night. prime minister netanyahu stated that when it comes to iran and isil, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy. would you respond to that from a military perspective? general dempsey: i would not respond to how he determines his national interest. s. iran's nuclear program concerns us. >> after two wars and 14 years later, al qaeda still exists. that is not a criticism, it is a reality. i would like for you to help me define how we see from a military point what a victory against isil would be.

>> thank you for asking. we rarely have a chance to talk about the overall scheme here, if you will. isil is trans regional, which is to say they are not just confined to iraq and syria. they are generational, which suggests the duration of this campaign will be prolonged. we are seeking to find a sustainable level of effort. i did not have a chance to respond and the differences from the aumfs from 1984 and 2001. the use of military force in a state on state conflict is very different from a state on a nonstate or. the military brings three things. we own two lines of effort out

of nine against isil. governance, humanitarian relief, so forth. the two things we're doing are using direct action, notably with our airstrikes. the other is building partner capacity, which is to say building up the ability of the peshmerga, the sunni tribal leaders, to reject isil. it will only be permanently defeated if they reject the ideology. not simply by as cutting off its head. it has got to be rejected from within. it requires a different application of military instruments than if we would be fighting estate on state actor. one more thing. military does three things. enabling others, what we're doing with the french and molly against al qaeda -- in

i sense that some of us are looking for a limiting principle. the limiting principle is the way this particular enemy will be defeated. it won't be defeated by u.s. military power alone. . >> you mentioned you are concerned about what happens afterwards. if we are victorious against isil in iraq, it looks like iran is also victorious. case big to that -- can you speak to that? what can we do from a military standpoint once we declare victory over isil in iraq and syria? >> there is a lot in that question. iran is going to be influential

in iraq and has been. i'm concerned and have a wheeled that influence. there are ways they can wield that to promote a better iraq, economically for example. there are ways they could wield that implements to create a state where the sunni and kurds are no longer welcome. it is my concern about the latter that we are watching carefully. as declaring victory against isil, that is not for us to declare. as i said, very much we can enable it and supported coalition and hold a coalition together. we can build into the region, we can harden the region against it militarily. but the ideology has to be defeated by those in the region. >> i'm concerned about iran lost stature -- iran's sta ture in the region. that'si want you to pass this along

to your men and women in service. we hope we will end up unified. i absolutely believe we have to be like-minded. this is bigger than any artisan position. -- partisan position. this is bigger than the middle east, then our national security, this is about double security. -- global security. you are talking about the asymmetric question with regards to iraq and the middle east. i'm concerned and would like to have you respond and perhaps secretary carter as well, what impact does that have on our long-term strategy? we don't talk about the people's republic of china and russia in this conversation, but it is all interrelated and i would like to see how this relates in your

mind to the longer-term strategy. >> for the first time in my 40 years, we have both state and nonstate threats to our national interests. in my first 25 years, it was state threats, notably the soviet union. the last 15 years, it is all about nonstate actors. yes that's emanating from both -- we have threats emanating from both state and nonstate's. we are adapting quite well. if we don't have budget help on the issue of sequestration it is going to be difficult to manage both. >> thank you. senator markey. >> thank you. i want to thank secretary kerry for his strong words about the letter that was sent by our 47 colleagues to the government of iran.

i think that was a serious breach of protocol and an exercise in bad judgment, especially at this very sensitive time. i think that secretary for taking that's very strong position in this hearing. secretary carter, what i would like to ask you is how this extends to libya and what this authorization could mean, given the increasing stronghold that isis has in many parts of libya and what it could portend in terms of u.s. commitment to their removal of isil from libya. >>defense secretary carter: thank you. there are those in libya who use the term rebranding themselves as isil. that is not the only place we see that.

it is certainly going on in libya. therefore, this aumf could apply to operations in and around libya against those groups depending upon their behavior and whether they had met the criteria of the aumf. and also, because of the 2001 aumf's extent as well, that could also cover actions we might need to take in libya as it has in the past, if there are successor groups to al qaeda. both of those might apply to libya and these are the kinds of determinations made as these cases arise. but you do see in this social media fueled movement called isil people who are one of

these are want to join, are putting up the flag of isil and we need to recognize that that is a characteristic of the campaign and that is why the aumf has the language it does. >> if i may move back over to syria. in terms of what all of this means for our long-term american commitment our goal is to remove theassad. the goal of iran is to keep aside in office -- assad in office. what does this mean in terms of the commitment that we are making to have the moderate syrians depose, takeout, a

ssad. are we committing to back them in their effort to depose him? because that is their stated public goal. how do we square up this aumf potentially with that longer-term goal which our principal allies inside of syria have. >> senator this is isil specific. there are those who wish it would include assad, but it doesn't. the congress, and to a grateful for it, have approved for the

program, $500 million and that program is about to be up and running. in addition to that, there are other activities focused on the issue of assad. but specific to the aumf it is isil and is not authorized activities against assad. >> but in strengthening the moderate syrians whose goal is to remove assad are we not at a minimum, indirectly helping that goal to be achieved by potentially -- a recon splitting as a result -- are we contemplating as a result

a longer stay in syria to accomplish that goal? >> when you say a stay in syria we are not in syria. >> i mean our military support for taking out isil and strengthening the moderate syrians. >> we are committed to strengthening the moderate syrian's other activities that are specifically focused on the assad regime but this authorization and the efforts to deal with isil are focused on degrading and destroying isil. that particular military activity, should that goal be accomplished, would then cease and desist. that the effort to support the moderate opposition will continue. if isis is eliminated and the

moderate opposition has gained capacity because of that, they're going to be strengthened in their other activities, and we have made that argument openly and publicly. >> how long, in your opinion general, do you think is will take for assad to be removed? given his current state? >>general dempsey: two very different questions. the diplomatic line of effort is the primary line of effort, right now. i have not been asked to apply the military line of effort to remove assad. i would defer to others to how long it will take. the position of the united states is clear. he is given up the legitimacy of governing people he has oppressed. >> thank you. >> just to respond to senator

markey and secretary kerry cost previous comment , i would like to enter into the record a copy of congress.gov where senator kerry and senator obama cosponsored a bill to ensure that congress have the agreement that we reached theiraq. i would like to bounce out some of the discussion today and understand that positions change depending on what side of the table you are sitting on. >> i was referring to the timing . the delivery of the letter. i continue to believe it was an inappropriate document or the time in which it was delivered. it was not timely.

>> thank you. >> thank you all for your service to the country. we appreciate your patience. you have been enduring a lot of time and i hope we will not be much longer. i have one question. you do a great job for the american people and you have a job as a commander -- any question i ask you, would not be fair. secretary kerry, we have served together for a long time and you know this is really a poor the issue in part and has political overtones. i believe the senators'remarks about the need to come together as congress is important.

the first president to ever mention radical islam was thomas jefferson. general dempsey has talked about this as an enduring conflict. we know that isil is in the labont -- it is a growing threat. here is my question. if we had problems dating all the way back to thomas jefferson and it is a growing regional threat, having a time limit does not make much sense to me. we have the united commitment to fight isil and defeat isil but as general sense he said, that is not the easiest definition to write into words. on the term of enduring i think it means not special forces but

troops deployed. i understand that that would be something the president would like to come back to congress and ask authorization for. wouldn't we be better off sending a clear signal that there is no end to this conflict as far as we are concerned until we win the victory? >> thank you. i appreciate it. you don't have to commit yourself on behalf of the administration. >> let me think you personally because i'm delighted he stayed on the committee. you gave up a couple of seats of seniority. i want to express my appreciation. i know you will be a strong

voice for some of the things that always get paid attention to, particularly in africa. i don't think there's any doubt. i believe that the three years if they are accompanied by the vote that is necessary here and by the accompanying commitments by each senator who goes to speak and define why we are doing this and what we're doing i think is would be a healthy debate. i'm confident coming out of that would be an absolute understanding of why everyone in the region and world that we are deeply committed to this and committed for more than the three years. the three years will be respected as secretary carter says as a reflection of the process and not as a management

of the fundamental commitment to achieve our goals. every country in the region has committed to defeat isil. every country. that is partly what has prompted some of the questions because of iran's commitment to do that. i really think that their years as more of a -- the three years is more of a statement of respect by president obama, for him to say to the next president, to the congress, review this, take a look at this, see how it is going. tweak it if necessary. i think he has no doubt about the readiness and willingness of congress to continue that forward but perhaps with some state-of-the-art refinements. i do not think it is a problem. i think we can deal with that. in order to achieve the vote, they strains of iraq and

afghanistan -- the experience of iraq and afghanistan created a sufficient cloud over the potential of this note that i think -- i think that is the commitment we need. that gets us the stronger but to do that. >> i appreciate your response. i think the enduring presence gives you a chance to revisit and expand. thank you for your time and service. >> i want to start by taking general dempsey and secretary carter and carry for your service and engagement with us today. we recently heard credit news of

11 service numbers missing and lost. i think it is worth a moment of reflection on the enormous sacrifice that they have made and that there families are facing. i think all of us were best authorize -- i think his will involve a great deal of -- the question i want to raise is who bears the cost. we did put on the table and in our discussion the financial cost. general dempsey was right to raise the concerns about the budget. the need to pay for this war is

essential concern. president eisenhower said america could choke itself to death. we have used a combination of either spending cuts or increased revenue to pay for every conflict before the 2003 iraq war and the to post 9/11 engagements. i think we cannot write -- it is not only fiscally responsible but morally responsible. i am aware that this is not within the purview of his committee but i think it is the responsibility of all of congress. i'm intending to renew this conversation. in the last congress, i introduced an amendment that was debated and considered. i wondered if any of you care to comment on behalf of the

administration on an amendment that would call for a temporary war tax? secretary carter? defense secretary carter: you are raising a very important question. my own view is that question is not best associated with the authorization for the use of military force, although it is a very important question. with respect to the expenditures, we are in a situation, and chairman dempsey refer to this, and i believe the state department is also in terms of its own budget, one in

which we have had your after year of turmoil it is destructive and wasteful and causes all of us, and i think this is probably true in the state department budget, to have a very difficult time managing appropriately and efficiently. that is a very important problem. i appreciate your attention to it and agree with what you said. office top of the head here, i think that this is best dealt with and needs to be dealt with, the best dealt with another way than by incorporating the funding situation in the aumf. >> thank you. the point i'm trying to raise is that at the same time that the

chairman of the joint chief raises appropriate, and during the concerns, i feel uncomfortable that we continue to use contingency funding for more and more reach and functions. i would like to see us take on the responsibility of paying for this and not just asking for sacrifice from those in uniform. there has been back and forth about what associated forces mean, we have been engaged in issues relating to africa and whether in libya or nigeria there have been organizations pledging their allegiance to isil. just this past saturday, boko haram's leader pledged allegiance. the conflict with boko haram in nigeria is another example of a

situation where american boots on the ground is not what is called for and american support is the best strategy going forward. in your view, if that began to take off and conflicts begin to engage some of our coalition partners, with -- would this aumf qualify us to go after them? what actions would they have to take in order to be covered by this aumf and its current language? >> thank you for the question. an important one. as of now, this moment, by pledging what they have pledged or flying the flag or saying they are affiliated, there is no decision made or contemplated that they would be

covered under this at this moment. that is not adequate. but if, as secretary carter said, they start to attack the united hates or join with isil in a specific strategy to attack coalition partners, that would raise a legitimate question and this authorization could in fact, under those circumstances, cover them. it would have to be -- third be a lot of internal scrubbing about what those activities were and what the implications were. it would not be automatic but open to judgment. >> let me ask one more question, on the topic of negotiations with iran. i will make a statement and if you care to comment, that would be great. it is my hope that if a long-term agreement is reached the inspection obligation would be enduring as not end at the end of that term. knowing that there would be a

continuing inspection obligation would give some comfort to those of us who do not trust iran and are not confident that at into the window they would not immediately return to their illicit nuclear weapon activities. >> a very quick comment. it addresses a lot of the comments we have been hearing from the hill. i keep hearing people say, we don't trust iran. nothing in this agreement contemplated, if it gets reached, is based on trust. nothing. in fact, it is based on distrust and to i'm not going to discuss what might be complicated -- contemplated. i'm saying that whatever might be reached is not on the basis of some words and documents.

it has to be verified and has to be accountable. >> thank you mr. secretary. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general dancing, this terror -- question is for you. i appreciate what you are doing here. i think all of us agreed that we need a strong vote on this a umf and i appreciate your efforts center -- secretary kerry to put this together and this is a very difficult needle to bread because of the wide various views in congress. i appreciate your efforts to do that and i hope that they of the day that we do have this strong vote in support of this. i urge you to continue those efforts. general dempsey, this question is for you. if this passes, how will things be different after this passes than they are now? what is going to change?

>> i do not think there will be any difference in our activities. i think there will not be a potentially a difference among our coalition partners in the way they view our commitment to the fight. that in terms of the way that we applied military force and either directly their partners ornately others, they may change. christ thank you, very much -- >> thank you very much. what i'm saying now is a statement for the record and it is not a question. and i want to respond to some of the comments that were made here today. i'm one of the 47 senators that signed the letter that there is all this talk about in recent days. this indignation and beating over this letter is absolute nonsense. each of us that simon -- signed it is an elected member of the united states senate and is the first branch of this government. to say that we should not be

communicating is nonsense. members of congress, every single day, communicate with members of other countries with presidents and heads of other countries, with secretary the states and foreign ministers of other countries. it is done regularly. every time congress has recessed -- [no audio]

the how his country feels is very representative of how other countries in the region feel. mr. chairman, that is a statement for the record and i yield my time. >> thank you to the panel for coming today. madison wrote that history demonstrates what the constitution supposes. that the executive branch is most prone to war and therefore the constitution was studied care vested that power in the legislature. madison also went on to further right that the separation of powers would be protected by pitting the ambitions of one branch against the ambitions of another. there will be points of dispute. these points of dispute are imported and none will monolithically be able to declare a victory.

i cannot particularly be happy about being lectured by the administration about the constitution. this is an administration that i believe has trampled the constitution in many terms. this is an administration that seeks to legislature when it is not in their purview whether it be legislation, whether it be health care, or whether it now be a war that has been going on for eight months without congressional authorization. this administration is in direct the performance -- the fines of what senator obama ran on and was elected on. he said that no country could go to war without the authority of congress unless under imminent attack. this is a great debate. i saw -- i signed the letter to iran. the message that i was sending was to you. the message was to present obama that we want you to obey the law and we want you to understand the separation of powers. if this agreement in any way modifies legislative sanctions

it will have to be passed. by congress. that is why that i supported the legislation that says exactly this. however, i've told senator corker privately that i think that is the law anyway. this will have to be passed. you cannot undo legislation. why do i sign this letter question mark i sign this letter because i signed into an administration that doesn't listen. to an administration that every time tries to go around congress because you think you that you cannot get your way. the president says oh, the congress won't do what i want so i have a 10 and the phone and i'm going to do what i want. the letter was to you. the letter was to iran, but it should of been cced to the white house because the white house needs to understand that any agreement that removes or changes legislation will have to be passed by us. people can have different interpretations of things. when i will go through a couple of things that bother me about the ame -- a umf.

the a umf in 2001 says that nations organizations that planned, authorized, committed, or aided in the attacks on 9/11 are the target. that is what the authorization is about. i do not read both boko haram into that. to read both boko haram and so that, that is such a stretch that it is meaningless. senator markey talked about vagueness. it is pretty specific in 2001 when we were supposed to do. i was on favor of that state we had to do what we had to do in afghanistan with those who attacked us. if we have to go to other places, we should have other authorizations. i'm not saying that i won't vote for authorizations, we just need to have them. we have a new authorization that says we do not authorize into a ring and offensive operation. the problem is that it is so vague that i trust the military when the military says that this is not what we are complicating -- conflict desk contemplating. i trust you. there may be a president who i

may not trust. i have a certain degree of a lack of trust in this president who says it is not contemplated. the next president can say that is. is it 100,000? that would be my question is secretary carter. were saying that it is not 6000 thousand -- we are not saying it is 60,000. is it 100,000? >> there should be a number that reflects the basic approach that this draft or proposed a umf takes. this is to not attempt to you numerate or number but to set a skilled and limit -- >> could it mean 100,000? >> referring to, and the

president specifically refer to the camp and desk campaign output. again asked of the whole logic of the campaign which is to enable those in the region who can make a victory stick. crocs i can understand not wanting to put a number on it. when authorization was passed in december, it did not put a number on it. it did behind -- defined a mission force -- more precisely. the problem is that without a geographic limit, we now have boko haram. people are saying it is disdainful to say that we want to do pass something, but it doesn't really matter because we'll use 2001. this is absurd and it means that congress is inconsequential and so are the people in the country . we will basically do what we want if boko haram can be included on the 2000 one. if boko haram is a threat to the country, bring it to me and we will love.

-- vote. the thing is that i understand how things change over time and how people transmute words to mean things that they really were not intended to mean. if 2001 can be applied to boko haram, i am very concerned about voting for this as it is worded because, if we are going to go to war with libya i want to vote for war in libya. if we are going to board -- vote for war in nigeria, let's vote for war in nigeria. you may be able to interpret that under the imminent attack clause of the constitution. but i am concerned and that is why we get to numbers. under this resolution, i believe you can have unlimited numbers of troops in iraq. i understand that you say it is not contemplated. i also believe that you can have unlimited numbers of troops in libya and in nigeria. now there are 30 nations that have pledged allegiance to isis.

numbers are important and people worry about the dangers of being too confining. we are not anywhere close to that because even when we thought we were confining and 2001, people have interpret that to mean everything. senator carter, do you understand that if it were to pass as it is now that there are those of us who would worry that this would be authorizing unlimited troops in 30 different nations of the administration saw fit to send it? >> center, i think -- s enator i think that any aumf tries to strike a balance between being an anticipating a wide enough range of contingencies that we can react in a way that we need to protect ourselves and that we need to anticipate the nature of this enemy while being restrictive enough to suggest to, not just

the law, but to you and are forced, the force for which i'm responsible and general dempsey is responsible, what we are contemplating here. we are try to strike that balance. it is always hard to strike a balance and language. as i said before i was a lawyer. in common sense terms, that is the balance that we are trying to strike and i respect that different people might use differently which the that effect and i've learned enough in studying for this hearing about authorities for the use of military force and that there are several avenues to do that. i think what is being done here is a recognition of a new chapter, namely the ice all threat which opened last summer. the recognition that there's a new chapter in our effort to protect ourselves, and out of respect for that, a request for a specific authorization. i think i understand that.

i do not think that the lawyers have said that there is a legal necessity for it. it does not come from a legal necessity. it comes from the recognition of a practical fact which is something that happened last supper -- summer which created a new danger and the defeat of which we need to participate. we are not doing it by ourselves. we are enabling others to do it. that is the principle insurance to turn it away from another iraq or afghanistan. speaking as secretary of defense and not a lawyer, it seems to be the logic that brought us here and i understand it. >> thank you. i do not question your sincerity when you say it is an contemplated. i truly believe that it is an contemplated. i have to deal with words 15 years and now i have to explain my kids and their friends and their kids kids that something i voted for him to thousand 15 still has is that war in 2030 in 30 different countries.

ok? it is an ongoing threat and we need to keep the separation of powers and the reason that we have to keep it precise is that i cannot vote for something that will enable war in libya nigeria, yemen, and all these places of 100,000 troops. there has to be some limitation. it is the politician and the next politician after you. but thank you very much. >> thank you. i have one follow-up question for chairman dempsey and secretary -- senator carter. i feel like if you wanted to miss my last question, i would not can sit or renewed. if you want to stay, that would be fine. cox>> one minute for one thing. i just wanted you to know that today, the treasury department has authorized and initiated additional sanctions on eight

ukrainian separatists and russian pro-separatist organizations. the of its leaders, the crimea bank, and additionally folks and supporters. in addition to that, today, we are providing immediately some $75 million of additional nonlethal assistance immediately to ukraine in order to help them in nonlethal assistance. as you know, other things are currently under consideration. but i just wanted you to be aware that, mr. chairman. >> it is very timely for that. we had a ukraine-russia hearing yesterday and i know there's still a push to provide the legal support. i noticed there were a lot of questions and some statements made today, but the fact is that all of us deeply appreciate the tremendous amount of effort that you put forth in your job and we thank you for taking the time to be with us today with many other

demands that you have. thank you. if i could gentlemen, chairman dempsey if i could just follow up a little bit on the a ums -- the aumf and the issue of being able to protect those who we train and equip against assaults and the fact that is your believe -- that is your belief that the aumf does not protect that and i believe that is the assumption of secretary carter. is that correct? >> yes. i'm told separately -- just to get your question, is the force that we train and equip come under attack from a side, would we have the legal authority to help them defend themselves?

my understanding of that question is that we do not foresee that happening anytime soon. a legal determination, i'm told by the lawyers, has not been made. whether we have the authority to do that are not, again, i'm not aware. >> someone said to senator graham last week. first of all, we thank you both for being here and i know that coming before senate panels is not on your first priority list in your current day jobs, but we appreciate the time here. this is really to tease it out a little bit. it is a pretty big issue. when you think about the fact that we have authorized the training and equipping and that the administration apparently did talk some with y'all. if i understand correctly for a clear legal determination, that would mean an additional authorization would need to be

approved by congress for y'all to be able to protect and train and equip folks against assad. that seems problematic good you can see the consternation that takes place over the one that is now offered. to come back later with another one does not seem to me to be a vertically appropriate way about going about things. chairman dempsey, what should be our thinking in that regard and what is yours? >> i chuckled when you set how much we enjoy coming over here, but the truth is over the course of my four years as chairman, i've come to a deep appreciation of the fact that we do have an article one responsibility to have these kinds of conversations with you about our national security interests and the strategy delivers. i actually want to thank you for running a really cordial hearing today on the topics. as far as what we are going to do about protecting the new

syrian forces as they are fielded, that question, i mention the term that we are an active discussion. from the very beginning though we knew that we would come to the point where we had to make a decision about whether or not to protect them and it was always my advice that we had to come to some conclusion to assure them that they would be protected. now the scope and scale that protection is the part of this that is being actively debated. but the program won't succeed unless they believe themselves to be and have a reasonable chance of survival. >> let me just follow up. again, i appreciate the fact that you are not just looking at these issues and your role. but other issues in the pacific and all around the world and you have got to balance the resources that we have available to us. but back to that issue. can you understand why many of us here, knowing that getting turkey involved in some way on the grounds, probably matters to

our success if we are going to continue on the policy path that we are on and the strategy. it is important. knowing that the president did not see the authority to go against him again, not necessarily to them on directly, but to be able to protect, to train and equip personnel that will be reentering. and to be able to do with some humanitarian issues, and let's face it, the northwest triangle. that would give many of us, who suddenly want to support this, some concern that there really isn't a commitment level there to create, if you will ineffective ground effort. i just wonder if you can respond to that a little bit. >> i cannot ease your concerns but i can tell you that when i provide my military advice, it is key to the success of the new syrian forces that they will have a degree of protection.

that as secretary carter has said, is under active discussion. >> i assume then, seeing that is skewed to success, those that are actually carrying out these activities would not be offended if congress give that authorization today. >> i leave that to you, our elected officials. >> i wonder if secretary carter wants to respond to that. >> again the practical answer to her you're very practical question -- to your very practical question is that there can -- there could be circumstances in which the forces we train and equip come under attack from a sots -- assad's forces. and it will be important to know what manner they will be supported. that is something under active

discussion. i don't agree that the legal aspect of that has been determined. i cannot tell you. you have to ask the white house counsel or the dod council whether anything was additional -- additionally required. i said we can't answer that question for you, but i do think it is a very meaningful practical question. >> and i know that you all are in active discussion, and have your own concerns, and those are not necessarily always addressed quickly, if you will, by those that make decisions in other places. i understand that. i will say that from my perspective, it does show a degree of -- a lack of commitment from the white house. that they would not go ahead on the front, knowing there's no way you can continue to recruit

the folks that are involved in this train and equip program if they know they are going to come into the country and immediately be barreled bombed. it would be very difficult to recruit additional folks, as you mentioned. and it does cause me to be concerned about the administration's overall commitment. if that is not think that within this authorization, we have authorized the train and equip program several months ago. if i could, to you secretary carter, now, the reason the question i think was asked about the persian gulf war and the 600, almost 700,000 troops that were involved, to me the enduring combat language that was in theaumf -- the aumf would have allowed for that. it was a seventh -- seven month operation. and, so, you are saying that a

seventh month operation from your standpoint -- seven month operation from her standpoint would not, if you will qualified for the president's language. that would be too long. >> the reference you are using is to a campaign intended to destroy the military forces of another state. that is a fundamentally different kind of conflict from this one. the ability to compare them alludes me. >> i understand you are making a difference are, and i understand the difference when going against the country and an entity like isis. i guess what troubles me just a hair, and again, we all respect deeply the way uf come in -- you have come in and taken charge but talking about a seven month operation being too long, that goes beyond, if you will, and

injuring offense -- enduring offense. i was should clarify that for the record. if it takes two or three years i guess you would assume that not to be injuring -- en during. >> i repeat what i said earlier about the timescale. we do not know how long it will take to defeat isil. i explained earlier that i would not tell you it would be three years. that was the only duration included in this authorization and it does not derive from any expectation on how long the campaign will last. it derives from the political calendar of our country. so that is the timescale named and specified in the proposed aumf -- proposed aumf. and that is the only. of -- and that is the only period of time named.

>> i don't know if senator menendez has any questions. >> i don't have any questions, i just have a comment. i want to share our thoughts and prayers for the servicemembers who are lost. this underlines that there is risk once you done the uniform -- don the uniform. our thoughts and prayers are with their families. it also reminds me of someone who did not own for the process of sequester. you cannot ask you to do everything we ask you to do if we don't find relief from sequester. we seem to somehow ignore that. but i don't think both of you have that luxury. we have to do that. finally, i do hope that we can get to a point to find the right balance. and that is not easy in this proposition. to give you an aumf to defeat

isil but by the same token, doesn't provide an open ended check. but i think the real concern here is, for some of us who lived under shock and off -- a we and saw a lot of lives and national treasure spent, that even well-intentioned efforts can move in a totally different direction. and this is the most critical vote that any member of congress will take, which is basically a vote on war and peace, and life and death. so, for those of us who have been pursuing this, to try and find the right spot, the one thing i want to do takeaway is that i don't think there is a democrat or republican who believes we shouldn't defeat isil. as we struggle to get to the right wording, i hope we can go back to the men and women who serve this country with great sacrifice.

in that spirit, we are united. it is our only cause you to find out what is the best way to ensure that, and in the end, not in short and endless war. which is a concern of many. >> thank you for saying that. it means a lot. >> thank you both. >> i was just handed a note, as i think you all were a minute to go. i just want to end my last statement before thanking you that it is my understanding that the dod senior lawyers are sitting behind you. it is my understanding as we leave here that the authorization that has been put before us, and the 2001 authorization, neither one gives clear-cut authority for you all to be able to defend, the train and equip program, against. i don't think anybody is great -- disagreement that, is that correct? >> that is my understanding.

i would be happy to have our legal team speak to you about that. >> since i don't see them waving their hands back there, i assume they are speaking now. i would just like to close also by telling you how much we respect you both. how much we do appreciate your service to our country. how much we appreciate you taking the time to come up to. i think this has been very helpful to all of us. we wish you well. and the record will be open until it -- the close of business friday. i hope if questions come, you will answer them as promptly as possible. thank you for your service and your being here today. the meeting is adjourned.

>> the defense secretary secretary, the secretary of state, and the chair of the joint chief of staff testifying before the senate for relations committee for three hours on the administration's request for an authorization of the use of military force. the use of military force against isis, or the islamic state. here on c-span, we are going to take your calls and whether congress should approve that authorization. a couple ways you can join the conversation. by phone if you are a democrat or republicans. we are also looking at facebook. our facebook page, we have asked the same question. and if you want to join us on twitter, the #cspanchat. you can hear this entire hearing

again tonight at 8:00 eastern. also online, because there were another questions about this and there were several responses from secretary kerry about this the letter from the 47 republican senators sent to iranian leadership, we posted that at the top of the homepage there at c-span.org. let's go to our first caller. gainesville, florida. our democrats line. do think the u.s. -- the congress should support the administration's request? >> i think congress should support the president request to use force against isis. yes, i strongly believe. >> what did you hear from the top officials in the administration? >> well, it is really maxed which it -- mixed which it shouldn't be. i think we should go with what

john kerry has asked for. > and move on. > let's hear from gerald in colorado springs. a republican color. -- caller. >> yes, sir. >> go ahead, you are on the air. >> i think we should be doing a heck of a lot more to get rid of isis. i also think that congress should give the president everything he needs to get this job done. the only problem is our president does want to get the job done. >> what makes you say that? >> well, anybody who thinks that they are going into a fight usually goes in with the plan. and we have seen no plan. whatsoever. just a bunch of people who basically, are giving out orders to generals really don't know what they are doing. >> lots of comments by facebook.

margaret writes, since our military will be in harms way and their hands tied, it will go in and not accomplish what they are trained for. valerie post, not until we get a commander in and cheap. we don't need our military men and women murdered because they will be told to stand down. and from adam who says, i would rather not have more young americans in foreign lands. and that comment about 47 traders, too used -- use the comment, they are talking about a letter written by republican senators to iranian readership. we have posted that on our website. you will find that at the top of c-span.org. a look there at the letter from the 47 senators. a letter drafted by tom cotton. john. hello, there. >> hi, how are you today? >> doing fine, thanks.

>> yes, we need to help the president to make sure that -- that isis is a lemonade. -- is eliminated. this cannot go on and on. it is taking up too much. it is spreading. and it is divisive. and we have a lot of the arab countries that are on our side. now is the time to go ahead -- we have a president who does not want to do that. i do want to get into that, what my feelings are. but thank you. >> here is a post. i ron -- it ran -- iran and isis, two sides of the same bloody coin.

the senator wondering whether the administration was going soft on isis because of the iranian negotiations. here is what it sounded like. >> i believe that much of our strategy, with regards to isis, is being driven by a desire not to affect iran. tell me why i am wrong. >> because the facts completely contradict that. but i am not at liberty to discuss all of them here, for a lot of different reasons. in a classified session, i could. but at this delicate stage, i am not your that is advisable. >> for i the record, canran's -- for the record, could you state that -- >> senator, let me -- > >> could you tell me that under no circumstances, -- as we heard from secretary carter they are not fans of us bombing isis because it involves our presence in the region. i'd telling me that that is a nonfactor?

or is that some to you cannot discuss? >> they would welcome our bombing. actually. they want us to destroy isis. they want to destroy isis. isis is a threat to them, a threat to the region. i think you're misreading it if you think there isn't a mutual interest. >> so at the u.s. sent more military personnel into iraq they would support that? >> well, they are not quite to come out and openly supported. but they are not going to object, if that's what it is. the shia melissa -- militia within iraq might have something to say about it. >> let's get back to your calls and whether congress should approve the use of military force. new york city. on our democrats line. hello, zach? you are on the air. >> yes, hi.

good afternoon. i think we have put ourselves into a real bad spot ever since invading iraq in 2003. if we don't use military force then isis will continue to collaborate and spread. if we do use military force, it will anger the citizens in that region and might further elaborate this conflict. therefore, what i think we should start discussing is engagement with the people of that region. who don't support isis, for their ideologies. that is just not being heard. if we get more people involved in the negotiations, i think we have a better chance of finding the solutions. another problem i see that in terms of the 2016 elections this is going to dominate foreign policy. and might even overshadow the

negotiations with iran. >> do think the 2016 elections will overshadow this foreign-policy issue? >> no. i think this issue will dominate the 2016 elections, as far as foreign policy goes. because there is just no stopping it anymore. we created this issue when we went into iraq. now that it spread, we are having a difficult time finding a solution. >> there certainly were a couple of 2016 presidential candidates. marco rubio. rand paul also questioning the secretary of state carry. a tweet here, rand paul scoring ports today -- points today for support of constitution and congress's responsibility to approve foreign institutions -- intrusions. >> hi. my comment is mostly on the use of military force and isis, the

proposal they have up. i believe it is something that a more direct document or proposal should be done, however, the one that they have now, i question it highly because of all the stipulations and amendments and paragraph five, and trying to turn something that i believe should be a blatant, direct document that says directly what they want to do and what they expect of it. instead, i see kerry and 70 that i believe is either kerry or somebody else's puppet, carter dancing around the direct question of why they couldn't have a more direct proposal of it. that action states what they need to do, instead of something that our politicians now, in our -- that are in our office, and maybe in 2016 or further down the road, could take and use with this the elections or what

they take on the document and use it how they want. i think it needs to be -- i think all of the gray areas need to be removed out of it. it wouldn't be that hard to do. i believe they are there for a purpose. and the purpose is for exactly that. for them to be able to use it how they see fit. and manipulate it. just like they are manipulating -- that is executive what they want to do with this document for later. >> and it is unclear from here where the foreign relations committee goes with the authorization. not sure of any potential timeline for the senate. and from politico -- "politico " last week. a draft aumf, but also restricting its authority. it would ban, quote, injuring -- enduring ground operations.

republicans want to give this and the next president wide latitude to, quote, degrade and destroy isial well -- isil while democrats want to impose a round of new restrictions. the writing their in -- there in "politico." >> hello. i think we should give up -- our president what he needs. i am appalled with the republicans in this congress. and as for that letter by that little whippersnapper who has been in congress, i think about 40 or 60 days, what the hell does he know? i think we should support our president, otherwise we look like fools to the rest of the world. >> that issue of the letter came up several times during the three-hour testimony of the

three secretaries -- the two secretaries and the chairman of the joint chiefs. particularly between secretary kerry and senator corker. let's have a look. >> during my 29 years here in the senate, i never heard of, nor even heard of it being proposed, anything comparable to this. if i had, i can guarantee you that no matter what the issue and who was president, i would have certainly rejected it. no one is questioning anybody's right to defend. and he said it are go to the floor, any day, and raise any of the questions that were raised in that. but to write to the leaders in aim and -- in the middle of a negotiation -- to write to them and suggest that -- that they

are going to give a constitutional lesson, which, by the way, was actually incorrect, is quite stunning. this letter ignores more than two centuries of precedent in the conduct of american foreign policy. it -- you know -- formal treaties, obviously, require the advice and the consent of the united states senate to that is in the constitution. but the vast majority of international arrangements and agreements do not. and around the world today, we have all kinds of executive agreements that we deal with. protection of our troops. the recent agreement we just did with afghanistan. any number of noncontroversial and broadly supported foreign-policy bills. the executive agreement is a necessary tool for american

foreign policy. it has been used by presidents in both parties for centuries. literally. and it is recognized and accepted by congress from the earliest. of american history. -- earliest piece of american history. we have been clear from the beginning, we are not negotiating a, quote, legally binding plan. we are negotiating a plan that will have in it a capacity for enforcement. we don't even have diplomatic relations with iran right now. and the senators -- senator's letter erroneously asserts that this is a legally binding plan. it is not. number two, it is incorrect when it says that congress could actually modify the terms of the agreement at any time. that is flat wrong. they don't have the right to modify an agreement reached

executive to executive between leaders of a country. sure credit president and another present come in with a different attitude? no president i think meets its task and does what it is posted do in conjunction with china russia, france, germany, great britain. all of whom are going to either sign off or not sign off on an agreement. i would like to see the next president and -- if all of those countries say that this is good and is working just turn around and nullified on behalf of the united dates. it will just not happen. i have to tell you that, you know, knowing what we know about this the risks undermining the confidence that foreign governments in thousands of important agreements commit between the united states and other countries. enter purports to sell the world

that if you want to have any confidence in your dealings with america they have to negotiate with 535 members of congress. that is both untrue and profoundly bad suggestion to make, i think. but aside from the like at least, this letter also raises question of judgment and policy. we know that there are people in iran who are opposed to any negotiated arrangements. and we know that a conference of solution is not going to happen if iran possibly leaders are not quick to make choices about the size scope of the nuclear program. and we know that a nuclear armed iran is unacceptable. >> i know that is a well-written speech -- >> this is not us>> >> this is not a speech. the letter does not have legal authority. and, in a, i think you have to ask what people are trying to a cop was. the author of the letter says he

doesn't want these agreements to be made. and he thinks before the judgment seat even made that it is a mistake. so we will see where we wind up. but i am asked by one senator the impact, and i'm laying out to the committee what the impact is. >> again, a look at the letter itself from the 47 republican senators. in open letter to the leaders of the islamic republic of iran that was initiated by tom cotton, the freshman senator out of arkansas. signed by 46 other republicans. yes, they did talk a lot about iran, but the question is, should congress approve the authorization? we go to gary in akron, ohio. our independent line. thanks for waiting. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> kerry's commented actually stunning.

it is study because of the treasonous nature in which he says it did carry himself -- in which he says it. kerry himself negotiated against -- for the north vietnamese. and he was an officer. that was a violation. number two, nixon side it -- signed a peace treaty in south vietnam. the senate, then under arkansas senator fulbright and the youngest junior senator from massachusetts, joe biden immediately cut the funds to south vietnamese, south vietnam. our allies. and to the president quote, we will not -- we will not have any interference by american forces if the north violates the treaty and does anything. we will not do it. therefore, ignoring and countering president nixon's

executive agreement. so for kerry to sit there having negotiated with the enemy and north vietnam, and his picture is now hanging in north vietnam as a hero, and forget to remind us that both the vice president biden and the senate ignored nixon's signed agreement -- >> >> well, he would have been -- when was he part of the negotiations? >> kissinger was in france doing the peace treaty. and carry showed up -- kerry showed up. and he presented come as a shock to kissinger kerry presented the north vietnamese peace proposal that even kissinger didn't have. >> we appreciate your comments. we stay in a -- in ohio on the republican line. tom, hello. >> hello. i am all for, and i know we need

to -- it is escalating. as far as we can see, where they would like to have some numbers some figures more defined. and i see no problem as to why they can get together and say, ok, this is going to be a six-month. if it needs to go longer, we will have a window of opportunity to get together. get a number out there and have a window. i can also see the republicans not really trusting the democrats. we want to give everybody a medical, and they say no, we're

going to make you pay for medical. stab you in the back, you know. this can be net. as far as numbers, they can always come back and say, we want a window. they can always get together. as far as foreign relations, we definitely should have been on top of this. we need to get something done. they are moving pretty quick, getting a lot of other nations involved. host: more of your comments coming up, a couple more calls here. some of the video you saw from earlier, secretary interrupted with some of the protesters who are commonly at these senate foreign relations committee services committees. do you think congress should approve the use of military force? caller: yes.

i believe they should give him whatever he needs to get the job done, and stay out of his way. there are so many people out there just for themselves, trying to get themselves reelected. they're not interested in doing anything correct for the country or anything else. they're all about themselves. once we give him the authorization to do what ever he needs, you need to get all the little countries in the middle east together, put their militaries forward to fight isis. if we keep coming in fighting other people's battles, they will never do it themselves. isis or any other terrorist group has a right to come in, set up do whatever they want to do because they know those people aren't doing anything about it. host: larry tweets, foreign policy and military actions are exactly what we elect allocations to handle. -- politicians to handle. chelsea says, the grade --

degrade and destroy should be the effort. also on the way this evening, we will show you the entire hearing again, beginning at 8:00 eastern here on c-span, was secretary of state kerry, the defense secretary, and chairman of the joint chiefs. also this afternoon, the defense secretary will be holding a joint news conference with his counterpart in the british military, defense minister michael fallon. that is coming up at 2:30 eastern on c-span. we are going to show you some of the opening comments from today's hearing. >> we want to welcome our distinguished witnesses today. this is an important topic.

we know that each of you have been traveling extensively, and again want to thank you for being with us today to share your insights. everybody on this committee cares first and foremost that we have a policy i to deal withsis -- to deal with isis, that is in relation to our national interests, that the two are aligned. that is paramount and that is what most people in america care about, and certainly everyone on this committee. secondarily, the authorization process it self. we find ourselves in an interesting place. the president has sent to as an authorization for the use of military force. that was welcome on both sides of the aisle.

as we have received that authorization, what we have come to understand -- 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. 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. we cannot 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 globe. 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 drones. 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. dash 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 dash. 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 dash. to date, we have a coalition of some 62 members, including 14 nations that are contributing directly to the operations against dash. 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. new leaders are working to strengthen and reform the country's security forces through the purging of a incompetent 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. responding 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 thanked 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. -- three 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 states government has come together to address a serious challenge. we all took an oath to protect the nation and its interests but to do so we must work together. i know everyone on this committee takes the isil threat seriously. everyone at this table does as well. we encourage a serious debate. i ask you to pass the presidents amf because it provides the authority and flex wage and recurrent campaign and because it will demonstrate to our men and women in uniform that all of us stand behind them. thank you, mr. chairman. >> distinguished members of this committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. let me add my personal thoughts

and prayers to those at the loss of folks on that helicopter. a reminder to us that those who serve put themselves at risk in training and combat. we will work to which were those survivors -- their family members will be well cared for. >> the committee will join in. >> i appreciate the opportunity to be here today. i just returned yesterday from a trip to the middle east. i spent a day in baghdad with iraqi and u.s. leaders discussing our strategy. i spent a day with our french counterpart. aboard the aircraft carrier charles de gaulle in the arabian gulf. these two great vessels sitting

side-by-side, there can but -- their combat aircraft and their crews are a powerful image. the solidarity of all of our coalition members is fundamental to the strength of our campaign against this transit regional threat that isil represents. the government of iraq has a lot of work to do to make sure that isil stays defeated. that will take time. i have been consulted on the proposed authorization for the use of military force against isil. it is suitable to the campaign. we should expect our enemies will continue to adapt their tactics and we will adapt our spirit bipartisan support for an amuf -- i met with some of them over this past weekend and they are performing magnificently as you would expect.

i thank you for your commitment and i look forward to your questions. >> we will show you all of that hearing tonight beginning at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. coming up in just a bit under an hour or so, we will hear again from defense secretary ashton carter, this time in a joint news conference with his counterpart in the british military, the defense minister for the u.k. the new conference set for 2:30 eastern on c-span. a follow-up to yesterday's briefing with hillary clinton, the associated press filing a lawsuit against the state department to force the release of e-mail correspondence and government documents from hillary clinton's tenure as secretary of state. you can watch that news conference from yesterday on our website at www.c-span.org. here is some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. saturday starting at 1:00 p.m.

eastern, c-span2's booktv is live for the tucson festival of books and. sunday at 1:00 we continue our live coverage of the festival. saturday morning at 9:00 eastern on american history tv on c-span3, we are live from longwood university for the 16th annual civil war seminar with historians and authors talking about the closing weeks of the civil war in 1865. sunday morning and 9:00 we continue our live coverage of the seminar with remarks on the surrender of the confederacy. find our complete television schedule at www.c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at the number on your screen. e-mail us. or send us a tweet.

join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> next, a task force of retired u.s. generals present a report looking at the 2014 gaza conflict. these generals traveled to israel to examine the conduct of the israeli military and hamas in 2014. the report was commissioned by the jewish institute for national security affairs. this is an hour.

>> if i could have everybody's attention. please don't let my speaking interfere with your having lunch lunch. thank you very much for coming today. my name is mike petoskey. i'm the ceo of jinsa. we are here to have a very special event and we are glad to have everyone here as well as members of the press. we thought during the last summer during the gaza were -- war between israel and hamas that was going on there in that conflict was a lesson for the united states. that was our view and consultation with former u.s.

military folks as many of you know if you haven't been to an event of hours just so was -- jinsa was founded in 1976. it's a pro-u.s. defense organization. we have been members of u.s. military including a lot of retired generals and admirals for many years. we thought in our consultation with some of the generals it would be very useful for former senilks or do a study of the -- senior military folks to do a study of the gaza conflict last summer and one ofthe lessons that we could learn for the united states. we have five very distinguished members of the task force and we have two very distinguished advisers and i advisers and i'll i will introduce them quickly. we have five of those people who are here today. chairing the task force's general chuck walz who is on my right.

chuck was former deputy commander of united european command and also had of the air command, they air attack at the beginning of the afghanistan war. attorney general bill caldwell was former commander of u.s. army north. he also for 13 months with our spokesperson, was a u.s. military spokesperson in iraq. lieutenant general richard natonski former commander of u.s. marine corps forces command that also was an important commander in fallujah. major general rick devereaux former director ofpera oonal planning policy and sttegy for the air force. major general mike jones former chief of staff of u.s. central command also was an important commander in iraq. our two advisers professor elliott cohn professor of

strategic studies here at slice and lieutenant colonel jeffrey korn who is on our panel today presidential research professor of law's south texas college of law in houston. without further ado i'm going to turn over to general wall. each of them are going to speak for a few minutes and then we are going to ask everyone come in their index cards on all the tables. if you have any questions we get to the q&a which i will moderate please write down the questions. people will pick them up and we will ask a select group of questions to the generals. again thank you very much and i think we will have one more thing before you get to the discussion. many of you have initial drafts of the report.

you can also find it on our web site at jinsa.org. general wall. >> i hope he cannot hear me but first of all i would like to complement mike makovsky is that the junta for the great job they did setting up a trip, coordinating the individuals who saw working to get this report put together so great job there. i like to tell you all thank you for taking the time today. a couple of good friends, dave thanks for being here. i'm sure there are others out there but it's good to have former colleagues here. our intent is mike mentioned was to take a look at the 50 day conflict and by the way many of you are familiar with this. in israeli terms 50 days is a long war. everything is compressed and a lot different from the standpoint of distances, the strategic depth, the time, the tolerance of the international community which was a big part of this summit will talk about that a little bit. the 50 day war to them is a long time.

there are a lot of things we could talk about today but the major takeaways we thought from this particular conflict that would be beneficial for all of us but primarily u.s. military were and we have heard much about this before but it's becoming more and more common knowledge is that this conflict with hamas and the gaza in more of an urban terrain is going to be probably the more common type of warfare we will see in the future, hybrid type warfare. we have heard a lot about that but a lot of people don't know specifically what it is. hybrid warfare is what we feel will be prominent in the future. nonstate actors, in this case even though hamas is technically the government they are, the fact that so many of the -- sophisticated hamas can. [inaudible] enemies are going to be creative and use anything they can and as an aside when

you don't have lot to worry about you can do a lot of things that are pretty creative. third the israeli defense force their efforts to avoid civilian casualties were ironically beyond the call of reasonable anyway. they were civilian casualties nowhere and for military people of my type that have been in combat a lot we i think our respective of the international law of conflict and the fact he would go so far overboard that you almost put your own soldiers in jeopardy is an issue that we can all contend with. the iao campaign the information campaign we talk about that in nine states.

united the united states military has had different definitions of the iao campaign for a long time. but our feeling was hamas really grab the narrative in this conflict for a couple of reasons. one is again and you can argue the point of whether it's moral or not but you can make up your own story in fighter pilot lingo lingo. they took advantage of the deeply debris. they develop the narrative and had no compulsion about making up the facts which shouldn't surprise anybody. i know it doesn't hear that but the fact is the international community started believing this narrative if you will. our feeling was the israeli defense force didn't do well at countering that and our feeling

is in the next complex whenever that is you have to develop your narrative and you have to be quick and nimble and you have to be credible because there is questioning and you have to develop a strong campaign and we will talk more about that. lastly we need to develop some of our own new technologies. hamas builds as you may know or if you don't know 34 sophisticated tunnels from the gaza into israel. the issue was they were going to use these tunnels to get inside the farming areas of the israeli citizens kidnapped them and the kidnapping issue is a big deal. these tunnels are very sophisticated. it isn't like a tunnel that you imagine. they start from inside the gaza and a civilian building so you can see where it starts. they take down almost 40 or so meters under the ground. they are cement and very sophisticated tunneling. it's living has security. they are up to two miles long and they can build these things fairly rapidly. they have different branches that go out so it's very sophisticated that you can can't

find these things zippier for example. -- from the air, for example. their other technologies we will talk about that we have of that that -- but a better handle on. i thought what we do is start out with kind of an overview of the war itself what the context was and what we are talking about here. if we could start with rick demirel. >> i wanted to elaborate on what general wall covered in our first area findings and that is this notion of hybrid warfare. which is in our view based on what we observed looking at the hamas idf campaign and the new face of modern warfare. it's a type of warfare fought by nonstate actors. sometimes using advanced weapons like hamas had available to it

rockets, missiles, uavs, special ops forces fought in densely populated urban areas. just as a refresher gaza is about 1.8 million inhabitants in this area about the size of the district of columbia so very close quarters and it was a conflict like in any hybrid war where civilians become the focus of the information campaign. those civilian casualties, civilians as targets, civilians as shields also part of this hybrid warfare. so the information campaign becomes a very important component of the conflict and as we will talk further about interpretations of the law of armed conflict and how an adversary can use those against an opponent. all those factors were sorted in play and we believe will continue to be in play for our

u.s. military as we face these nonstate actors in the future. isis for instance fits some of the parameters of this hybrid warfare in more and more that we will be embarking on and if you think about the implications where the gaza campaign, israeli forces by virtually any measure defeated hamas on the ground unequivocally get the narrative in some respects was a different one. kind of reminding us that the strategic outcome of the campaign in hybrid warfare will not necessarily be directly tied to the results on the battlefield. good lessons and implications for military. certainly the u.s. has faced these characteristics before in various complex going all the way back to vietnam but i think

again the gaza campaign brings them all together in a way that may integrate these factors in a way that we are going to see more frequently in the future. the trend lines are pointing in that direction. think about the urban populations. by 2050, 75% of population on the planet is projected to be an urban areas. access to advanced technology, technologies like drones certainly rockets and the tunnels and sort of the low type type -- low-tech and that we'll talk about are more available to adversaries yet to fencing -- defending against these capabilities becomes increasingly more expensive than more complicated. certainly the information sphere. you have to be hiding under a rock to not understand the impact of twitter, facebook, social media and other devices that in many cases our adversaries are using

very effectively. as we step back from the conflict we really saw this notion of hybrid unrestricted warfare really playing out in the gaza campaign in ways we think will have great implications implications for our military. >> thank you rick. next of the professor talked about the law of armed conflict which in this case from a former military person what we learned growing up in the military is that the rules of engagement the law is the law. morality is an issue. that is how the western world thinks of conflict. in this case it was distorted. >> thank you sir and thanks to all the members of the working group. first i would like to emphasize the fact that when i was first asked to participate as a role of legal adviser i was really

excited about the fact that this was going to be a report written by warfighting commanders on the challenges associated with fighting these types of hybrid enemies. one of those challenges is the function and the role of the law in this fight. i think that's an important point to start out with. ultimately this is the domain of commanders not necessarily lawyers. lawyers contribute by guiding commanders with complex legal questions that ultimately what we are talking about here is the abdication of national combat power to achieve a strategic objective and that is war war and at worst the business of warfighters. this reporter think is remarkable job of highlighting when you confront an enemy who views your compliance with the law or for your commitment to comply with the law as a tactical and strategic enabler for its own objectives it creates an immense challenge in

compliance. a couple of points i want to highlight that are reflected in the report and i think are going to be reflected in many of the comments, the first is this domain of images related to conflict has in many ways distorted the proper understanding of the law. there's a perception that the law of armed conflict is stored body of international law that regulates the conduct of hostilities at work. somehow imposes on military commanders in a petition to prevent civilian casualties. in fact what it imposes on commanders is an obligation to mitigate risks through feasible measures designed for that purpose and in that regard i think one of the points the report highlights which has been unfortunately lost in a wider discourse is that process matters. the process of making an effort to comply with the law is an

indication of the good-faith commitment to the law by the parties to the conflict. on that score the outcome seems relatively clear. there is evidence reflected in a report of two sides to the conflict. one side making significant efforts sometimes beyond what is required by the law to mitigate the risk to the civilian populations and the other side actually trying to increase the risks of the civilian population in order to gain a strategic advantage in the international public domain and a tactical advantage by making it more difficult for their enemy to employ their power to bring about the objective they seek. so i think the most important legal aspect of the report is that the law has to be properly understood, properly analyzed and properly explained -- explained also will have a distorting effect on the function of military force which is to bring about the prompts of

the enemy. -- prompt submission of the enemy. war is not supposed to be a fair fight. nations unleash their military power in order to achieve objectives efficiently and effectively within a framework. now the report also indicates the very significant efforts that the members of the commission were able to observe and assess on the part of the idf to implement the long -- law in good-faith beginning with training, going through the deliberate targeting process and in a time-sensitive attack making efforts to mitigate the risk to the civilian population. that leads to another important aspect of this discourse. the question should be asked when there are civilian casualties in war is not what caused them. what causes civilian casualties in war is combat and combat in proximity to civilians as general devereaux indicated the reality is that that's the most likely scenario that u.s.

military forces and many other military forces confront in the coming decades is having to engage in combat with enemy's in densely populated areas. the row question is not causation, it's responsibility. if there are civilian casualties and civilian suffering in general, if it was unnecessary who bears responsibility for that unnecessary suffering? that is going to be dictated by looking at compliance or noncompliance with the law. on one side we have efforts to warn, to evacuate, to select the timing of attack and weapons for the use of attack that mitigate the risks to the civilian population and you were trying to do this in an environment where the enemy is the liberal -- deliberately locating his

most vital assets at the most protected civilian sites it reveals to you where responsibility should be allocated for the consequence of those attacks. and focusing on responsibility instead of just general causation will have a positive effect on the assessing compliance with the law because compliance with the law particularly in the conduct of hostilities has to be assessed based on what decision-makers knew at the time they made their decision. it cannot be effects of base condemnation but if you think of the media reporting largely related to the conflict in gaza and other complex recently that -- conflicts recently, that tends to be the end state. look at the effects of combat and automatically extrapolate that if there were civilian casualties the conduct most of -- must've been unlawful. that's a distortion. if it's an unrealistic standard to demand of military commanders. military commander should be

expected to do their best under the circumstances to feasibly mitigate risk that they can't prevent it. so if we focus on what the law really demands which is good-faith efforts to mitigate risk and we look to the processes that armed forces and commanders used to achieve that objective, gives us a better touchstone of compliance with what the international community has established is the standard of legitimacy and legality of war. and one final point it's very important that is reflected in the report is the danger associated with being imprecise and understanding the difference between legal obligations and policy constraints. armed forces will routinely impose policy constraints on the use of force that exceed those required by the law and the israelis did this on many occasions as many of these commanders have gone on vacation. -- done on occasion. but just because it's a policy

constraints doesn't mean it's law. if we confuse those two what happens is we created perception that if you ever deviate from that policy restriction you are somehow acting illegitimately or illegally. clearly identifying the difference between rules of engagement which are policy-based limitations on otherwise lawful authority and the law itself is a very important step going forward to make sure that armed forces preserve the full scope of their authority. thank you. >> just a quick comment and i guess you all didn't have the opportunity to read the report. i hope you find time to do that. think you'll find it interesting that one of the things the israelis did when they were targeting buildings in the gaza and i guess everybody this table has heard this before, i was in the military for 35 years and did a lot of combat, led a lot of it and i had never heard of this before.

there was a technique that the israelis used. some of the command-and-control were in the buildings obviously in gaza where they were fighting from. your intelligence meetings the israelis would find out where that was. if it's in the civilian type building the concern was they had debates over this how bad do we go after them? it wasn't going to be in the cards at that time. they came up with a technique where they would use a small charge that was not very destructive at all and wake everybody up so to speak euphemistically, call them on the phone and tell them you have 20 minutes to get out you had better leave and also drop leaflets. my concern about that is probably the command-and-control people left too but that's almost to the extreme of watching the law of armed conflict. just a reminder i saw some of you have far to use these. you have a pencil and paper at

your table. put your questions down and we will collect them at the end and go around those but thanks jeff. information campaign. some, see some of our colleagues may have been in israel at the time that most of us were back here in the states reading in the paper and listing to it on tv getting our own impressions made and that's part of the conflict as somebody mentioned earlier in the narrative. hamas thinks they won this thing and a lot of people in the world think israel lost this thing and a lot of people in the world think the israelis were the aggressors and hamas was a grass upon. and they have been they have the narrative so mike jones is going to talk a little bit about how we solve that part of it. c thank you all for being here. is professor korn said when you look at the facts it was clear to us that the idf had the right kinds of processes and systems in place to conduct operations in accordance to the law of

armed conflict. we did not have access to the hamas military leadership and have the discussion with them but by looking at their actions it was very clear to us that hamas habitually violated the laws of armed conflict in several ways. one is in terms of their targeting where clearly there were rockets being fired and mortars being fired at targets they clearly had no military necessity and were clearly aimed at civilian population centers and so forth. in the second by virtue of their positioning everything from their firing positions to their stores and command and control locations and so forth in places that were also not required by military necessity and therefore a violation of the 401. it was ironic that while successful tactically and accomplishing their objectives

and that was for the israelis getting a cease-fire where you had a reduction in rocket fire back to the normal state of affairs i guess and instruction of the tamils that were being used to infiltrate into israel that they achieved their tactical objectives but in the strategic information agreement they seemed pretty clear to us that israel was not successful in countering the hamas narrative. so that is seen ironically in the core of international opinion that hamas came out on top. so how was that possible? i think there were several basic fundamental reasons. the first is what i would call permissions to resources mismatch and that is the idf has a pretty good information campaign apparatus but as we talk to the idf their target

audiences are there internal military compilation and the domestic audience of israel. the responsibility for the international audience resides in the foreign ministry, but the foreign ministry does not have requisite capability to be able to deal with that audience. very robust capability on one side but not responsibility for the international audience and on the other side, the responsibility but without the wherewithal to be effective. the second piece is that clearly hamas had a very sophisticated information campaign to be able to use especially the visuals of the effect of the combat that was occurring in gaza. in order to shape international opinion -- and they did a very

sophisticated job of using social media and in fact, had different messages depending on the language and target audiences of the type of social media they were using. middle eastern audiences had one series of messages. western audiences had a distant -- different series of messages. again, in order to try to achieve their aims, and it was interesting to me that it was almost as if the idf was fighting a combat campaign with a support information effort whereas for hamas, they were fighting an information campaign that was enabled by military operations. so they both looked at it very very differently. so, what does that mean in terms of importance to the united states? i think, first of all, we have also a similar issue in terms of the responsibility of the department of defense versus the department of state and who is responsible for what and who has the capability. and we really, i believe, need

to get the responsibilities lined up with the resources and the capability to be able to do the missions. because we're going to face this same kind of information campaign being worked against us. the second thing is i believe we have to solve the tension that rightfully exists, but it's a tension between the government use of social media in order to get out the truth to the key audiences who need to know. so, our truthful information, we have to learn how to use this domain and learn how to be very adept at social media to combat the misinformation that i'm sure that our enemies will continue to use. and then the last thing is to understand that we're not talking about the future. we are in conflict with enemies now. the information campaign is being waged. so we too not have lots of time to kind of think about this problem.

we need to get on with solutions as quickly as possible. >> good job, mike. that last point about, don't wait until the conflict, it's an ongoing issue from the standpoint of, i guess influencing the battlefield, if you will, and all of us could do better at that. lastly,' commissioner retired three star marine general fought in fallujah, led the battle there, is going to talk about some of the things that probably are more tradition wall military from the standpoint of technological issues we need to address and some of the lessons we learned from viewing this 50-day war. rich? >> as general wall mentioned tunnels were pretty extensive in the gaza strip. we've talked for years bat a land, sea, and an air domain and recently we have talked about the cyber domain. we saw in the gaza conflict a subterrainan domain, where hamas

was actually operating underground, doing command and control, resupply, conducting offensive operations, all from underground, and an extensive and sophisticated system. this helped defeat the israeli overhead surveillance, which essentially negated it. this is a challenge we face on our southern border in the united states. one of our findings was, we really will see this in the future because it's a poor man's way to defeat the technologies of a sophisticated military, so we need systems that, one, can detect tunnels, that can be as deep as 90 or more feet, and also destroy tunnels. it's not as easy to destroy a tunnel that is reinforced that it may seem.

this was one of our findings. another one was unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones. we have seen a lot in the news about the proliferation of drones in the united states. one of the greatest fears during the super bowl was for someone to use a drone to attack the people watching the game. amazon talks about delivering packages with drones. can you imagine putting a bomb on a drone and delivering that well, hamas actually did that. they launched a uav into israel that was shot down, but it was shot down with a patriot missile. now, from a cost effective standpoint, not a real good tradeoff. i was involved in january with a marine corps exercise, a large-scale exercise, and during the exercise, the opposing force used ua vs, and it was very, very difficult for the marine

force to engage those uavs. so, another finding of the group was how can we develop technology, inexpensive technology to engage unmanned aerial vehicles or drones. one thing we saw the navy has a -- aboard the uss -- in the persian gulf, a laser. that laser for $1.50 can shoot. maybe that's a system we in the united states need start thinking about. the iron dome, and i think you have heard a lot about the iron dome in israel. very successful system. what is essentially did is provide protection over israeli population centers from rockets that were fired from the gaza strip. approximately 6,000 rockets were fired. now, the iron dome actually engaged i think somewhere in neighborhood of over 500.

these were rockets that, based on detection methods, were going to land in population centers. they did not expend patriot missiles if the rocket was going to lan in the mediterranean sea or in a field or in the actual gaza strip. of those rockets the patriot missiles that were expended to take down those rockets, they were over 90% successful in knocking it down. that iron dome and those patriot missiles, coupled with the civil defense system, really protected the israeli population. to the point that there were six civilian casualties during that conflict. however, one of the findings that we came up as a group was the fact that the patriot system could be overwhelmed.

hezbollah has certainly in the neighborhood of over 100,000 rockets, and if you launch in that type of number, you can overwhelm the patriot system in place, and of course the united states uses patriots as well. so, managing expectations, as well as developing a system that can address an overwhelming attack by rockets, was another finding. and finally, mortars. mortars have been around forever. they approve quite effective. hamas would fire from underground and then rapidly cover up. based on the warning system -- and there is counter-battery counter-mortar radar that will detect the launch, but it gives you 15 seconds warning to take shelter.

if you have a mortar round inbound you have 15 second, if you're lucky to find shelter. we think, along with the ability to detect the mortars is there a technology doing it may be star wars technology but to knock a mortar round out while it's in its time of night, which is very short. that is another technology we in america have to address as we take our lessons learned from the gaza conflict. that concludes my remarks. >> thank you, rich. just a real quick synopsis. four major areas. hybrid war has been used a lot and you see it in the newspaper, but there is a truth to the fact that we're in the 21st century facing a different kind of -- both threat and enemy and type of warfare, and people will adjust. the enemies adjust to the asymmetries. two is the whole issue of the law of armed conflict, and it's interesting to me, again, all of us wearing different things we go places, we grew up the united states military with a law of armed conflict, rules of engagement.

morality and warfare being pounded into our head. the israelis haven't lived with that, too. they were actually disadvantaged by an organization taking advantage of it, or avoiding law of armed conflict and getting away with it in the international doubter or or opinion, not court. sorry d judge. we have known this for a long time and talked about it in our military career. again, unbelievably huge issue in this case, and like mike jones said, hamas won the information war in this case. in our estimation they didn't win the war but won the international opinion. then lastly, as rich mentioned this technological issue where any adversary is going to try to figure out asymmetry is. and they're moving rapidly to counter what is obviously a western technological advantage

in almost every area, and we have to be nimble enough to address those. mike? >> thank you, general. just two points before i start asking questions because i forgot to mention in my introduction, forth good at to explain the logistics, which brought the team to israel where they met israeli civilian and military officials. they also met u.n. and palestinian officials. their report is based on those conversations as well as analysis of primary and secondary research. so, i want to just say i forgot to add on a personal level, we thought having -- putting together very senior military officers who have been in battle, prepared for battle, would be the best judge of kind of these issues, and they've served our country honorably for many decades, and it was an authorize work with them in my small capacity. so i want to thank them very much for all their service. so, thank you. [applause]

>> we got a lot of questions. please pardon me if we don't get to all of them but we'll try to get through a few key different questions that highlight different points. one of the questions had to do with idf and the way they operate, worked with us, and the implications for the u.s. question is they were able to achieve unprecedented degree of cooperation synergy between air, ground and sea components, and they wanted to know, including real-time targeting, and we -- the question is: what is the success imply for u.s. joint combat operations?

>> i'm going to just take a quick answer there and dave and i were together in the beginning of afghanistan, in october 7th october 7th we started bombing the taliban, and i was the supporting commander of that. at that time i had a three-star navy admiral in beau rain, the head of the naval forces in the area, had two carriers. had the marine component was back in tampa but part of a team. the jsk commercial was del daley, special ons, and the army commander what p.t. mikelcheck. the night before we started bombing they called me and said, i just want you to know that every force i have is yours. do whatever you want to with them. that doesn't often happen. and the reason i bring that up is because of expedience si. everybody there knew that we had the same objective. we had been attacked a couple weeks earlier, 9/11. the united states was totally together on this thing.

probably the last time our country has been in agreement over one issue since before that and after that i can think of. and i think the israelis, my impression, is they -- just like every other service, there's conflicts but when wow get down to combat you're going to work together in a combininged forces. i'm not surprised the israelis would be cooperative and work together and understand the fact that every element has a part to play. so if somebody end wants to comment on that. >> another question was, professor could address best but could you discuss the involvement of the israeli equivalent of jag in the gaza operation. >> well, for full disclosure i was not part of the site visit with the generals, althoughed did just recently return from a trip to israel where i participated in the first ever

conference hosted by the eif military advocate general department. the mag is the idf version of the jag. i studied with idf mag officers and very close friends with a number of. the the idf in similar fashion to the united states military, has made a very significant commitment to ensuring that qualified military legal advisers are integrated into both the training process and what we would call the deliberate targeting process. so in battle, not all of your targeting decisions can go through a deliberation process particularly when you're engaged in close combat with an enemy. but you can prepare your soldiers, your warriors for those very difficult judgments through the training and development process. you can emphasize your commitment to the law through investigations and where appropriate disciplinary measures against sub bored

-- subordinates who development follow the rules and in ha a deliberate targeting process you can make sure the target decisions are vetted through a command process that includes legal advice and in my estimation, the idf is -- their efforts to do this mirror those of any what i would call advanced military in the world united states, united kingdom, the dutch, the french, the germans, et cetera. this is a common trend, and it's an important trend, but it's also very important to recognize they also recognize that ultimately commanders have to make very difficult decisions, and they have a certain margin of appreciation. that's not remarkable. that's what the law provides, because the standard that those israeli lawyers are demanding of their commanders is reasonable judgments under the circumstances, and i think they've done a very fine job in integrating legal advice and law into the target decisionmaking process.

>> general jones, you wanted to -- >> well, i think we talked to both a number of their judge advocate general folks as well as talking to a lot of commanders who were engaged in the fight. i it was clear that in the deliberate targeting process, those lawyers were offering very solid and sometimes hard legal advice, and from everything that i could tell, the senior commanders listened to them very closely, and as you expect, generally were very sensitive to making sure that they were always on the right side of the law and taking that advice. but the other thing that was apparent to me was the tactical commanders. as you know, because of the tunnel issues and the inability to be able to destroy those and find enemy from the air, they had to do a ground incursion and in those kind of operations

there's no consultative process when somebody is shoot ought you and ground commanders have to make split second decisions. but it was clear to me in the discussions we had that they were very knowledgeable of the law of armed conflict, and that was in their calculus as they were making these combat decisions. and so it seemed to me very similar to what we tried to do other modern armies try to do, and that is even when you're in a situation where you can't have the deliberative process, that they had the prior preparation to make sure their commanders were well-armed to be able to make lawful decisions. >> i might just add that when we started the invasion of iraq, at the time there was one lawyer per regimen. as the war went through the

years there, was a lawyer in every battalion, and he became the battalion commander's right-hand man. very cognizant of the law of armed conflict in the united states. make one correction. i mixed up my exercise with the study. but i mentioned patriots. it was arrow missiles for the iron dome. so i wanted to correct that. >> just make a comment on both those. first of all, an observation. i had not been in combat with any of these guys before, and not sure if we ever served together but none of us knew each other very way two air force two army, one marines and he would probable live say it's a fair fight. i will tell you we had good deliberation. good collegiality. everyone is an officer. it was amazing how much in agreement we were because at the were trained the same way. army guys find a different fight

than the air force marines but total agreement on the big issues, which is what you ought to have. it's good stuff. >> i have been involved in a lot of task forces. never been involved in a group that was more engaged than this one. i would say that also. let me combine three questions. one us, how could israel have been unprepared or unable to win the information war, given their history and having to deal with the history of many conflicts. how do you explain the fact that we never see collateral damage from the u.s. bombing of isis but israel constantly has to defend its collateral damage and is it possible for the united states to use truth as a weapon in its conflicts? >> i'll just real quickly -- this is a big opinion for everybody on this one. i think if isis could do what

you just asked about, just like hamas did, they're in a concentrated area, small area compared to where isis is. they tried early on, as you -- we have all read the u.s. was killing civilians. that didn't work. and from standpoint of truth there are subtle people out there that try to do tricky things, and it isn't the military. the military, if you're straight up and tell the truth, you're probably going to be well-served. mike? >> let me answer those from my perspective in reverse order. truth, i believe, is a very powerful weapon. the most powerful. but the key enabler for truth is trust. you have to trust the source of the truth, otherwise it's not true. and that's why it is extremely important that whether in combat, prior to combat, whenever, our government, our military, has to be truthful and to the appropriate degree

transparent, in order to establish that trust, not only with our own population but within the international community. in terms of why don't you see collateral damage with isis. first of all you have to be there to see it, and the history of western journalist with isis is not good. so, i don't think it's fair. second of all i don't think isis has -- is part of their information campaign, which i do believe they have one, and it has a sophistication to it -- their purpose is not to influence the international community or to use the international norms and mechanisms in order to bring about any strategic change. their information campaign is actually designed to recruit new folks into their cause, and so therefore, it's not in their interests to show the collateral damage and all the fighting that

has gone on. they want to show a different narrative. in terms of how do the idf not win the information war. well, they're truly very capable folks, very capable military but they, likes i said, they have this mismatch of mission verse resources, and another thing i detected, frankly, is that in many of the military leaders, at least, there was -- it was almost as if they had given up on the information domain, feeling, having been treated unfairly for so long, it was almost an attitude of why bother. people have written this story before they got the facts and that kind of thing. that has a -- there may be a reason for people to have that attitude, but my conclusion was, that's not a good attitude to have. you still have to fight in that

domain, some manage to overcome and just be smarter some way to work around the advantages our enemies have in that domain. obviously people who don't have to be truthful, who don't have to abide by laws and so forth, have advantages in that domain but we still have to overcome it. >> there's a whole bunch of issues. one last point and that is, for the western fight against isis there isn't any end game time frame. we mentioned earlier, 50 days is a long time for a conflict with israel. i didn't get a sense until we talked to them about it. there's been a lot of criticism about the west for not having more bombing sorties. why don't you fly more in just get it over with. and without giving away information, the targets that the west is going after and against isis are really, really not going to have collateral damage. they're so careful right now it's almost -- part of it may be the fact of what happened in

gaza. the part is i don't think there's any timetable to get this over with. my feeling we'll be doing isis type things for the rest of our lives. but there's a big difference. you don't have people right across -- when we are in israel you can look into the gaza and they have people who can fire rockets at you. that not the way in the west there isn't any political pressure to get this thing done. >> following up on that, chuck anyone feel israeli restraint was constructive or counterproductive, and does the u.s. want to be held to he same standard that the israelis set for themes? >> rich, either one haven't said anything. i think we would all agree. >> that was a great question whoever asked it.

we look closely at that point we look closely at that point because we all agreed that the idf used extraordinary measures to avoid civilian casualties and the question we kept asking over and over, did they go too far? because, ultimately if you , become overconsumed with the prevention of civilian casualties to the detriment of your campaign, not only will you potentially extend the conflict, which could induce more civilian casualties in the long run, but think about future conflicts. and think about fueling a strategy that your adversary will use against you again and again and again as you increasingly tie your hands to these sort of, not legal restraints, but policy restraints that you impose on yourself. we think hamas played that card very skillfully, and that

perhaps the idf went a bit too far in its restraints. well-meaning and perhaps mindful of this information campaign that we're talking about, that they also had to be successful at. so, there's a certain tension. this is difficult stuff. it's a challenge that our military will increasingly face, especially as we fight with capabilities like unmanned aerial vehicles, that will put our civilians and troops less in harm's way, will inflict more casualties so that this sort of mismatch can be used against us. >> rich? richard: i think the real danger you see is that in the future, human shields may be a way to prevent the enemy -- could be us -- from targeting certain targets. hamas used every protected structure imaginable, whether it a mosque, hospital, a u.n. school.

i think one of our -- go back to findings. we really need to educate the public and the media on the law of armed conflict. you do have the right of self-defense. and there are times when you are going to target structures and there are going to be civilian casualties, but if you don't target structures because of human shields, and the fact that the enemy is actually using the civilian populace to deter -- prevent you from targeting things, it's going to cause you a much greater challenge in the future. i think that's why it is so important that we do let people -- and professor korn -- he could talk to this better than i can. but understanding the law of armed conflict and how in effect you can attack military targets where there may be some collateral damage, as long as it's not excessive. professor, i might ask you to chime in a little there.

professor: thanks. that last point is so essential. the term the general used was "excessive," not "disproportionate." we talk about proportionality rules, generally, and there is certainly this general knowns of proportionality in war, but the legal test is whether or not the anticipated civilian harm will be excessive in comparison with the legitimate military advantage the commander will gain from conducting that test. that's a deliberately high standard to reach before an attack is prohibited. and i think that a lot of the commentary you hear is in fact a consequence of failing to distinguish cause from responsibility. civilian casualties are almost an inevitable consequence of war, particularly in densely -- in denselya densely populated urban

environment. so, the conflict causes civilian casualty us but the law doesn't -- casualties, but but the law doesn't prohibit causing civilian casualties. the law actually acknowledges and tolerates the unfortunate necessity of civilian casualties to bring about the submission of your opponent. the real question, the real question that has to be asked, is responsibility, and the law will get us to the right answer on that question almost every time. charles: there's another kind of issue for us, too, and some of you have lived in israel. i haven't. but i've been there and i can have a sense of small distances. it's almost unthinkable for a military to not attack people because of the sensitivity about what we were just talking about here, that would allow them to kill your own civilians. think about it. does anybody in here think the united states of america civilians would say, yeah, don't kill them, but let them kill us, and it's almost diabolical, and that's kind of what hamas went down this path a little bit of.

michael: ok. we have actually run out of time. i want to thank all of you for being here. i want to again thank our distinguished task force members. [applause] including general wald, who chaired it, and we look forward to seeing you at future jinsa events. thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> secretary of defense ashton carter and his british counterpart, british minister of defense michael fallon, have been meeting at the pentagon. they will address the press corps in a news conference. this morning, the defense secretary testified before the senate foreign relations committee. he was joined by secretary of state john kerry and the chairman of the joint chiefs,

general martin dempsey testifying on the administration's request, the authorization of the use of military force against isis. we will air that hearing again this evening at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. the news conference should get away -- underway momentarily. we will stay here live on c-span.

we are live at the pentagon briefing room, waiting to hear from defense secretary ashton carter and his british counterpart, michael fallon, the defense minister. the news conference should get underway shortly. the secretary was one of three witnesses before the senate foreign relations committee, testifying on the administration's request or the authorization of the use of military force against isis. we will show that hearing to you in its entirety tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. the senate is in session this week, unlike the house, they are out for their work keep her -- work period. the senate debating a bill on further penalties and punishments for human trafficking, a bill offered by john cornyn of texas, who is on the floor now speaking about his bill, live on c-span2. the democrats are threatening to

filibuster. unless abortion language is removed. that writer -- rider would bar federal bonds on -- funds from being used to pay for abortions. senate debate still underway. you can follow that on c-span2.

waiting to hear from defense secretary ashton carter and the british defense minister. the news conference should get underway shortly. this is the second major event of the day, at least for ashton carter. this morning he testified before the senate foreign relations committee on isis. one of the issues that came up in that hearing with his counterpart, defense secretary -- secretary of state john kerry, was the release of a letter by 47 republican senators to iranian leadership dealing with nuclear negotiations. here is some of this morning's hearing on that issue. >> during my 29 years here in the senate, i never heard nor heard of it being proposed anything comparable to this. if i had, i can guarantee you no matter what the issue and no matter who was president, i would have certainly rejected

it. i no one is questioning anybody's right to dissent. any senator can go to the floor any day and raise any of the questions that were raised in that. to write to the leaders in the middle of a negotiation particularly the leaders that they have criticized other people for even engaging with or writing to, to write them and suggest that they are going to give a constitutional lesson which, by the way, was absolutely incorrect, is quite stunning. this letter ignores more than two centuries of precedent in the conduct of american foreign-policy. formal treaties, obviously require the advice and consent of the united states senate. that is in the constitution, but

the vast majority of international arrangements and agreements do not. and around the world today, we have all kinds of executive agreements that we deal with -- protection of our troops, the recent agreement we did with afghanistan, any number of noncontroversial, broadly supported foreign-policy bills. the executive agreement is a necessary tool of american foreign-policy. it has been used by presidents of both parties for centuries literally. it is recognized and accepted by congress on the earliest period of american history. now, with respect to the talks we have been clear from the beginning -- we are not negotiating an "legally binding" plan. we are negotiating a plan that will have any the capacity for enforcement.

we don't even have diplomatic relations with iran right now. the senators'letter erroneously -- the senators' letter erroneously asserts there is a legally binding plan. it is not. it is incorrect when it says congress could modify the terms of an agreement at any time. that is flat wrong. they don't have the right to modify an agreement reached executive to executive between leaders of the country -- of the country. could another president come in with another attitude? no president, if this agreement meets its task and does what it is supposed to do, and in conjunction with china, russia france, germany, great britain all of whom are going to sign or not sign off on an agreement. i would like to see the next president, if all of these

countries say this is good, this is working, turn around and nullify it on behalf of the united states. that is not going to happen. i have to tell you, knowing what we know about this, this risks undermining the confidence that foreign governments in thousands of important agreements, commit to between the united states and other countries. it purports to tell the world that if you want to have any confidence in your dealings with america, they have to negotiate with 535 members of congress. and that is both untrue and a profoundly bad suggestion to make, i think. but aside from the legalities, , this letter also raises question of judgment and policy. we know that there are people in iran who are opposed to any negotiated agreement with the p5 plus one. we know that a comprehensive solution is not going to happen if iran's leaders are not willing to make hard choices

about the skies -- size, scope and transparency of their nuclear program. we know that a nuclear armed iran is unacceptable. >> mr. secretary, i know that is a well-written speech -- secretary kerry: this is not a speech. this is a statement about the impact of this irresponsible letter. that letter does not have legal authority. i think you have to ask what people are trying to accomplish. the author of the letter says he doesn't want these agreements to be made and he thinks, before the judgment is even made, that it is a mistake. we will see where we wind up. but i'm asked by what -- one senator the impact, and i'm laying out for the committee what the impact is. >> that letter from some republican senators to iranian leadership is linked on our website at the top of the page at c-span.org. back live to the pentagon briefing room. we will hear from ashton carter,

the defense secretary, and the british defense minister michael fallon momentarily in their joint news conference. we will continue with live coverage. back to the morning hearing today with secretary kerry, secretary carter, and the chairman of the joint chiefs, senator marco rubio questioned whether the administration is going soft on isis to pacify iran in his comments and questions with secretary kerry. secretary kerry: there is no grand bargain being discussed. this is about a nuclear weapons potential. that's it. the president has made it absolutely clear they will not get a nuclear weapon. the presumption by a lot of people up on the hill here has

been that we somehow aren't aware of that goal even as we negotiate that goal. our negotiation is calculated to make sure they cannot get a nuclear weapon. it is almost insulting that the presumption here is that we are going to negotiate something that allows them to get a nuclear weapon. senator rubio? i'm not saying there is a grand bargain. i believe our military strategist to work -- strategy toward isis is influenced by our desire not to cross redlines. secretary kerry: there is no consideration whatsoever to how they or anyone else -- we will do what is necessary, in conjunction with our coalition -- we have 62 countries including five sunni countries that, for the first time ever are engaged in military action in another country in the region. senator rubio: general dempsey

outlined the need to have a broad coalition, that i imagine involve these sunni countries, the jordanians, the saudis, the uae, others, countries that are deeply concerned about iran. is it not right that they feel we have to them in the dark about our negotiations with iran? the way we proceeded with our negotiations in iran have impacted our trust level with these critical allies in the coalition. senator kerry -- secretary kerry: that is flat wrong. it is flat wrong. i just came back from a meeting in the gulf, in riyadh, meeting with the king, who supports what we are doing. i met with all of the gcc members. secretary carter: good afternoon. before i begin, as you know, a uh 60 black hawk helicopter was involved in an accident last night near eglin air force base in florida.

we know that on board, there were four soldiers from a national guard unit and seven marines at camp -- assigned to camp lejeune in north carolina. our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families as search efforts continue. it is an honor to welcome my counterpart from the united kingdom, defense secretary michael fallon, here to the pentagon. this is a first for both of us. his first official visit to washington and my first visit to the briefing room as secretary of defense. it is fitting that secretary fallon is the first counterpart with whom i'm holding a joint press conference here in the pentagon, and that's because 200 years ago this month -- last month, i'm sorry -- after a little upset in new orleans, we buried the hatchet and ratified the treaty of ghent, which were stored, as it said, peace,

friendship, and good anderson asked which were stored -- which restored as it said, "peace, friendship and goodwill." we fly each other's aircraft, serve on each other's ships, and our soldiers have long served side-by-side. our military collaboration, in so many different areas, from iraq to afghanistan, reinforces the fact that our special relationship is a cornerstone of both of our nations' security. and for me, this special relationship, as i told michael earlier today, is also a personal one. i received my doctorate from oxford university, where i studied theoretical physics, and i have many fond memories of my time there. i not only earned a doctoral degree there, but also studied other subjects at one of oscars

-- oxford's most renowned schools of higher learning, a pub adjacent to where i was. we had a positive and wide-ranging meeting where we discussed fullscope of issues on which the united states and the united kingdom are leading -- discussed the full scope of issues on which the united states and the united kingdom are leading. we are leading in the middle east, where the u.k. has been a stalwart ally against isis. they continue to train and equip on the ground. i told secretary fallon that we appreciate the u.k.'s partnership in this critical campaign. as we continue to support local forces of the united states is fortunate to have our british allies by our side. we are also leading together in afghanistan, where since 2001, the united kingdom has stood

steadfast not only with the united states, but also other afghan partners. i think secretary fallon -- i thank secretary fallon for the u.k.'s continued contributions. hundreds of british troops have helped train, advise, and assist the afghan national security forces. their efforts will be critical to making sure that our progress there sticks. we are also leading together to reassure our transatlantic allies and to deter further russian aggression. the united states has been clear from the outset of the crisis in ukraine that we support the sovereignty and territorial integrity of ukraine. we have been very clear that, if russia continues to flout the commitments it made in september and february in the minsk agreements, the cost to russia will continue to rise, including and especially through sanctions in coordination with our european allies and partners.

we will also continue to support ukraine's right to defend itself. and, as you know, earlier today the white house announced the united states will be providing ukraine with an additional $75 million in nonlethal security assistance, as well as over 200 humvees. this brings u.s. security assistance to ukraine to a total of nearly $200 million, with the new funds going towards unmanned aerial vehicles, improved surveillance, a variety of radios and other secure communications equipment counter mortar radars, military ambulances, first aid kits, and other medical supplies. this new security assistance is in addition to our ongoing training exercises in eastern europe, to reinforce and reassure our nato allies. beginning this weekend next, equipped and personnel from the army's first grade -- or gate

third infantry division -- the army's first brigade third infantry division will be there to train with resolve. since russia's aggression began last year, the united kingdom has also stepped up militarily contributed to nato's baltic air policing mission and serving as a framework nation for nato's very high readiness to task force -- high readiness joint task force. today, i thank secretary fallon for honoring the community that all nato nations made in wales last year to invest 2% of gdp in defense. it is an investment we all pledged to make, and it is an investment worth making, not just for ourselves, but for our entire alliance. 70 years after we declared victory in europe, our nato allies and indeed the world still looked to both our nations -- still look to both our

nations as leaders. and it is clear that the threats and challenges we face, whether they manifest through cyberattacks isil's foreign fighters, or russian aircraft flying aggressively close to nato's airspace, all of those will continue to demand our leadership. as secretary fallon and i discussed today, leadership takes investment. investment in innovation and modernized capabilities, in prudent reforms, and in the forces necessary to meet our obligations. these are investments that both our nations and both our defense institutions must not only make, but embrace in the months and years to come. i will now ask secretary fallon for his comments before we take questions. secretary fallon: thank you. as i've told secretary carter, our thoughts are with the families of those involved in the helicopter crash, a stark

reminder of the risks that our armed forces face, both in training as well as in combat. i'm delighted to be here today with secretary carter to review the range of security risks that we face together, risks that pose a challenge to the international rules-based order on which we depend. i am reassured that the strength of our shared resolve to address those challenges. ours is a defense relationship like no other reflecting a shared determination to tackle those risks and those threats through a close and enduring partnership, whether it is russia's violation of international norms in europe, whether it is the barbarous sectarianism of isil in the middle east, whether it is the brutality of the assad regime in

syria, or the danger of a nuclear-armed iran, or whether it's the continuing obligation on all of us to make the defense dollar and indeed the defense pound go further. our choices to work -- our choice is to work together. we are working together, too asked secretary carter has said, in europe, demonstrating are resolve through nato to protect all members of the alliance, and with the european union, in delivering sanctions that show rush of the cost of flouting international -- show russia the cost of flouting international norms. we are working together in the middle east, which we both recently visited building the capacity of iraqis syrians, and other partners throughout the region to tackle the scourge of iso- -- isil. we are working together, as we have for decades now, to bring

new technologies into our armed forces, to find innovative solutions to the national security challenges that we face now and will face in the future. britain remains america's strongest partner. i'm delighted to be here and to take your questions. >> we will take a few questions. reporter: mr. secretary, this morning, chairman dempsey made it clear that he saw -- thought that the syrian rebels need to have some assurances that they will get some type of protection as they go into the fight. i'm wondering, do you agree with that, that there needs to be some sort of assurance given to the rebels? is it dependent on whether or not they are attacks by isil -- attacked by isil or assad? what are the parameters that have to be discussed and are being debated now, that you think have to be considered as you look at this? secretary carter: i do agree

with general dempsey. the forces that we train in syria, we will have some obligation to support them after their -- they are trained. we all understand that. we are working through what kinds of support and under what conditions we would do so to include the possibility that, even though they are trained and equipped to combat isil, they could come into contact with forces of the assad regime. that is definitely something we are aware of and something that we are discussing, as the chairman said this morning. i complete the agree with him. reporter: mr. secretary the british forces in iraq appear to be operating initially under

slightly less restrictive rules than some of the u.s. forces, helping to call in airstrikes. i'm wondering if you think that is a broader unmet need in iraq. do you think other countries need to step up and do more of that? are you also considering any additional military support for the operations in syria? secretary fallon: so far as the rules of engagement are concerned, each country sets its own rules of engagement. they vary slightly differently according to our legal framework. we are playing i think the second part in the campaign, over 170 strikes so far in support of ground operations in iraq, and we are now beginning i think next week, to help train iraqi and kurdish forces in counter-ied work, and supplying counter-ied equipment to them.

ied's are one of the issues and challenges they have in advancing north of the tigris, weast into anbar. that will be the main thrust of our contribution to the building capacity operations underway. so far as syria is concerned yes, we stand ready to help train moderate syrian elements to do so outside syria itself, and we have dispatched trainers to the region to prepare for that task. reporter: on the calling of the airstrikes, will you continue to do that? secretary fallon: yes. we are flying missions every day, every night, six days a week, with our tornadoes and other aircraft. and that is an effort we are going to sustain as long as the ground operation demands it. reporter: a question to you both, if i may.

senior u.s. military officials for some time have been expressing growing disquiet about the budgetary pressures on the u.k.'s armed forces, one general going so far as to say he believes soon it may be that british soldiers will have to fight inside u.s. units rather than alongside them. when it be rather more candid -- would it be rather more candid to accept that budgetary reality than to deny it? obviously, the arabians -- ir anians are playing a pivotal role in the climax of the battle for to create -- for tikrit. as we progressed to the even more significant battle for the liberation of mosul, it seems that to run and -- that tehran and washington might be fighting the same battle at the same time . how do you plan to choreograph that? secretary fallon: all of us face budget constraints.

these are unique to any particular country. let me just make it clear, we are still able to put a division in the field with notice, the way that we used to. and i think our global reach is well demonstrated. we were able to, at 10 days notice to send a ship and helicopters and 700 men to syria to deal with ebola, at the same time as we have people in support of iso--- the afghan forces in kabul and the surrounding area. we still have that global reach and are able to support our allies where they are needed. reporter:secretary carter: first of all, we have our budget challenges as well in the united states. just to repeat what i said over

the last few weeks if we don't straighten out in our own country our own budget circumstances here, there is going to be an impact on this department and this institution and our military, and it's going to be very substantial. so we need to end sequester. that's our issue. on the u.k. side, we are very grateful for the commitment to the whales -- wales' target of 2% gdp. i will say one other thing that aligns with what michael said, which is the power is not only measured in one number. one of the things that we have valued for a long time in the u.k. military is the ability to act independently, to be a force of its own in the world. we need that, because we need as many country -- kindred countries in the world as we can , who are capable of with --

wielding their own independence. usually, we are aligned, but that is important. that is in the 2% goal the u.k. has, and this is a feature of the u.k. military that we very highly value. you asked about the battle for tikrit and the presence of ukrainian -- iranian advisers on the ground. that is something we are watching very closely. it is something that is concerning to us in particular because the sectarian danger in iraq is the principal thing that can unravel the campaign against isis. that's why it is so important that none of these battles, and you named one, which is tikrit

-- there are several important battles going on. some of which the irani and -- the iranians play no role at all. wherever they are, it is important that sectarianism not rear its ugly head as isil is pushed back outside of iraq. so, we are watching that very closely, very carefully, and it is a return to sectarianism that would concern is very much in iraq. reporter: mr. secretary and secretary fallon, i want to follow up on both syria and iraq. let me start with syria. it seems, since the president has ruled out ground combat forces, especially in syria, your language opens the door if the rebels come under attack by assad forces --

you have opened the door to u.s. and coalition airstrikes in assad-held territory which puts you in touch with his air defenses. let me ask you first if you are commenting -- committing to protect the rebels against the central assad attacks. you have opened the door to u.s. and coalition airstrikes in syria in his territory. and second, on iraq -- secretary carter: can i just take that one before another subject? on that subject, that eventuality is one that we are looking at that is foreseeable because we are looking at how we would react to that eventuality. i'm not describing the conclusion. i'm acknowledging that is an eventuality that obviously

follows from our objective to trade -- train and equip syrian forces and have them on the ground in syria. we have not decided yet in what manner and in what circumstances we would respond. reporter: if you protect them from the ground or from the air it seems to be the only two options given the physics of the situation. secretary carter: again, it is a situation we have first in and it is -- have foreseen and it is not a situation where decisions have been made how we would react. it would depend very much upon the situation and the circumstance. reporter: on iraq, everybody talks about iran and the potential for sectarian violence. two questions. your specific concerns about iraq essentially becomes an iranian client state, given the fact that iran's involvement seems to be quite welcome --

it is not really hypothetical. you have raised the issue of sectarian violence. the question is, what would you do about it if they were to engage in this? you have said it is not acceptable, but what can you do to stop it? reporter:secretary carter: we have been working with prime minister on the political approach -- with the prime minister on the political approach and manner of governing that tries to reverse some of the sectarian trends of recent years. we work with the iraqi security forces to restore them to a multi-sectarian force. so we are working -- at the end of the day, this is going to depend on the iraqis. there are ways that we are working with them and can work with them to promote that objective, and it is a key objective because it is one of the reasons why isil was able to gain the territory that it did last summer. reporter: mr. fallon, do you

think that iran could be restrained in its influence in iraq? does the u.k. have specific concerns about iran's growing influence inside of iraq? secretary fallon: i want to follow exactly what secretary carter said, because i think he summed it up very well. we have been working to ensure that the iraqi government is genuinely inclusive, and where they are able to retake ground from isil, that they can hold those towns and villages with the consent of the local people. that means in the training and support we are giving to the a body government -- to the government, that means they have to carry through the reforms that they are planning to the army, to the national guard, and they have to make sure that their approach is properly comprehensive and that sunnis she is, and kurds -- sunnis,

shias, and kurds have the right stake in the future of their country. >> [indiscernible] reporter: we have a general election in the u.k. in a couple of months. back to the question of spending, did you get specific assurance from mr. fallon that the u.k. would spend 2% of its gdp on defense spending after 2016, which is when their current promise runs out? and given what the defense secretary here has said about the war gaming over what might happen with syrian rebels on the ground will you ask for authorization to be involved in such operations in syria? reporter: isecretary carter: i will take the first part. we discussed the issues that each of us has in military spending. the claimant i references one that was not made -- the commitment i reference was one

that was not made by this minister to this minister today, it was one that was made publicly some time ago by the u.k. government. i welcomed it, because i think it is important. and we want an ally that as i said, is strong, capable of independent action around the world, and capable of being another member of the community of nations that shares our values and shares our objectives. i will let the minister speak for the u.k. government's commitments. secretary fallon: let me make it very clear that we are meeting the 2% target. we are going to be needing it next year. -- the meeting -- to be meeting it next year. you know there is a spending review process we go through every three years. within the 2% commitment, the 2% spending we are doing at the moment, let me just remind you that we have also committed, the prime minister committed again

just yesterday, to keeping the regular army at the size that we have planned. secondly, we have an equivalent program committed 10 years ahead now, 164 billion pounds' worth of spend, including two aircraft carriers seven submarines, six armored vehicles, and the announcement recently of nearly one billion pounds of expenditure on our future forget -- fruited -- future frigate program. i announced earlier today and investment of some 285 million pounds in further design work for the for -- for the next generation of nuclear deterrent submarines, replacing the vanguard class. we are also committed to modernizing our independent continuous at sea nuclear deterrent. it is in simple he the 2% target -- it isn't simply the 2%

target. we have the additional could -- commitment to expenditure that shows we will be playing our proper part in the alliance and as a partner to the united states. as far as syria is concerned, we don't have parliamentary authority to conduct military operations in syria. we are making a very large contribution to operations in iraq, second only to the united states. again, the prime minister has been clear that isil has to be defeated in both iraq and syria. isl -- isil does not respect the border between those two countries. in the end, isil has to be defeated in both. >> thank you very much. secretary carter: thank you all very much. michael, thank you.

>> the defense secretary, ash carter, was part of the hearing earlier today with secretary kerry and the chairman of the joint chiefs, that dealt with the use of military first force, the authorization of military use of force against isis, and the hearing was interrupted early on by protesters. here is a look. secretary kerry: when i mentioned -- >> people are speaking out. secretary kerry, we are tired of war. [indiscernible] >> the committee will be in order. >> another endless war, the killing of innocent people -- >> if this happens again, i would ask the police to escort immediately people out of the room. >> creating more terrorism

killing more innocent people. secretary kerry: killing more innocent people. i wonder how our journalists who were beheaded and the pilot who was fighting for freedom who was burned alive -- what they would have to say to their efforts to protect innocent people. >> again, we will show you all of that hearing tonight beginning at 8:00 eastern on c-span. today, the associated press announced they are suing the state department for the release of the e-mails from hillary clinton. she held a news conference yesterday. the hill tweeting this afternoon that "clinton strengthens e-mail storm by revealing she deleted 30,000 e-mails." politico says, "trey gowdy to larry clinton: turn over your personal e-mail server." -- two hillary clinton: -- "trey

gowdy to hillary clinton: turn over your personal e-mail server." many department employees are not preserving e-mails as required by the government. one of the issues in the briefing -- >> good afternoon. it is nice to see you today. i will do a quick thing at the top and then we will get your questions. over the course of the day today , and this is a continuation of activity that has taken place across the week the president and his team have worked hard to amplify the middle-class economic theme that was laced throughout the president's state of the union address. that is in contrast to the priorities we have seen from republicans on capitol hill the last few weeks, from the public and senators getting together and writing a letter to the leaders of the islamic republic

of iran or trying to play politics with the funding for the department of homeland security or even engaging in an effort to convince governors across the country to not cooperate with our efforts to fight climate change. the president's priorities are quite clear. it is focused on an effort to expand opportunity for the middle class. that strategy has yielded some benefits already. we have seen that in the latest jobs report that was released at the end of last week. over the course of the last 12 months, our economy has created more than 200,000 jobs in each of those months. that's the first time we've had a streak like that in 37 years. and that's an indication that this strategy of focusing on the middle class is paying off. the point of all of this is that we are doing a lot of that today. this afternoon, the vice president will be getting remarks at the hamilton project policy forum the brookings institution on expanding

employment opportunities for the middle class. also this afternoon, the director of the office of management and budget, shaun donovan, will be delivering a speech at the economic club of washington dc -- washington d.c. it will be discussing the present across yes fiscal year 2016 budget proposal and talk about how -- president's fiscal year .16 budget proposal and talk about ending the harmful cuts known and sequestration. i would also commend to your attention not bad that ran in "the wall street journal -- attention an op-ed that ran in "the wall street journal." what you see here is a pretty concerted effort by this administration to prioritize our policies that will expand economic opportunities for the middle class. that stands in stark contrast to the priorities that are being displayed by our republican friends on capitol hill.

so, with that, why don't you get us started with questions? reporter: first -- the helicopter crash off the coast of florida. is there any indication of what might have caused that? >> let me start by saying the thoughts and prayers of everybody here at the white house are with the families of those who were killed in this accident that occurred overnight. i can tell you that, this morning, the president placed telephone calls to major general joe osterman and majored -- and general joe curtis. general curtis is commander of the louisiana army national guard. in those conversations, the president expressed his condolences to the families fellow servicemembers, and communities of the seven marines and four army national guardsmen

from louisiana who were involved in this tragic incident. the president reassured commanders of the nation's deep appreciation for the sacrifice our men and women in uniform make to protect our country. the president also expressed confidence that there would be a detailed and thorough investigation into this incident and what caused it. reporter: and how does the president view the iranian-backed militias that seem to be taking back the streets today? general dempsey was expressing concern about whether'irans -- whether iran's involvement could further destabilize iraq. does the president share that concern? josh earnest: this was an operation undertaken at the direction of iraqi military leaders and in conservation -- consultation with the prime minister of iraq mr. abadi. as this military operation was being organized, the iraqi leadership, as they should, took

great care to ensure that this would be a multi-sectarian effort. we do see the involvement of iraqi security forces. we also see the involvement of some sunni forces that are located inside this province of the country. there is an indication that there is a clear follow-through on prime minister abadi's commitment to unifying his diverse country to face down this threat posed by isil. and commitment to that unified effort is something that we want to see not just in the political leadership, but also in the execution of this military operation. iran's involvement in this military operation should not change that in any way. we have been clear, and prime minister abadi has been clear, that this operation should not and will not be used as an excuse for exacting sectarian resent -- revenge.

the premise or has been clear and has said publicly that the operation should -- the prime minister has been clear and has said publicly that the operation should abide by international norms, avoid fueling sectarian fears, and avoid promoting sectarian divides that has we can -- have weakened iraq over the last several years. there is no doubt that this to crete operation is a major front in the fight against isil -- this tikrit operation is a major front in the fight against isil. we are aware of reports that isil forces are withdrawing in the face of this offensive by iraqi forces. we have seen that this has caused some isil forces to even dessert their post -- even desert their posts. their arbors -- there are reports that commanders are resorting to executing their own troops to prevent them from deserting.

this is indicative of the pressure being applied. this is also a welcome development, that we have seen positive input of the grand ayatollah, a leading shiite cleric in iraq, who has urged the shiite militia involved in the operation to act with restraint as they advance. he is also mindful that this military operation should not be used as an excuse to exact sectarian revenge. the point i'm trying to make is that we are pleased that this operation seems to be advancing. that is a positive development. we want to continue to make clear that the priority of the united states and our coalition partners, that it needs to continue to be a priority of prime minister abadi and other leadership in iraq, to ensure that this advances their efforts

to take on isil. reporter: the senator opened the hearing by noting not a sequel democrat had signed on to the president's proposal -- a single democrat had signed on to the president's proposal. press secretary earnest: before the administration sent language up to capitol hill you will recall there were a substantial number of conversations come including at the presidential level, with democrats and republicans in the congress about what language they would like to see included in an authorization to use military force against isil. we certainly welcome the engagement that we have seen from congress, the scheduling of this hearing at the senate foreign relations committee is one example of that engagement. this ultimately is a legislative process that should not be driven by members of congress. the president believes that having congress participate in this by signaling their support

for the president strategy to the grade and-- to degrade and destroy isil would be a positive element, it would send a clear message that the country is united. it would send a clear message that the united states is united behind the strategy. it would send a clear message to isil and people contemplating joining isil that united states is determined and united behind the strategy to degrade and ultimately destroy that organization. reporter: we have heard from senator clinton on her e-mails. i wonder if you could update us on whether she has given any expiration to the president or spoken to him about it -- any explanation to the president or spoken to him about it. press secretary earnest: i'm not aware of any conversations between the president and former secretary clinton in the last couple weeks. reporter: is the president concerned about any e-mails she may have sent? press secretary earnest: it is

my understanding that she was describing personal e-mails and that she went through her personal e-mail system to ensure that all of the personal e-mails that related to her official role as a secretary of state were properly transferred to the custody of the state department so that they could be properly maintained and archived and actually used in response to litigate -- legitimate requests. i understand the state government has already taken steps to use that material to respond. the secretary's handling of her personal e-mail and maintenance of her personal in the inbox is something i'm not going to comment on and am not particularly interested in. reporter: human error could occur when deleting e-mails. is there the possibility she may have even deliberately deleted some e-mails that could have been related to the administration and government job? press secretary earnest: i refer to secretary clinton's team for the process they undertook to

review a substantial number of e-mails, to send 55,000 of them to the state department, to ensure they could be properly catalogued and maintained and archived used in response to legitimate requests for the public -- from the public, as consistent with the federal records act. reporter: you are not concerned about the deletion of e-mails? press secretary earnest: you are talking about e-mails related to her personal business, that's how she has described them. deleted e-mails that she said were personal in nature and not related to her official work. again, it was her responsibility and the responsibility of her team to make that determination and conduct that review. nobody has marshaled any evidence to can -- indicate they have fallen short of what they did -- short of what they said they did. if you have questions about the process, you should direct them to them. reporter: can you clarify, is

the e-mail address the president uses a dot-gov address? press secretary earnest: i'm not in position to talk about the president's e-mail address. for a variety of reasons including the security of that e-mail address. but i will make clear, as i've done on previous occasions -- this goes to an important point, which is the president does take very seriously the requirements that he is under based on the presidential records act which is different from the federal records act that governs the archiving of records of other government employees. there is a presidential records act in place that has different requirements for the handling of records. i can tell you that all of the e-mails that the president sends our government -- sends are properly maintained in accordance with the presidential records act. reporter: lastly, on ukraine, what is the importance of the nonlethal aid to ukraine announcement?

press secretary earnest: well, there was an announcement from the administration today an additional $75 million in military assistance would be provided to the ukrainian military by the united states. this is a continuation that is already been provided by the united states -- some $20 million has been provided. this is a substantial supplement. assistance include a wide variety of things which includes radios and secure communications equipment. it includes some unmanned aerial real vehicles that can assist in the defense and protection of the ukrainian forces and will significantly enhance their communication, command-and-control capabilities. the assistance to include counter-mortar radars that

protect protection against mortar and artillery fire. it also includes a significant medical equipment including first aid kits, medical supplies. i think this is reflective of the partnership that exist between the u.s. and ukraine. it is significant with our assistance of ukraine as they face these threats on their eastern border. as it relates to the ongoing questions about providing legal support to the ukrainian military -- the president talked about the consequences of doing that. the president is continuing to watch the efforts by both sides to implement the agreements that were reached in minsk in september and last month. we do continue to have concerns

about the commitment of the russians and russian backed separatists to live up to the commitments they made in minsk that there is still evidence that russian military personnel are fighting alongside russian backed separatists. there continues to be evidence that russia is continuing to transfer weapons and material across the border into ukraine in support of separatists. there are continued reports that russian backed separatists are preventing osce monitors from getting access to those areas of the country that are necessary to verify compliance with the minsk implementation plan. we continue to have concerns about the commitment of russia and the russian backed separatists. that failure on their part only puts russia at greater risk of facing additional costs. and it does leave open this question about providing

additional military assistance to the ukrainian military. reporter: just a follow-up on that -- i understand that you believe no matter what kind of assistance you give the ukrainians, do you think that giving lethal aid to the ukrainian government would cause russia to do something they are not doing now? press secretary earnest: well, there are a couple of consequences we have talked about of providing additional lethal military assistance to ukraine. the first is it is likely to lead to greater bloodshed. our engagement and support for these ongoing diplomatic negotiations is that we are trying to avoid greater bloodshed. that is one thing the president is hoping for. the second is the president is

mindful of the fact there is not a military solution to the problem. it is unreasonable to suggest the united states can provide enough assistance that i can overwhelm the military operations that are being backed by russia. the third thing is is that it could result in some escalation that if capability of the ukrainian military escalates and that can have a response by the russians and the separatists. that bloodshed is something we are trying to avoid and deescalate. the president is very my full of the potential risk that is associated of providing additional lethal military assistance to the ukrainians. reporter: you talk about raising the consequences for the russians when they don't abide by the agreements. why not raise the consequences or costs to them by making it --

making them take more casualties in their fight with ukraine? that is what lethal military aid would do -- it would raise the price for russia. press secretary earnest: that is certainly one potential outcome but again, the goal here is to get the russians to abide by generally accepted international norms when it comes to respecting the territorial integrity of another sovereign country. and, we are attempting to engage in a diplomatic process that would bolster support for that generally accepted international norm and de-escalate the situation in ukraine. more intense fighting between the two sides would lead to the opposite, would lead to greater escalation and more violence and bloodshed.

and a temptation on the part of the russians to more forcefully resupply russian backed separatists. those are the risks associated with providing additional military lethal support to the ukrainians. these are risks that the president has theo weigh against other factors. i guess the other point i want to make here is that there are other costs that can be imposed on russia aside from just the you know, the military toll that can be taken on their forces. many of the costs we have imposed have been economic in nature. by putting in place sectoral sanctions in close coordination with our european partners as at a strong and negative impact on the russian economy. there are all sorts of metrics you can measure the the

valuation of the russian currency. the capital flight away from russian markets. substantial downward revisions of russian economic growth projections. there are a lot of ways that costs can be imposed and the cost we have enclosed thus far has been substantial. but, they have not yet resulted in the kind of change in strategy that we would like to see the russian government make. reporter: it is fair to say the diplomatic process and economic sanctions have not succeeded yet. press secretary earnest: they have not because we continue to see the russians act stabilizing fashion in ukraine and continue to fall short of the commitments they clearly made in the context of their conversations with the ukrainians, the germans and the french. we do have continued concerns about russian behavior in eastern ukraine and it is why the potential of increase costs

only goes up. major? reporter: would you say based on what secretary clinton said, the white house is -- reporter: ultimately, i think it'll be up to all of you to make your own determinations about how secretary clinton has resolved this matter. as a relates to compliance with the federal records act secretary clinton and her team say they have taken all the personal e-mails that were related to her official business as secretary of state and provided them to the state department so they can be probert that's properly maintained -- so they can be properly maintain. ed. they can be properly provided to congress if requested. some of the work has already been done because some of those records have been provided to congress. there is work to comply with

secretary clinton's request that those e-mails be made public. there is ongoing work on this matter. the fact that people are still working on it may be an indication that this is still going on, but this is work that we believe is important. reporter: the answer secretary of state clinton gave -- would you consider that approach to e-mails a model to other secretaries? press secretary earnest: we have been very clear of the guidance we have offered to all employees. those are that guidance has been clarified in recent years particularly with the president's signature on a piece of legislation at the end of last year that provided more specific guidelines on how personal e-mail that relates to business can be archived. those guidelines had been made clear and they further clarify over the last couple of years as the president has taken steps to do exactly that. reporter: she would not be a model?

press secretary earnest: major we have been very clear about what the guidance is. that was true last week and true this week. reporter: on ukraine, can we include, based on the announcement today that after repeated request from the ukrainians themselves, the publication of a report that people in this administration take seriously advocating lethal aid to the ukrainians, that that issue essentially resolved. they will never send lethal arms to the ukrainians because it seems after several months of lobbying directly, other participants in this administration take seriously the administration announcing today it will not do that. it seems very difficult to come up with a set of circumstances in which the administration would come to a different

conclusion that it has repeatedly on this question it is landed on today. this administration is not going to send lethal arms to the o ukraine. press secretary earnest: that is not necessarily accurate. the entire government continues to watch the situation and monitor russia's willingness to live up to the commitments they made. reporter: what condition would change to change what you just described? russia will be always be military powerful. the risk of escalation will always be there. all the things you described in your answer appeared to be in this situation. none of them will ever go away. i will be curious if you believe it will go away under circumstances other than what we have now. if all those things are going to say the same -- stay the same,

against providing lethal aid can't you say this issue is settled? press secretary earnest: i cannot because the president is continuing to evaluate the situation and continuing to assess the risks that is associated with providing additional lethal assistance to the ukrainian military. this is a situation we continue to monitor. we have also been clear about the fact that as the russians continue to fail to live up to the commitments they made, the risk associated with additional cost being imposed also goes up. there are a number of risk assessments that have to be evaluated. reporter: what other conclusion can they come to that you will not do this? press secretary earnest: the point is the cost to them do go up as they continue to, as these sanctions remain in place. they have further bite the longer they are in place. that is a part of the risk

assessment that the russians themselves are doing. they have to evaluate if there economy can continue to take this hit as we interfere in eastern ukraine. there is a risk assessment that is being made on the other side, too. i will not prejudge the outcome when we are in a situation where the risk associated with a possible u.s. action. there is also a large number of risks associated with russian continuing to move down the path they are doing right now. reporter: is the of administration offended by the timing of the letter or the actual contents? republicans say all they are saying is the legislation that other democrats signed on to incorporates which is an idea that at some point it should be brought to review. lots of democrats have done that. this is a question of timing or do you have a genuine sense of offense about the entire concept

of this reviewing a deal? press secretary earnest: based on the reaction we have seen across the country and capitol hill from the democrats -- let me finish. based on the reaction we have seen across the country and members of congress in both parties in reaction to the letter, there are long list of reasons why this letter was the wrong thing to do. it comes at an appropriate time -- an inappropriate time. attending to sandbag the president is not just unprecedented but inappropriate. it undermines the president's ability not just a conduct for policy but to advance our national security interests around the globe. that is the first thing. the other thing that i would say, the other concern we have -- it is a long list -- this is the wrong strategy. the strategy that is being advocated by senate republicans is to essentially throw out the window of the situation around

the negotiating table which means they are leaving only a military option on the table. what i described earlier this week is a russian military option is not consistent with the best interest in american foreign policy. it is not the way to inspire the confidence of our allies both in the region and around the world. it is consistent with the kind of decision-making that was made in the previous administration that was so roundly condemned and criticized by people all around the country. reporter: the option is more sections? press secretary earnest: i have made clear in what others have made clear too is that a, a deal has not been produced. you have critics of this approach who are criticizing a deal that does not yet exist. the president was on television on your network over the weekend and indicated the likelihood of ever achieving a deal was less than 50%.

the other part of the timing of this is suspect. the other thing i will point out, this is something that also attracted a lot of criticism the letters weas 47 republicans. it is not a bipartisan letter. on its space, it is an indication it is an effort to put partisan politics into a very serious for policy matter. something the president has identified as one of the most again to get foreign-policy challenges facing the country right now. i would say that is why i was apprised to see -- surprised to see that while there may be some republican suggesting the letter was something sent on printable -- principle they are anonymous people and capitol hill that separately describe the letter as "cheeky." another individual described it -- [laughter] as a top republican senate aide, indicated the president, the

administration has" "no sense of humor about this." they are right. i don't think this is an amusing matter. we are talking about the nuclear weapons program of an adversary of the united states. that on a daily basis, violently threatens our closest ally in the region. is not a laughing matter. it is not one that this at administration take lightly despite the comments of some of these republican aides. john? reporter: the white house and know that hillary clinton was deleting 30,000 e-mails she sent to the secretary of state? press secretary earnest: i was not aware of the personal e-mail habits of the secretary maintaining her personal e-mail files. reporter: i'm not talking about her habits while secretary, i was talking about what she did a few month ago which was deleting 30,000 e-mails she sent to the secretary of state without

anybody determining except for her and her team that those e-mails do not need to be part of the public record because they determined it was trickling personal. press secretary earnest: these were decisions made by secretary clinton and her team. what we are talking about are e-mails she described as personal that relate to what she described as a variety of personal arrangements whether it is her daughter's wedding or thier personal things -- the personal things of that nature. i will refer to president secretary clinton's team on the decisions they made. we are talking about the decision she made related to her own personal e-mail. reporter: can the white house assure the public that secretary clinton deleted only personal e-mails and did not delete any e-mails that would relate to official business? press secretary earnest: the white house did not review her personal e-mails, her team did. her team was the one responsible

for reviewing the e-mails and making sure the 55,000 or so that related to the official work as secretary of state was turned over to the state department. the white house doesn't have an have an interest that those e-mails are properly archived and maintained and the state department is properly using them to respond to legitimate congressional inquiries. reporter: you have no way of knowing whether or not she deleted official e-mails related to official business? press secretary earnest: the federal government did not review her personal e-mails, her team did that. if you have questions about the process they went through -- reporter: i have questions about whether the white house has any way of knowing whether or not official records were destroyed. i guess the answer is no. all you can do is all we can do is take her word for it. is that correct? press secretary earnest: it is

not the practice of this administration to review the personal e-mail a federal government employees. i don't know of any previous administration to have done that. reporter: do you know any other employee that is used only personal e-mail for official business? anybody, not even a cabinet secretary. any employee of this and administration that has the same e-mail arrangement? press secretary earnest: the separate agencies are responsible for their own e-mail system. it is the responsibility of individual agencies to determine how their you know records will be maintained and archive. if you have questions about the e-mail habits, you can consult with the individual agencies. reporter: the friends of the associated press are suing because they have a number of information request that have gone to the state department that have been unanswered. this president over and over again has said he has the most

transparent administration in american history. does the state department live up to that standard under hillary clinton of being the most transparent in american history? press secretary earnest: i can get to the metrics about the way this of administration has substantially improved the freedom of information act request process. both in terms of the volume of requests that are processed, but also in terms of our track record in making information publicly available that was previously withheld. reporter: i have some metrics for you from the state department. according to our friends from the ap, the state department takes 450 days to turn over records it considers complex requests. that is 30 times longer than what the treasury department takes and seven times longer than what the cia takes on similar requests. does that live up to the standards of transparency that this president set out?

450 days. press secretary earnest: i will give you some additional metrics about the performance of this administration when it comes to improving the process for making requests. reporter: my question is more specific. the state department -- does it live up to this and ministration's, -- administration's promise of transparency? press secretary earnest: i will refer you to them and i will see if there are additional metrics. reporter: my question is not how the state department did it. my question is whether the president satisfied with how the state department has done it? press secretary earnest: the root of your question is how they process it and i will refer you to them. reporter: it was the president's promise. press secretary earnest: do you have anything else? reporter: no. reporter: it has been reported that they attorney general -- the former administrator used

aliases. we know that secretary clinton used her personal e-mail. my question is a white house question and that is did the white house through the chief of staff or any other official keep a menu of e-mail addresses so that the white house could communicate with the cabinet? press secretary earnest: i want to clarify one part of your question. each of those agencies have confirmed that those aliases did not affect the ability of the agency to respond to legitimate congressional requests were legitimate request under the freedom of information act. they are responsible for responding to those requests and they were aware of the proper e-mail address of the cabinet secretary and can ensure those records were produced consistent with the requirements in the law. if you are asking does the white house know of the correct e-mail

address for every cabinet secretary, the answer is yes. reporter: in exception of what you just said in the way of an answer the exception to being able to respond for the request for hillary clinton was hampered at the state department because they do not have access to her material, correct? press secretary earnest: that is different because you asked about aliases that existed on government networks. for those -- there are some key facts that i feel obligated to repeat. that is fine. reporter: you made a generalization and i want to be specific. we are getting to secretary clinton. the state department cannot respond to the freedom information requests because they do not possess or materials except for the ones that would have been copied or taken from somebody else. press secretary earnest: what secretary clinton described as

the vast majority of the e-mails she sent as secretary. reporter: because of the lawsuits that are being contemplated and the pending request, we know the state department responded to some of the freedom of information requests by saying they do not have materials responsive to the request but they do not have the material at all, right? in some cases, they do not have material. my question is does the president, is he requested the state department go back and check out the responses that they do not get the materials because the materials were not in their hands? press secretary earnest: the what you are asking is legitimate but you have to directed to the state department. reporter: does the president want that? press secretary earnest: you are asking me a very detailed and specific question, but not an illegitimate one about the state

department efforts about the request. i will look and see if i can get additional information about it. ultimately, you are more likely to get a better question if you contact the agency responsible. reporter: when the state department felt it wanted to retrieve this information they executed letters to previous secretaries of state right? from personally o possess materials. did anybody in the white house direct or instruct that those letters be sent out or was anyone in the white house at that time consulted about the process? press secretary earnest: i'm not aware of all the conversations between the state department and white house. i know responding to requests and ensuring these records are properly maintained is the

response ability of the agency. it is one we take seriously. i would not will out there may have been a conversation between about the fact the letters that are being distributed. i'm not aware of any conversations. i'm confident this is a process that is run and maintained by state department lawyers. reporter: can we get any additional information about the back-and-forth between the department and west wing about consulting with previous secretaries of state? how is that not a normal thing? press secretary earnest: you mean sending letters to other secretaries of state or conversation between state department lawyers and white house lawyers? reporter: the department to say we have this problem and we want to address this problem this way. usually there is conversation of back-and-forth. can we get more information? press secretary earnest: i will see if i can provide additional information. i will not guarantee i can provide a lot of insight into

conversations between attorneys on this matter. but, i will see what i can do one that. jordan? reporter: it is armor piercing -- you called it a commonsense steps to protect law enforcement. there is pushback from the gun rights groups. what changed of the ministrations thinking on this to shelve it? press secretary earnest: it was made by the atf. reporter: does the white house have a response to democrats on the hill that is accusing the initiation of caving to pressures? press secretary earnest: the president's commitment to putting in place commonsense rules that will protect second amendment rights but also prevent those who should not have firearms is as strong as ever. and, that is -- the president is committed to that effort. i think the president own convictions on this matter has

been pretty evident to those who have watched his public comments on this matter. as relates to the specific decision, i will refer you to the atf because it was a decision that they made as a relates to a plummeting -- implementing this rule. ok? peter. reporter: does the president trust hillary clinton -- does the president trust hillary clinton when she says all 30,000 of those e-mails were personal none were for business? press secretary earnest: there is not been any evidence that has been produced to raise any doubts about that. reporter: they can't produce evidence because she deleted them. press secretary earnest: i guess the point is it is the response responsibility of a government official to ensure all the personal e-mail that related to were official government work was properly

maintained by the state department. that information had been provided to the state department and they are doing what they should in terms of ensuring it is properly categorized and maintained and provided a response to legitimate requests. reporter: yes or no, does the white house trust what hillary clinton did? press secretary earnest: there is no evidence to demonstrate there should be a lack of trust in that regard. >> does the white house consider e-mails about employees family foundation to be personal? >> that is a decision is secretary clinton and her team made. >> that they have a family organization of anything. the point is -- is that, would you consider a family foundation that deals with other kind -- companies that have interaction

with employees of this administration, is that personal or work-related? >> you will have to consult about her personal e-mails and the content of them. >> i know you don't want to be specific to present obama's e-mails as senator, did the president use a senate.gov account question request i do not know. this is a question that has has been asked of many senators making their opinions known. the chairman has on his official business card on a gmail e-mail. many of these questions should be asked of those making the most direct accusations in this regard. >> can we have the record set? >> i will follow up on that.

>> 47 gop senators signed that letter. does the white house consider that a violation of the logan act? >> this is something a lot of commentators have speculated on including some with more legal knowledge than i do. for a determination like that i would refer to the department of justice. it would be their responsibility to make that kind of determination. there has been a lot of speculation about this. i'm not aware of conversations about the logan act and its relation to the specific matter that has taken place of the white house. >> secretary kerry said any deal would not be legally binding and executive agreements would not be legally binding. is that the proper read from the white house's perspective, and the american people would say what are we doing? what would you say?

>> the president will be expecting iran to make serious commitments as a relates to limiting their nuclear program to only peaceful purposes coming into compliance with international standards for peaceful nuclear programs, as submitting to a historically stringent set of inspections to verify their compliance of the agreement. we are making very specific commitments that are -- that iran will have to make. likes is it fair to say that some gop lawmakers and maybe even benjamin netanyahu are right, that any deal could go away as soon as the president leaves office? >> no. the administration has made clear that the purpose of these inspections is to ensure that iran is living up to the commitments they make in a deal, that at this point has not yet been struck. the whole purpose of these historically intrusive inspections is so they're a

fight iran's compliance with the deal, and these inspections -- if iran doesn't coordinate or cooperate with the inspections then the president and the international community would have the opportunity to take a range of steps, if the inspections under that iran is not living up to the agreement, the international committee will have a series of tools available to them for pressuring iran, or taking steps to get iran's compliance. that is what is important about all of this. even if a deal is reached, and the president has said it is less than 50-50 that a deal would be reached, even if a deal is reached and we determine over the course of a number of years iran doesn't live up to any terms of the agreement, then we will be back in the situation we are in now, we will still have

tools available and sanctions that could be applied on iran, and a military option on the table if it should come to that. the point the president has made it the any diplomatic opening we have to pursue to resolve our concerns is one that is worth pursuing because it will be more effective in the military option. the military option is the one of last resort. the other two benefits of a deal that are worth noting here is currently the assessment of some experts is that iran is only -- 2-3 months away from getting a nuclear weapon. i call it a breakout because they are not advancing towards a nuclear weapon. if they decided to make the decision to pursue a nuclear weapon they could into-three months. in the context of any agreement we would ensure that breakout. it's -- that breakout period would be lengthened to a year. and putting in place these hit stringent inspections we would

have a lot of access and transparency to iran's nuclear program. that would put us in a much better position to deal with any effort iran made to break out of the agreement and to develop a nuclear weapon. we would have new insight into their program and put them farther away from their goal. the benefit here is that by reaching an agreement, we can put iran farther away from a nuclear weapon, give the international community greater insight into their nuclear program, and we will have the tools on the table including the military option to ensure iran lives up to their commitments. mexico tray clinton, issue the only once your knowledge the white house has acknowledged that a server among cabinet members during this administration? >> what i have said is that the individual agencies are responsible for maintaining their e-mail systems and those records. a lot of you in this room have made calls to agencies to inquire about those agencies

e-mail systems. for questions like that, about how individual cabinet members handle their e-mail, i would encourage you to contact the agencies they lead. >> acknowledging they state department i.t. roles are different, could you walk us through what the rules are for white house staffers getting e-mail on their personal devices? are they able to access their personal e-mail? >> i can tell you that here at the white house, thank you for noting that it is different than individual agencies responsible are setting their own rules, at the white house we are not allowed to use government blackberries, or government smart phones to access our personal e-mail. i will tell you that at the beginning of the administration, we were also not allowed to use our personal smart phones to access government e-mail.

since the beginning of the administration however in generating 2012, there is software that has been developed and is used by some white house staffers to gain access to their official government e-mail through their personal smartphone. there is a way that they can use that software to keep their personal e-mail separate from their work e-mail. that is the system we have in place here at the white house. for each agency, it is different. >> the white house is made cyber security such a priority and a concern recently, you have a secretary of her own e-mail server at her own home with unknown security, and this is permitted but discouraged under the guidance from what you have said, doesn't need to be different guidance? do they need to be stronger rules for dealing with

situations like this with high-ranking government officials? >> by ring, a couple of things. we have seen over the years since secretary clinton took office that the guidelines for managing e-mail have been updated and clarified across the administration. the president has signed a couple of presidential memorandums with language clarifying how these records should be maintained. at the end of lester the president signed into law a piece of legislation that offered clear guidance for agency employees about how they should ensure that government records created on their personal e-mail could be properly archived in maintained. the point is those guidelines have been clarified since secretary clinton took office and what has not changed is this commitment to ensuring that

everybody in the obama administration lives of to the terms of the federal records act and by providing her personal e-mails relating to the conduct of official business, secretary clinton has done that. >> the white house has directed a lot of questions back to the agencies. it seems there is not a lot the white house knows about the internal i.t. practices of all those agencies. can the maintained -- can the white house maintained it is the most transparent agency in history? given the questions that have come up question >> yes. there are a large number of ways in which reporters and the public have access to the administration decisions that are made at the administration. everything from releasing ways records, which is something the previous a administration fought tooth and nail in the court system, that gives you insight into the people that come to the white house complex for meetings, to trying to make the process of making a foia request

more efficient. those are two examples of how the administration has worked to make the federal government and the obama administration much more transparent. >> did the president e-mail with any other cabinet members private or personal e-mail addresses? >> i haven't reviewed all the presidents e-mail. with a hack and you're sure you of is that every imo the president has sent -- every imo the president has sent has been properly maintained, consistent with the presidential records act. >> when the president gust of panama -- >> i don't know the president itinerary for the summit of the americas. i don't any meeting that is plan

like that. >> do you have a [indiscernible] >> laura i have seen reports of the video. i have not seen the video itself. this is an abhorrent and unjustifiable action. the apparent compelling of a child to execute another individual is further testament of isil's disregard for all human decency. isil chose to broadcast the video at this time that we are hearing more and more reports of internal dissent within its ranks, more reports of individuals being executed for flaying the front and attending -- attempting to deflect. we are hearing foreign fighters return and telltales of the times they have spent with isil. this is indicative of the broader pressure that isil is

under right now. that is part of the strategy that this administration has engaged in with our coalition partners. whether it is the success that the coalition had in supporting kurdish fighters as they took back coupon a -- call bonnie -- kobani those kurdish fighters are continuing to advance across the countryside in syria against isil. there are ongoing operations by an security forces in places like to create -- tikrit. the latter are locations were security forces are being supported by coalition air power. u.s. officials estimate that isil has been rolled back 25% of the territory they previously maintained.

25% of those areas that were previously occupied by isil isil forces no longer have freedom of movement in those areas. these aren't just broad swaths of the death desert, these are popular to areas where they previously ruled. the degrade strategy is working. that has led to increased dissension within the ranks and iso-commanders resorting to executing their own fighters to prevent them from deserting their positions. we are hearing more and more stories about individuals who returned from their fight with isil to tell harrowing stories of that experience. that is an indication that we are continuing to apply pressure to isil in a way that actually is succeeding integrating their ability to recap it -- recap

wreaked havoc. >> [indiscernible] do you agree with the testimony? >> back over the summer when we were talking about why the 2001 a you a math would apply -- aumf would apply against isil, we noted isil's roots extend back into al qaeda. they share the same ambitions of al qaeda. they deploy the same tactics we have seen. and we have also seen that isil has tried to coordinate and win over the allegiance of some al qaeda back to groups. we solve this latest communication from how our

should line themselves with iso-. that is an indication we're talking about groups that have not just a historical affinity that dates back a number of years, but their ambitions and technics are similar. michelle? >> the iran issue is so important and significant to national security and the future, as you have described why not engage in these negotiations and a level that would lead to a treaty, something that is legally binding and would require a vote in congress? why not that level? >> a couple of things. the negotiations that are underway seek very serious and firm commitments from the iranians, and would build and precautions in the form of historically intrusive inspections to make sure they are living up to their commitments.

these are things iran would not be making just to the united states but they would be making to our allies, like france and germany and the u.k., and to our partners in these negotiations in russia and china. this is the international community that is unified as we seek specific commitments from iran to verify that there program is for peaceful purposes . this would be a forceful commitment. it is consistent with other arrangements that the united states has used to advance our security interests around the globe. an agreement that similarly structured allows the united states to work with a broader international community to interdict weapons shipments on the high seas. that there are commitments with the same amount of weight that

are struck between the united states and our allies, like korea and japan when it comes to agreements keeping u.s. troops on their soil. these are agreements that are forceful because they relate to the ability of men and women in unit warm to do their jobs and do them safely. this is an impactful commitment and consistent with the way the president of the united states has advance the interest of this country for generations now. it is appropriate to this matter as well. >> that would take care of in your view. >> that is the one part of my answer i want to follow-up on, which is that the administration, despite the claims that are made by some in congress, does acknowledge that congress at some point will by law have to vote to remove the

statutory sanctions that congress put in place against iran. the difference of opinion we have with congress is that the president does not believe those sanctions should be removed unless or until iran has to mistreated over the course of a number of years they are actually living up to the commitment they have made with united states and the international community. congress is suggesting that they should take a vote on the sanctions far earlier in the process and the president doesn't think that is wise. the president things we should be tougher. >> many in congress have said that the administration hasn't included them at all. >> that is just not true. there are a large number of conversations that have taken place between senior administration officials and members of congress in both parties to keep them continually updated on the iran negotiations. this is something the president and his team take seriously.

the president understands the congress base to be a partner and that is why we have gone to great length even in classified settings to keep them updated on details of our ongoing negotiations with our international partners. >> you were descriptive and what the administration thinks of that letter that was sent. is there any indication that it has had an impact or a change on iran's view of the negotiations or their commitment going in? >> one of the signers of the letter senator mccain just that it was not the most effective thing they could do. it is had an impact on the reaction. we've seen a number of republican senators who have the wisdom not to sign the letter say that they did not think it was appropriate. we saw senator corporate said he did not think the letter's of

the that was going to help us get it to an outcome we have seen republican criticisms of this letter. a large number of editorials from across the country condemned the letter. some of these editorial boards have previously been skeptical of the administration's approach to iran. so the point is, it is not just allies of the administration that are being critical of this letter and those who signed it. it is even republicans in congress and some editorial boards that have not previously been on our side when it comes to these talks. to take your question more directly our view of the most direct impact that this letter has had has been on our allies around the globe. for years, our allies have dealt with the united's of america knowing when it comes to advancing an american national security interest around the world that is the responsibility of the president of the united states. right now that confidence on the

part of our allies in the united states of america has been undermined by the partisan tactics of republicans in the senate. that is unfortunate. particularly when you are talking of the generations of credibility the united states brings to the negotiating table. anytime the president of the united states, regardless of who he is or has been, is there to represent the united states. people understand countries around the world and our allies understand that when they make limits with the executive branch of the united states they are making commitments that the countries going to live up to. to have that undermined as a part of a partisan tactic i republicans is damaging. -- >> if the deal doesn't happen, the sanctions regime, which has had cooperation from all sorts of people who usually aren't cooperative, would fall apart? or in the republicans view, the

sanctions could just be ratcheted up? >> this is a good question. if the negotiations do not yield an agreement the international community will step back and evaluate why it was not reached. the fact of the matter is the united states and our international partners had made a reasonable suggestion to the our ranney ends, if it is true that your nuclear program only exists for peaceful purposes then all we are asked need to do is comply with generally accepted international standards for that program and submit to a set of very intrusive inspections to allow the international committee to verify that area that should be a reasonable thing if it is true if that iran is only interested in a peaceful program. if iran rebuffs that deal international community will recognize the reason the talks did not succeed is because iran was being so unreasonable.

they will support the international community led by the united states of america in placing additional pressure on iran to get them to come to the negotiating table and actually engage in constructive negotiations. that is why you have heard the president say to our partners in congress who have said they want additional sanctions, let's see if we can do an agreement by the end of march. if we can't the international community will ascribe that blame to the iran means and we will work with the united states additional pressure on iran in the form of additional sanctions. that is something the president has said he will seek. the concern that exists now, now this letter from 47 republican senators accusing the president of not negotiating in good faith with the iranian leadership, now you may have an excuse for some of our allies were partners to say the iranians were

unreasonable but we saw 47 republican senators in the united states of america stand up and throw sand in the gears of the diplomatic process. baby the united states isn't acting in as good of faith as they should to reach this agreement. that is another risk associated with this letter. the united states, because of the actions these republican senators does call into question the willingness of this country to negotiate in good faith. that would have a very determined impact on the success we have enjoyed so far in creating a coalition to confront iranians on their nuclear program. that has consequences and has consequences for our ability to resolve one of the most significant foreign-policy threats in the united states of america. angela last one. >> one other topic. trade. the tpp talks ongoing in hawaii, they are going to spend their

tax donations despite the trade efforts. will that make it harder for the white house to find democratic support on the hill? >> angela, i had not seen the announcement. i will tell you that it is not inconsistent with the view that we have articulated on a number of occasions. we understand there are some groups that have traditionally been aligned with the democratic party that are very skeptical of any sort of trade deal. the fact is the president has made a firm commitment to democrats and republicans that any sort of trade agreement that he signs on to will be one that he firmly believes is clearly in the best interest of american businesses and american middle-class families. that is not going to change. there may be some who are so skeptical of any sort of agreement they are not willing to look at the details and will be instinctively and reflexively

opposed to these kinds of agreements. the president is doing his best to persuade as many democrats as he can, and some republicans, to evaluate the agreement once it has been produced, and take a look at the details what impact this would have on the country. we are confident if people do this it doesn't mean there is going to be unanimous support for the agreement. some may arrive at a different conclusion. the president will be confident of the benefits it has for middle-class families and that the congress will support it. that is what we are going to have to prevail on upon people to do. all right. thank you. [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] >> secretary kerry and secretary carter testified on the use of military force against isis. secretary kerry defended the negotiations with iran. mark your rubio question whether the president is going soft on isis, to pacify iran. here is more. >> i believe that much of our strategy with regard to isis is being driven by a desire not to upset i ran so they don't walk away from the negotiating table on the deal you are working on. tell me why i am wrong. >> the facts completely contradict that. i am not at liberty to discuss all of them here for a lot of different reasons. in classified session i could. in this delicate stage i'm not sure that is advisable. >> for the record, can you state that iran's feelings about our military presence in the region the fact they would be upset if we increase military personnel on the ground -- 4s sought in syria, could you

tell me today under no circumstances is how i ran would react when increase in military action against isis because as we her own secretary carter they are not fans of us bombing isis because it involves our presence in the region. that is a non-factor in terms of how would impact the negotiations? >> they would welcome our bombing isis additionally. they want us to destroy isis. they want to destroy isis. isis is a threat to them in the region. you are misreading if you think there isn't a mutual interest with respect to that with every country in the region. >> if the u.s. sent more military personnel as trainers advisors, they would support that? >> cannot win to come out and openly support it. they would be nervous about it. they are not going to object. the point is meet of bread you have bigger problems with that.

the militia may have something to say about it. >> that was part of today's senate foreign committee hearing. on c-span 2, remarks from tom wheeler on telecommunications policy. he told open internet advocates that february's fcc vote on new internet rules was the proudest moment in his public life. he spoke to an audience at the senate for democratic -- democracy and technology. tomorrow on washington journal david mcintosh will discuss his group's recent look at congress and how members vote on pro growth and limited growth legislation. will marshall looks at the recent policy agenda released by the house