state laws were. there is also no archiving requirement in maryland. we archived a ton of statestat operational memos for all of you to peruse. >> i have a question related to the former question, do you agree that an official should use a personal e-mail account for officially duties? martin j. o'malley: i am not an expert on federal or state

requirements, frankly i am a little sick of the e-mail drama. in our state, whether you use personal or public e-mail or carrier pigeon, it was a public record subject. you're not going to ask about e-mails, are you? >> the message you brought -- is this something you want to share with the national audience as a presidential candidate? martin j. o'malley: i am seriously considering running. if we want to continue healing our economy and congress, we will have to make our government work and do a better job of making our government perform for the dollars people pay.

i think those three things link together. there is not a doubt in my mind that this is the new way of governing and getting things done. you see it emanating out over the last 15 years. this is how our federal government should operate. some departments already operate this way. it is coming with the rising tide of expectations of americans under the age of 40. they see it from retailers. they want their government to actually work and perform and function. yes, i intend to talk about this whenever i can. >> this sounds a terrific stuff, but perhaps may not fire up the

democratic primary electorate. how do you propose to do that? martin j. o'malley: and will give a number of talks over the next few months, including a discussion of how to make the economy work again. with wages declining, it is hard for us to say that our job is done. we need to get wages going up. there are many challenges. i appreciate brookings having an interest in effective government performance management. in order to meet the big challenges we face, whether it

is security or climate change, whether it is still what is not working in our economy, it will still require government. people are more interested in a functioning government and people with executive experience. bill galston: one last press question and we will move to the audience. >> forgive me, an e-mail question. were you satisfied with hillary clinton's response yesterday that she or her attorneys personally went through her cash of e-mails and determined which ones were personal and which ones are government and turned that question over to the state department? do you think there is a public interest in having an independent person figure out whether proper e-mails were scooped out?

martin j. o'malley: i respect your interest in this issue, and i did not watch the press conference yesterday. i will leave that to you to figure out, i do not know. i did not watch it, because i was working. [laughter] bill galston: that seems like an excellent note. in my experience, the people at the back get shortchanged, so i will start back there. >> i am a fellow with the department of housing. you spoke about having real-time statistics in fighting crime. did your administration also measure community policing

police training, and building trust with citizens and communities? martin j. o'malley: thank you. in 1999, our whole campaign was about community policing comstat, we had a robust conversation about all of that. our strategy was that we needed to improve the effectiveness of our police, we needed to do a better job of policing our police, which includes some the things you mentioned -- training, integrity, internal affairs -- we staffed independent detectives, and we

put the money in to get their own detectives said they could investigate cases. we openly tracked and reported the number of this courtesies and excessive force reports. the third part of that strategy was to intervene earlier in the lives of young people. we put the numbers out there all of the time. we took the plan all around the city. we did town hall after town hall in every district. when bad incidents happened, as they do and will, we address them in a forthright way. we continue to put those numbers out there with transparency. some of the strongest proof that

we were able to maintain that level of trust and consensus was in the fact that in that first campaign, we won every council district, including the two of my two opponents, which were the areas hardest hit by crime. even then, the rolling back of open-air drug markets, i was reelected with 80% of the vote four years later. there is no issue around which there is greater fear and pain

in america over our racial division. there is no substitute for leaders waiting into the center of those fears and leading the conversation and the dialogue and making these institutions of policing and policing the police, more open and transparent. thank you. bill galston: there is a hand right there. i cannot tell who's hand it is but i will recognize the bearer. >> what is your definition of a high-value data set? does it include politically sensitive data. as mayors open their data sets there tends to be omissions with

politically sensitive data. three press questioners asked about e-mail, and you responded that state e-mail is public record. that is not quite true in the way it sounds. in my district, they rotate the archives every 30 days. bill galston: i will have to to cut you off there. >> my point is, this type of loophole is widespread in maryland with a variety of databases.

martin j. o'malley: maryland was named a leader in the open data movement. we received some award from somebody that watches this. i'll is looked at the operations of our government as genies that needed to be released from the bottle. it was my hope that as much data as we can get out there, it would be hard when people started using it to see -- like with the river keepers organization or pta or advocates for whatever -- it would be hard to put those genies back in the bottle.

we were a leader in that open data movement. i hope my successor has kept that going. we also got better at putting it out there in ways that was not so dizzying. making it easier for people to manipulate and use it to make charts and graphs and things. on the e-mail stuff, yeah, we had a retention policy. we do not have an archiving requirement, and it is an open question of public policy all over our country -- how long should governments retain? an interesting question in the age of electronic information

sharing your it i think the most important information is about the operations. i thought that's where you were going with your question. when mayors saw the citystat room, i could see the looks in people's eyes saying, we have to get out of here. newly elected mayors have fresh opportunities. it is also why -- you see people moving back to cities. nobody wants to live in a place becoming more dirty and dangerous and violent. conversely, when cities become more livable, you see younger people moving back to them and cities are starting to function. it is causal and not coincidental that people -- particularly younger people -- are returning to cities. because they see them operating in transparent ways. bill galston: the woman in the

red dress right there. >> i am with the data quality campaign. i will focus on education. what kind of measures did you take to address graduation rates? did you have success in raising graduation rates? martin j. o'malley: yes we did. we also had tremendous success in getting more students to take s.t.e.m. related ap exams. a greater percentage of students in maryland take and pass those kinds of ap exams than any other state in the country. another rendition of this can be found on "letters to the people of maryland," which you can find on tumblr. it has strategies that we pursued on education.

on the post-secondary side, we increased by 37% the number of associate degrees that were awarded, compared to the benchmark year of 2006. all of this is on there, as well. we didn't buy a number of different strategies. each of these goals, we developed a delivery plan for achieving those goals. that delivery plan laid out the actions we needed to take in order to drive towards goals. we greatly increase funding for these schools, but we also went for years in a row without an increase to -- four years in a row without an increase in college tuition. we provided better training for a lot of our high school teachers, particularly in the stem field. we greatly increased the readiness of kids entering kindergarten to learn. i wrote about four entries a day, and it's 380 exciting pages. >> governor, as i promised, i would reserve the question. i will wait until after governor o'malley have finished answering my question, to remain seated until he has exited the room.

let me preface. namely i did work in bill clinton's white house. a statement you made a couple

weeks ago touches on your vision of leadership. i would like to give you a chance to comment on your comment. you said triangulation is not a strategy that will move america forward.

history celebrates profiles in courage, not profiles in convenience. let me ask directly. is it your view the country did not move forward during bill clinton's terms? >> our country can only move forward on the power of our principles as a people. whether you're talking about foreign policy leadership, we should always be leading with principles rather than expediency. when it comes to leadership here at home, when it comes to immigration, when it comes to

the need for continued reform on wall street instead of offering dodd frank lite, i think we need to continue this job, and we need to continue on the principles that unite us as a people. when refugee kids risk starvation and all sorts of suffering to arrive at our doorstep, we should stick to our principles and treat them as the generous and compassionate people we are. that's what i mean when i say the triangulation will not allow us to solve our problems splitting the difference between the way things have always been

done and an extremist view of the way things might be is not going to move things forward. we have to speak the truth about the challenges faced and what leads to be done to overcome them, and that's what i mean. >> thank you very much for your answer and for your appearance at brookings today. [applause] >> thank you all. >> this week, c-span is in new hampshire or the road to the white house coverage as several republican candidates will be in manchester for a politics and exit event -- and eggs event. thursday evening at 8:00, south carolina senator lindsey graham,

who spent two days in the granite state. friday night, we will take you to a house party in dover, new hampshire with jeb bush. on saturday, live on c-span, scott walker at a republican party grassroots workshop. sunday at 9:30, ted cruz at the annual lincoln-reagan dinner. >>, secretary of state kerry and defense secretary carter testify about authorization for military action against isis. then a conversation on the use of war powers. as a news briefing, josh earnest was asked about hillary clinton's e-mails -- that is later.

on the next "washington journal," david mcintosh discusses his recent look at congress and how members vote on economic and limited government legislation. after that, will marshal of the progressive policy institute will talk about the recent policy agenda released by the new house democrat coalition. "washington journal" is live each morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress. at only either there 43 new republicans and 50 new democrats in the house and 12 new republicans and one new democrat in the senate, there are 108 women in congress, including the first african-american republican in the house and the first woman veteran in the senate. keep track using congressional chronicle on c-span.org. the congressional chronicle page has lots of information, including voting results and statistics.

new congress, best access, on c-span, c-span2, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> next, secretary of state john kerry and defense secretary ashton carter testify about the use of military force against isis in the ongoing negotiations with iran over its nuclear program. mr. kerry and mr. carter are joined by joint chiefs of staff general martin dempsey. senator bob corker chairs the committee. the hearing is interrupted several times of protesters. senator corker: i want to welcome our distinguished

witnesses here today, and thank them for being here. this is an important topic. we know that each of you have been traveling extensively, and was again want to thank you for being with us once again today. i think everybody on this committee cares first and foremost that we have a policy a strategy to deal with isis that is in relation to our national interests. and that is paramount to what most people in america care about, and certainly everyone in this committee. secondarily to that, from my perspective, is the authorization process itself. and yet we find ourselves in an interesting place. the president, which i appreciate, has sent to us an authorization for the use of military force. that was welcomed, i think, by both sides of the aisle.

as we have received that authorization for the use of military force, what we have come to understand is that -- and this is not a pejorative statement, it is an observation -- we don't know of a single democrat that supports that authorization for use of military force. on the other hand, the authorization for the use of military was that has been sent up is one that is limited in some ways, both in duration and relative to the activities that the commander-in-chief can carry out. and so, what that does on this side of the aisle is put republican senators in a position of looking at a limited authorization for the use of military force that in some ways ratifies a strategy, especially in syria, that many people did not believe is effective.

one that 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. -- national interest. 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 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 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 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. thank you for being with us here today. on last december, this committee reported a resolution to authorize the use of military force to counter isil. many of us shared a view, then and now, that we stood with the president to defeat isil. 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 aumf. 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 the aumf, we passed a restriction 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 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 may be undertaken by combat troops on the ground. we need to know whether associated forces that come under this agreement could include forces affiliated with isil. we need to know whether a new administration could revert to

relying on the 2001 aumf in three years, as this aumf would expire. and we need to know how long we expect to be there, and what our exit strategy will be, what metrics will indicate success. we have heard from general alan two weeks ago that under the president proposed language, that u.s. troops to be deployed for as little as two weeks, or as long as two years. before they would trigger the restriction on no injuring offensive operations. on the other hand, general dempsey said last week that he does not give this language as time restrictive. but as mission specific. children will dempsey believes the language in this aumf would allow, for example, u.s. ground forces to accompany iraqi ground forces into mosul. it would seem to me that legally, there is at least the potential for large numbers of u.s. troops to be deployed in iraq and syria, and maybe

beyond, with the authorization as submitted. so, mr. chairman, i look forward to hearing the answer to these and other questions from our distinguished witnesses. senator corker: absolutely. thank you for your comments. again, we have three outstanding witnesses. we want to welcome you here. as i understand it, secretary kerry is going to begin, followed by secretary carter followed by chairman dempsey. we are honored that you are here before us. we look for to your 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's prerogative. we are very simply looking for as i think both of you, mr. chairman, ranking member, have said the appropriate present day authorization. not, as you said, senator menendez, 2001, but 2015 statement by the united states congress about the authority with which we should be able to go after, degrade, and destroy as the president has said, a group known as isil. mr. chairman, in our democracy there are many views about the challenges and opportunities

that we face. annette is appropriate. that is who we are. but i hope we believe there is an overwhelming consensus that isil has to be stopped. our nation's strongest, always has been, would react together. it is a great tradition in this country a foreign policy having a special place. that politics and at the waters edge -- end at the waters edge and we will react as a nation, without regard to part it -- to party politics. will not allow these murderers and their thugs to achieve their ambitions, which includes, by the way, most likely the death or submission of all those who oppose them. the seizure of land. the theft of resources. incitement of terrorism across the goal. the killing and attacking of

people simply for what they believe, or for who they are. and the joint resolution that is proposed by the president provides the means for america and its representatives to speak with a single powerful voice at this pivotal 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 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 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 there would be a mistake to communicate to 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 rights to be here and observe what is happening in a civil matter. i don't think you are helping your cause at all.

i would say you are hurting your cause. hopefully, you will remain in an appropriate manner. thank you. secretary of state kerry: mr. chairman, thank you. the point of these no geographic limitations is not that there are any plans. i think the president has been so clear on this. but what a mistake it would be to send a message to isil that there are safe havens. that there are somehow just a two country limitation, so they go off and put their base, and then we go through months and months of deliberation again. that is why there are no limitations. mr. chairman, we know that there are groups in the world, affiliated terrorist groups, who aspire to harm the net is dates, our allies, our partners. isil is, however, very distinctive in that. because it holds territory. and it will continue if not stopped to seize more. because it has financial

resources. because of the debilitating impact of the activities in the broader middle east. and i don't need to preview for this committee the full impact of the outrages that are committed by isil. but among them, scratching the surface, are atrocities against syrian christians and religious communities. the crucifixion of children. the sale and enslavement of women and girls. the hideous murders of captives. from as near as jordan and as distant as japan. and the destruction of irreplaceable cultural and historical sites. the plunder and destruction of cities and towns in which followers of islam worship.

and raise their families. now, i testified before this committee just a couple of weeks ago regarding our strategy for disrupting and defeating isil. that strategy continues to move forward on all fronts. secretary carter and general dempsey will touch on the military elements, but i can take from a diplomatic perspective that the world is strongly united in seeking isil's defeat. our coalition is receiving help from governments throughout and beyond the middle east. governments that may disagree on other issues, but not about the need to take decisive action against isil. to date, we have a coalition of some 62 members, including 14 nations that are contributing directly to the operations against isil. in iraq or in syria. 16 of which have committed to help train or otherwise assist iraqi security forces. since the coalition came together less than half a year ago, we have stopped isil's

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

isil is just not a partisan issue. at least, it 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 challenge that this committee is here to deal with. and my hope is that we will live up to the tradition that we have never failed to meet in the past. when we had this kind of challenge, the congress came together. the senate, in particular, i think in this format, and i'm confident we can do so here again today and in the next few days. i am happy to respond to your questions, but first i will turn to secretary carter. defense secretary carter: thank you for giving me the opportunity to be with you here

today on this important subject. before i begin, i am sure your are all aware that a uh 60 black hawk helicopter was involved in an accident last night in florida. we know there were four aircrew from a national guard unit in louisiana, and seven marines assigned from north carolina onboard that helicopter. with me, our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families as the search and rescue continues. just as i know we are all proud to have the finest fighting force the world has ever known that is why, at the end of my first week as secretary of defense, i have traveled to afghanistan and kuwait, where i think to our men and women in uniform for their contributions to important missions.

and in 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 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 isil. and fourth and finally, the proposed aumf expires in four years. i understand the reason for the proposed sunset provision.

it derives from the important principle stemming from the constitution that makes the grave matter of connecting an authorization for the use of military force a shared responsibility of the president and congress. the president's proposed authorization of force the american people the chance to assess our progress in three years time, and provides next president and the next congress the opportunity to reauthorize

it if they find it necessary. 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 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 aumf -- 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 aumf 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 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 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 i know that senator graham may have asked the question about

whether we have the legal authority. i would like to ask you, does it provide the legal authority for our military to protect those that we are training in other places against isis -- two protect them against assad. talk to us a little bit about why we haven't yet agreed to the air exclusion of zone that turkey has asked us to approve. to more fully bring them in on the ground in syria. more positive, as it relates to ground effort. >> i take it, senator, you are looking at me. let me explain the campaign in iraq and assyria.

at this point, we have a main effort in a supporting effort. our main effort is in iraq, because we have a credible -- to degrade and defeat isil inside iraq. we do not have that in syria yet. we are taking steps to build that partner. we are attacking isil where he can. we are disrupting their activities, so they cannot help each other. isil, before this effort, could transit freely. they are isolated, while we conduct our main effort in iraq. to the other question, whether

the legal authority exists, the answer to that is no. the administration has not added a syrian regime. what support we would supply. militarily, there is a very pragmatic reason. let me not speak to that, but rather >> if i could congress has approved a significant amount of money to train and equip against isis. we know assad will bomb them, or lease their members. the president has sent us an amf

that doesn't allow us to protect them what they will be facing down the road. with the previous steps to train and equip. >> i understand completely, i am not discounting the moral obligation. i am giving you militarily advice for article one. pragmatically, we are not going to be able to recruit. >> militarily, i know we have had a good flock have signed up. that is my understanding. but we cannot recruit more if we are not going to protect them. and yet, we are not allowed to protect them. is that clearly what you are saying? >> whether and how to support them the discussion is the legal authority to do so. i would defer to those with that

expertise. >> i know i'm going over, the air exclusion zone? those types of -- >> we have been in two rounds of discussions with the turkish counterparts. we developed that, should they ask for it. >> senator boxer, a ranking member, had to go be part of a hearing -- i asked that her statement be included in the record. and i have heard all of you several times refer to know geographical limitations. for the record, let reflect that the aumf that was passed last year that democrats put together has no geographic limitations. that is a subject of debate. nonetheless, they came to the conclusion that had noted

limitations. i know you have raised it, i want to deal with it. let me ask you general, is it fair to say that iran-sponsored militia in iraq has other designs beyond isil? >> it would be fair to say that has not become evident. for those that have served in iraq since 2003, ironic isan is not a new crucible -- they have been there since 2004. in some instances, their economic influence has contributed to the future of iraq. it has been disruptive to the potential for inclusive governance.

believe me, i share your concerns. the tikrit operation will be a strategic inflection point, one where the other. in terms of easing concerns or increasing them. >> the money is a cause celebre these days, i would like to believe it is only to fight isil. at the end of the day, we have different goals as it relates to iraq. and in the long-term the democratic multiethnic government. it is a continuing concern. chairman dempsey, you said in remarks, i do not have a copy of her statement -- correct me if i'm wrong. something to the extent that the authorization is opposed by the administration, basically it

deals with the campaign as we have divided. >> that is a fair statement. >> doesn't also deal with a campaign that may be altered as you have presently devised it? >> it deals with the campaign as presently design. it has statements in there, i don't know which part you might -- >> let me perfect my question. if in fact your campaign needs to morph to the reality of what is happening, do you believe the authorization will allow you to do that? >> yes, i do. as most of us who have studied and served against these kinds of threats for almost 14 years we believe that the primary way you defeat these groups is by with, and through partners in

the region. and a sustained coalition. and that the u.s. forces involved, should principally be an enabling, not necessarily leading the effort. the aumf -- i will always go back through the commander-in-chief. what is necessary to competent tax. this is adequate to the task. >> i appreciate that answer. it underlines the challenge that members of the committee have. in getting to the right point to support the president this and any future one, to defeat isil . if, in fact, it meets your present criteria -- but you

believe it has the wherewithal for future criteria, that is the essence of the challenge. last week, before the armed services committee, general dempsey, you responded that during offense of combat operations -- they would be mission-specific.

as long as two weeks or two years/. considering his experience, it was not insignificant. secretary carter, what does it mean to you? as ultimately, the secretary of defense who oversees all of the armed forces under your department and the president's command -- what does no enduring combat mean to you? >> there are two ingredients to this. the how and the when. and the aumf, as proposed, as i noted -- provides for a wide range of activities to defeat isil. it has one significant

limitation, which is the one you refer to -- essentially, it does not authorize the kind of campaign that we conducted in iraq and afghanistan. that is not what we foresee as necessary for the defeat of isil. it meets my objective of having the necessary flexibility. there is that limitation, that is what is written in. as regarding the three-year limit, i indicated, that is not based on how long it will take. it is based on how our system works here, at home. >> i appreciate, is what we did in our authorization. >> still, we can commit thousands of troops for a long. of time. it may not be the size of afghanistan or iraq, but that is our question.

two final questions. secretary kerry, one of the questions the president proposes -- it does not make clear that this aumf would the administration have any objection, specifically, saying the isil aumf supersedes any use of military force in this engagement. >> senator, only if it was absolutely clear that there was no limitation whatsoever with respect to the other activities authorized by the 2001 aumf. regarding al qaeda and other efforts. the president has made it clear

that if the congress passes an authorization, that is what you will rely on with respect to isis. >> there is no reason not to have language -- >> as long as it is clear it does not reach any activities as authorized by the 2001. >> finally, secretary carter, bo boko haram pledged allegiance to isis. >> the language of the proposed authorization anticipates, as i indicated, the possibility of other groups allying with isil. the aumf would cover such groups, if they also have the intent of threatening americans.

so, both of those test would apply. >> you are saying that swearing allegiance would be enough? >> it is not enough, they need to be a threat to americans -- that is the language. associated etc. and threatening americans. >> thank you. senator rubio. i want to thank you. >> the dangers our service men and women face when deployed and in training. our thoughts go out to their loved ones and families. secretary carter, i want to ask about iran. they want to become the most dominant regional power? >> i'm sorry. >>probably true.

>> they see american presence as an impediment. >> probably. >> they are never excited to see troops in the middle east. >> i cannot tell what excites them. i cannot imagine that our responding to isiall is welcome to them. i do not know what they are thinking. >> bombing isil is not welcome. >> i think they have the same suspicion of us as we have of them. but, in general, when they see us in the region, they are not necessarily fans of u.s. deployments anywhere in the middle east. >> that is why want to turn to you, secretary kerry. i believe that much of our strategy is being driven by a desire not to upset iran regarding the deal you are

negotiating on. >> the facts completely contradict that. i am not at liberty to talk about that, in a closed session i could. at this stage negotiations, i'm not sure that is advisable. >> for the record, can you state that iran's feelings if we increase personnel. -- under no circumstances, did you tell me today, that an increase in military actions -- as we heard from secretary carter, they are not a fan of us bombing isis. are you telling me that is a nonfactor? or is as a you can discuss specifically. >> they would welcome our bombing actually. they want us to destroy crisis, they want to destroy isis. they are a threat. i think you are misreading it if

you don't think there is a mutual interest. between every company in the region. >> the u.s. has sent more military personnel into a rock -- they would support that? >> they would not openly supported, they would be nervous about it. they're not going to object if that is what it is. we have bigger problems, the shia militia in iraq would have summoned to say about it. other people might obviously react very adversely to that. what is important, senator, to your question is this. this has been a miss read by a lot of people appear on the hill. there is no grand bargain being discussed here in the context of negotiations. this is about nuclear weapons. that is it. and the president has made it absolutely clear they will not get a nuclear weapon. the presumption by a lot of

people on the hill here is that we somehow are not aware of that goal even as we negotiate. our negotiation is calculated to make sure they cannot get a nuclear weapon. it is really almost insulting that the presumption here is that we are going to negotiate something allows that. >> i am not saying is a grand bargain, what i believe -- our military strategy is motivated by our desire not to cross lines . >> absolutely not in the least. we will do what is necessary, in conjunction with our coalition. there are 62 countries remember. five sunni countries that for the first time, ever, are engaged in military action in another country. >> i wanted to that point

general dempsey a moment ago outlined the need for a broad coalition. i imagine that involves the saudis, these are also countries deeply concerned about iran. they feel that it is not right we have kept them in the dark regarding negotiations. those negotiations have impacted our trust levels with this coalition. >> senator, that is flat wrong. flat wrong. it is flat wrong, i just came back from a meeting in the gulf -- in riyadh. i met with all of the gcc members. we sat her on the table and they articulated their support. they believe we are better off trying to prevent them from getting a bomb. provided, of course, that it actually prevents them from getting the bomb. that is the test of this. a whole bunch of people are

trying to give us a grade before the test is been taken. >> you are saying that our sunni alleys, the egyptian and others, are perfectly comfortable. >> i did not say that -- they are nervous. they're apprehensive, of course they are. they want to make sure that, in fact, just as members of congress want to make sure -- that the deal is struck, if one can be struck, will prevent them. we have shared considerable details with them. >> are the apprehensive about that? >> they are comfortable with what we shared with them. the senior foreign minister in the world, i might add, publicly set with me at a press conference which he articulated their support for what we are doing. >> general dempsey, i want to ask you, part of the concentric circle -- isis's core has

emerged in libya. we see the emergent afghanistan. can you comment about what we are seeing in regards to the competition between them and al qaeda and the taliban, how does this aumf before his today allow us to form a strategy with this second ring in the region. >> notably, it is a splinter group -- the taliban who has rebranded himself to the isil ideology. to answer your question on the aumf it would give them the authority to make recommendations for the authority -- the two conditions met. if they have affiliated itself of the ideology. number two, if they demonstrated an event to threaten u.s.

interests globally or in the region. >> in afghanistan, we have a significant presence of servicemen and women. we are now getting groups to align themselves, the growth of an isis affiliate could potentially pose a significant threat to american personnel in afghanistan. potentially. >> it will initially pose a threat to the government of afghanistan. and in time, to us. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. i thank the three of you for your incredible service to our country. during an extremely challenging time. i supported the use of force in the last congress, as it every democrat. as i am listening to secretary carter explain the objectives

and authorization for the use of military force, i thought about what we have recommended. that satisfied every one of your concerns. i am somewhat surprised, because some republicans were reluctant to support the use of force because the administration had not come forward with the request. many american colleagues --many of my republican colleagues did not bring forward the resolution. it was more consistent with what we developed in the last congress. it accomplished every one of the objectives that secretary carter pointed out. let me bring up three concerns, and the time that i have. some have already been raised, i will try to get through much as possible. first, dealing with the 2001 authorization -- why there was nothing included in your request.

secondly, to deal with the interpretation of the offensive ground combat. third, how you will determine forces. all three can be concerned. regarding 2001, that was an authorization passed rather easily by congress. to go against those responsible for the attack of september 11. many of us are surprised that utilization is for isis. the 2001 authorization is now the longest running use of force in american history. four years longer than vietnam eight years longer than the revolutionary war, 10 years longer than world war ii. about one third of the authorization or use of force asked by congress have included limitations. that is not unusual to be placed

in the resolution. because congress and administration need to work together. circumstances change, it is important that congress and the administration speak with a united voice. secretary carter, i was impressed about the constitutional responsibilities. a three-year sunset on the isis-specific, to me, this is sensible and a principal provision. even though i cannot ensure that the campaign will be completed in three years. senator markey and i have introduced a bill that would introduce an isis-specific resolution. if congress chose to include a three-your sunset on the 2001 authorization, would be your view that it would be sensible>?

even though you cannot ensure that the operation against those responsible for the attacks on our country during september 11 -- that it be up to the next ministration in the iphone sil campaign? i cannot give you a clear answer to that question. let me tell you why. >> which have now extended for 14 years. there is still al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, we need to protect ourselves. we need the authority to protect ourselves. there is now a 14 year history of the tenacity of al qaeda and

its offshoots -- their intent to attack our country. take that into account whether it makes sense to put a sunset on that one. this one we are embarking with isil, it is a new campaign and new group. in my statement, i said i respect the desire to have a sunset clause that does not derive from any characteristic of the campaign and i know of yet. to predict that it will wrap up within three years. we have history in the case of al qaeda. that it has lasted quite a long time. that should inform whether a sunset -- >> this is a new campaign. i do not understand how you can use a 2001 authorization to justify the use of force. you cannot have it both ways. i don't understand the distinction there, when you say

there is a new campaign. we do not know what is going on. we are using a 2001 authorization that was specific. >> maybe another way of getting to that question senator, the president has indicated a desire and willingness to revisit 2001. >> we're trying to help that. >> which i also think makes sense in view of what you said. the only thing that i would say may because i'm hesitating here. we have to protect ourselves against al qaeda. we have been out there 14 years after 9/11. >> our congress will meet again.

>> i look at the app on my phone to get the definition of enduring -- they came up as lasting or permanent. would you tell me why the term " enduring offensive ground combat missions " would not include afghanistan and iraq? since we did not intend our troops to be there on a permanent basis. they were liberation. how could the administration determine what we saw in iraq?

kerry: the president has been clear about this. there is a huge distinction about the kinds of operations that were conducted in afghanistan. where we committed troops to a camping on the ground. the president has ruled that out. what he has done is offered a confining definition that provides limitations here.

and the english language provides them also, frankly. i do not have to agree with general alan's comments about two years. that is not in the thinking of the president, nor any consideration that he said. what you thought of all the what general dempsey is clear about, is not giving up the option under some particular circumstances where you might want somebody -- of a special forces nature or embedded nature, to be a company people. i do not want to go in the parameters of how limited it is. an effort to protect or defend u.s. personnel or citizens. an effort to rescue people.

a targeted operation against leadership. intelligence collection and sharing. but the whole purpose here is to have a concept that is well understood. that is extremely limited but not so limiting that our military can't do what it needs to do in some situations to protect america's interest or personnel. it is not contemplating years, not even months. what it would contemplate is some current operation along the lines i just described. >> the language we use in 2001, most of us thought it would not be used today. this authorization goes to the next administration. the next administration would have the authority and may have a clearly different view on that. >> in may have, senator.

and that is exact way why obama specifically thought that through. he said, i don't want the new president to come in and face the kind of choice that i faced on day one. which had to be made within 30 days, with respect to afghanistan. so, he gave it some distance, to evaluate and make a decision. most importantly this is where there is a broadly accepted and absolutely clear congressional response ability. congress will step in. you will have the authority. i think you would be welcoming this opportunity to check the administration, to make sure this is a, sing the precise goals you want. in fact, i would think this would be debated by congress in that respect. though i understand, people say we don't want any limitations at all.

the certainly fits within the capacity to get a major vote of congress. that is something else you think about here. when i testified in december, when i testified to weeks ago, i think i made it clear that our interests are best served in a very powerful vote in this. we do not have the message of america's commitment, our willingness to stay at it and get the job done, this is a marginal vote in congress. >> thank you, we do welcome this opportunity. we also welcome the opportunity to weigh in on any kind of ironic deal. senator johnson. >> words matter, we are discussing specific language against force, this is puzzling. secretary kerry, you said this authorization is extremely limited. to show the commitment to the united states.

i do not see how you reconcile the two terms. there are some loose statements here. let us talk about the joint resolution passed on the cymer 18, 2001. that joint resolution was to authorize force for those responsible with the attacks on united states. it says the president is authorized to use all necessary force against those nations organizations, persons, or those who aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on september 11, 2001 in order to prevent any future attacks by such nations organizations, or persons. i do not hear anything about successor organizations. i am puzzled by the fact that the ministration is firmly of

the view that they are ready have statutory authority. i guess, there is no one pushing back hard on that. now, we are talking about a new authorization. i'm puzzled by the fact that any commander-in-chief if they believe they have the authority to do this, why would they want to limit that? in any way, shape, or form. secretary kerry, you said you wanted to dispel doubt -- to send an unmistakable message. this is what we are discussing, let's talk about specific words. it says the president is authorized -- subject to the limitations, to use the armed forces against isil or associated persons. man, this sounds a contract. see the limitations granted in

subsection eight, it does not authorize troops in dauphin offensive campaigns. it will terminate three years after the date. unless we authorize. i'm not seeing that sending in a mystical message. let me read you one more. this was passed on december 8 1941. the president is hereby authorized to deploying the resources of the government to carry on war against the imperial government of japan. all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the country of the united states. discussing language to dispel all doubt, general dempsey,

which authorization would you want to have at your back. >> i am not going to compare something from 1941 to the us days -- to the states global conflict. >> secretary carter, why would anybody want to pick a fight with the united states? why would isis put the brutal the headings of americans and other westerners -- why would they want to pick a fight with united states? >> i can only say and read as you can hear and read what they say. which is they intend to create an islamic state and regard us and our friends and allies in

the way of that. they have shown their willingness to attack americans and attack our allies and interest. >> i would never pick a fight with chairman dempsey secretary. >> the only way i would pick that fight is if american -- i do want to talk about the current ground forces. do we know basically what the core structure is? how many kurds, how many shia militias there are sponsored by iran? >> i have to get back to you for the record.

there are sunni tribal folks. a couple hundred of their ctf's their mod sponsored forces, 20,000 of the popular model is a force. >> so the shia militia dramatically outnumber iraqi security forces? >> they do. >> the shia militia are iranian sponsored, correct? >> i would describe them as iranian trained and equipped. >> secretary carter, i think you said the outcome of to credit would explain a lot of things. what did you mean by that? >> i believe it was general dempsey who made that statement

so i will let him explain himself. i agree with that. >> here's what i meant by that. there is no doubt the combination of popular forces and iraqi security forces, they are going to run isil out of to crit. the question is what comes after their willingness to allow sunni families to move back into their neighborhoods whether they're willing to restore basic services or whether it results in atrocities of retribution. that's what i meant. >> senator rubio's his line of questioning is if iran is the one sponsoring the victories they are going to have influence in iraq, and that is going to be very tenuous and very dangerous for the regional peace. correct?

do you want to address that? aren't you concerned about iran's growing influence in iraq ? >> am concerned about growing efforts in the region. we made it clear that is an administrative concerned. their influence in syria and of course iraq. i think you have to look historically. a lot of things are happening in the region. the history between persia and arab world shia is complicated. remember, iraq and iran had a 10

year war. people were gassed. iranians did not respond. there are a lot of interesting facets as to how that played out. iran's influence spread, and we are deeply concerned about it. if you are concerned about it now, think about what happens. we heard this in the floor of the house, and you heard it else where. if they had a nuclear weapon, that's why the administration believes the first step is to prevent access to nuclear weapon or develop a nuclear weapon. that's our goal, to try to do that diplomatically, and if it can't be achieved diplomatically, we have a lot of options available to us. we are eyes wide open with respect to what is happening.

we have made it clear to our friends in the region and elsewhere they don't disappear. if we were to get an agreement we still have these other issues with iran. we will need to be working on the ways in which members will be coming here to washington in the next month to continue the dialogue we had in the region last week. i am confident we will take the steps necessary to counter what iran is doing in other ways. >> i am not seeing the full commitment. we're seeing the dangerous influence of iran. >> thank you. we are now in the eighth month of the war that began on the eighth of august. there has not been a

congressional authorization of the war except for the vote that no committee has taken it up. i view that as highly challenging and disturbing in terms of the way the nation makes the most grave decision we are supposed to make. count me among many members of congress who believe the authorizations are not sufficient to cover military action. if we act to authorize it, there is precedent for congressional authorizations after the beginning of military conflicts, but if we do not act to authorize it, i think from a legal standpoint it would be catastrophic. i also agree the authorization should be strong and bipartisan. for those who have been fighting this battle without congress weighing in to indicate whether

they think it's in national interest or not, i cannot imagine asking people to risk their lives with us not having done our job. if we were to pass in a partisan way, that would not send a message that would make people risking their lives feel very good about the risk they are taking. i want to talk about the definition from a mission standpoint. the language is in the proposed authorization and is given some tone and coloration by the president transmittal letter. it says the administration drafting would not authorize large-scale ground combat authorizations like those our nation conducted in iraq and of canada stand, and you used that as a limitation -- and afghanistan and you use that. in the first gulf war troops were deployed overseas for up to seven months. would that be an enduring combat

operation? >> senator i think an operation that large, a state on state operation is not something we foresee as the kind of campaign we would mount against isil and not foreseen by this a ums -- aumf. the fundamental nature is one in which we are seeking the last thing defeat of iso--- isil. we need someone on the ground who sustains the victory after forces are defeated. that's why our fight is an enabling fight. we are trying to develop ground

forces that would do it. >> i want to ask about that point. i'm trying to figure out, is there some meaning to this definition. 697,000 troops for seven months, is that an enduring combat mission? >> it wouldn't lead to the defeat of isil. i can say with credibility no. >> that would not be allowed? >> i agree. >> with respect to the concept secretary carter raised. the foreign relations committee had two meetings with some strong allies in this mission.

the location of the combined air operations center at the air force base. the king of jordan said to us, this is not your fight. it's our fight, when we were asking about ground troops. isis is born and bred in this region. it is a terrorist rett born and bred in this region. they are claiming a mantle we revere for a perverted and. it is not america's fight. we want your help. we don't want american ground troops because it could send the message this is the united states against isil or the west against iso--- isil. this needs to be our ground effort, and we appreciate your support. i'm looking for metrics in terms

of if we all agree with the proposition 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? on the airstrike campaign of the 2800 airstrike the u.s. has done 80% of airstrikes. we have done 80% of the airstrikes. the airstrikes is u.s.. what i am worried is list the words but the concept. this has got to be the region's fight against its own terrorism. as it gets to the point where we have to contemplate a significant amount of ground troops, it almost means it has been lost from the beginning. there is no amount of ground troops we could put into iraq or

syria to win the battles. we cannot create a recruiting bonanza for eiffel. the president has said how he would like to use ground troops. i see a real danger of a ground troop creep converting this. i would love your thoughts about how to give this some flesh in the definition. >> i think this authorization itself guards against that. 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 as we were to knock out isil and that is it and go away. that is not going to happen. we can do that, actually. 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 implications of that would actually be to aid in the recruitment, to create a bigger problem than we face today. in answer to 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 62 coalition and worked so hard to get these five arab countries engaged in the kinetic activities with us. it is precisely to deny them that narrative. and so, 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. there are several battles taking place right now. not just in tikrit. there are two others. two out of three, where we have played a central role has not been as heralded but it is making a difference. the sunni arabs are prosecuting that. 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 is a long-term recipe for the united states to not have to put ourselves on the line as we have historically. we think we are on the right track here. in fact, the very strategy we are pursuing adheres to the very standards you most want to have

in place in order to protect against mission creep. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your testimony. this committee had particularly the chairman, months and months ago for an aumf. for language to come from the administration. we are glad it is here and i think it is overdue. it would have been useful to have that language or some kind of language from the administration early on. i know the administration was not comfortable with the language passed. i think many of us were uncomfortable with the limitations that were there. at the same time, we all recognize that we may have to endure some degree of ambiguity

in the language. we see it here when we talk about what is enduring. in exchange for a resolution 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 not useful to have an aumf that would pass with a 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 here. senator johnson asked about that earlier. we had the authority because isil was al qaeda. what they changed was their name and then grew worse.

four years, i think it was about 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 still view that. they just they see themselves in a more aggressive term.

that is why they have had some disagreement in tactics with al qaeda from whom they separated from. but separating does not change who they are and where they came from when we first engaged in a fight with them. there is legitimacy to the 2001 effort because it began a long time ago against this very group that simply changed its name and some of its tactics. it does not change the threat to the united states. obviously, 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 a much greater force that comes from a statement from the congress that this reincarnated entity and this current, this current metastasizing that is taking place is not going to be tolerated, specifically. that is important. to answer an earlier question, are there some questions from some people about the staying

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. >> i like secretary carter's formulation of the need of the aumf to provide flexibility for the forces to be waged. and second, the message you just sent, it needs to send a message to our allies and adversaries that we are in it for the long haul and backup the efforts of our allies and that they understand what their role is as well. i do believe an aumf is certainly needed if we have a campaign that is going to go on for a long time. i'm not troubled by the sunset provisions.

we can come back in three years and revisit this with a new administration. 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 to send that message. that is important too. as we know in this body, 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. so, i hope we can move forward and i appreciate your testimony. >> senator murphy.