that is why we are trying to find a political solution to the syrian civil war. it is important to defeat isil, but it is important to do so in a lasting way and that is a critical part of the strategy and the reason we are so intent upon identifying and enabling capable and motivated local forces. >> can you answer the question? what is general mcfarlane's mission statement? >> to defeat isil. >> my concern is we don't have a political plant that underlies what our military mission is. we have heard the need for that from the people on the left and right who have testified before the committee and written about this problem. can you speak a bit to that coordination, that planning and your confidence that general mcfarlane and the others on the ground can see a political and

that will stick and make their military efforts worthwhile? >> congressman, it is a great choice. what you said a minute ago about backwanting to go in five years is something we all feel strongly about. as difficult as it would be, i do support the objective to unify baghdad. that is the best prospect for a stable and secure iraq that would not be a sanctuary for pilot extremism. -- sanctuary for violent extremism. general mcfarlane is working enable theto government to stand up on its own to provide the support it needs to be independent of influence from outside actors, particularly the malignant influence of iran. getting where we need to is difficult at best.

i don't have a better idea to enable the current government in iraq to be successful to promote the kind of security we need. i believe that that assumption , if it no longer ask for a will different plan. i believe we are in fact -- since i been in the job, we have had two different meetings and specificiscussed issues on the campaign. it is fair to say there was a recognition that we were not as integrated across the government as we should be. ago we about two months begin to meet on a periodic basis to attack specific issues. the oil issue is an outcome of

the first mission we had. the foreign fighters requires a entire government. am i satisfied with the level of integration? no, we are working on that. am i satisfied that it will be easy to get after the desired political state in iraq? no, i don't think so. the cardinal direction to me is clear. >> we have a couple seconds left. if we had retained at that level of integration after 2009, would we be in the mess that we are in in iraq. >> it is fair to say the conditions are quite different. >> mr. gibson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the witnesses aimed here today. thank you for your leadership. i will be moving in a direction similar to mr. mouton. means,y, ends, ways, and the administration has been under fire in the media some

degree because that is the claim that the strategy is the same. ends may be similar i'm hoping i get clarification that ways and means are changing. if we are doing the same thing -- and i don't see how the end result will be any different -- a vantage point, i had multiple tours myself in iraw. raq.nin i i am very keenly aware of the challenges, including the political and military challenges in iraq. let me say this, i associate myself -- i think many of the opening remarks you made, mr. secretary, i can't attest to. you talk about the fact that there needs to be more sunni inclusion. i was frustrated that during the period iraq was unraveling, mr. maliki is leading in a corrupt way. i did not feel we were using the

leverage. this was significant. we still had a leverage that i don't think we used in the political-military sphere. thequestion has to do with interagency process, which i recognize you are only a part of, that you are a major player. about three to know different areas. iraq, first. what is different in terms of our leverage the we can bring it to bear, especially in this time when we have a new leader in iraq. we cannot shake this relationship so we can see some of the things that you laid out in your original testimony come to fruition. i think we can concur a political transition is necessary. what vehicles are we going to use might we create so we can thatome compelling on score.

issue is cutting off the ability to recruit and fundraiser for this enemy that is fraudulent. they say they advance the cause of muslims, but nothing could be further from the truth. means, whatways and is different in terms of this strategy? i will start, congressman and then maybe the chairman will want to add to it. first of all, thank you for your own service. to her next point about reconstituting our leverage and iraq, that is precisely the point i was making earlier. i think general mcfarlane is doing that. that is important insight to wield our political-military leverage in baghdad. that is important. abadi ase minister o opposed to maliki, gives us more

opportunities to do that. that is very important. we do try to leverage that, both in our military ways and in our assistance. we do have leverage in baghdad. >> if i could just for one second, mr. secretary. are we using metrics? we are sitting side by side with them and being a very clear in our communication that the funding they are getting by the goodwill of the american taxpayer is at risk and they will lose it if they don't show progress on these metrics. that is the progress i am talking about. >> the answer is, yes. let's start with iraq. >> congressman, you asked about ways. the ways that are different, i will answer the metrics one. the number of sunnis that need to be integrated is a metric.

we are working that out with the iraqi government as a recognized objective. they know our support will continue to fund them only under certain conditions. special operations forces and syria is a different way. targetingtionary force in iraq is a different way. the foreign fighter initiative that has taken place over the past couple weeks between the state department, department of defense, the cia, fbi, homeland security and so forth is a different way to approach the foreign fighter challenge. i have seen a much more conservative effort and the will to start the work and recognize how important it is. the last one is the more comprehensive approach we are taking to go after the revenue sources. that is another way it is different from the past. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary carter, i am trying to

piece together what it means to have an expeditionary targeting force and without going into too what does this mean? is this a group of iraqi soldiers? are we talking special forges? -- special forces? what exactly is this? this was thrown on us today. we would like to know what you are envisioning here. sec carter: i want to avoid some detail, but this is a force that or morer american only likely, a mixed force. examples, soou two this doesn't tell you anything about our plans going forward, but the two examples i gave were rescue of the individuals

who are about to be hostages, or prisoners, really. they were about to be executed by isil. that was accomplished with kurdish forces, a mixture of u.s. and kurdish forces. objectives,its although it required the sacrifice of one who wrote american to do that. gnother example is the killin saief and the capture of his wife. imagine that on eight standing basis, being able to one occasions arise, and that means intelligence fed, to conduct raids like that anywhere in the territory of iraq and syria. that is, as the chairman says, a new way of achieving our objectives.

one of several. and there will be more. >> the follow-up question. what is the status on ramadi? we have been hearing about the iraqis and kurds surrounding and months, getting closer and closer to amahdi. we are waiting for them to move. i worked with a wreck his soldiers and they are just as good as their leadership is. to see them realldilly g is veryto tak frustrating. congressman, i think i share your frustration, as to the commanders on the ground. this is something we get in a big on every day. over the past several weeks -- i mean real progress in terms of on the ground will progress.

is certainly not moving at the pace we want to see it move and we are prepared frankly, to provide more support to reinforce the success that the iraqi security forces have in ramadi. they have not lived as fast as we want them to move. right now, the focus is on ramadi. are ramadi is taken, we thinking north of baghdad. peshmerga have been successful. we have cut the lines of communication between mosul and raqqa. feature operation. i would not put a date to it, but a few weeks from now i would propose we see operations in mosul.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i give for being here and thank you for your service, gentlemen. i certainly respect you and trust you. if you tell me something, i believe it is true. i know you expressed frustrations earlier. i guess, it is a simple thing, a couple weeks ago this committee was in classified briefings. the next day, the obama administration came out and thank you, mr. chairman. i give for being here and thank you for your service, gentlemen. i certainly respectannounced who be a strategy of 60 special operators into syria. they did not have the opportunity to discuss that with congress because congress was on vacation. dayad been in meetings the before. they withheld that from us. that is an absolute lie. when it comes to those types of issues, it would be helpful if other people in the administration would be honest with this committee. take this job very seriously, just as i know you do as well.

isis, isil, o whatever we want to call them, made it veryu clear. we are at four. the president disagreed. i think he has come around to now, but it seems our military lines are conflicting with the goals from our secretary of state, who wants a political solution. solutions can take decades. and the longer we allow prices to grow when we are -- the longer we allow isis to grow while we're waiting for the political solution, the hard it will be to take them down. they have been working for years out.ove asad has secretary kerry to you who he would like to replace uasad ?

speak for want to secretary kerry, but i do know that in those negotiations dating back now years, the united states and secretary kerry, of lung others, have with other parties voiceave a stake and a how syria would be governed post-asad. most importantly, that the structures of the state of syria that have not been associated with the oppression of other be part of can responsible governance in syria going forward are preserved under new leadership. to your point about the difficulty of that, you bet it is difficult. that is what a civil war has

been raging there for several years. isil,er to have an end to there needs to be the political transition. >> i would like to interrupt, i am sorry. there is no plan for who would replace asad. they just want to replace asad towould be just as complex accept religious minorities. speak for want to secretary kerry, but these are the talks he is having with the russians, iranians, and others so there can be something that replaces asad that provides decent governance for the state of syria. nows, they really deserve it. >> i think it would be wise for us to engage in honest dialogue

with the russians. the dialogue should be occurring at the highest levels among our countries. >> it is. >> i want to switch gears for a second and then talk about the recapitalization of the program. a tremendousas need for intel. becauseo mention that if we wait much longer on that, mr. secretary, we will end up with a gap in that capability. combatants need the j stores and i hope we can move forward. >> it is important issue in the budget. the discussion is going on right now. being hereu both for and i respect both of you.

i would ask you use your credibility with the administration and urge them to be more open and honest with us. chairman mr. mr. secretary, to go back to some comments and questions you answered earlier. if we are in fact at war, how will we know when we have won? of. carter: the destruction entails their expulsion from any territory they claim to occupy and their destruction elsewhere around the world, including their various branches and so forth. isil is inong as iraq or syria, or libya or afghanistan, or anywhere else in the world, we will still be at war. sec. carter: i believe that in

theses world, one -- threats are difficult to confine to one place. that is the reason why we have to go there and by we have to go to syria and iraq and strike at it and strike at other places where it is. it is in the nature of today -- world. mobility among peoples, you see that everywhere. above all, mobility of information, which can't radicalize people who have never got anywhere, except for on their keyboard. i think it is important if we in thewar to defunjiine most clear and precise terms, what victory looks like. we have been in iraq off and on since 2003. to givkeep us out of perpetual war, i think it is important

that we defined the objectives we are fighting. i think we know that to our servicemembers and to ourselves. i hope we could come up with a better definition of victory and success. i appreciate that you acknowledge the importance of political and diplomatic components of a solution in iraq, or in syria. but i am interested in your response to a question asked by mr. gibson interns of conditionality. there is so much in those countries. let's use iraq as an example, that we do not control and cannot control and. able to predict when it comes to the political outcomes. when we say we are going to set aid, we say weour are going to set conditions on our military presence, do we really mean that? threat?a viable

will we really walk away from iraq if the government does not those conditions? i think that is an important question because if in fact we will not, and wonder what the motivation is for the iraqi government to take the very important and very difficult steps to integrate these other minorities, whether they be kurds or sunnis, into a functioning government. >> first of all, with respect to the first part of your question, exactly back to the military and political going together. in addition to the only end state that involves the lasting defeat of isil is one in which there is local governance that cannot be once again supplanted by isil. that is why the military and political go together at the heart of the strategy.

that is what enabling and capable forces that can make victory stick is the other part of the definition of victory. withl start in baghdad respect to leverage. the leverage involves offering to do more for those who are pursuing the same objectives and withholding our support from those who are taking a different path or not going down the path they are supposed to. so, we find alternatives. iffind people who will act the people we are dealing with are not capable of that. .ecause we have to act we will find such forces that are capable. what does isis want us to do and what does that factor into our strategy in confronting them? wants us to be impetuous right now, as opposed to aggressive. it would love nothing more than

a huge amount of u.s. forces on the ground in iraq and syria so they could have a call to jihad. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank secretary carter and general dunford for being here today. you obviously have a tremendous task. the diversity of what you are trying to accomplish, i think you have heard from members here. we have some concerns about whether or not we have the right strategy in total. russia just added a different dimension by putting forward their advanced missiles. how does that change if we are talking about a no-fly zone over turkey. how will that change the dimension for us? to they gain a higher ground on us at this point?

>> in the of the fact the chairman spoke yesterday, let me ask him to answer that. conditions, current we have an understanding with the russians that in chores our safety of flight. we don't take it for granted, but it has been in place now for over one month and the russians have complied with it. as a mentioned earlier, i spoke to my counterpart yesterday to assure that the russians reaffirmed their commitment to the understanding. you are asking about a hypothetical scenario. for example, are we to have a no-fly zone and then were we to have a no-fly zone and declare for against syria, because that is what we would be doing. particularly with company and ground forces to protect refugees. then, we could expect that would complicate the situation inside of syria. hypothetical. today we are confident that we

can prosecute the campaign against isil. if we were at war against syria and russia was supporting syria, the situation is complicated. it does not mean we can't deal with it. >> i appreciate that. going back to november 7 at the reagan national defense forum. it was argued that putting cards in her hand. the outcome of any political negotiations support u.s. interest. we can surmise from the robert gates argument that we must create a federal and military balance of power on the ground if we are going to seek a political solution acceptable to us and our allies. general dunford, it testified on said, iof 2015 and think the balance of forces right now are in asad's advantage. my question is, does that still

hold true? if that is so, what steps should we take to change the advantage to our advantage? when i dunford: testified in october, we did not have any capable forces to prosecute the campaign inside of syria. since that time, we have developed a relationship with the syrian-arab coalition. we had small numbers of forces that had gone through the original training. but we did not have a credible force that could conduct offensive operations. since that time, we do have a force that has conducted successful offensive operations. that is an organization, a rian-arab coalition, that runs north of 15,000-20,000 forces. the balance change

then, that you had referred to? general dunford: it changes the balance. i would not say today that we forces.oalition of a forc to doas the capability that with the support provided by russian and iran. forward, i think most of us are concerned and i am as a father of three service members, going forward are we going to be in the same position? if we pull out of iraq again, are we going to be in the same position we find ourselves in today? or will we keep everything to a force in iraq to assist with the and equipment mission of the iraqi forces? do you see us doing that? keeping additional forces in iraq. if we defeat isis. >> certainly, i think we have

enduring interests in the region. we have been enduring interest in the stability of iraq. >> i appreciate that, general. >> i think we have five more members. hopefully not everybody will take five minutes. are you all ok with that? mr. secretary, does that work with your? let me just check. i am traveling somewhere and i don't have my -- >> yeah. general dunford: i am sorry, mr. chairman there is another thing i need to do. going.eep

if i need to leave, general dunford indicated he would be willing to stay longer. >> think you both for your service. send our policy to overthrow the syrian government of asad has brought us into a potential direct head to had military conflict with russia, i have some important questions along this line. approximately how many nuclear forehead's does russia have -- approximately how many nuclear warheads does russia have aimed at the u.s.? the numbers asou best we know them. let me just summarize it by the fact that we have a strong, safe, secure, and reliable deterrent. it is true that russia, like the soviet union precedes it, has a

massive nuclear arsenal. >> it would be accurate to say both of our countries have the capacity to launch these nuclear weapons within minutes? >> we do. >> i have seen pictures, films, and images from nagasaki and hiroshima and i know you have as well. i presume you would agree with me that nuclear war would be devastating to the american people. the amount of suffering that it would cause the devastation to our families, our children, our planet, our future generations is difficult to imagine. i am wondering if there has been an assessment on how many lives would be lost and the damage that would be done if this nuclear war between our countries would occur? congresswoman, i have been doing this for a long time, including during the cold war and working on nuclear weapons

since the beginning of my career. to answer your question, there have been estimates made right along. there was the soviet union, and then russia. a very simple story. it is as you say. nuclear war would be an absolutely unprecedented catastrophic situation. that is why deterrence and prudence in the field of nuclear matters by leaders all over the world is so essential. >> the fact that we now have our forces patrolling the turkey-syrian border with the air to air combat order, there is no air to air combat against isis. i can only presume that the purpose of these planes would be to target russian planes. is that accurate? >> congresswoman, let me answer

it your larger -- the point you begin with. , a verya different view different view from russia, a bout what would be constructive for them to do in syria. we have that disagreement. we can't align ourselves with what they are doing. we are opposing and for them to change what they are doing in syria. that is not the same as the united states and russia clashing. i think the chairman and his counterpart in russia just spoke yesterday about making sure we did not by accident have any incident involving u.s. and russian forces. we have a disagreement there, but that is not the same as blundering into an armed situation with one another. minute here.e one that sharp disagreement with two

diametrically opposed objectives, one, the u.s. seeking to overthrow the government of asad, and russia seeking to uphold the will further asad, increase the possibility of that head to had conflict. one side make shootdown the other side's plane. that is really where the potential is for this devastating nuclear war for something that could blow up into something much larger. >> i have to correct something, congresswoman, that you said. i would characterize russia's respective differently. what they say and what they do our two different things. they said they would fight isil

and pursue a political asad,tion and not support but instead, try to pursue a political solution. what they have done militarily is have the effect of supporting asad and they have not gone after isil. that is our source of disagreement. we are having that disagreement and trying to get them to come around. that is what secretary kerry is doing to a more reasonable and constructive position. at the same time, as the chairman's efforts indicate, we are and the russians agree with this, intent upon uploading an accident old situation in the air over syria. strop. winn >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you for the sacrifices you make. secretary, you said we will win.

we will defeat isis. dunford, what is our center of gravity in this fight? center dunford: the senato of gravity for isil? capabilitiesl include their narrative and the power they have. places ofthe three strength. to define defeat, what we want to ensure is that isil does not have either the capability, does that have the capability to conduct external operations that present a risk to the american people or our allies. >> we are going after those factors. are goingnford: we after those factors that include their center of gravity. that is the existence of the caliphate. spoke about the foreign fighters, that is a piece of this manpower. >> we spoke about the coalition

and it was mentioned before, we part of the nations coalition. france has been part of the coalition, but obviously, they stepped up. some of the nations are contributing a box of pencils or something. do you think we are doing enough diplomatically to get these 60 nations for little engaged in this battle of good versus evil ?hat we are engaged in general dunford: we need more contributions from the members of the coalition. you are right, it is good to have political support. just about everybody in the world recognizes that isil is an evil thing and a threat to them, but they are not backing up, as we are backing up, there words

with deeds. we are in their swinging and we need more people in their swinging with us. that in my mind, applies particularly to those countries that reside in the region itself. weare a long way away and are concerned and doing our part. they are right there. i do think we need to put more pressure on the state department to gain more support lies.cally from our al a quick question, if i can, general dunford. as far as congressional notifications, have you or general dempsey concurred with any of those? general dunford: i have not. i have only had two cases since i have been a chairman and i have concurred with both. >> the general dempsey, do you know?

general dunford: i believe he may have, but you would have to ask him. >> we have been waiting for a plan on that. elay of the plant had do with the cost of closing down guantanamo? does the office budget management have anything to stay on that? general dunford: cost is one of the considerations in the proposal. just to relate the whole story, we are working to put together a proposal to which we would submit to congress. >> has anybody done one at this point? sec. carter: they have worked with us on a cost estimate? >> what did they come up with. sec. carter: there is a range, depending on where the program or detention facility would be and what it's nature would be. >> do have some idea? sec. carter: the objective is to

-- let me start from the beginning. you talked about transfers. in there people guantanamo bay detention facility that will not be transferred. it is not safe to transfer them. those are the people we are talking about detaining under law. we would like to do it in a way that costs less and takes fewer of our people. i guess i am trying to determine what the cost is of holding them in the u.s. as opposed to in guantanamo bay? sec. carter: exactly, they have and that will be part of the proposal that is brought to you. >> thank you very much, gentlemen, for your patience. i know you have sat through a lot of questions. mr. secretary, is set in your comments that president obama is committed to doing what it takes as we see what works as the enemy adapts until isil is

defeated in a lasting way. the president is the only commander in chief we have got. we cannot be the commander in chief under our constitutional form of government. this president has said that isil is a jv team. the debut for the paris attacks he said they were contained. when i go to the middle east, when we go to the middle east and talk to leaders, they say there is a lack of american leadership. i don't think that lets them off the hook. i think they have a role to play and they should step up. he made those comments and to people like me to doubt the president is committed, and i have many constituents who doubt it, what would you say to me and people like me who have doubts that he truly is committed? me, congressmen, the only thing i can say is to repeat what i have said before. president obama has given his

theroval to all of acceleration steps that i described to you today, many of which were devised by and recommended by the chairman, our military leadership. every time we have turned over a new way of attacking isil, we have gotten the president's approval. to your point about american leadership, i agree with you. i think american leadership is critical. on the other hand, we need followers as well. american leadership is there important, it is critical. values that people find attractive. that is why we have so many friends and allies, we need them to do more alongside our excellent men and women who are in the fight. secretary, let me ask you

another question. you were talking in a response to other questions. one your predecessor secretary hagel was here, he had his lawyer with him. this may be a question you want to refer to your lawyer. i have looked at the two amf's out ther. i am not a military personnel, but i am a lawyer. another you are telling us, we are sending special operation forces into syria, can you tell there isin those amf's the authorization to do that. sec. carter: i am not a lawyer, but i can tell you the commonsense meaning of the provision. he only when i am from all your with is the one the president submitted. i was asked earlier one of the reasons why i thought it was important. important to me that it allow what i thought was

essential to defeat isil. >> i am talking about the ones passed by congress and signed by the president. sec. carter: i cannot speak to them. i studied the one that the president past. >> can you get your lawyers to look at that. amf's passed by congress, would like to give you that authorization. i want to make sure i give you whatever you need. sec. carter: i am happy to get back to you. >> the last question i have, and i completely agree with you. we need local forces and we need help from the region. we should not leave anybody off the hook. are you getting the sort of support we should be getting from turkey? sec. carter: i have been urging actually since i came into this job, turkey to do more. we need turkey to do more. we need it to do more within its own territory so it controls its

border. which it has not done effectively sense isil first arose. that it goes after the facilitators, the enablers, and the other tentacles of isil that intrude into turkey. we would like them to operate and on then the air ground. most of their air operations are not directed at isil. they are directed at the pkk, which we understand they are concerned about. it is a terrorist organization within their borders, but we would like to see them do more against isil. to thesident has spoken turkish president about this in the past few days. it is pretty much at the top of our list and we would like them to do more. geography, i mean, they are right there next to iraq and

syria. they could be a good source of enablement for us. at the same time, they are not doing enough, it is a serious matter. that is why the president was talking to the turkish president. >>, my time is up. i would like to thank both of you for your service. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you gentlemen for your service and time. secretary carter, we spoke in june about my concerns about not using air power. my concern about doing that in a weak way, but it seems there has been a slight change since then. strength is at their estate, but their weakness is also at their estate. we do have a force on the ground. we need to take them out as a state, not as a counter insurgency. this reminds me of air

campaigning planning i went through when i was a young officer. identify the center of gravity airthen unleash american power that overwhelmingly goes after them to defeat them in a way that takes away their capabilities. i don't understand why the study was not done 17 months ago when or 15eclared a caliphate, months ago, or 10 months ago. we are just now realizing that oil trucks are moving. it has been reported since the beginning. by my math, it is about half $1 billion that they have been put into their coffers to support the terrorism. i am deeply concerned about the lack of using american air power. there is an average of about 15 strikes a day and we have heard about comers and approval processes. unnecessarily high rules of engagement were pilots are going home and not hitting legitimate targets because we want no civilian casualties. as opposed to the law of armed conflict.

and hit themgets hard. my concern and the problem is, i hear you are saying something has changed, that you mentioned the snowball effect. the snowball has not been going in their direction for the last many months. we have got 200,000 pro isis social media post a day. we have 900 cases in all 50 homegrownht now for extremists. it seems that they are winning and that has added to their propaganda, to their missed us metastasizing, to their fight. weekly, we have added to that by being weak on the military side. in addition to the changes you mentioned, are we changing the covers and approval process -- cumbersomee cover approval process?

congresswoman, to the extent you are asking, will be unleashed airpower? we will. ain reference to the imbersome approval process, can tell you i will try personally to get through it. in terms to collateral damage, i don't think we should apologize or bringing our values to the fight in terms of collateral damage. should absolutely be aggressive taking away isil, the resources, taking with their fighters, at the same time i don't think we should be killing innocent people. they would merely feed the narrative of isil at the same time. i think we should go after those targets, what do it in an american way. i think saying that your suggestion is wrong. >> we always have collateral damage. that is what we do. general dunford: i think we have the right damage between collateral damage and instruction of the enemy.

our threshold for collateral damage increases with the value of the target we are going after. if we are going after the baghdad command control network, we will go after it as aggressively as necessary to make sure we are succeeding. >> it was also reported that we were not striking the oil trucks because we did not want to hurt the truck drivers and we dropped leaflets on them to warm them. if that is clear, and you are driving a truck for a terrorist organization, you are a combatant. can you clarify? general dunford: we did it do that because we assessed the majority of the truck drivers were people just trying to make a living in the region. little bit different from the enemy combatant in my opinion. >> you don't consider them enemy combatants? general dunford: we don't. we were able to separate them from their trucks. >> my last question.

a10 been critical for these fights? general dunford: it has been a valuable platform. >> you think this fight will go on for a while? general dunford: i do. >> thank you, i yield back. andhank you, mr. chairman thank you, mr. secretary. i want to add go, i have -- i have a lot ofi the same concerns as my colleague. i was involved in the port in iraq since the beginning. operation enduring freedom, that was in afghanistan. like to follow-up on this question about the drivers of these trucks. the leaflets that were dropped, i presume they told them how to surrender. is that correct? those were the leaflets we dropped in iraq the first time

around. general dunford: first of all, we did a couple of things. we dropped ordinance in front of a column and then dropped leaflets that said, if you don't get away from your vehicle, you will be bombed. that was the message that was sent. >> there was no effort to capture any of the truck drivers or get any intelligence from their operations? general dunford: we don't have any forces on the ground that can capture those truck drivers? >> is that a problem? general dunford: commitment, if you want to capture them you would have to have someone on the ground to capture them and we don't. >> it is a problem we don't have someone on the ground to capture them? general dunford: elect of human intelligence hurts the campaign, for sure. >> is that going to be part of what we do going forward question mark i am ignorant on this issue. how many isis combatants have we captured? general dunford: i would have to get back to you, congressman.

>> is that not a very critical part of trying to win this war? general dunford: i don't have a number. >> can you give me an estimate. is it a couple hundred or a couple thousand? general dunford: it is a handful. we have not been involved in combat operations. we have not been in a position to capture isil. >> can i add something? one of the reasons for the targeting forces was to gain intelligence. one person we captured was at the wife of abusaief. >> the issue now? >> she is being detained. >> like you? .> from the government of iraq >> of course. what intelligence have begotten from that?

is this something we are going to change? are we going to start capturing olks? flks >> i think it will be a very valuable source of intelligence and as the chairman said, that effectivel to employment of airpower, to the effective identification of forces we can enable on the ground. >> how long did we know about these trucks before we destroy them? times," actually it was the treasury department reported we have $10 million a month to fund isis. theseng did we know that trucks were being used to fund isis before we did anything about it? there were: we knew oil trucks and iraq from the beginning, of course. what we could not do is

distinguish those that were being directly used to finance isil. tonow have the intelligence do that, which allows us to effectively isolate them and target them. we are using the tactic and we may change our tactics. >> the truck drivers that ran run because we told them to away, where are they now? are they now farmers in syria? i am asking the question because this is critically important to try to win a war? sec. carter: i am sorry, i'm not understanding why what the truck drivers are doing now is war.tial to try to win the >> you are telling us that these people did not know they were involved with isis. if they did not

know it before, they realized it. >> they knew they were helping isis, but they are not enemy combatants. can you explain that? sec. carter: i think the chairman already did. these were people who were just making a buck and we gave them every opportunity to survive the strike. >> mr. chairman, i am astonished. we need to find out where these people are now. it is astonishing that we are trying to win. >> you have a question? >> i do, and thank you gentlemen for your service. i am somewhat concerned about putting forces on the ground. that whenever we put forces on the ground, we want to make sure we have adequate support for them. particularly medevac. my experience with northern with someound qrf

armor would be a good idea. having ancur that sufficient force package would incorporate an in theatre, in country medevac for security? >> the kind of package you are referring to will be in place. >> thank you. , look atuestion is the threats. we have isis, al qaeda, north korea. where would you put global warming on that list? >> when you think about strategy, you need to think about the overall timeframe and the overall of geography. youmentioned china, mentioned russia.

they have not been the subject of the hearing today. i had the privilege of speaking before the simi valley conference that chairman thornberry organized and my focus there was china and russia because we cannot forget, a nuclear deterrence has been raised and there are a lot of different aspects to this world and one needs to think in the long term. change somege does of our military conditions. we try to be a department that looks ahead. how will that change our operations? threat, the imminent the five meter threat. the most damaging threat facing us today would be isis al hezbollah, and the nomination state terrorist activities. sec. carter: that certainly is

the most eminent. there is nothing distant in time or probability about it. >> thank you, gentlemen for your service. really appreciate it and god bless. >> there is much more we could talk about, but you have all been very patient. i will warn you, the next time you come up i will suggest from mr. smith that we start on the bottom two rows with our questions. i think the best questions come from our younger members. with that, the hearing stands adjourned.

>> events dictate that the president ramps things up somewhat. i concerned is, you never ramped it up enough to make a difference. it is always just responding to events. we are a step behind. where the threat is.

i have a lot of confidence in these guys. was very thing is, it explicit. if you want to go from 3500 in iraq, you have to give the president to prove it. are indicatives of -- -- i didn't see anything that indicates that the military has a freer hand. the idea that he going to send folks in their to help target airstrikes, that is a change. after paris, now the president allows that. it seems like we're one step behind responding. rather than ok, what does it take to defeat this enemy, let's

go do that. i don't get that yet. >> one of the forces you think we need on the ground? >> that is where you need a military to tell us. again, the consensus of opinion from most of the people who have written and smoke -- written and spoken about this is more special operations, more forward controllers, airstrikes. you probably saw the figures said we had more strikes in the first two months in afghanistan than we have had in 16 months in iraq and syria. i'm still concerned about how you develop a ground force in syria. general dunford was trying to be careful, but sure. if we had an inclusive government in iraq, that is the

best. is there any chance of that happening with the iranians calling the shots? i don't know. >> carter describes special operations troops in iraq and syria carrying out raids, capturing isis leaders. is that something you're ok with and do you see that as an escalation of the missing? -- of the mission? it is part oft if a greater strategy for success against isil. that the president allows there to be a strategy for success. i think that has a deterrent effect up and down the chain of command. if you know you have got to go all the way to the president himself to get 25 more people in iraq, does that not discourage the commander in iraq and said,

and others in asking. that is a big deal to go to the president. it is that micromanagement i think that has a dampening effect on military. >> that does thing to be with secretary carter says they are doing. they are going to try to see how successful it is. in that way, are you worried that they will take that approach input folks in syria in harms way without a larger, better strategy? >> i am concerned about that. our peopleed that that you put in harms way need a certain amount of support and logistics and medevac and all of those things. they could not go into those details in an open session, but has some of the concerns that we will ask -- that we will ask about moving forward. point that you make

that i am trying to, i think, agree with is that there needs to be a strategy for success. whenever special operations, number of troops, to a couple is that, that is where you go. every one those, by the way, has to be through the president. that is what is concerning. >> you see any discussion coming up to change the rules of engagement? >> discussion by? >> could that be something that got included? congress. do a c define enduring,

offensive ground combat operations. goas tempted at the end to back and start asking some of those questions but we were over three hours. the point was, the president sent up a proposal that no one could defend or even define. i still think we have to have a aumf.umf -- have a to have else is going to tell you what the president is considering. it seems to me, the president ,as been a step behind events and several steps behind the threat. general dunford, i think, talked about the threat growing beyond iraq and syria in libya, egypt, yemen, bo boko .aram in nigeria

we are still behind, i'm afraid. >> both senators mccain and graham called for like 20,000 more troops. you are not willing to put a number on it? >> i want a strategy to succeed. 20,000 troops with a restrictive rules of engagement are not going to be terribly effective. it is not just numbers. it is what your authorized to do. thank you all for being here. >> as president obama meets with world leaders in paris for the climate talks, the house is debating climate change and also

energy bills. joining us to talk about u.s. energy policy, bloomberg environmental reporter anthony adragna. let's start with what the administration's climate change goals are. >> president obama has done a number of initiatives during seo address climate change. he is also pursued actions with countries around the world to try to get them to curb emissions and tackle climate change. >> kevin mccarthy sent out a memo that is called, congress has a better energy plan. the epa's new rules on new and existing power plants. what are these disapproval resolutions? what will they actually do?

>> these are under something called the congressional areas -- congressional review act. do would be to nullify both of those regulations immediately, to say they have no force in effect, and it would also prohibit the epa from ever trying to pursue substantially similar regulations in the future. this would kill off the centerpiece of president obama's plan to address climate change and it would prevent the obama administration or any future administration from pursuing something similar. >> president obama has ordered a veto threat against that? hepresident obama has said will stand firm against anything that will threaten to undermine his actions on climate change. based on previous voting patterns, it is pretty clear that there are not the margins to override the presidential veto in either chamber. >> you tweeted about the white house opposing a third energy

bill being debated this week, h.r. 8. >> fred upton has been pursuing this piece of legislation. it focuses a lot on modernizing the energy of the structure. it was actually started as a bipartisan effort. upton and the energy and commerce committee's ranking member made it far along in bipartisan negotiations before ultimately not being able to resolve some of their differences. it still has lots of bipartisan support and it also has gotten a veto threat from the president. >> how does the energy bill address climate change? anthony: committee democrats were anxious to see the bill do a lot more to address climate change. that was one of the key things that actually sort of led to the bipartisan talks to dissolve.

>> there were three house democrats that voted for this bill in the energy committee. what are you hearing about other support from other democrats? anthony: i think it is fair to say that whenever your energy packages on the floor you will attract some modern and centrist -- some moderate and centrist democrats. as i mentioned, president obama has threatened to veto it and it seems the measure will not get to his desk. >> overall, where you think some of this legislation may be headed? anthony: it has been eight years since congress has done any sort of brought energy package. it is always very hard to get these bills across the desk. i think we will have to see what happens. there is a lot of talk about potential riders with the omnibus. we will have to see when you get a new effort and get some new momentum behind it.

>> we can find you on twitter, anthonyadragna. >> coming up on c-span, center for affairs committee chair bob corker on u.s. policy in the middle east and the fight against isis. the house debates epa regulations against carbon commissions that carbon emissions from power plants. at a hearing of the house armed services committee. tomorrow on c-span3, a house overnight hearing on drug control policy including testimony from the white house national drug control policy director. live coverage beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern. club, the national press with debra lee james.

>> c-span presents, landmark cases, the book. a guide to our landmark cases 12ies which explores historic supreme court decisions including marbury versus madison, korematsu versus united states, brown versus the board of education, miranda versus arizona, and roe versus wade. the book features introductions, background, highlights. written by veteran spring court journalist tony morrow and published by c-span, landmark cases is available for $8.95 plus shipping. get your copy today. senate foreign relations committee chair bob corker

answer questions about u.s. foreign policy, focusing mainly on the middle east and fight against the militant group isis. this roundtable was hosted by the aspen institute in washington dc. it is one hour. >> welcome everybody. >> i am walter isaacson. it is my pleasure to welcome you to the aspen institute. we were just discussing the period in the late 1940's. many years ago, we wrote a book called "the wise men, which was -- "the wiseman," when we were facing challenges similar to the global challenges we are facing today. during that period, the undersecretary of state, every across used to drive by

rock creek from where he lived and stop by and talk to arthur vandenberg, the republican chair of the senate foreign relations committee. together with a bipartisan group of people in the senate and the truman administration, they were able to have the most creative flourish to a global challenge in history, the creation of nato, the world bank, the institutions of radio free europe, the bretton woods economic agreements, the marshall plan that rebuilt europe. we are facing that kind of struggle today when we face terrorism, isis, a new global challenge that is pretty much as dangerous as the rise of soviet-backed communism in the 1940's. we rarely have that structure of the great wise men. in time for people say, who are the wiseman today, i always do think -- in times when people

say, who were the wise men today , i always do think of senator bob corker. the manurn it over to who used to be a congressman from the great state of kansas and agriculture secretary. >> thank you, senator corker for coming. i like to think, who with the founding fathers had in mind for people who are managing and running great public policy issues. i think they would have a guy like you in mind. businessman, not career politician, but at the same time, somebody who is coming to washington and viewed as independent, thoughtful, bipartisan, all adjectives that are not usually used to describe people and influence like you are. so we delighted to have you here. we had a great group of people around. i want to say that this series

has been financed by the michelle smith and robert h smith family foundation. i will ask the senator a question or two and then we will turn to the folks here. i know you have a hard stop close to noon. you just came back, you are egypt and you stopped in paris. countrieseen and 66 -- that since you have been chairman or in the senate? sen. corker: in the senate. mr. glickman whatever it is, -- mr. glickman: whatever it is, i am guessing you're white is thrilled to see you home safely and. -- home safely. how do you judge the viability of these different's date structures -- these different state structures. libya to iraq, to jordan. do we have a group of countries that are capable of memory --

capable of managing these problems or are we going to be in chaos and crisis the next couple of decades? sen. corker: it is a great question, and i do want to say before answering that i am always thrilled to be with people like you are here. before business guy coming to the senate and when i have learned i have learned from people like you around the world. i look forward to your comments. structure the state has been the west family and -- the westphalian structure built years ago. balance of power is in a little bit of disarray in the middle east. an example, in egypt, you have a country with 90 million people, 2.5 million new people each year born into the country. 700,000 new jobs created each year just to take care of the

young people coming in. they need 24,000 classrooms this very second that they don't have. thathave a medical system -- it is very decrepit. they had issues, obviously, of economic growth. tourism has been weighed down, especially because of what just happened with the airliner, but also concerns about terrorism in the sinai desert and also the western portion of the country near libya. you look at the top issues that president obama has to deal with as president, but then you look at a guy like sisi in egypt right now. the issues they are dealing with are just unbelievably difficult. they have moved through a three-step process now, but where this takes them, who knows?

you look at libya, which is not really a country. , where he israq just not doing those things we thought he would do. syria is obviously not really a country. we need strong state structures for governance to occur. otherwise, you end up with the beings that end up breeding grounds for the kind of things that take place in paris and yet, obviously, we either haven't had the leadership, will, support to make that happen. making sure, over the longer haul, we do those things necessary to ensure that these structures can function and flourish is very much in our national security interests. mr. glickman: how would you characterize the american leadership and will as it relates to areas like syria,

isis, iraq? how do you talk about the iranian nuclear issue. today, i noticed that the secretary of defense talked about sending some variation of ground support into the region. how do you feel about that? same question i was asked last week in paris. i think that we have to make a decision. the president has to make an executive decision. over time, libya is going to be the same type of place. it his decision that we are truly going to defeat isis or is it his decision to continue along with what i think he would self-described as a strategy that has been more about containment. i know we have people running for president that are making all kinds of comments on a daily basis, as you would expect, and

we have people in the body i serve who were making all kinds of prognostications about numbers of troops and those things. i think the first decision that has to be made by the president is, give me a plan that will allow us to actually defeat isis and let me vet that. anyone who is going out little bits and pieces doesn't take us little- throwing out bits and pieces doesn't get us there. ofn it with the equivalent the national security advisor in paris, who was coming with hollande here to meet with the president, i said, look, because of what occurred here which is obviously devastating, this is your time to really press our president into a place to be part of a coalition that really wants to defeat isis, not just contain them. i think that is what they did when they came here. their particular week was made

up with a meeting with merkel, cameron, obama. it appears that cameron is moving ahead in the u.k. it appears that germany is moving ahead. hopefully this is a catalytic moment where the president will make that decision that we are going to lead an effort to truly tried not just to contain but defeat. -- truly try, not just to contain, but defeat. what does that mean? i don't know, i'm not an expert. mr. glickman: this is not an unimportant struggle. not just terrorism, but the nuclear threats, stateless society. as a president tries to figure he thinks we ought to do, do you think, in your role as chairman of the foreign relations committee, but in the role of congress working with the president, how do you think the president should be linked to

congress? sen. corker: first of all, there bipartisantrong sense of the four relations committee -- on the foreign relations committee. it does exist, it is real. staff are very close. there is the constant back-and-forth. that is real. the house is functioning somewhat that way. i think eliot engel and the chairman do well together. i have worked much more closely with them then people i think realize. but i will say, since we have the momentum around the iran nuclear review act, that has

dissipated, once we pass that -- that hasislation dissipated. once we passed that piece of legislation out of committee, there hasn't been a live give-and-take. i don't know if it is just that time -- been a lot of give and take. i don't know if it is just that time in the administration. you talk about the kind of things that you laid out which are creating institutions. for those kinds of things to happen, i think you do have to have congress involved in working it all the way through. laying out a to policy as to what you are going to do in ukraine, i think that the administration really resorts back -- and you can understand this, it is sort of , we arecle 2 mentality the commander-in-chief. that pushing, if you will, which

we have had plenty of. bipartisan pushing on things like ukraine and other places is not particularly well received. that is when there is a sort of a pushback that takes place. we passed a bill out of committee as it related to dealing with the free syrian opposition when it really was robust back in may of 2013, before a side had crossed the red line. again, a very robust piece of legislation. -- it is felt, i think, by the administration, that when there is a bipartisan push to come in some ways give the administration some cover or support from the senate on particular issues, i don't think that is particularly well received. on other sorts of things, we work very closely with them. again, you referred to

institutions being created. it is different with an administration who is trying to develop a policy when, at the end of the day, i think the president would say this in a closed setting. these are not issues that really even want to pursue in the first place. you wake up, you are president of the united states, you have these problems to deal with that are not the kind of problems you wanted to deal with at president. the robust level of what you are doing is proper. that typesnt believe of it certainly would into and. i think what we found fortunately, in the middle east

>> >> >> tomorrow, we have a classified happened,n what has most people say the possibility dimension. the previous military dimensions of iran's activities. we watched what happened in north korea, where agreements were reached but not all of apple. on.ut not followed up there wasn't a follow-up. so one of the most important aspects of the iran review and was not just the understanding of the deal, but the end code

follow-up that takes place and the things that the administration, after this administration is going to go on for a long time, that all of ministers cap to and what congress's role is in overseeing that. this isn't one of those things where we do a deal, forget about it, and move on. next thing you know you wake up in your in a very different place. grexit talked about the president asserting his article to authority. personally, i'm glad you're taking an aggressive stand. sen. corker: if you're someone , youupported the iran deal want to make sure that everyone is attention and that it is successful. deal, didn't support the you have the same motivation.

this is now a has been agreed to. for at least this period of time during this president the confidence that the deal that is going to continue. i think that all of us come at the end of the day, our genuine, sincere, central concern was ensuring iran didn't get nuclear weapons. toh sides of the aisle want do an incredibly diligent job to make sure that doesn't happen. mr. glickman: we will go down the list. keep your questions as short as possible introduce yourself -- as possible and interest yourself. >> i am a palestinian journalist. a few weeks back, the president basically declared the death of the peace process kindly fluffy at an office. in your capacity at your

process for peace the rest of his time in office. in your capacity at your committee, can you see any move that can make the process move again or at least not let the occupation on forever? sen. corker: just being honest, i see zero momentum around that issue right now. kerry, tot secretary his credit, while we may disagree on certain policy issues, to his credit yet it like an energizer bunny -- to his credit he has been like an energizer bunny in trying to take on tough issues. i'm sure he is disappointed in the fact that it doesn't appear to be a likely outcome. i do want to think the one of my trips i like it to -- trips i snuck in to gaza.

i traveled from north to south -- south andur back to north. i watched people moving through the tunnel. i do understand the importance. on my troops there, i always spent time with -- on my trips there, i always spent time with the palestinian prime minister. i felt momentum a few years ago. i will say, three years ago, it felt to me like things are coming together. the security situation, especially in the west bank, was changing. economic growth was taken place. this last trip, which i believe was in the march time frame, i feel zero momentum around. >> thank you so much for being here. i guess the question i want to ask is about the strategic minds

of people in the committee. when i look back to the cold war and think of the debates that happened at that time, you had liberal interventionist wanting to intervene here or there, and people with different strategic mindsets that competed. behind that stage were the stark realities of how everything could add. today, that ray moore, that powers of united had -- it states had, seems so easily hijacked by whatever cause. mapt the sense that the bring to the policy consideration doesn't easily think through the trade-off. you're a businessman, the cost and benefit approach. lugar within your position, i remember him asking , and theraeus one

traits that i can't answer that bastion on broader strategy because my world is just afghanistan. i thought it was a very important exchange. i wonder it with your committee members and how you think about this, is very strategic rain that we are all missing -- strategic -- isn't there a strategic frame that we are all missing? sen. corker: i think it is a great question, a great weight. -- a great point. with all the multiple issues that are being dealt with, not one insurmountable issue, all complex, i think that you are right. i think the strategic focus is not trying to get out of any blame that may exist. you have this sort of bipolar

world where it is a cold war and everybody understand that it is so much easier to develop a strategic framework. i do think, in fairness to the administration -- i hate being -- iir in this meeting think part of some of the resistance from the joint chiefs has been exactly what you just .aid that is, like the media will , and it is the issue of , everyone gets focused on that for a period of time and things get somewhat hijacked in some ways. based on conversations i have had, there is a resistance by the military complex because of

these competing resource issues and not wanting to get to suck did 21 particular place knowing that resource allocation -- we really think about it, i don't know how you want to greater when you think about what is happening in the south china sea. when you think about what rush is doing in ukraine. we had a great meeting lately with our nato head. when he was sharing with me is exactly what you said. he said the problem is, rush is looking at the whole. -- russia is looking at the whole. we keep looking at one piece relative to what they are doing. ukraine here, crimea, syria here. they are looking at it from his perspective very much like you

just laid out. then you add to ukraine, add to that the issue of isis. you have what is happening in syria specifically and you look at iran. the huge amount of energy that it took to negotiate that deal. i think what you said is true and it makes it difficult to lay it out.y , i think younk accompany that with the -- do i really -- i don't want to be overstated by the media, i just think they are looking so forward to january 20.

i really do. i just think they are looking so from theo being away military excursions and those types of things that the notion of developing some type of strategic vision with congress is not something they even really want to engage in. they want to move away from being in office and have as little engagement as possible, which is understandable, but it doesn't lay out a vision for the next decade. at the end of the day, while you have some wise men, walter would call them, working towards that and others were dealing with cold war types of things, you had administration that was laying out a vision toward that end. that certainly is not taking place today.

>> senator, if i may just say a word. i grew up in the senate working for ted kennedy in the senate is fortunate to have you. i get choked up walking by his desk when i take students and. -- students in. >> i just spent 5.5 months in the middle east on and off doing anti-isis work. i have been looking at this so-called coalition, this coalition of arab states that kerry has tempted. -- has touted. yet, when you start scraping away the surface -- the germans of finally kicked in but native allies to been reluctant. arab allies, saudi's, the sunni states, have really not stepped up to the plate.

other than the fact that at the beginning they had a couple of jet planes flying overhead, but as soon as the jordanian pilot was captured and brutally murdered, they disappeared. we can't really take on isis without an effective coalition that is not a crusader coalition. i am wondering how do we get the arab states, in your mind, to fess up and to pony up to what is necessary here? sen. corker: i think everything you just said is true. we have a coalition of 65 or 66 folks, most of which aren't doing anything. maybe they are offering their reading glasses or something but they are just really not involved in a meaningful way. i do think that is changing a little bit. especially some of our closest friends, parliaments and others

are moving in a direction to be more involved. is -- ia part of this kind of hate to say this again, but i really think that what happened in august of 2013 changed everything for us. in the middle east. when assigned across the red action, we did not take it really raised a lot of questions in our middle eastern partners minds as to who we were. are we committed, are we going to do the things we're going to do ? in their minds, -- privately, when they meet with the white house, they say something that i am sure is different. there is a commitment they are concerned about. let's face it. from our standpoint back to them

, i think this has kind of been the way it has been. that is a lot of talk takes place. we will be back in the region on this very topic in the next seven-week -- next several weeks. we meet with them in munich, we have bilateral meetings there, there is a lot of talk. but until we get a real commitment from them, you're right. we create another dynamic where does the creators, -- the crusaders -- where it is the crusaders, if you will, on the ground. we have to put an arab face on what is happening on the ground there. ?, almost verbatim you asked -- mark, almost verbatim you asked my question about the crusade

and what encourages the other countries to do something about this. i think it is almost pointless for the west to try to do it themselves. a couple of observations that may a question buried in there somewhere. -- observations and maybe a question buried in there somewhere. i took office and you still had boxes down there in the senate. wonder, and i learned from hard experience in iraq and at the u.n., it is hard to do some of these things. if you don't have consensus in the security council. people may think i am being silly about this. if you don't have consensus in the security council, it means

the great powers are divided. if the great powers are divided, it means the others are going to pursue their own inclinations rather than some kind of consensus. that brings us to what the chances are of us really getting on the same page as the russians. i would say the chinese would come along to whatever the russians agree to. that comes to another negotiation that is going on, and that is the one about syria and this negotiation for a cease-fire in some kind of political transition. the way i read it is, the russians are sort of implicitly saying, if you can find some kind of a way to work with elements of this regime, then maybe we could join with you in fighting isis. moment, i think they want to drop our insistence on

driving the shore al-assad -- al-assad out of power. have you been following those talks and are you involved with the different actors who are a part of it? i'm sure i talked with secretary kerry last week about this very topic. i would never share with what he said to be in a private conversation. following very closely. today, the president, in a press conference, kind of negotiating publicly on this issue. think, at the end of the day, i think everyone understands that we are, the administration, our nation is open to dealing with an allied regime. we understand what we don't want to have happen is what happened in iraq.

we want to make sure there is a country there. the aloe whites are going to be -- the alawites are going to be a part of that. how do you get to a alawite regime without assad? i don't think iran ever gets to the plate? i will think they are part of the national security council and i don't think they are that relevant to this. russia is totally relevant. i have a sense that we may still get there. the russian ambassador was over at my office recently for a couple hours one evening. overlap.here is enough let's face it, that is what we do constantly.

find the overlap. i have been to russia, i haven't been recently for obvious reasons. it didn't seem like the right thing to do. anyway, i kind of think that there is a good chance that we will get to the right place. >> obviously a syria expert as well as other things. >> suppose the president does come to the conclusion that to defeat isis, at least in syria, it is going to require a professional, capable ground force to complement the air campaign. suppose he does decide to go for the kind of coalition that mark and others are talking about and that as part of the price of

coalition building, the united states is going to have to have some skin in the game on the ground in syria, perhaps beyond 50 special operators. how do you think that kind of proposition is going to be received in the committee? what would the president have to to ensure a good reception in the committee. i go back to elements of all of the questions, but these in particular. whenever you are walking down the hallways, you're walking out of the senate chambers are going to a meeting, that is the question that people want about ground troops, how many, what about special operators? ultimateto me that the important issue is, let's lay

out the context, let's lay out where we are going. don't call me about 10,000 troops or 15,000 troops. let's have a meeting like this. where it is out we're going to land. i think of that is done with veracity, that could be a good reception. i believe the administration is acting within their legal authority right now dealing with isis. it is close, but i do, i believe o2- are acting within the amf in iraq. people have talked about is crafting an amp. -- crafting an amf. you have republicans who don't believe there is such a thing as , i shouldn't even

say republicans. i think republicans and democrats alike believe there is no strategy. there may be or two that would define -- that would defend the lack of strategy but i think people understand. if republicans are concerned mf if getting behind an a they don't see a strategy, in other words, how are we going to win this? democrats, a big push on their side is to say that we aren't that interested in the amf, what we are interested in is making sure the next president -- we know this president is likely not to do something in a massive ground troop way. we want to make sure the next president doesn't. if you look at those dynamics, they have nothing to do with solving the problem. people, think respected both on the state side of things the pentagon side of

things, with real leadership, laying out what we're going to do and how we are going to defeat, and the lines of activity. cutting off their financing. there are so many other elements that go with this as you know. i think it would be received well. hate, by the be, way, we are sending in 50 special ops. let's lay out and share how we are going to do this and who is going to be participating and how. >> thank you, honorable senator. you mentioned some countries in the region where the situation the same region, you can find other countries which

are doing well despite the tremendous challenges they are facing. instability in the neighborhood. countries like my country tunisia. an emerging democracy, which should be encouraged to stay on the right path. my question is, do you think the usa are doing enough to help consolidate its democratic process? sen. corker: great question. i was in tunisia earlier this year on my second or third trip. it is an amazing thing to see what has happened there in spite of what is happening around its borders. it is an amazing, amazing

testament to personal leadership within the country. people of different factions putting the country first. still, huge numbers of foreign fighters that at some point will be coming back, so tremendous challenges internally. for what it is worth, we had a discussion about tunisia for came over here. -- tunisia before we came over here. another have been discussions about resource allocation between house and senate -- i know there have been discussions about resource allocation between house and senate. it is ramped up hugely from where it was quite for years ago. i think, when you see this omnibus come out, you will see all of that fixed in the appropriate way. i know the senate committee, not my committee, and appropriations committee, offered half of that, but they wanted to use unspent

sums from another place to fill the void. i think you will see in the next 10 days happiness as it relates to tunisia. i think there is a real commitment to do everything we can to help tunisia, help their leadership, which has done an outstanding job move through the multiple travails that they have. >> a great headline, now. if that and the being truthful, but that ends up -- being truthful, but that is what appears is going to happen. >> i am from the israel-american council. the notion that we are dealing with a multi axial woarld and te thatistration's notion they want to act on

opportunities in the asia-pacific. what are some of the leverages the committee has been using in dealing with china in the middle east issue? sen. corker: honestly, not much. china, relative to the middle east issue -- i know they just guess, building their first naval base generally in the region. not much. i think most of us look at china that is 99.9% self-interested. if use its role today in the world there he differently than what has been the role of the united states over the last 60 or 70 years. it is a very different role. we other very interested in those things that can support their economic growth.

but we really haven't seen them as a major contributor, if you will, to solving the problems that exist in the middle east. there is almost no discussion. by the way, i hope that changes. >> i am brian from the center for american progress. you mentioned you were in egypt and you mentioned briefly economic challenges. i thought you could share some of your impressions about the security and the political situation? have anyyou conclusions about u.s. policy, which has been quite strong for years on egypt, how it might evolve and adapt? sen. corker: this is where it might take some incoming from this group, just knowing some of the sensibilities here.

i was not happy with us altering our relationship with egypt for a wild. -- for a while. was it a coup, was it not a coup? i spent a lot of time on the phone with secretary hagel. didn't secretary hagel really want to alter our relationship the way we did. i think at that moment in time, it was not the right thing to do. fully restored now, which i appreciate. you look at the security concerns inside the country and the economic issues, all of the other issues are very difficult to deal with and less that particular piece is. while i was in egypt, i met with -- as we always do, and typically we do it first other than sometimes meeting with folks our embassy that have the ability to let us know what is

truly happening in the region. but after that, we typically be with human rights activists in countries like this, and people who are concerned with religious persecution and those types of things. that wasn't really a focus. but what is happening with detainees and disappearances. the treatment of people have altering views. i think that, with a country with the issues that they have, our policy should be that we will continue to be -- to work very closely. over time, we want these human rights issues dealt with in the appropriate way. we understand your stepping through these very slowly. not at the pace that many people would like. , i do have aime

sense of some of the major, major challenges they are dealing with inside the country and have a degree of understanding as to why they would put security and economic issues at the top and want a deal with some of the other issues later. that doesn't mean they are not important, they are very important and they have to exist, or at some point in time, there is going to be a pressure within the country that is going to create significant problems. i think our policy should be to do everything we can with this $90 million, going to be $100 million -- 90 million, going to be 100 million person country in a few years, to do everything we can to support a state that at least is operating and try to make it as successful as we can. mr. glickman: we will just do one more now because i want to make sure we get the senator

back in time to vote and do other things. i think the next person was up is john. >> my question is broader although i am from morocco. the vulnerability in challenges to three of our closest friends, obviously they are facing credible issues with refugees, integrating their security forces against penetration by outside forces. what is your sense of survivability and our security relationships with jordan and lebanon and support for tunisia and morocco? >> the survivability? what do you mean by that? >> in terms of the fact that they have incredible domestic challenges, and now the external

challenges from the refugees. will we --ll >> yeah. there's-- i think significant to huge concerns about jordan. slow to movebeen through some of the reforms that need to take place. he's a great friend of ours, a great friend of israel's, a great friend of the region. he spends a lot of time on external issues, but he has tremendous internal issues that have to be resolved. roomnk most of us in the have visited the refugee camps, both in turkey and jordan in other places, and it is phenomenal what these countries have done. but in jordan in particular,

they are hosting people in their homes. it's an incredible thing. these kids are going to their schools. they have a lack of water resources, burned up by the huge amounts of people in their country. almost every conversation we have relative to the region, jordan more so than lebanon -- is focused on, as a country that could go either way if the wrong thing happened. we do support them more than people think. relative to internal security issues and those kinds of things. jordan in particular is a country that wants to play a highly constructive role in the region, and yet has tremendous

destabilizing forces that are taking place, and it is a place we have to pay a lot of attention to. i could say less about morocco, but if i were going to tier ite rest, i would tier jordan, lebanon, morocco. >> i have a question that is a little bit and gentle. over has been a debate collection of data, bulk collection, the nsa quit doing that. this isy has said causing us to go blind at a certain point, when we lose track of terrorists.

how much should we worry about that, and how much should we recalibrate? >> i'm sorry -- i haven't been around that long. i'm 63 years old. i guess someone consider me a teenager in the senate. but there is no doubt it was a generational thing. it wasn't clearly along those lines, but emanated from a generational thing relative to the millennial thinking and the libertarian thinking about civil liberties and what the nsa was doing relative to al bulk collection. it was -- i'm sorry -- absurd that we did away with bulk collection. absurd, absurd, the most ridiculous -- >> tell us how you really feel.

[laughter] >> i get really angry to think about the fact that this person who betrayed our nation helped notte this atmosphere of us protecting our own citizens. i spent four hours of the nsa and walked through the bulk collection program. we had lots of other encounters during that time to understand what was happening -- i thought, are you kidding me? 22 people total who could access material, in they had to go through all kinds of levels to one access -- by the way, and two and three hops out, now the data is going to be stored and i don't know how many thousands of people will have access -- and it is not working the way that it should. i'm so upset that our nation

theed this momentum in wrong place, in the wrong direction. it is hurting our security. i can't believe that it happened, but it did. the other piece that walter is even more of a concern to me, is that i've moved into the new age now and i have an iphone. i had dinner with tim cook five weeks ago. his goal, as you can understand, as a businessman, is to make sure that this piece of equipment -- there is no way for you to ever, ever gain access to this. everything that comes in and out of this is encrypted. so that you can store your health records and everything else, and i understand that. of course. there is a little bit of a debate about -- we had a discussion -- people coming in having a key so that people can

and hishe bad guys, point would be -- if the bad guys can access -- if the good guys can access it to find out what's happening than the bad guys can. a legitimate point. then you go to paris, and you meet with folks who know things about this and you realize that regardless of what they may do, there are all these apps where all your messaging is encrypted. about bulk was collection -- i can't believe we went down the path we went down. i can't believe the administration would even let us go down that path. timet the fever of the take us to that place is disappointing. what's happening now in our society is that most communications, most of our isis

folks over time will have the ability -- i'm not letting us on apple, i'm not in any way, because there is already an app that exists where you can communicate on a totally encrypted network that somebody is going to create -- that is what happens in this world of innovation. are we going to be able to keep things from happening here in our own country? i don't know how we solve that problem. i don't know if our guys at the nsa will have the ability no still what's developed to get in and decode and understand what's happening. iss moment in time, my sense that's where the gap exists that is very problematic. thank you for letting me be here. [applause] did thanks to the senator.

it really is one of the voices of reasons. and deep thanks to dan glickman . so, the institute has had a congressional program, starting with dick clark. you are a great member of this division and thank you for bringing senator corporate today. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] c-span3, hownd service on drug control policy, including testimony from the white house national drug control policy director. live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern.

debra lee james at the national press club. watch that live on c-span 3:00 p.m. eastern. >> abigail fillmore was the first first lady to work outside the home, teaching at a private school she successfully lobbied congress to create funds for the first white house library. mimi eisenhower's hairstyle created fashion sensation. sold clip on banks to women eager to replicate her style. jacqueline kennedy was responsible for the white house historical's association. and nancy reagan saw her name mistakenly on the blacklist of communist sympathizers. she appealed to the screen actors guild had for help. she later became his wife. these stories and more are featured in c-span's book, "first ladies." the book makes a great gift for

the holidays, giving readers a look into the personal lives of every first lady in american history, stories a fascinating women and how their legacies resonate today. the book is based on original interviews from c-span's "first ladies" series and has received numerous reviews, including this one from the presidential historian and author who said, "c-span is a national treasure, and its theories on america's first ladies is another reason why." the managing editor of the pbs -span has says "c performed another valuable service with its series on first ladies. no where else can one find such a useful and insightful look into the life and influence of these woman who played a central role in the country." and a biographer noted that it is "an invaluable collection of rare insight on our nation's first ladies and the important

role they played in shaping america during their husbands presidency." share the stories of america's first ladies for the holidays. ispan's "first ladies" available as a hardcover or e-book from your favorite bookstore or online. be sure to order your copy today. >> book tv has 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend on c-span2. saturday afternoon at 2:00, the 15th annual book festival in las vegas, featuring author talks on race, free speech, and the american west. there isastic word -- a word invented by an honest australian anthropologist, the uncontrollable loss that has been pulled out from under your feet. you feel nostalgia for a place you have been and want to go back to. some nostalgia is when you are

standing still, watching the landscape on your wi windshield. >> at 10:00 p.m. eastern, pulitzer prize-winning journalist gilbert gaul examines the business culture of college football. >> i don't think the players, in a few years, are going to be satisfied just a couple thousand dollars. i think they're going to look around -- some of them are quite smart, smart enough to see where the money is and how much is there and what the coaches are being paid, and ask why shouldn't they beginning more. >> joining the conversation is tom mcmullen, former u.s. representative from maryland, and president and ceo of division 1a. sunday at noon, a live discussion with cokie roberts, who has authored several books. join the conversation as we take your phone calls, e-mails, facebook comments, and tweets.

watch book tv all weekend, every weekend on c-span2. as president obama meets with world leaders in paris for the climate talks, the house is debating climate change and energy bills. let's start with the administration's goals. a president obama has done number of initiatives during the includingm in office, a number of high profile regulations trying to cut the house gas emissions. he has also pursued international agreements with china, india, other major countries to try and get them to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. mccarthy --

congress has a better energy plan. what would they actually do? these resolutions are introduced under the congressional review act, which has been used seldomly successfully. what it would do would nullify both those regulations immediately. they would have no force and effect. i would also prohibit the epa from trying to pursue similar regulations in the future. it would kill off the centerpiece of president obama's plan to address climate change, and would prevent the obama administration or any future administration from pursuing selling similar. >> but president obama has artie issued a veto threat. >> that's right. he says he will stand firm against anything that would undermine his actions on climate change.

the resolution would certainly do that. it is pretty clear that there are not the margins to override a presidential veto. >> you tweeted about the white house opposing a third energy bill being debated in the house this week. h.4r. 8. what are some of the key details? >> in pursuing this piece of legislation, it focuses a lot on modernizing energy infrastructure, energy efficiency. it started as a bipartisan effort, and the energy and commerce committees ranking member brought in bipartisan negotiations before ultimately being unable to resolve the differences and going a different way this bill has a lot of bipartisan support, and it also has a veto threat. >> how does the energy bill address climate change? >> it has been one of the most contentious issues -- committee

democrats were anxious to see the bills do a lot more to address climate change and republicans were entrenched against more concrete action. that was one of the key things that led bipartisan talks. >> there were three house democrats who voted for this energy bill in the energy committee. what are you hearing about other support from other democrats? >> it is fair to say that whenever you have energy packets, you will attract moderates and centrist democrats, but ultimately it is unclear how broad support it can get. as i mentioned, president obama has threatened to veto it, did it seems the measure is not going to get to his desk. >> overall, where do you think all this legislation may be headed? >> there is always a lot of talk about energy legislation. it has been eight years since congress has done any sort of broad energy package.

there is always a lot of talk and it is hard to get the bill across the desk. we will have to see what happens. there is a lot of talk about central writers, but we may have to wait until next year to see if we can get a new effort. >> great. anthony, we can find you on twitter. thanks so much for joining us. members in the house, debated a resolution expressing disapproval of the new epa rule regulating carbon emissions from power plants. the senate already approved the resolution two weeks ago. here's part of the house debate on the measure, beginning with ed whitfield. it's just over an hour. myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: even more sweeping than e.p.a.'s new source performance standard for power plant greenhouse gas

emissions is the rule governing existing sources. and that's what s.j.res. 24 is about. and the impact that this rule is going to have on every existing coal plant in america and the impact that it could have on electricity rates and the impediments that it could establish for future economic growth in america. at this time i would like to recognize the distinguished gentleman from texas, who's vice chair of the energy and power subcommittee, mr. olson, for a period of three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. olson: i thank the chair and my good friend from kentucky. for time to speak on this important bill. mr. speaker, today is a sad day for america. when our administration harms our country without a valid

reason. yet that's exactly what president obama's e.p.a. has done with their clean power rules. without input from congress and with only small, limited public meetings, e.p.a. rammed through new rules to limit co-2. these rules destroy new coal power in america. my home state of texas, our grid is regulated by a percent. they say they will lose 4,000 megawatts of power at a minimum with the early retirements of coal plants because of the clean power plan. the quote is, energy will cost

customers, may be up by 16% by 030 due to -- e.p.a.'s actions violate the words and the intent of the clean air act. and that's why a majority of states have sued in federal court to stop its implementation. e.p.a.'s actions have texans scratching their heads and saying, what the heck? why? why is e.p.a.'s c.p.p. tougher on new coal plants than older ones? wer is always cleaner than upgrated, retrofitted older plants. what the heck? this is all done in the name of

climate change. climate change has happened since god created our earth. over 66 million years ago my home state of texas was under water. exas, as an ocean, is huge climate change. unlikely due to human campfires at that time. in september, 2014, a high ranking former obama administration member, secretary for science at the department of education, dr. steven coonen, wrote this in the "wall street journal," quote, the climate has always changed and always will, end quote. he continued, about the

computer models that support manmade climate change, quote, there is a useful consensus at -- mr. whitfield: i yield 30 more seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. olson: i thank my friend. a quote from dr. coonen, there is a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assess human i influence on climate change -- human influence on climate change, and yet here we are, fighting for american jobs and commonsense regulations, while world leaders are in paris making promises they can't keep. enough of the band-aids from e.p.a. i vote my colleagues to vote for -- and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized.

mr. tonko: i yield myself such time as i may consume. it is unfortunate that we are considering two resolutions today that are designed to prevent the environmental protection agency from moving forward with critical resolution -- regulations to reduce carbon emissions from existing and new power plants. that previous resolution just aired in the house and now this resolution exactly are -- should be called exactly what they are. that being an attack on e.p.a.'s clean air act authority. these resolutions would block this administration or any future administration from taking meaningful action to curb carbon emissions from our power plants. we have ample evidence from more than four decades' worth of clean air regulation that shows that a strong economy and strong environmental and public health protection do incleed go hand in hand. so let's stop promoting this

false notion that we cannot improve the air we breathe while simultaneously growing our economy and yes, creating jobs. and the e.p.a.'s clean power plan will promote public health. the e.p.a. estimates that the clean power plan will reduce carbon pollution from the power sector by 32%. 32% below 2005 levels. there will also be significant reductions in sulfur dioxide and in nox emissions. this is a tremendous public health victory. it will avoid thousands of premature deaths and an estimated 90,000 asthma attacks. in children. in 2020 alone. i understand the concerns of the families who may have jobs lost or displaced

because of this transition. we share those concerns. i agree that these people who have dedicated their lives to providing us with reliable power deserve a lot more than a pink slip but we do these people no favors by promising job security, that the economy will no longer deliver. instead of working together to find ways to ease the transition for states and communities that already are challenged by the many changes that are happening in the electric utility sector, we are spending time trying to turn back the clock. it cannot be done. e.p.a. is a convenient scapegoat here. but the transition that is occurring is driven by much more than e.p.a. regulations. natural gas, its abundance and low price, is out-competing coal within the utility sector. power plants are aging and even more important, the economy has changed. many of the older plants are

located in areas that once had far more demand for electricity. demand from large manufacturing plants and heavy industry. those factories are closed or modernized, both resulting in far less electricity use. and there are new technologies. wind and solar generation is growing. and those renewable energy sources have strong, broad based, public support. other technologies that enable the electric grid to be smarter, more flexible, and more resilient are being deployed now and more are in development. and state policies to encourage energy efficiency and to diversity -- diversify energy sources are also driving this transition. asas i have said before, they w trans-- was the transition from wire today wireless

communication a war on cop her was the transition to the automobile a war on horses? no, of course not. e.p.a.'s regulations are playing some role in driving the changes we see. that is true. but the agency is doing what congress directed it to do on behalf of all americans. to act in defense of public health and to act in defense of our environment. let's put aside the e.p.a.'s -- e.p.a. scapegoating and have a real dialogue on our changing power sector and what can be done to support those working in impacted industries. meanwhile, we are debating these resolutions as our negotiators are in paris working on an international climate agreement. the bottom line is, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is happening. and primarily caused by human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels. climate change is no longer a

problem for future generations. we are already feeling its effects in every corner of our nation and across the globe, which threatens our economic and our national security. the clean power plan will play a significant role in the fight against climate change. the united states' action alone won't stop climate change but action by the rest of the world without the united states action also will not succeed. other countries will have an excuse to delay action as long as the giant, the united states, does as well. this is the dynamic that has prevented us from action in the past. but now we have seen major commitments from the world's largest developed and developing nations. the clean power plan demonstrated united states leadership and is key to our efforts to secure an ambitious and lasting international climate agreement.

we cannot fool ourselves that the clean power plan, an agreement in -- and agroments in paris, or any one action alone will solve all of our climate crisis. but these rules will deliver substantial benefits to our society. and they will move us in the right direction. i urge my colleagues to reject these resolutions. let's work together in meaningful strategy to address the problems that are emerging from the transition in our own electricity sector while promoting a cleaner, more sustainable nation and grow jobs, significant jobs, that are not yet on the radar screen. with that, mr. speaker, i will reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: i'd like to yield to the distinguished gentleman from indiana, dr. bucshon, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. bucshon: i rise in support

of s.j.res. 24 which expresses congressional disapproval you should the congressional review act of the e.p.a.'s rule on existing power plants. i also support s.j.res. 23 that was just debated. according to the e.p.a.'s own cost benefit analysis, these regulations would do very little to impact global temperatures. but these regulations will, without a doubt, be devastating for hoosier businesses and families that rely on affordable energy. those hurt the most will be the poor and seniors on a fixed income. advances in how we produce energy should be achieved through innovation, technology, and efficient business practices. not by unobtainable federal government mandates from the e.p.a. mr. speaker, indiana disapproves of the e.p.a.'s attack on our state's economy and our state's jobs. i urge my colleagues to reject this overreach by supporting s.j.res. 23 and 24. thank you and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield one minute to my colleague and friend and co-chair of the seek coalition in the house, the sustain rble energy and environment coalition. he's an outstanding leader for his district and the commonwealth of virginia, i yield two minutes to representative connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my dear friend from new york, the co-chair of the sustainable energy and environmental caucus and does such a superlative job. i rise to support him in opposing this legislative effort. which argues overreach. but what it's really all about is making sure that the government does not protect the public.

that we live in a darwinian world where you apparently take your chances, whether it's asthma, other respiratory illnesses, cancer, all kinds of other ailments that can affect communities that suffer from this pollution. we as a country can do better. we can create jobs, not lose them. the arguments on the other side have always been that the clean air act costs jobs and raises costs, neither of which are true. we've got lots of experience since 1970 with the clean air act. i can tell you in my home state of virginia, electric costs came down, didn't go up. jobs got created, not lost. i end, mr. speaker, by reminding us of what his holiness, pope francis, has argued. when pope francis came to the white house, before he spoke to this body, he personally thanked the president for these rules in protecting clean air.

his first encyclical is on climate change, which he believes is one of the most important and imperative moral issues facing mankind today. that's what the pope has to say about this subject. we ought to heed his words and his moral warning as we debate this subject. i oppose the legislation and support the amendments with respect to the clean air act. i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield one and a half minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. bayh. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one nd a half minutes.

>> the clean air rules are aimed at the hoferte the coal industry. the increase will increase electric cost in my home state of illinois by 27%. that is an unbearable burden on the working families, seniors, and those people who are on set incomes. on top of that, the mining industry employs thousands of workers in southern illinois and supports thousands more in union retirees. mr. bost: i have heard here today on this floor that it doesn't affect jobs. well, tell that to the people of my district, who have watched the coal mines close. who have watched the suffering. who we don't have the opportunity to keep our children near our own homes, they have to move away. if this regular leags takes effect, the local coal mines that are left and coal generation plants will close down. our priority must be affordable

energy and american jobs. for this reason, i ask, i beg, and i plead vote for s.j. resolution 24 and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. now i ask that we yield three minutes to the representative from the state of florida, who is a member of the subcommittee on energy and power and that reports to the greater committee on energy and commerce where we both serve. is so i have witnessed her straightforward thinking, her very strong passionate response on behalf of climate change and again ask that three minutes be yielded. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. >> i thank the gentleman for his kind words. i rise in opposition to this resolution that seeks to

hamstring america's ability to react to carbon pollution and the changing climate. in paris today, 195 nations from around the world are meeting to tackle the challenges of the changing climate. ms. castor: i'm proud to see that america is leading this effort. america's willingness to tackle the economic and environmental impacts of climate change is a reflection of our values. we do not cower in the face of difficult circumstance. that's the essence of the united states of america. yet that's what this republican majority in the congress would have us do. ignore the problem. pretend it doesn't exist. hope it goes away. we cannot do that. scientific consensus is clear. the earth's climate is changing. temperatures are getting warmer, and it's the greenhouse gases that are the primary drivers. over the long term, the consequences will be very

serious and the costs will be very high indeed, unless we take action. my neighbors back home in florida are particularly vulnerable. florida has more private property at risk from flooding linked to climate change than any other state. an amount that could double in the next four years. already local governments and taxpayers are being asked to pay more for stormwater drainage, drinking water nearbytives and beach renourishment. extreme weather events will likely cause increases in property insurance and flood insurance. we just we just experienced one of the warmest temperatures in november. we had to run our air conditioners longer. we are paying more on our electric bills. for my friends in agriculture, the tomato crop was harvested earlier because of the heat and while the yield was comparable,

the size was affected. the increase in the number of days with extreme heat is sure to impact other crops and florida's economy. and we're not alone. we are going to continue to see the impacts across america. we have a challenge before us. we cannot shirk our responsibility to this great country or to future generations. we must unleash american ingenuity. technology today helps consumers conserve energy and save on their electric bill. smartphones and smartmeters can help control. i have seen it at home where local businesses, like ikea and the big beer distributorships have put solar panels on their buildings.

and this will help the solar capacity. and industrial heat that was once wasted is being turned to fuel. mr. tonko: i yield an additional one minute. ms. castor: i thank the gentleman. all of these efforts are creating the jobs of tomorrow in clean energy, in engineering, in energy efficiency and green building. sokol etion, i urge you to efeat this resolution. -- so colleagues, i urge you to defeat this resolution. if this passes, it will be another low point for this congress. a congress that has demon stated an inability to deal with the complicated and thorny problems. and i predict many will come to

regret that legacy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: i would disagree with the distinguished gentlelady from florida who says this is a symbolic vote. we want this vote to be held because the senate adopted this resolution and we want the house to adopt the resolution while the climate change conference is going on in france so the world will know that in america there is a disagreement about the extreme power grab that this president is initiating under his clean energy plan. i yield to the gentleman from ohio, mr. johnson, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for three minutes. mr. johnson: i couldn't agree with my chairman more on his

comments. i rise today in strong support of senate joint resolution 24, joint resolution disapproving of the e.p.a.'s regulations targeting existing power plants. if the administration allowed the clean power plan to move forward, jobs across the country will be eliminated. families and small businesses will be forced to pay higher electricity prices and grid reliability will be jeopardized. to comply with the e.p.a.'s existing power plant regulations, energy sector xpenses would increase to $292 billion with retail electricity prices doubling in 40 states. by 2030, one study present difficulties ohio's wholesale electricity prices will increase by 1.2% due to this regulation. it will force consumers to absorb a $64 billion cost just

to replace the power plants shut down by the rule. this resolution of disapproval sends a clear message to the president that the majority of the senate, the house and america do not approve of higher electricity prices and an unreliable electric grid. at least 27 states including ohio are now challenging the regulations in court. high e.p.a. director is correct, it would be irresponsible for the u.s. e.p.a. to force immediate compliance until the legal issues are resolved. america faces real challenges. isis and other terrorist groups are plotting to attack us. we have a staggering national debt that our children and grandchildren will be buried under. we have a tax code and regulatory framework that are stifling and strangling job innovation and our education system isn't keeping pace with those of our rivals. these are real problems.

america's air and water have never been cleaner. for the president to continue his crusade to shut down the coal industry and all the jobs that go with it is shortsided, foolish and wrong. and it won't be the coal miners who pay for the president's policy on coal. it will be every family and small business who end up paying more for their electricity as a result. i strongly urge my colleagues to support s.j. resolution 24 and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. tonko: i request that we yield three minutes to the distinguished the gentleman from state of washington, a member of the ways and means committee a voice concerning climate change and carbon emission. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is

recognized for three minutes. without objection, the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, the s of the congress, republican propaganda machine is out here pushing a false choice. you either have no regulations or you have no economy. that's what it is. you have to get rid of all the regulations or you won't have an economy. now that simply is not true. and the facts are piling up worldwide that we cannot continue what we are doing. on the front page -- i didn't have time to blow it up but on the front page of the "washington post" is a picture of a chinese city where you can't see a guy riding a bicycle in the street. beijingrue in delhi and and all over the world. and unfortunately climate is all over the world.

we just can't have it clean in our neighborhood and have it awful in the rest of the world. we have to think about a larger issue than our own. i heard the same arkts that we are hearing today that you have to stop smoking on the airline. the tobacco boys ran in here saying this is the end of the earth. and nobody will be smoking tobacco. look what has happened, it has cleaned up on planes, restaurants and on this floor because we had rules and regulations. now this is a public health problem as much as it is an economic problem. since i got out of the military in 1968, 76,000 miners have died of black lung disease. 76,000. we've spent -- we have appropriated in this house $45 billion in money to those miners because of their problems.

our appetite for fossil fuels continues to be a real problem and it's getting worse and yet with all the reckless bills the republicans are once again turning a blind eye to these costs. they don't mean anything. we want the mine owners to have freedom to do whatever they want and the power companies to do whatever they want. we don't want anybody to tell them you have to clean it up. in seattle we have a steel plant right in the middle of town. the newcor rebar plant is in the middle of the city and has been cleaned up and you can do it. but the coal boys and the power boys, they don't want to spend any money cleaning it up. they don't want anybody telling you you have regulations and you have to reduce the amount in the air. we have this problem that's going on and on and on. now as industry and as the

, they are not just condemning future generations to a world battered by increasing extreme and erratic weather patterns, we are seeing them all over the world - may i have another minute? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcdermott: they are betraying a generation of americans who are already reeling from the impact of all of this. coal miners and the communities they live in are bearing the brunt of this irresponsible action by the coal owners. we had the same thing in washington state with the forests. people say you have to cut every tree that you can see that is standing anywhere. we said if you do that, you destroy the environment. so we helped the loggers to make

another way of living and they are doing just fine. if we keep this up and keep resisting and exposing the american public both in the mines and in the cities to this kind of environment, we are doing -- we are going to pay for it. it's like that fram commercial, we clean the filter on your car or pay me later to have the motor redone. we are talking about a president who is saying put new fram filters on here and cut down on the pollution and save the people and the economy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: i yield two minutes to the majority whip, mr. scalise. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. scalise: i want to thank the gentleman from kentucky for yielding and bringing this legislation to the floor. i rise in strong support of s.j.

ress 24. we are talking about rejecting this radical plan that's going to actually impact every power plant in this country. the president that has a war on coal. he declared war on coal years ago and we are seeing the results of it. thousands of good jobs lost, thousands of middle-class families that are now unemployed and trying to get back into the middle class and even more than that, what you are seeing are millions of people paying more for electricity costs because of these regulations. what is president obama's answer? to go to paris and say the biggest threat to national security is global warming. doesn't he see what's going on across the world? we are here focusing on national security and energy security and standing up against a radical regulation that is going to increase costs on the most needy

in this country. when you look at the impact, this proposal by president obama's e.p.a. would have a $29 billion per year cost on middle-class families. the people who are going to be hit the hardest are low-income families. in louisiana, one million middle and low-income families will be hit by this radical regulation. at christmas season, i think families would be spending their hard-earned dollars going to buy christmas families presents for their families. we have seen a reduction in carbon emissions because of american innovation. when they sign accords that are wrecking their economy, and we didn't sign it because we used american innovation and the president wants to bring a regulation that is going to strangle small businesses and

strangle families and increase electricity costs on those who can least afford to pay it. let's innovate and create jobs in this economy and not use radical regulations to strangle our economy and our middle class. let's pass this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. tonko: i ask that the remaining time be managed by our distinguished ranking member of the energy and commerce committee who has led the fight for carbon emission and climate change on behalf of the documents of the house, the representative from new jersey, frank pallone. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from new jersey will control the balance of the time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: at this point, i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. johnson: congressman mcdermott pointed to this picture in "the washington post," today's edition. this is during the daylight. it's outside. it's in china. i've been over there about four times and i can relate to this picture, in case nobody's been over there, but anybody who's been over there knows how the environment, the air quality and people's health are impacted by the lack of regulations that have existed over in china and so they have an acute air pollution problem. the fact is we don't have air pollution like that here in america because we've had regulations promulgated by agencies like the e.p.a., particularly the e.p.a., that

have resulted in, yes, some increased cost to americans but the result of that cost is air quality that does not look like this. this is worth paying for. and the people will continue to pay. we'll continue to pay. life is not free. it's true, though, that the companies are making so much money these days due to the lack of -- to the misbalance in the economy that people are being squeezed, and so i hate to ask people to pay more but i myself cannot just live based on the price that businesses have to pay to make sure that they're not polluting our environment. it's -- they should pay and we have to pay our fair share too.

the question is, are we going to be able to save our planet from countries that don't have regulations? we're going in the opposite direction here. we're talking about doing away with the e.p.a. why is it that my friends on the other side of the aisle and all of their presidential candidates, the first thing they talk about they want to do is get rid of the e.p.a.? there's a reason for that, and the reason is that they want to protect the ability of polluters that just pollute at will and continue to make all of the money at the expense of people's health and with us paying them exorbitant amounts for the energy they are creating. so when are we going to do something about this? if not now, then when, and if it's not america that's leading then who? they talk about president obama going to paris.

well, 195 nations are represented in paris working on this problem that is a profound problem, not just for america but for the world. we all live in this same ship together and we got to take care of it. and with that i'll yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: mr. speaker, i would like to reiterate and make sure that everyone understands that s.j. resolution 24 does not eliminate the e.p.a. it refers only to the president's existing coal plant rule. this time i'd like to yield to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. womack, two minutes, who's been very much involved on this issue during his career in congress. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for two minutes. mr. womack: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the distinguished gentleman from kentucky for his leadership on the issue. i rise today in support of s.j.res. 24 and echo the sentiments of my colleagues.

mr. speaker, there's no question that we're all searching for a brighter future for generations to come. we disagree, however, on how to get there, and in this case, the effects that our decisions could have on the environment and the american family in the process. frankly, the e.p.a.'s clean power plan will result in little to no environmental benefit at the expense of thousands of jobs and countless dollars and hours spent on compliance all for the sake of an unrelenting government agency's agenda and the desired environmental legacy of this administration. it's as simple as that. not only will the clean power plan fail to achieve the results intended, but the administration's very authority to implement it is questionable at best. the letter of the law itself denies the e.p.a. this authority to regulate power plants under section 111-d, something specifically cited under section 112. 27 states attorneys' general,

including our very own leslie rutledge in arkansas agreed and have filed suit in response. the constitution clearly states that legislative powers are vested in the congress. the clean power plan is a clear attempt to take policymaking out of the hands of congress. that's unacceptable, and president obama's never-ending regulatory overreach has to be stopped. if the e.p.a. will not halt, congress must act to prevent this egregious power grab. this resolution will stop the e.p.a. in their tracks and return the power to where it rightfully exists. maybe then we can all get back to this nation's historic, all-of-the-above energy policy. mr. speaker, if we want to leave our successors a better future, supporting the two resolutions that have been debated here on the floor today is a really good first step and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, may i

inquire as to the amount of time on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey has 10 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from kentucky, 16 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. pallone: does the gentleman want to have an additional speaker? mr. whitfield: we do have some additional speakers. mr. pallone: why don't you go? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: at this time i'd like to yield to the distinguished gentleman from texas, mr. weber, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. weber: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of two joint resolutiones that will block president obama's so-called clean power plan, a regulation that was never authorized by congress that will hurt our economy, lower our standard of living and have absolutely no impact on the climate. mr. speaker, i often say the things that make america great are the things that america makes. now, how do we do that?

with an affordable, dependable, reliable energy supply. according to the electric reliability of texas, energy costs would increase for texans by up to 16% due to this clean power plan. this will have a disproportionate impact on the poor and those on fixed incomes, and sadly, most of those folks don't even see it coming. according to testimony we heard today, mr. speaker, in the science committee, the clean power plan will reduce global temperatures by just .023 percent degrees, rather, fahrenheit by the year 2100. furthermore, the e.p.a.'s claimed public health benefits are due solely due to reductions in air pollutants already regulated by the agency under existing standards. the reduction of carbon dioxide

on its own has no public health benefit. i mention that the things that make america great are the way we have a reliable, affordable power supply. i guess we could say that e.p.a. stands for an energy and power assault. mr. speaker, the facts are clear. this regulation will hurt our economy and have none of the stated benefits the administration claims. i often say that e.p.a. seems to stand for eventually paralyzing america. we must adopt these resolutions of disapproval and hold this administration accountable for its regulatory assault on our economy and our low-income families and that's how i see it here in america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i've

heard my republican colleagues say over and over again that the president's clean power plan won't have any impact on air quality, won't do anything to improve the environment. nothing could be further from the truth. the rule that we're discussing in this joint resolution and that the joint resolution would seek to disapprove establishes state-by-state targets for lowering carbon emission. when it's implemented, it will educe it by 32% as compared to emissions in 2005. the final rule has public health and other benefits of up to $54 billion per year by 2030. and this includes thousands fewer premature deaths from air pollution and tens of thousands of fewer childhood asthma attacks each year. emphasizing, again, 1,000 fewer premature deaths from air

pollution and tens of thousands of fewer childhood asthma attacks each year. i keep hearing from my g.o.p. colleagues about the cost. what are the costs to society of air pollution and people suffering from asthma and premature deaths and hospitalization and all the costs? none of these things are calculated by the republicans in their speeches. they just assume that somehow none of this matters. in addition to that, you know, if you think about it, one of the things i think needs to be emphasized is the democrats, some of my colleagues have said over and over again, this is sort of a wasted debate because we know that the president has said he's going to veto the bill and there wouldn't be enough votes in the house or the senate to overcome the president's veto. but the theme you're getting from the republicans is somehow a clean environment and a good economy don't go together. in fact, the opposite is true. the fact of the matter is that ever since the clean air act was implemented years ago, we have seen reductions in air

pollution. we've seen people's lives saved. we've seen less people suffer from asthma attacks and the other consequences of pollution. at the same time, the economy has improved. in the statement of administration policy where the president says he will veto this resolution, he specifically says that since it was enacted in 1970 and amended in 1977 and 1990, each time with strong bipartisan support, the clean air act has improved the nation's air quality and protected public health. over that same period of time, the economy has tripled in size while emissions of key pollutants have decreased by more than 70%. 45 years of clean air regulation have shown that a strong economy and strong environmental and public health protections go hand in hand. i just keep hearing these negative comments from the other side of the aisle. the fact of the matter is, when you reduce air pollution, you

eliminate the costs that the consequences of people having bad health, dying, getting sick. at the same time the economy has improved because we've come up with alternatives to the awful pollution that's resulted that this clean power plan is designed to thwart. so, again, i keep hearing my colleagues saying all these things but the fact of the matter is you could have clean air, you can have a good environment and you can have a good economy and grow jobs and that's exactly what this rule that the president's put forward is designed to achieve. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from florida, mr. yoho. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. yoho: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to thank my good friend from kentucky for allowing me to speak, and i'd like to make a comment because we're as concerned about our environment and jobs and the economy as anybody else is, and

there's a point in time where we needed this. we saw those pictures of china with the red glow where you couldn't see the bicycle rider. china's got a problem. they need to address that. we've addressed that in this country, but it gets to a point where you cross the line to where no more you can't squeeze anymore out of the rock. back 50 years ago -- 40 years ago, the mercury coming out of the smoke stacks of the coal power plants was about 50 pounds of mercury a year. now it's less than two pounds of mercury a year. and so how much more can you increase that? and mr. speaker, at this time this administration, again, has proven it's no friend to the hardworking american families across our country or the power producing companies that supply power to all americans. instead, this administration is placing added requirements only our nation's energy producers and the requirements that will increase the cost to all americans affecting those most that least can afford it and it will increase the cost and

decrease the grid's reliability and jeopardize our national security. as we speak, nations across the world are meeting in paris to discuss further restrictions on energy producers. as americans, we do not bow to foreign pressure or influence. america needs to do what's best for america, and especially when it's a foreign country that are putting out more than 50% of the carbon emitted into the atmosphere. instead of limiting our energy production, which, again, hitting hardworking americans, especially at the lower economic scales, why don't we use all of the resources that america has been blessed with in a commonsense approach to make our economy stronger and more competitive and not cripple it? the issue is near and dear to my heart as a member of florida who represents five co-ops in our district, and it's what we see, and if you look at the e.p.a.'s own assertment, there is a report from november -- september of 2014 --

mr. whitfield: i'd like to yield the gentleman 30 more seconds. mr. yoho: the e.p.a.'s own report says their own emission standards will not reduce the co-2 emissions or improve air quality or human health but they're going ahead at it anyway at the detriment of american manufacturers, jobs and costs to american taxpayers. i stand in strong support of joint resolution 24, and i yield back and i thank my colleague from kentucky. thank you, sir. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from new jersey's recognized. mr. pallone: again, listening to the previous smear, house republicans keep telling us that greenhouse gases are falling in the united states. the previous speaker suggested that the united states doesn't need to do much more about climate change. that couldn't be more wrong.

u.s. greenhouse gas emissions did fall in 2008 and twin, but since that time, emissions grew. they grew in 2012 and 2013, the two most recent years where data is available. what matters is they are are going to decline in the future. scientists say we need to reduce carbon pollution by 80% by 2050 to a void catastrophe catastrophic climate change. without any new policies, policies like the clean power an, the u.s. will see a 2% drop in 2040. this data highlights the importance of the clean power plan and the obama administrations to cut greenhouse emissions. to suggest that the united states shouldn't do any more, we need to do a lot more.

i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: i yield two minutes to the distinguished the gentleman from florida, mr. bilirakis, a member of the energy and commerce committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. bilirakis: i rise in support 24, j.r.e.s. 2 and resolution that is would protect my constituents from egregious overreach. this is projected to raise electric rates in florida annually between 11% and 15% over 10 years while providing virtually no environmental benefits. the regulations for existing power plants, the clean power plan, could have disastrous consequences for the safety, affordability and reliability of my squints' electricity. in my district there are over

200,000 residents who get their lectricity from rural electric could oms to serve underserved areas with electricity. if the clean power plan continues without serious alterations, it has the potential to negatively affect these underserved areas the most. plan could close down power plants in rural areas that provide jobs and economic activity. in florida, seminole electric co-op operates two power plants. the seminole generating station employs over 300 individuals. these jobs are at risk. and rural electric cooperative members, like my constituents, will still have to pay for the closed plant and the rates

through 2042 while paying for new electricity source -- a new electricity source. the congressional review act was created for a reason, to give this body the authority to check the executive branch when it oversteps its bounds and enacts policy against the will of the people. i urge my colleagues to support these resolutions, both of them to protect my constituents from needless rate increases and to protect the powers of this institution. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i think i have less time, so if he could do -- mr. whitfield: may i inquire of the time remaining. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has 10 minutes remaining. the gentleman from new jersey has 5 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is

recognized. mr. whitfield: at this time, i would like to yield to the gentleman from georgia, mr. carter, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. carter: i rise today in support of senate joint resolution 24, which expresses congress' disapproval of the carbon emission rule. the rule would inhibit our ability to produce affordable and reliable electricity. a robust energy supply is essential to national security, public health and the economy. yet the administration continues to wage war on the source of 85% of america's energy. until our energy infrastructure can support widespread use of alternate energy sources, we cannot ash temporarily force the closure of a plant that are keeping lights on for millions of americans. implementing this rule would result in the loss of over

125,000 jobs as well as significantly higher electric bills in 48 states. 40 of these states would see double-digit electricity price increases. our nation is still in a period of economic recovery. low and middle-income american families spend 17% of their household bigot on electric bills. they cannot afford to have a costly mandate thrust upon them. our economy cannot recover much less compete with this many jobs lost. this resolution would prevent this rule from having any effect and prohibit the e.p.a. from re-issuing this rule in a similar form. i urge my colleagues to support this bill so we can assure americans are not disadvantaged by another costly regulation. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: mr. speaker, we do not have anymore speakers on

our side. if the gentleman from new jersey would like to close, i think we're prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves and the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i just wanted to comment in closing on two issues that keep coming up on the republican side, one is this notion which i think the g.o.p. -- mr. scalise talked about the president's war on coal. nothing could be further from the truth. i agree the transition away from coal is contributing to job losses in the coal industry. in setting aside these rules will not alter this trend. there are too many changes occurring in the power sector. technology, including smart grid, energy storage, energy efficiency, micro grids, all of these are maturing and being incorporated at a faster pace

and they call into question the ld grid model that was centralized. in concerns should be motivating to help these people and their communities to transition to other good paying jobs. setting aside this rule isn't going to replace the job security. instead of wasting time to hold back progress and ignore climate change we should be working together to address this challenge and this rule moves us forward and represents our nation's commitment to addressing the serious global problem we helped to create. i hear about job losses. the fact that job losses are occurring regardless of anything the clean power plan would do and instead of saying job losses, the republicans should be thinking of ways to help these workers. the other thing i would like to mention, i kept hearing from the other side the whole notion that electricity rates and prices and bills are going to go up.

the fact of the matter is, i would like to just read some sections from a letter which i guess i would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pallone: from "public citizen" and a number of other consumer groups and they say in the letter, it will benefit consumers. climate change poses a great threat and to vulnerable populations and the clean power plan should lower consumer electricity bills. the plan is likely to lower consumers costs because it will spur energy efficiency. although electricity prices may rise mod essentially, consumers will use less electricity and will result in lower bills overall. the e.p.a. projects that it will lower bills to 7.7% by 2030. a public citizen analysis of the proposed rule found the e.p.a.'s projection of bill reduction was

conservative because it overestimated the cost of efficiency programs and underestimated how much progress the states could make on efficiency. these points remain vital with respect to the final rule which the e.p.a.'s analysis are similar. consumer costs are likely to decline by more than the agency projects. again, we keep hearing from the other side of the aisle, oh, electricity bills are going to go up. they're not. they are going to go down. we keep hearing we are going to lose jobs. a lot of jobs will be lost because of the types of generation of electricity. we should deal with that than saying we are going to stop it. i also wanted to say i heard the national security argument. you know, we had in the energy and commerce committee, a minority hearing a couple of months ago at annapolis, and one of the reasons we went there, we know that our military is

seriously concerned about the impacts of climate change and sea level rise. and when we were there, the superintendent of the naval academy was talking about hundreds of millions of dollars that were being spent at annapolis to deal with sea level rise at the academy. and went on to talk about the impact of climate change on naval operations. again, i don't want to emphasize the impact on our national security, but it is there. to suggest that somehow there is no impact is simply not true. climate change is very much in the mipeds of the add mirals and generals and they are worried about the impact and what it means in terms of our national security and what we have to do to address those concerns over the next few years. main thing i wanted to stress, mr. speaker, if i could, is that this rule that the republicans are trying to get rid of, provides states with a lot of

flexibility to define the reduction of their emission goals. fact of the matter is that the e.p.a. has spent several years talking to states, talking to stakeholders and consumers and they have not put together some kind of strait jacket here that says the states have to adopt these. they are giving states the tremendous amount of flexibility. they had millions of people who commented on the rule. and somehow when you listen to my colleagues here today, they suggest that this rule came out of nowhere without considering all the economic impacts, without considering the costs. none of that is true. in fact, there was a lot of discussion about the costs, about the economic impact. the bottom line is there is every reason to believe that this rule will improve the public health, will improve the lives of americans in terms of the negative impact that air pollution has on their health

and in the long run improve the economy and lower costs for the consumer. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: i want to thank mr. pallone and the great job he does as ranking member of the energy and commerce committee. and i'm delighted that we have the opportunity to come to the house floor to debate things like senate joint resolution 24. the congressional review act is an instrument that is available to congress to try to stop the president when we believe that the president has exceeded his legal authority. and that's precisely why we're 23 and s.j.r.s.j. 24. we believe the president has exceeded his legal authority. now the president in 2013 went

to georgetown university and gave a speech on climate change. and he set out his clean energy plan. and i might say that he never consulted with congress. he never talked to congress. he never asked for any input from congress on this issue. and that's his prerogative. but e.p.a. took him at his word and then they started the process of adopting these final regulations. and we have already talked about the regulation relating to new coal-fired plants so america finds itself to be one of the countries in the world today where you cannot build a new plant. right now we are talking about the regulation on existing plants. and the reason we have such concern about it is that first of all, e.p.a.'s own legal team, their lawyers, reversed 20 years of legal opinion when they said

that they could regulate under 111-d of the clean air act. prior to that, they had always made the decision on a scale this type of scale, they cannot do it under 111-d. i might also add professor larry tribe from harvard law school who taught barack obama when he was a student at harvard, came to congress and testified on this clean energy plan, that in his view, it was like tearing up the constitution. in other words, the president in other words, the president exceeded his legal authority. in other words, it was a power grab. now, some people say the ends justifies the means and there are a lot of people that feel that way, but we are still a nation of laws. and we believe, and not only we believe -- and e.p.a., every

time they testified about this existing coal plan rule stressed how they met with the states. they give the states maximum flexibility to try to address this regulation, and if that is 27 states -- re why have 27 states already filed lawsuits against e.p.a.? and a multitude of other entities as well? because this is even a violation of the federal power act because states, generally speaking, have jurisdiction over electric generation and intrastate distribution. but under this regulation of existing coal plants, e.p.a. will have that authority. and guess what, normally when e.p.a. has a major rule like this, they'll give the states three years to come up with

their state implementation plan , but in this instance, the rule came out, was finalized in september or october of this year, the states have until september. basically one year to come up with a state implementation plan, and they want to finalize this rule so the president could go and tell the world leaders in france that america was doing more than anyone else. and we already were doing more than anyone else. so with all due great respect with everyone, whether you agree with our position or not, we have the right to express that view, and we decided explicitly to bring these resolutions to the floor as the climate change conference is taking place in paris because we want the world to know that there are differences of

opinion between the congress and the president on this issue and on his clean energy plan. and so with that i would respectfully ask every member of congress to adopt this resolution, vote for this resolution. as we said earlier, the u.s. senate has already passed both of these resolutions because they're concerned about the president exceeding his legal authority, his power grab, his extreme plan. even democrats in the senate supported these resolutions. so that's all we're trying to do today. we're not debating climate change. we're not debating the science of climate change, but we are debating the president's view on the way you address it. and the fact that he's jeopardizing america because he's making us jump through more severe obstacles and hoops

than any other country's being asked to do. so that's why >> on the next "washington journal," congresswoman susan delbene looks into the planned parenthood investigation. reichert discusses policing and criminal justice.

we will talk to pacific standard editor in chief jackson. >> she was such an authentic person. i always thought there was more to the story of lady bird than anybody had covered. >> she became, i think, the first modern first lady. half, a very important project, she wrote a book as soon as she left the white house. she really invented the modern first lady. wesunday night on "q&a," birdssed the book "lady and lyndon." a close up look at the partnership between lady bird and lyndon b. johnson. something inn saw

those men, the ambition. the opportunity to really climb and make a mark in the world. te ofmarried them in spi parental objections. she is a good example of that. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> c-span presents "landmark cases." the book as a guide to our series, which explores 12 historic supreme court decisions. brown versus the board of education, miranda wadus arizona, and roe vs. e. the book features background, highlights, and the background of each case. it is written by tony mauro and

published by c-span. cases" is available for $8.99 and shipping. today.r copy >> in a testimony before the house armed services committee, defense secretary announced a expansion in the special armed forces in iraq and syria. these troops will assist iraqi and kurdish forces in their fight against isis.

chairman: we have defense secretary carter here to discuss america's role. we will look at the questions that are foremost in the minds of the american people. i want to thank secretary carter for being here. it is my view that we are fortunate to have leaders like this. isis presents a clear and present threat to the united states.

we are trying to meet that threat. a different approach, a greater effort. this group is certainly not invincible. but when we tie our own hands it aids their cause. as dr.henry kissinger wrote, the current inconclusive u.s. military effort risks serving as a recruitment vehicle for isis. david ignatius wrote that the halfway measures taken by the united states only help the jihadists. the other consequences it adds to the doubt that allies have

about our commitment and our willingness to see the mission through. he wrote that many have lost faith in u.s. leadership. the perception of u.s. weakness dissuades allies cooperation. a greater military effort must be run by the military. all three of your own by your a predecessors have complained openly about white house aides micromanaging military operations. i myself have heard some of these instances from commanders in the field. things that i don't think would've happened at any other time in our history. if we are going to be serious about isis, the president needs to come up with a clear mission

and then allow the military to carry it out. there should be a four-star headquarters in the region that is fully empowered to take the steps that are needed to degrade isis now. mike vickers made good sense when he wrote whatever we would do to respond to an attack on washington or new york, we should do it now before the attack occurs. maybe the president has things contained in well in hand but i don't think so. we are looking to you two gentlemen not to repeat white house talking points but to give us your best judgment about how we can defeat this enemy. mr. smith.

smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i agree with the chairman. there is no question that isis is a serious threat that we face right now. it is important to say that the threat is not just isis. it was al qaeda and now it is isis. it is part of a broader ideology that we need to confront. we have seen it spread throughout the middle east and north africa and south asia. we need to figure out how to defeat that threat. isis remains a grave threat to western targets. i don't think the picture is quite as bleak as the chairman portrayed it. there was an article yesterday about how isis is beginning to lose supporters because they're

momentum has been stopped in terms of gathering territory. the selling point they had from the beginning is unlike al qaeda, they held territory. they were growing at one time in terms of the territory that they held. they have not gained any territory. they have lost a few towns. the bombing campaign that we have committed has rolled back in certain places. it has undermined that confidence of the jihadists that they are just going to roll forward and take everything. the chairman is actually correct. it is not enough to contain isis. as we've seen in paris and beirut and elsewhere. they can launch attacks and we must consider our strategy to defeat them. that is another thing i will agree with the chairman on, perhaps not quite as strongly. the administration does need to

be clearer in saying what that strategy has said that they are actually committed to it. i actually think they have a more comprehensive strategy then at times they have said. we are going to use our military force in combination with as many allies as possible. we are going to try and help our allies in the region. that is the key point. we could send 50,000 u.s. troops into iraq and syria and clear out a good portion of what is now isis. we also know from experience is if eight western force came in and try to pacify or mollify this part of the world, another terrorist organization would grow up in a heartbeat. or isis would reconstitute itself and present itself as the alternative.

people defending muslims against russian aggression. i hope we don't overreact. the only way we win is if we find sunni allies in the region who are willing to lead that fight. that is what we have to do. also part of this is removing asad from power. as long as he is in power, that is a call for isis to fight harming theirator people. we need to be both isis and asad. u.s.otion that the military might will show up and fix the problem has been disproven. gives these groups the greatest force is they can stand up and say, we are defending islam against western aggression. if all we have is western

aggression, we will never win. we have to use our force. we have to work with our allies in the region. at the end of the day, we need sunni allies to carry on this fight. you must continue to put pressure on the baghdad government to bring sunnis in. minister maliki has decided to run a secretary and shiite government. we need tot i think do. we need a clear strategy. i hope we don't fall into the trap of thinking that military might is what is going to solve this problem. it is a far more complicated problem than that. with that, i look forward to the testimony of the witnesses and yield back. chairman thornberry: thank you for your service you are

providing this nation. you are doing very difficult jobs in very difficult times and i don't think any of us underestimate the challenge before you. mr. secretary, you are recognized. secretary carter: i thank you for inviting me to discuss our counter military strategy and execution. i agree with you. we do need greater effort and we are applying greater effort. i will try to describe some of the ways we are doing that. i will try to provide that clarity. isil's attacks in paris were barbaric and they were an assault on the civilization we defend. isil requires a lasting defeat.

the president directed us to intensify and adapt the military campaign before the paris attacks and we will describe those new actions today. we continue to accelerate our efforts in the wake of paris. we are urging others to do the same. those attacks further highlighted the stakes that not just the united states, but the world has in this fight. as i have discussed with you in the past, the united states strategy requires leveraging all of the competence of our nation's might to defeat isis. every national security agency is contributing to one of the strategy's lines of effort. we are defending the homeland and acting to defeat isolate its at its core and taking

action wherever else in the world this evil organization metastasizes. the defense department contributes to nearly all of the lines of effort, but protecting the homeland is among our highest by authorities. we are adapting to meet isil's threat. we ensure the security of defense department personnel. hosted leaders at the pentagon to discuss the cut off of foreign fighters. is also ae department responsible for the military campaign. that is the focus of my statement to this committee. to our own action, and to those of our coalition partners, the military campaign will destroy isil's leadership and resources. all the while, we seek to identify and then enable

motivated, local forces on the ground to expel isil from its territory, it's hold government, and to make sure that victory sticks. that is the right strategic approach for a couple of reasons. first, it emphasizes the necessity of capable and as theed local forces only force that can't assure a lasting victory. such forces are hard to find, but they do exist. we are enabling them and constantly looking for and finding effective ways to expand doing so. i will describe some of them. we cannot substitute for such forces. and second, the strategic approach sets the conditions for a political solution to the civil war in syria and the crippling secretary and is him and iraq -- and the crippling sectarianism in iraq which is the only way to prevent terrorist organizations from emerging.

that is why the diplomatic work led by secretary kerry in the state department is the first and absolutely critical line of effort in our strategy. on thegathering momentum battlefield in syria and iraq. today i will describe how the u.s. has continued to accelerate the military campaign against isil and what more we are asking of our global partners. inan't describe everything this unclassified setting, but i will take a few extra minutes this morning to give as much detail as possible about the new things we are doing to accelerate isil's defeat. we are at war. we are using the might of the finest fighting force the world is a known. -- the world has ever known. tens of thousands of u.s. personnel are operating in the broader middle east region with more on the way. we have some of our most advanced naval and air forces attacking isil.

u.s. troops are advising and assisting ground operations in syria and iraq. first, in northern syria local forces with our support are fighting, engaging isil in the last room in a pocket of access into turkey. meanwhile, a coalition of syrian arabs we helped equip in eastern syria with funds provided by congress are fighting alongside kurdish forces and have recaptured important terrain. they pushed them out of at least 900 square kilometers of the surrounding territory. they are now focused on moving south to isolate isil's nominal capital of raqqa. on the ground in northern syria has been enabled

by increased coalition airstrikes, as well as support on the ground. in early november, we applied additional aircraft bases in turkey. and other aircraft in the region combined with improved intelligence, a lot of us to significantly increase our airstrikes against isil. to build on that momentum, we are sending on president obama's orders, and the chairman's and my advice, special operations forces personnel to syria to support the fighting against isil. they bring a unique range of capabilities that make them force multipliers. they will help us garner valuable ground and above all enable local forces to regain and then hold territory occupied by isil. where we find further

opportunity to leverage such capability, we are prepared to expand it. in the south of syria, we are taking advantage of opportunities to open the southern front against isil. we enable fighters to conduct strikes inside syria. in northern iraq, units have retaken town of sinjar, cutting the main line of communication between raqqa and mosul, the two largest cities under isil's control. backmust now rely on roads, where we locate and destroy them. elsewhere in iraq, we have about 3500 troops at six locations in iraq.

there we have been providing increased lethal fire and augmenting the existing training program. we are prepared to do more as iraq shows capability and motivation in at the counter isil fight. progress in the sunni portions of iraq, as mentioned by mr. smith, as the campaign to recapture ramadi shows has been slow. much to our frustration. sectarian politics and iranian influence has made building a multi-sectarian iraqi security force difficult. with some notable exceptions. we continue to offer additional u.s. support of all kinds and urge baghdad to enroll, train,

arm, and pay sunni-arab fighters, as well as local sunni-arab police forces to hold territory recaptured from isil. all of these efforts from northern syria through iraq have territory.isil we now have an opportunity to divide their presence in iraq. this could be important because while both countries are played by isil, each has different political pathologies that provide the opportunity for extremism. the ultimately require different kinds of political progress to ensure lasting victory. next, in full coordination with the government of iraq we are deploying a specialized expeditionary targeting force to assist iraqi and kurdish forces and put more pressure on isil.

operators will over time, be able to conduct raids, free hostages, gather intelligence, and capture isil leaders. this force will also be in a position to conduct unilateral operations in syria. cycle oftes a virtuous better intelligence, which generates more targets, more raids, and more momentum. the rates in iraq will be done at the invitation of the iraqi government and focused on defending its borders and building the isf capabilities. significantly expanding the u.s. attacks on isil infrastructure. because of improved intelligence and understanding of isil's financial operations, we have intensified the air campaign against the oil enterprises. the critical pillar of isil's

financial infrastructure. we have destroyed wells and processing facilities. we have also destroyed nearly 400 of isil's oil tanker trucks, reducing a major source of its daily revenues. there is more come. we are conducting raids using those expeditionary forces that i mentioned. we are also doing targeted air strikes. since i last appeared before this committee in june, we have removed some key isil figures from the battlefield including . this includes jihadi john, an isil executioner and the isil leader in libya.

no target is beyond our reach. finally, even as we work to syria and iraq, we recognize isil has metastasized elsewhere. the threat can span regions from our own combatant commands. that is why the defense department has organized new ways to leverage in afghanistan and southern africa in a new effort to combat trends regional threats. an example of this network in action is our recent strike. assets from several locations converged to successfully kill this isil leader in libya. that strike shows there is a lot of potential here. to do more, need to be creative and consider changes to have the defense department works and is structured. this could be an important

focus. i know this committee chairmancularly thornberry is exploring. i welcome this timely review and look forward to working you on it as we complete our own ongoing reform initiatives. these are eight areas, just adaptations weat have made to accelerate this campaign. and we have seen momentum build. the chairman has been a tremendous source of actionable ideas. we have also seen real ingenuity from many of the combat commands involved in this fight. president obama is committed to doing what it takes as opportunities arise as we see what works as the enemy adapts defeated inl is is

a lasting way. as i just explained, we are constantly looking to do more in this fight but the world must do the same. the international community has to step up before another attack like paris. france has been galvanized by the attacks on its capital. the french have intensified their role. virgin is debating expanded britain is debating expanded airstrikes. italy has made important contributions and germany is making additional contributions. but we all -- let me repeat, all -- must do more. russia has largely attacked

position forces, not isil. american leadership is essential, but the more contributions we receive from other nations, the greater combat power we can't achieve. just as importantly, we need to leverage our allies and partners relationships and capabilities to effectively work with syrians and iraqis. isilin the end, must expel and restore effective government in those countries. ,he president, secretary kerry and i have spoken to our counterparts. the chairman has as well and the are encouraging them to provide additional supportive aircraft's, special operations personnel, deeper and effective intelligence sharing, personal resources, combat search and rescue capabilities, combat security forces,

and additional economic aid and humanitarian assistance. as i conclude, i want to commend this committee on the budget deal last month, which is the kind of deal i called for back in march before this committee. it was a consequential agreement for the nation's security and we are grateful. thank you. thornberry, ranking member smith. thank you for the opportunity to address the military dimension and our counter isil strategy. secretary carter provided a brief campaign update and an of our strategic approach. before taking our questions, i'd like to share my perspectives on our counter-isil campaign and what i think you should expect. isil's primary sources are its narrative and manpower. to be successful, the coalition's military campaign must reduce their territorial

control, undermine its brand and aura of invincibility, and destroy its war fighting capability. there are two critical elements of military campaigns to achieve those. the first is to conduct strikes against isil parties. the strikes are intended to kill leadership and fighters come in and deny them their sources of revenue. the second critical element is to develop a support underground, seize and secure terrain. the basic framework is the same for iraq and syria. the conditions on the ground present unique challenges. without a partner on the ground, syria has promoted the most difficult challenge. success in syria requires working with our turkish partners to secure the northern border of syria.

in iraq, we have a partner in supporting development of iraqi and kurdish security forces and enabling the operations with intelligence, advisers, logistics, and combined armed support. we have quickly outlined what we must do in the military campaign. let me provide my initial assessment of how we are doing. continuously examining ways to enhance the effectiveness of our operations. many weeks ago, the leadership across the department recognized we need to increase pressure on isil by improving the effectiveness of our strikes and accelerating our efforts to develop support on the ground. in short, we are not satisfied we are doing everything possible to defeat the enemy. while recognizing isolate is a trans regional threat requiring a broader strategy, our immediate focus was to bury down

on core isil. after a lot of hard work by commanders and staff, we went to the president in early october with a number of recommendations designed to generate momentum. the president approved our initial recommendations and we are in the process of implementing them. secretary carter provided the details of the initiative and described where we are starting to see some positive developments and where we may see additional progress in the days ahead. we are very mindful of the challenges we face in this campaign. we are encouraged by the recent developments. to me, those operations indicate what is possible. we also believe we have a in the days ahead, we are aggressive in looking for success. we will seize every opportunity to increase the effectiveness . the secretary and president made clear they expect me to deliver all the options and may contribute to our winning the

fight. i made a commitment to them i would do that and i will reaffirm that commitment. thank you again for the opportunity to join you. i look forward to your questions. >> need to make the most of the limited time we have. just as a warning, we will have to be strict on the time. if you want to make a four-minute speech, you will not get an answer. i want to go back to the point mike vickers made in the article. you worked with him a lot in the obama administration and he was in previous administrations.

his point is what ever we would do if they really were successful, we should do now before the attack occurs, which makes sense to me. why were we doing that before? >> the first is starting with ground forces. and forces in the south of syria that are willing to fight isil. they have been hard to find. we have an looking for them. we are looking for more and we hope the coalition as it rolls south is like a snowball that

continues to gather people who are tired of their womb -- rule and have them join with us, enabling and accompanying them as appropriate. the other ingredient is our intelligence, which was not so great at the beginning of this because we were surprised again and again, has improved tremendously. some of that as a result of secretary baker's own work. that has given us opportunities in airstrikes and ground operations. i want to repeat something the chairman just said which is we

are looking for and finding new opportunities for actionable effort every day. to your core point, i think that's right. we're doing everything we possibly can to defeat this enemy. i described our strategy, those efforts. we are doing everything that will be effective and i think to answer your question, we should do everything we can. the chairman is also right. i have asked him to continue to provide them with opportunities and he in addition to the other

factors i named has been a great source of actionable ideas. >> it gives some additional opportunities and says basically if you find the government of iraq is not conclusive that arms can be provided directly to the kurds, sunni tribes, others. is that an option you would consider recommending? >> we are sending arms directly to the kurds. the mechanism by which that works is there is customs approval by the iraqi government. i will come back to why we stipulate that but there is no delay and a large number of arms and other equipment have reached the iraqi kurds from us. and by more than 12 other countries.

we do that in this way through the government of iraq and likewise much more slowly and frustratingly. we have considered the alternatives. i know there are others who have considered it but it's a considered judgment to try to pursue these through the government of prime minister a baddi. that is particularly the case as presented of smith indicated in the matter of arming, training, equipping sunnis. >> thank you. >> just following up on that. what do we do to find a legitimate fighting force to counter isil? it's not really coming out of baghdad. what we are doing during the surge was to get the sunni

tribes to turn on al qaeda at the time. it seems to me that's the kind of thing we will need to do again is to reach out to those tribes and take advantage of over actions by isis groups. i'm not getting a clear picture here other than what we've heard over and over which is we'll get some point the baghdad government stops persecuting sunnis and starts including them. that doesn't seem to be a possibility. hope is not a strategy. what is our strategy for getting sunnis in iraq to be willing to fight isis? what is the concrete plan? >> the concrete plan has four streams by which we are trying to get sunnis included in the fight there. the first is through the iraqi security forces themselves, which are now in secretary in terms of 20%.

that is one of the seeds in the collapse of the security force. iraqi security forces including sunnis. they are joining the fight. notably, in ramadi. would like more. that is the first stream. the second stream is the tribal fighters, as you indicated. they are the popular mobilization force, which is a -type fours.tia not independent of the iraqi government. the iraqi government has authorized sized many more shia million sunni emf.

more shiaized many than sunni emf. second is the iraqi counterterrorism force which we have trained and is the most effective in the force. one last thing i will say, and i know i am going on a bit but it is complicated, we are also working with sunni police. this is important, because remember, i so is in sunni territory. so it is not going to work for govern. we will need sunni police force in the and so that when ramadi and mozilla are captured a --nd captured, they will be in place.

smith: the challenges we fighting both isis and assad, in and i do not think we win against isis until we remove assad. russia is a huge problem because their plan is simple, they are going to try to keep a sod it no matter what. story.ame what is the plan for getting us, because i think the key is to get them to realize assad cannot protect their interest. he cannot right now because he cannot protect his own country. how do we get the replacement wind out to take the of isis's sales? >> that is essential to resolving the civil war there. there is a civil war that fuels

all of this extremism. transitionpolitical in which moderate opposition and some of the structures of the syrian government, not bishara side, but others constituted a that cannment of syria restore decency and governess to syria. are is the transition we looking for. you ask about the russians, they have a lot of influence with a sod. they are using it the wrong way. they are wrong-headed in their strategy, they are going about it backwards. they said they are going to go into fight isil. have backed a sod and targeted people who are part of the opposition that needs to be part of their future. so, they are off on the wrong

foot. for us to associate ourselves with them, they would have to get off on the right foot. jones: thank you for being here today. your leadership. to your testimony, i read it need papers, we have had classified briefings. you have got an unbelievable, thelex task on behalf of american people and military. thank you. a few of us, when mr. boehner was speaker, asked for a debate on the floor of the house for a new and umf authorization. in fact, while he was still speaker of the house heat related to the president that he and umf, send us a new which president obama did this year. since the new speaker of the to mr. ryan, i

will just read one sentence. taken all, these represent a significant escalation of united states military operations and personnel on the frontlines of combat operation. we hear it from the senate that they say we need to put boots on the ground. we continue to not to me to our constitutional responsibility. before i get to the question, i want to remind people of what james madison said. war, including to judge cause of war is exclusively vested in the legislature. not the executive branch, but the legislature. anduld like to ask you

general comfort, would it help your cause if the congress were to meet its constitutional responsibilities? what it give strength to you are trying to do with these other countries who are our allies? i would appreciate a statement from each one of you. >> the president has submitted an amf. this was a month ago. i testified about it and i asked myself two questions. the first was whether the amf would give us the authority to conduct the campaign necessary to defeat isil. my answer to that was yes. the one he submitted did not

come everyone -- he -- the second thing i asked myself was would this show to our troops that their country is behind them? i think they know we are behind them. would this show the country was behind them in their effort? for that reason, it's desirable to have an amf. the lawyers tell me we don't technically need one. i will add that. we can conduct what we need to do within the law. i think it will be helpful principally because you cannot do enough to show the troops we are behind them and this is a big deal and it's serious.

>> i have a similar answer. it's my understanding we currently have all the authorities we need to prosecute the campaign against isil but i believe a clear statement of support for the men and women prosecuting our campaign and our allies will be helpful. >> since i took all of my time, i want you to know i can do it another five minutes. i yield. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you gentlemen for being before us. i have several questions. let me see what you are thinking. you said we are now arming the kurds. the last time i talked to -- he suggested they needed heavier duty weapons versus light arms. my first question would be what are we arming them with? is it really for the battlefield? secondly, i would like you to address this whole issue with respect to the iraqi army and the inability of us to get integrated. i remember under the constitution and under the issue

of having a vote on the kurd area being an independent entity, that was something i continued to ask our military leaders at the time who were overseeing iraq and they said we never got to it and we left. now we see the fruits of that in the sense we still are not able to have a military or police force very integrated. what do we do about that? we have been taking back territory in iraq and when the things we had -- it always -- we need to leave somebody there in

order to hold onto us, otherwise we end up losing that territory. what is our strategy? the recruitment efforts -- of above to get a brief on how we are countering the recruitment effort with respect to isis. lastly, diplomacy intelligence military economics -- you know, it's not just military we need here. secretary, if you could speak a little too what are some of the other efforts we are doing to

counteract was really something we need to eliminate, which is isis. thank you. >> i will touch on a few of the points. generally, the iraqi security forces. dime is essential. even though we are the center of the campaign. there must be a military defeat of isil. i also believe iraq and syria, since it's the heart of isil, we have to defeat it there. it is a multi-dimension fight. it is in the security sphere, the law enforcement sphere. i have begun to convene with secretary kerry, all of the

agencies and going through what we're all doing end making sure the right hand knows what the left is. i'm happy to give you a classified briefing. the fbi, homeland security, the intelligence community, and our dod people. you ask if we thought about a hold force.

the necessarily -- necessity for a hold force is at the root of our strategy. our strategy is to find, identify, enable forces that cannot only take territory but hold territory. we know from the last 14 years that's the tricky part. the hard part about getting victory to stick is to find people who can hold territory and govern indecently so the likes of isil don't come back. they are hard to find. they do exist but for hard to find and we will try to make a snowball and get more. >> with regard to the kurds, the kurds have a full range of heavy weapons, vehicles. our assessment is they have the capability to take the fight to isil. their recent success demonstrates that. i did speak to the president there. he identified additional support he wanted and specific ammunition types he felt we didn't have in sufficient quantity. they have the military capability to do what must be done and we are providing aviation support. >> if you'd like to amplify, please feel free but had to keep us close to on time. >> you heard the chairman's

admonishment of staying within five minutes so i will ask you to have your answers as succinct. who declared that war? >> what the secretary is saying we view the fight against isil as a threat to the u.s. and are mobilizing all military capabilities necessary. >> who would have actually made the declaration? >> it would be the congress. >> has that been made? >> it has not. >> so then how does the secretary say we are at war? i only have five minutes. if you want to elaborate, you can do it in writing.

>> we're technically not at war. >> we said we currently contained isil? >> we have not contained isil. >> have they been contained at any time since 2010? >> tactically in areas they have been. strategically, they have spread since 2010. >> in your best judgment, the strategy we have implemented, do we have a strategy that will defeat and destroy isil? >> i think the right components are in place. >> is that the strategy >> is that the strategy recommended by the joint chiefs? >> the current strategy is the strategy recommended by the joint chiefs. >> do you have any knowledge of what your predecessor was ever consulted from 2010 until he left office regarding the appropriate strategy for dealing with isil?

>> i am confident he was routinely consulted. >> do you have any knowledge if he was consulted? were the strategies implemented in 2010 these same? how long were you on the joint chiefs? during the 11 months, were those the strategies recommended by the joint chiefs? >> we did not make a recommendation during those months. >> in your best judgment, do you believe our strategies since 2010 were the appropriate military strategies to defeat i so? >> the current strategy is the strategy recommended by the joint chiefs. >> do you have any knowledge of -- do you believe they were the appropriate strategies to defeat and destroy isil?

>> i don't believe the campaign was fully resourced. >> i yield back. >> if there is something you want to say about the comments about -- >> i just want to be candid. i am not using this and some technical sense, this is serious business. that is what i mean. by war. it feels like that to our people who are engaged in it and it has that kind of gravity. so, it is not a technical thing, it is a descriptive. >> in all due respect to the secretary, the word "war" is not just some light term. it is a technical term and needs to be used very, very carefully whether in this committee or elsewhere. with that, i yield back. >> miss davis.

>> i want to go back to the aumf. in afghanistan for example, we had some inability to act preemptively. would that be the case in any way? >> since general dunford was our commander there, i don't have a good answer to that. >> councilman davis, afghanistan is a declared area of a lot of responsibilities. i did not have any restriction to act when there was a threat to u.s. forces or to the mission. >> preemptively that was not a problem? >> if we had actionable intelligence there was a threat to the force or the mission, or a threat to afghan security

forces, we were authorized to act against individuals or groups designated as hostile. >> thank you. i appreciate that. i also wanted to go back. you talked about the infrastructure campaign. i wonder if there was some decision not to act as quickly in that regard as perhaps we could have. while there was what could be considered a long way to do that, and what the impacts are in terms of impact on the pocket back, of course, of isil and the oil trade. >> a study was done to identify the critical nodes to see what would have the greatest impact on the revenue stream of isil. subsequent to that study being

completed, you have seen a significant increase in the tempo of our strikes. we estimate 43% of the revenue stream that isolate arrives at their fund's is from -- the coalition is integrated. they support the strikes we instigate against the infrastructure. davis: what is your stand against what we're doing to

eliminate terrorist organizations. >> we hosted pakistani leaders here in washington. the chairman and i, and of course, the president in recent weeks. we do press them up on the need to fight terrorists and to recognize that terrorism is a threat to pakistan as well as to its neighbors, and to united states forces in the reason -- region. we urge them to recognize what we think is true, which is that that is the principal threat to

the pakistani state today, from terrorist organizations within. >> councilman davis, we are never satisfied with the level of support from pakistan, but we do have open lines of communication. we recently had the pakistanis here. i met with my counterpart. i do believe over the past 18-20 four months, the pakistanis realize violent extremism presents an axis den shall threat to the state of pakistan. the level of cooperation has approved over the last two years. it is not what it needs to be to be effective. we will work with our daily partners to make sure gets better. davis: are there any tools we should be using to gain more support? >> if you would submit those in

written form, i would appreciate it. mr. secretary, who does it feel like we are at war with? >> isil and its accompanying -- by the way, i was not speaking of myself. i do not use his word lightly. i was talking about the troops involved with it. i think that is who feels they are at war. >> who is the enemy? >> the enemy is isil and associated groups, extreme is. >> have you ever heard the government say we are at war with muslims? what deep accident last week on foreign soil, say gop's rhetoric has become the most total for the militant group? -- when the president was on foreign soil last week, why would he say the gop's rhetoric has become the biggest fodder for the militant group? >> it is not islam per se that

stands by a militant state, it is a particular group of radical extremists. that is an important distinction to make. i have already said the president make that distinction. i do not even think he uses the word radical extremists. think it is disingenuous when he makes this into a political football using language on foreign soil that has never been said for political purposes. this committee tries not to do that in guide think the president should do the exact same thing. he also said, and you did as well, that we're gaining background that isis has taken.

implying it is harder for them to recruit fighters. my question is, is it a bigger recruiting tool for attacks like this or expanding their territory? because the president has said, and others have implied, that as the area shrinks it is harder for them to recruit and they are losing fighters. >> i will start and the chairman can pitch in. i do feel like at tax like in paris are recruiting people worldwide who observe that. the young radicals. we've had some in our own country who of nazi television, then on the internet. within syria and iraq recruiting for fighters on the ground, we

are trying to dry up that supply of recruits by making it harder to get into syria and by destroying them when they are there, as well as the ultimate, which is to create local forces and the a local system of government that is more attractive to people the in joining these of violent extremists. >> i believe would isolate is trying to do is advance a narrative of the inevitable success and invincibility. i believe they will continue to try to grab territory and expand the caliphate and incentivize others to join and try to attract resources to the movement. >> which do you think it will focus on or will they do it simultaneously? regaining territory or increasing brought her a taxi or into other places? >> they are the ultimate

opportunists, they would take advantage of all of the above. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you for your testimony. i would like to turn my attention to your statement on page three when you talked about the targeting force and in particular, it says the special operators over time would be able to conduct raids, free hostages, gather intelligence, capture isolate leaders. that creates a cycle which generates momentum. was in the statement, but she did not mention in your oral testimony was that this force would also be in a position to the targeting force and in conduct unilateral operations into syria. i thought that was significant and wanted to explore it. exactly what does that mean and

how extensive will those rates paid? >> that is true. that is in the statement. we have already conducted such raids, one that led to a killing and capture. and the release of a young woman who was being held as a slave. we freed 70 prisoners who were going to be executed. we lost an american serviceman her locally in that exercise. it takes advantage of what we are good at. intelligence, mobility, surprise. we have the log which know when i'll says. it puts everyone on notice in serious. you do not know at night to will be coming in the window. that is the sensation we want all of isil's leadership to

have. >> i think the intelligence is the most important. our effectiveness is linked to the quality of intelligence we have and our assessment is this force will provide us additional intelligence to make our operations more effective. that is what the secretary, when he talks about the virtuous cycle, meant. >> so, do expect this use of special force into syria will increase exponentially oil will be within iraq itself? >> the enemy does not respect boundaries. neither did we. we are conducting a camp in against iraq and syria and will go with a most effectively degrade the capabilities of the enemy.

>> how are they vulnerable to introduction and to what extent are we disrupting those flows? >> we spoke of the infrastructure previously. as we learn more, we are better able to target that part of critical infrastructure like oil. the chairman mentioned cement, a big source of revenue for isil. that allows us to strike that bird of the infrastructure fueling the revenues. we do not wish to destroy the entire infrastructure of syria or iraq, but we do hope to destroy that of isil. we are developing insight, and

that is what has allowed us to take this next step in and i think it will be pretty effective. we're looking to do more. >> a follow-up, we do assess today that the majority of revenue that isil has is generated by the oil industry and other industries like cement. it went, taxes on local paper. some of those are taxes on resources paid by the government of iraq and syria. over the past couple weeks we have had a significant impact on the revenue sources of core isil. >> going back, the sunni states in the area, how do we get them

to be a first priority with this, for example, their first priority is a win and expansion -- iran and expansion. >> at is an important question, we will get back to you in writing. >> general dunford, i know firsthand how in working with young people, you transform them into extraordinary people with the highest level of transformant. i commend both of you for making recommendations on how to protect american families from further attack. a washington post editorial pointed out courageously, "he

went through all u.s. troops from iraq when it was advised a residual force would help keep pace. he opposed a small nato training force that might have stabilize the new government. with the president not accepting your recommendations, mr. secretary, there are plans for deployment of soldiers to syria to assist fighters fighting isis or daesh. this is supposed to help assess ground fighting and logistics. given the complicated divide between the kurds and the local forces, do you believe this will be successful and what are the decision points for the

strategy? >> we believe it has every chance of being successful, but this is a transactional relationship with these forces. we provide them some support, some in equipment, and we see how they do. that is what we are doing all over. so far, they have shown a willingness to take over territory in to make use of our equipment. that is why we are prepared to do more for them. i hope it will be like a snowball. if they do well, we will do more and that will gather more fighters into their movement. we would like them to reclaim the so-called the capital of the so-called caliphate. it is very transactional because we have to see how they are doing and what their level of motivation and effectiveness is. >> and of course, it is bipartisan, will you be

successful. the basis of this hearing is to determine the suitable strategy to deal with isis in iraq and syria. it has been stated on a number of occasions that isis is contained. the ranking member of the senate intelligence committee has expressed a sense of urgency. recently she said, we have to be prepared for an attack on the homeland. have never been more concerned. senator feinstein said, "i read the intelligence faithfully. she said, isolate is not contained. isil is expanding. isil is not contained." what is the dod doing to contain the isis? >> our strategy is to destroy a soul.

in syria and iraq and anywhere else it arises. in and, with respect to the homeland, we do not have any eminent threads i can relate to you today, but we take homeland security very seriously and we particularly take the protection of our own personnel very seriously, for among other reasons, the fact that to work, many of them were, singled out by these guys. like those who are trying to recruit americans.

i want to chat on a sunday afternoon where there was a ceremony for six of our service members gunned down by somebody who had been radicalized online. born and raised in chattanooga, tennessee. this is serious business. violent extremist tendencies. and while the heart is in syria and iraq, we need to recognize it mestasizes elsewhere. >> i came back, and in and this is a personal observation, with the idea that we have to step up or accelerate our strategies with the assistance of our allies. air power, sea power, boots on the ground.

one thing that was brought out was the sharing of intelligence information. it is not too far. if we can accelerate with all of this power, with our allies, i think it would be one way to wipe out this barbarian group one sand for all. the entire world is on alert. the american people are on edge. there are isil cells in our

states here in america. i am wondering what your ideas are on accelerating the mission to whiteout isil. what about this information sharing? >> i will come to the information peace first. your observation is exactly right on the market and is a fact. in the wake of ours, that is one of the things that has been identified. we have reasonably good information-sharing in the united states. not perfect, but we work at it ready hard every day. as you saw on the wake of us, other nations have a challenge sharing information with other countries and sharing information with other agencies within the same country. that is recognized as an issue. certainly a sec. carter: i work on the foreign fighter issue, that is the single biggest thing that inhibits our ability to stop the flow of foreign fighters. information and intelligence sharing. i think there is at least maybe 120 countries that have gone to syria and iraq to fight and presumably will return home at some point. there is a strong up that of to do that.

with regard to accelerating the campaign, sec. carter: i have talked about what we're doing inside iraq and syria. this requires a global strategy. as we are conducting strategies, we're trying to do the same thing in other locations where i so exists. there are certainly a number of branches sanctioned by by isil and others striving to become part of isil. >> i think this is going beyond what we ever expected. we have been with our allies now for a long time. many of them training their troops. we are ready to step up and once

and for wipe out this barbarian group. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> mr. turner. turner: mr. secretary, no you are aware of the fact there have been allegations that intelligence officials at centcom and centcom have skewered findings on the isis word to please washington. i am holding up an article about a cover-up. it says the inspector general is looking into cooking the intelligence to make the picture more rosy than what is occurring. it goes on to have a concern that e-mails and documents may have been diluted before they were turned over to

investigators concerning the centcom doctoring. the chairman of the intelligence committee has said to the inspector general -- sent to the inspector general of letter about documents being deleted. i also talked about declassified portions of briefings of this committee, and you said you can only go in so far in this hearing. in your written testimony, i can only tell you what is unclassified. you say we are gathering momentum on the battlefield in syria and iraq. you say all of these efforts have shrunk the isil-controlled territory and both. while we have information to show they are giving us a rosy picture, i personally believe as

many do that not only do we not really have a strategy, but you cannot have a strategy unless it is placed on a current of what is happening and the threat that we have. mr. secretary, how do you respond to the allegations at the department of defense, centcom, perhaps even your own testimony is a much rosy up to and what we are facing? >> first of all, i insist upon accurate, candid advice from the intelligence community and i cannot rely just upon once was. >> i appreciate that commitment, but the question is about isil, syria, and iraq. you say we are gathering momentum. i know everybody that has been in the classified briefings here, no one has ever said that

to us before. when you put that in the same context as centcom having allegations they have doctored the circumstances are, thank you have a high bar to us to sit in front of us and tell us that the battlefield is turning in our direction. how do you justify that? >> let me be clear. the territory has shrunk. that is a fact. >> who decides if it has shrunk? sec. carter: kurds. >> in iraq? secretary carter: kurds.

i will be candid with you. i expect intelligence officials to be candid with me. i cannot comment on an inspector general investigation. but i will tell you -- >> it is your testimony that the kurds have advanced because we have momentum and because isil is shrinking. sec. carter: we are gathering momentum and it is a fact that the territory under isis has shrunk. that is not a declaration of a victory. crabs are ripening, mr. secretary? sec. carter: we're going to win. >> are we winning, mr. secretary? sec. carter: we are going to win. >> i think your testimony here today shows a disconnect the information we are receiving end what is being placed into the

united states effort. i yield back. >> i want to thank both witnesses for their testimony today. particularly the very powerful statement you articulated. if we want to do something on our side of the table, we need to act. we need to move forward. frankly, i hope people will take that to heart. the finger point and chest thumping that goes on appears sometimes, with been sitting since february when the president sent over language for the authorization of use of force and have done nothing. it is an excusable. i want to focus or a moment on

the fact that we did, actually, in 2014, move forward on title x authorization, which is incorporated into the nda and gave a authority for trimming operations. you alluded to it in terms of that program. the out-of-country training seem to have fizzled out. the question i want to ask is, is that a dead letter now? are you using it in other ways to take the fight to isil? >> we're continuing to train and equip forces. we're doing it in different ways as we learn more. we are now, particularly in syria, we have found groups that already exist and are fighting

and in which we can an able with special capabilities and train people especially to a company them or send americans to accompany them. that is preferable to trying to create an entirely new units by taking individuals out of the country and trying to put them together. we're going to try everything that works. and, we're having some success at doing that. we're also continuing to look at and find forces willing to fight isil. and we're trying to give them the equipment they need to do that. we're doing that all over, and that is the key to getting continued momentum. >> congressman, i think the thing that is important to is that we're going to need indigenous and regional ground forces to be successful.

as an example, they were training individuals, we brought them into turkey and charges on the back to syria. we did not think that was going to get as to where we needed to be as fast as we needed to get there. we decided to go with vetted groups. there is one that is how success and now is moving down to where core isil resides. that authority is what we are using to support those forces right now. >> i appreciate you mentioning that scenario. it shows there are tangible results when we move as a congress on a bipartisan basis to give you the tools you need

to succeed. it is not that there is not real value in terms of accomplishing the goal in listening to the military needs a hand moving forward into giving because they need to succeed. there is no intelligence question about whether or not your example happened, it has been reported in every international media out there. it succeeded in and we should be looking at those opportunities on their side of the table to give you what you need. >> thank you. we'll take a few seconds to weigh in on the are we at war question which was so busily discussed on the top rope. going back to the 9/11 commission report, they clearly stated we are at war. we have an enemy.

islamic terrorists. they are continuing to wage war against us whether we like it or not, we're in a war. it would be very useful if we would debate for a new authorization for use of military force to clear up this kind of esoteric discussion. general dunford, when i was in baghdad a few months ago, i was talking to american troops and even though we theoretically do not have troops on the ground, there were 3500 american troops on the ground. but, i was told we could not have anymore the and that. there is a limit. so my question is, is that true? are they limited in what we do by a number? whether it is 3500, maybe now it is 3550 if we are sending special forces over there?

are we limited to a number? >> thank you for asking. i do not believe we are limited by the number 3500. we're managing 3500 because that is the number of troops the president has up to-date. i can assure you i do not feel at all inhibited about making recommendations that would cause us to grow greater than 3500 and that i believe it helped to defeat a song -- -- defeat isil. i have told my commander not to be inhibited about asking for more on the ground, and that i would do in those options to the secretary and the senate. >> i am only somewhat relieved to hear that because i hate to think we're down to having to ask the senate to go to 3700, 3800. if you needed to, i hate to think you are not able to learn

what you needed and baghdad. you and i have had this discussion before, including about afghanistan. i think it is a terrible imposition on the military camp to complete a strategy which i, like others, am not at all convinced we have right now, but presumably you have a strategy to fight and win. if you need the forces to do it, it seems to me you should be able to move this process without having to go to the president of the united states to say i need another 25 people. working a campaign based on a cap of numbers in a country?

you say you feel comfortable going to the president and saying we need more numbers, but right now, a general cannot send in a battalion, a company, if he feels he needs it in baghdad. is that correct? >> i view my responsibility to identify to the president the capabilities the commanders need to accomplish the mission. i can assure you i will not be at all inhibited and bringing those recommendations forward to the president and the secretary regardless of what the numbers i do not feel at all constrained about bringing about recommendations for additional forces if that's what it takes to defeat the enemy. said, the capabilities.

not the numbers. if you need a certain amount in time, to me it is not a reasonable time if you need to go rescue a pilot. it seems to me, that needs to be recommended. if you do not think so, i am surprised. because from what i hear, from talking there, there is a sense on the ground they need more capability. so please, please, please, please, do not hesitate to make a recommendation to get the capability we need, whether it is in afghanistan, iraq, syria. let's get out of managing by the dad burn numbers. i yield. >> thank you for being here. general dunford, i am not sure if this is not the first time since you became chairman, and as a son of massachusetts i want to welcome you. we're proud you are where you are today. thank you for being here.

i think the discussion with had today does enforce the complexity of the challenge we face. we heard a number of those here today saying it underscores the idea that we really need to have a robust debate that involves all of congress. not just the committees that need to focus on this. it is a complex situation. we need to better understand our allies, with the cost's will be over time, so i would really like to underscore those who called for a new authorization of use of force. the administration often talks about the 65 countries participating in the coalition against isil. but roughly 50 of them have

never been active in the campaign. and some have ceased their involvement. what is behind this hesitation? in particular, when we're focusing on what we should send to the fight, whether there is a need for more combat ops builds -- combat boots on the ground? what is the willingness of this coalition? >> we need to do more. they need to do more. the attacks in paris have galvanized the french. the french are coming in very strongly in syria, which they had not done before and now are very willing to do. the british are debating it.

they germans are capable. they want them to do more. i would characterize for europe, i hope, that deep address as attacks galvanize all of europe to do more. because they need to do more. in syria and iraq, and elsewhere around the world and in their own homelands, to get back to the earlier went of where we share intelligence, we depend upon their structures when it comes to people visiting from europe to the united states. and you mentioned the gulf states as well. >> that is really where my question is important. >> this is something we began to discuss with the gulf states back at camp david in the spring. the president did. a natural force in particularly

of the sunni areas of syria and iraq would be sunni arabs. a more effective and insightful kind of force. they have been unwilling to field such forces. what are your challenges on confronting that unwillingness? >> i will be candid. many of the gulf states air force capabilities over ground forces and special operations forces. i think that if they want to, as we wish them to, they would wield more influence in the middle east into more to secure this part of the world in which they live, too, they are going to need to do more of that on the ground. airplanes is fine.

provide them. but when it comes to ground forces and special operations forces, there's no question they need to build those forces and wield them. they frequently complained to me the iraniansable are. and i say, yes. you are not in the same game. an effective game on the ground. >> the statement that in the end the sunnis part of the muslim world has to take this on an order for it to be long-term effective, general dunford. i'm running out of time. five seconds. general dunford: not only would not be successful without our coalition partners, i do not see any way we can be successful without our coalition partners. >> thank you. >> thank you for being here. in june of this year, chairman

thornberry held a nuclear deterrence oversight week. we had a series of hearings and briefings. in one of those hearings, we had deputy secretary bob work and the vice joint chairman testified. both of them emphasized that in their opinion, nuclear deterrence is highest ability of dod. they reflected on secretary hagel's statement to that effect. you now have a job. do you share secretary hagel's view? and if so, why? sec. carter: i sure do. on thanksgiving i was calling service members around the world. one of the folks i called was someone who was spending his christmas in a silo in north dakota. i told him exactly that, what you are doing is the single most

important thing in the united states military. it is not in the news every day. and god help us if it is. but it is the bedrock of our security and in the final analysis, that is the ultimate of american security. a modern, safe deterrent is critical. >> i appreciate you doing that and i appreciate the fact that secretary james is putting a renewed emphasis in that area. it is my hope that you will do your own and be as clear on that as your predecessor was. secretary work as well as the vice-chairman and admiral haney, secretary kindle, they have all made the statement they believe this long-range standoff weapon

should be pursued to replace the current air launch cruise missiles. do you share that view? do you see that progressing at a pace you find acceptable? >> i do support it. >> i do as well. we talked a minute ago about threats to our nation. i think it is about flexibility and options. i think that capability reflects an important option we ought to have. we are already being engaged in a high intensity conflict. >> do you see the progress towards that slipping and funding in anyway? >> i would like to take that for the record. i'm not tracking the file at this time. >> do you believe it should be allowed to slip or canceled? >> i know there is a timeline along which it needs to be met because of the obsolescence of the weapons system it is replacing. i do not know what that is right now.

>> to have anything else to say? echo.ctly just to there is a schedule to complete it. like a lot of our modern nuclear modernization programs, and needs funding. it is not entirely department of defense. it is department of energy as well. it is an important system and we need to manage it with our colleagues. we'll get back to with more detail. and yes we support it. >> thank you very much. >> mr. johnson? mr. johnson: thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you gentlemen for your service. this committee has responsibility to conduct oversight of the administration strategy for prosecuting the u.s. counter-isil campaign. and it is quite appropriate for members of this committee to express their disagreement and disapproval of the

administration's strategy. however, the tone of the disagreement and disapproval is impotent. -- important. politicians know that relentless personal attacks on the president himself provoke a visceral reaction by the american people against the president, and that is part of our campaign process. but what effect does the unprecedented level of attack on our commander-in-chief have on our relationships with our allies, for instance? what impact does it have on our ability to galvanize our nation supporters

to participate in the strategy we are leading? what impact does it have on the enemies of america we are leading the strategy against? if i may ask that question of you, secretary carter and general dunford? >> you can ask the question but i'm not going to respond in and -- responded to it and i will tell you why. i serve at the pleasure of knowing obama into obviously support his policies. we're coming into an electoral season now in the united states, which i respect very much. i also very much respect the ofdition and the necessity the defense to be out of the political swirl. i especially considered to be

-- consider one of my responsibilities to shield my military from that. no matter what the politics say, we conducted the nation operations to protect our people. with great respect, i understand where you're coming from but i would prefer not to answer because of its collection -- its connection with the electoral cycle. >> thank you. i respect that answer. general dunford? >> i think it is even more important for me, in uniform, to have the same position. >> thank you. i assume it does have some impact on our relationship with our allies and all of the components we have to work with to successfully implement this -- successfully prosecute this mission. i have another question, how many isil forces are there in

iraq and syria? >> the estimates are in the -- i want to emphasize that these are estimates. estimates are in the neighborhood of 30,000. i hesitate to give numbers like that for the reason that i do not think our intelligence information is perfect in that regard. because they may involve people with varying levels of responsibility or actual adherence to isil. let me see if the chairman wants

to add anything. i look caution upon the estimates. >> estimates are consistently between 20,000-30,000. but i have the same caution in sharing those numbers. or in confirming the ferocity of those numbers. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you both for being here. secretary carter, i remember you and i had a conversation many months ago related to the kurds and the efforts, to your credit, i think you strongly agreed they stood out as an effective force. against isis. in my mind, the most hopeful today -- in my mind, i have

never seen them so weak that they were running away. the general'sf effort to improve the morale of his soldiers. but it is clear that a have done a marvelous job. or ae isis brings a paris route attack to the united states i think it is important to get on the ball. administrationis gets pushed back a lot because of the amendment this committee passed to arm the kurds. tremendous amount of pushback and assistance -- and resistance areas i quite honestly cannot fathom the reason. i guess my question to you is, is everybody on the same page? is there support for the amendment? is there support to try to

animate the amendment in a way to make it to most effective? talking about the amendment to support the kurds. >> we want to support the kurds and sunni tribes. the question is, will we continued to do that with, by, and through the government in baghdad. our preference is to do that because our preference is to support a multi-sectarian, it decentralized government of iraq. the alternative is sectarianism and we know what lies that way. therefore, when we arm the kurds, as i indicated in my testimony, the baghdad government gets to look at the ship's. it is not a problem.

>> is it true that they have been helping them directly? >> i am sorry. i do not recognize the acronym -- i recognize acronym, but it is from -- >> i understand that the kurds have been armed directly by this group, so i'm wondering. i hear you saying two different things. i hear you saying we should support the amendment we had here that called for arming the kurds directly, but that we are still letting the government of iraq pay sort of the referee of it all. to make sure that we do not to upset them. >> what i am saying that you do arm the kurds and others do as

well. other countries are arming the kurds also. we do that with -- through this nominal manner, the government of baghdad for the larger reason that we support sectarian governance in iraq. that is why we do that. >> not to belabor the point, but this there is consensus the administration is on benefit the ndaa had to step up our support. think it is necessary for us to have language that allows us to directly support the kurds because we are able to some or them in the way we are doing it now. we do not need additional authority. i hear your basic thinking is that you save the kurds are an effective fighting source and we

should back it up. we had thisnths ago type of support, the landscape might look different. i do not like to do the i told you thing at all, but i am astonished at this administration's lackadaisical approach to a dangerous enemy. i have unfortunately been out of time. >> thank you both for your leadership and service. monday morning quarterbacking is always a whole lot easier. i know that you are, you know, very committed to eradicating isis. i would like to know how many troops you are intending to add to the special ops in syria. you mentioned you were intending to offer. how many more are you intending to offer? >> there are two ways of

answering that question. one is the particular operations that we are preparing to conduct now. , with our special operations forces, they are intended to enable capable local ground forces. i really cannot go into what their operations are. we have indicated a number around 50. the second thing i want to say is that it is for starters. if we find more forces we can enable in this way, we are prepared to do that. i have repeatedly said that. i believe the president will allow us to do more and authorize us to do more when we have more entities. -- more opportunities. we are looking for more opportunities and are eager to do more because that will accelerate the defeat of isis.

it hinges upon as finding the capable local forces and we can enable in this way and that is what we are looking for. wouldtime we find them, i -- itnd expect -- again gets back to the question about numbers. the more we find them, the more we will do. >> one more question, you iserenced earlier that isis metastasizing. that is a good word. they know they have become somewhat entrenched in libya. i presume, without wanting to signal to isis as we are recognizing that and taking

steps to address that. >> it cannot be any secret to isil because we killed their leader in libya a few weeks ago. so it should not come as any surprise. "metastasized" is a good word because these are these radical cells. popping up and multiplying, fueled by the internet. this is the first internet terrorist organization. fueledan, social media terrorist organization. it is a new kind of thing. everywhere andup we had to it everywhere that we find it, and we have. have mentioned social media and their effectiveness on social media has left us flat-footed. there is some effort to grant to authorization that would allow you to conduct cyberspace operations with the speed in

which threats are coming in. is that going to make a huge difference in our approach to attack them? >> we're looking at, along with law enforcement and homeland security ways of countering them on the internet. and let law enforcement communities speak for themselves. there is a very strong effort on the part of the fbi to identify self radicalizing individuals in the u.s.. they do exist as we know from chattanooga. i might want to add, by the way, just by way of clarification, earlier you were asking about special operations forces in syria. i was speaking of those that accompany and enable ground forces. i want to say in addition to that, we are forming the

expeditionary targeted force. that is a force that would not be on the grounds, all the time in syria, it would go in, conduct raids, and go out. i want to emphasize that. >> how many troops are included in that number? sec. carter: a larger number. i would rather give that in a classified setting. >> finally, the executive order that is required in order for you -- i yield back. >> mr. conway. >> we are having a difficult time getting to the scope of what needs to get done in syria and iraq. i know that you use anecdotes that we are making progress and we are gaining momentum, but i'm trying to climb everest, i can walk 5-6 feet up and tell you that i making progress and if i run the next 15 feet i can say that i'm getting momentum, can you tell me not specifics, if

the department of defense has a game plan to say, this is how many local forces that we need and everything that we have to go so that you can share with the committee so that we can see the scope of what have to get done? is that laid out? not for public dissemination, but for our point. what needs to get done in the scope of this issue? sec. carter: the outlines of that are very clear. that is what the strategy is about. >> i got the strategy. how much? how many local forces? do you guys know that yet? >> we do. we have the specific numbers that we think need to be trained in order to have successful iraqi security forces. we have a number. >> in syria as well.

>> the military campaign in syria is made to the pressure on isil. while a political reconciliation process takes place. there is not a military solution in syria. >> it be helpful if we had a sense of what this beast look like. he also mentioned that we spent some time studying the infrastructure and you were not there. you are a marine. that is not how you do it. andtaking of the tankers having the move why is it that , we just got to doing that last week as opposed to why were they the first? i understand the production facilities in all of that stuff, but the movement itself, why did we wait so long to do that? >> i don't know what the thought process was 6-8 months ago. but we have a much better appreciation for the revenue sources of isil. in august, i went around to all of the region as i was in transition to try to get a better sense of isil.

at that time, there was not a clear understanding of how isil is generating revenue. even in the week subsequent august, we started to have a much better appreciation for the source of isil revenue. they went after oil infrastructure and the tankers because we appreciate how much of an impact that would have. the firsts like french targets that they hit seem to be targets that we should have hit off the bat. has all of that changed out? going forward, when we see things hits, are we in a position now to hit everything that makes sense from a military standpoint? >> the simple answer is yes. >> the russians are purported to introduce significant upgraded air defense capabilities. what impact will that have on our operations and our abilities to do we want to do? >> we watch development very

carefully and that is a very capable air defense system that has been brought in. we have a memorandum of of understanding to ensure safety with the russians. i spoke to my counterpart in russia to ensure that they would be compliant with the memorandum of understanding. they have been over the past 30-45 days. iss today that we have the capability to browse a kate -- prosecute the campaign. >> do have the right role of engagement if they are engaged? >> they do. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here today. i know you are no stranger to the committee, but welcoming a new capacity as chairman of the joint chiefs great my support for my colleagues earlier discussion on the need for congress to do our job to actually take some action on a new -- i understand the president submitted a draft earlier this year. we had several hearings on it.

but i think that it is vital that we get this right. and this is part of that. the men and women who are deployed into harms way, some of the may not come back as is the case of that gentleman deserve to know that they have them world support and the legal backing of our nation. i would hope that we in congress would devote equal effort to having this debate and talking about the true cost in terms of resources and sacrifices required. as we get into the deeper discussion of one strategy over another. chairman, what i'm concerned with in my line of questioning is are we going to focus on the global strategy against isil, and i think that we have not really discussed in this committee so far other regions were isil is established outside of the middle east. i believe pose just a much of a threat even more, in particular libya. the dia top counterterrorism

official was recently quoted as saying that about isil that libya is the affiliate we are most worried about and it is the hub from which they project across all of north africa. while we have a clear and present danger in syria and iraq, mr. secretary, please explain what the larger military strategy is to confront a global threat and how we are leveraging the different elements of american power, not just on the military, and specifically, and an unclassified setting, about her efforts to combat isil in libya? >> it is a, as it must be, a global strategy. it has to be in all media to go back to the earlier question about messaging and cyber. while i believe we play a

central and essential role, it is not purely a military campaign. it involves all of the other instruments, but we are absolutely necessary, we are not by ourselves. with respect to libya, we have taken action there in recognition of the fact that because of the continuing political discord in libya, which has not been resolved, obviously, we are in favor of a political resolution in libya which would lead to decent governments and not a fertile ground for the growth of isil. that political settlement has not occurred and therefore it is for talk around for the spread of isa. therefore, we are having to take military action there. i give you an indication of that already, striking their leadership there, so there is a focus of ours. >> where else other than libya do you see a real threat from isil and their forces?

i'm concerned that there is this training where there are failed states where i still is using as a staging base. >> egypt is one of the areas where we are concerned. that is where the russian aircraft was taken down. the bow boko haram group has sworn allegiance and been accepted as part of the isa movement in nigeria. we have seen isil in the afghanistan pakistan region. we have seen it in yemen. we have seen elements of it in lebanon and jordan. it is absolutely a global dynamic. >> thank you. i would like to return to the discussion earlier about the whole force in iraq. looking at our vision for the future of iraq, what political outcomes iraq do you envision and what is your assessment of the gentlemen and whether he is making necessary reforms and whether those will be and not?

it is hard to find these folks. if they are not buying into what they need, politically, and they're not getting that, they will abandon that role. what is the political consequences that we need to happen iraq in order to maintain the forces and to gain more -- >> the political future that we are supporting iraq and that no one -- i believe that he supports, but it is difficult to accomplish is a multi-sectarian but decentralized iraqi state. in which the kurds and shia and sunni's can live together under one state and have a reasonable amount of self-governance, not by isil, but by people who can do a civilized job of governance

. kurds and shia all living together under one state, reasonable decentralization and self-governance as appropriate, but under one state. that is a we are seeking. the alternative to that is a sectarian does integration of iraq. we know that looks like. we are hoping that the prime minister can pursue that road and that he is enough support to do it. we're trying to help him do that, but baghdad politics are complicated. his predecessor was not on that road. >> i'm out of time, thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you for being here. the person i want to ask is how can you reassure this body that the same administration that left in 2010, no one had the forethought to see ice is coming, nobody thought it was important that we stay on the

iraqi-syria border. what has changed? why should we think that you guys and the administration is on the right path now? they have changed. they understand the significance of this region. whereas they did not before. you said yourself that one reason you're building momentum now is you lack the intelligence capability and otherwise since 2010. you are now regaining, but it would not have been lost in the first place as a demonstration did not squander the infrastructure that we had set up in 2010. why should we trust you? >> one of the reasons that i changed the structure of our command in iraq over the last year is because i wanted us to have the strength and the insight and the presence of a single, senior american military

officer in baghdad. that is accomplished. he is now connected each and every day to the front, literally to the front in ramadi to our various areas where we are training iraqi security forces. he can talk to record to pry mr. a body any contact rectally to anybody else in baghdad. that has complete command over all of our forces in the fight. in iraq and syria. >> the answers that you have changed. >> the ability to have people on the ground in iraq is essential to effectiveness there.

and you have unity of command. we now have that again. that is a good thing. it does hearken back to another era. as general dunford had in afghanistan. it is really critical. we now have that. >> second question, if you were to declare war roughly had an authorization of use of military force, would be against an autonomous state or terror worldwide? >> i like filling wish that was committed by president obama and i will tell you why. my first question when i was asked review that was does it give us what we need to defeat -- >> militarily. tactically. are you fighting a state? are you attacking a state or you

are attacking war -- terrorism? >> we are fighting extremists who have used violence to advance their political goals in the form of terrorism. >> what is difference between that and al qaeda? >> in terms of the basic nature of isil and al qaeda there is not a difference in my perspective. >> the fact that they hold territories and that there are battle lines in this war against syria and iraq, there are lines of departure that you cross if you were go to fight them. >> we are fighting extremists that is different than al qaeda. >> when i was referring to was the nature of the movement. isil and al qaeda, in terms of where they are right now, they do hold ground and have declared a caliphate. that was an aspirational goal of al qaeda and something that isil has actually done today. that makes it different in the fact that there currently holding ground and declared a caliphate. >> in terms of them actually

having and holding ground, does that make it harder or easier in that area in iraq and syria where they actually hold ground? >> in this particular case, it is difficult because they're using humans as shields in places like rock and will result in ramadi. >> which is no different than al qaeda. >> correct, but i still -- the isa location. they blended into the country in a much different way than isil. >> with my last few seconds, still trying to get the jordanians drowns, been able to do so because the state department has stopped us another using israeli equivalent instead of ours. i think we ought to fix that. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> thank you. thank you, mr. secretary. i have asked this before. i was in the middle east in february and we were briefed on these various topics and the intelligence missions. the gentleman got efforts to form sunni forces and some of the internet issues. i'm near omaha. it has a significant role in this effort. i support the issue. i think you're right. you mentioned that before. it is clear that congress needs to act as quickly as possible. here's my question. because i was there and able to talk to the king. he talked about putting the flag

in the ground and getting isis out of the cities and all of that stuff. he talked about the intelligence collaborative efforts. it was impressive to hear this efforts. would you say that now, nine months later, is there a significant change today from where we were nine months ago in our readiness to achieve these goals? sec. carter: we are constantly looking for opportunities to do more. we are doing more than we were doing that months ago. i hope we're doing more nine months from now. we are looking for opportunities. you mentioned jordan. we are with the king and his people. working, once again to identify and we have found some people in southern syria who want to recapture their territory from isil. and we are supporting and enabling them.

we are looking to do more. we are looking for proposals. the president looks to me and general done for four proposals for how we can do more. i have given you a number of indications of ways that we have accelerated the campaign over the last few months. and will continue to do that. >> i don't believe that nine months ago anybody was talking about being at work in a sense. i don't think those words were used. they are now being used. at least to me and maybe to my constituents back in nebraska. would you agree with that? sec. carter: i use the words in the simple sense as a reflection of the necessity and seriousness of his business. >> i think most everyone has

said here today, but this seems to be the right way to go. >> thank you. thank you gentlemen for your service. one question i have. maybe we are slow to initiate it, but i'm glad that we are focused on the infrastructure of the country. the oil and cement industries were mentioned. those revenue sources that support the regime. one of the things talked about was that we do not want to do this catastrophic destruction of the oil industry because it would be difficult to reconstitute in the future. when isis is gone.

however, as the gulf war veteran, i member what saddam hussein did to the oil industry in kuwait. and yet, they were able to reconstitute that after the war. did you address to me why we simply don't do that sort of catastrophic destruction of the oil industry typically cut off their revenue? sec. carter: sure. there is a balance to be struck their, but the critical thing is intelligence. there, we have had gain the insight that allows us to distinguish to a very large extent that part of the energy infrastructure which is being directly exploited from isil. that is a distinction that is

based upon intelligence and underlies are striking. you may remember an early time where we were striking parts of the energy infrastructure which were largely a small scale. we thought isil operated refinery facilities. that proved not to be very effective. in the course of continuing to study his infrastructure, we have learned which parts directly affect them and we are striking them we think that will have an effect on the revenue streams. >> i think we can have it both ways. we can conduct destruction that will deny isil the use of his infrastructure and yet leave it a condition that at some point in the future it can be regenerated. >> i would suggest to you that part of the strength of isis is the ability to govern these territories and part of that is their ability to sustain the

economy and so a collapse of the economy, i think, hurts their ability to govern and further degrades them. let me ask a question about the syrian refugee issue. last july, turkey and the u.s. agreed in general terms on a plan that would provide a safe zone along a 60 mile strip of northern syria along the turkish border. the usa provides the airpower component of that. insurgent forces would work together in terms of ground security. where are we at with this? it would seem to me that a lot of the refugees would like to stay in syria and if we could create safe sense for them, that would obviously give them the ability to do that mr. secretary? sec. carter: the idea of

humanitarian zones, say sounds, are concepts that we have studied over time. i will start with some of the considerations that have gone into that and why we have judged the costs of doing so greater than the benefits. let me start with the benefits of a safe stone. a place where people who wished to move there could move there and be protected. one has to be careful about who might wish to move there, because people might want to live where they live and also we would not want to create a situation in which people were expelled from countries to which they had moved into a safe zone. by countries that did not want them. that is an undesirable outcome. from a military point of view and i will let the general

elaborate on this, when we need to anticipate that if such as zone would be contested, it would certainly be contested by isil would want to present it is not safe. possibly, elements of the regime who would want to prove that it is not safe. it ends up being a substantial military operation. the turks, we have discussed things like that with the turks and they have not offered a force of this size that would do that. let me stop there. does the general want to elaborate on that? >> if you have a brief, additional comment. >> no. >> mr. chairman -- >> it is a complex subject that would take more time. >> thank you mr. chairman.

gentleman i want to thank you for your service and patriotism and your wisdom. i appreciate all that you do for us. i feel confident to have a leader at the helm with the new chairman. as a recent iraq veteran, and concerned about the fact that five years after we left we now have to go back. in my new role in this committee, i want to make sure that we get it right this time. after we do militarily defeat isis, we do not find yourself dangers talking to iraq again. mr. secretary, can you tell us what is the mission statement right now for the operation in iraq? sec. carter: you're getting to the heart of our strategy. this is not only the part that is essential, but also the part that makes it difficult to achieve. that is that we want a victory

over isil that sticks. that means forces that participate in the recapture of territory and thereafter governments in a decent manner. so we don't have a new wave of isil. that is necessary in iraq and syria. that is why we are trying to find a political solution to the syrian civil war. it is important to defeat isil, but it is important to do so in a lasting way and that is a critical part of the strategy and the reason we are so intent upon identifying and enabling capable and motivated local forces. >> can you answer the question? what is general mcfarlane's mission statement? >> to defeat isil. >> my concern is we don't have a

political plant that underlies what our military mission is. we have heard the need for that from the people on the left and right who have testified before the committee and written about this problem. can you speak a bit to that coordination, that planning and your confidence that general mcfarlane and the others on the ground can see a political and that will stick and make their military efforts worthwhile? >> congressman, it is a great choice. what you said a minute ago about not wanting to go back in five years is something we all feel strongly about. as difficult as it would be, i do support the objective to unify baghdad. that is the best prospect for a stable and secure iraq that would not be a sanctuary for violent extremism. general mcfarlane is working

very close to enable the government to stand up on its own to provide the support it needs to be independent of influence from outside actors, particularly the malignant influence of iran. the path to getting where we need to is difficult at best. i don't have a better idea to enable the current government in iraq to be successful to promote the kind of security we need. i believe that that assumption to longer, if it no longer retains, i will ask for a different plan. i believe we are in fact -- since i been in the job, we have

had two different meetings and we have discussed specific issues on the campaign. it is fair to say there was a recognition that we were not as integrated across the government as we should be. and so, about two months ago we begin to meet on a periodic basis to attack specific issues. the oil issue is an outcome of the first mission we had. the foreign fighters requires a entire government. am i satisfied with the level of integration? no, we are working on that. am i satisfied that it will be easy to get after the desired political state in iraq? no, i don't think so. the cardinal direction to me is clear. >> we have a couple seconds left. if we had retained at that level of integration after 2009, would we be in the mess that we are in

in iraq. >> it is fair to say the conditions are quite different. >> mr. gibson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the witnesses aimed here today. thank you for your leadership. i will be moving in a direction similar to mr. mouton. strategy, ends, ways, and means, the administration has been under fire in the media some degree because that is the claim that the strategy is the same. ends may be similar i'm hoping i get clarification that ways and means are changing. if we are doing the same thing -- and i don't see how the end result will be any different -- a vantage point, i had multiple tours myself in iraq. i am very keenly aware of the challenges, including the political and military

challenges in iraq. let me say this, i associate myself -- i think many of the opening remarks you made, mr. secretary, i can't attest to. you talk about the fact that there needs to be more sunni inclusion. i was frustrated that during the period iraq was unraveling, mr. maliki is leading in a corrupt way. i did not feel we were using the leverage. this was significant. we still had a leverage that i don't think we used in the political-military sphere. the question has to do with the interagency process, which i recognize you are only a part of, that you are a major player. i would like to know about three different areas. iraq, first. what is different in terms of our leverage the we can bring it

to bear, especially in this time when we have a new leader in iraq. we cannot shake this relationship so we can see some of the things that you laid out in your original testimony come to fruition. i think we can concur a political transition is necessary. when we have a new leader in iraq. what vehicles are we going to use might we create so we can get some compelling on that score. the long-term issue is cutting off the ability to recruit and fundraiser for this enemy that is fraudulent. they say they advance the cause of muslims, but nothing could be further from the truth. in terms of ways and means, what is different in terms of this strategy? >> i will start, congressman, and then maybe the chairman will want to add to it. first of all, thank you for your own service. to her next point about reconstituting our leverage and

iraq, that is precisely the point i was making earlier. i think general mcfarlane is doing that. that is important insight to wield our political-military leverage in baghdad. that is important. the prime minister abadi as opposed to maliki, gives us more opportunities to do that. that is very important. we do try to leverage that, both in our military ways and in our political assistance. we do have leverage in baghdad. >> if i could just for one second, mr. secretary.

are we using metrics? we are sitting side by side with them and being a very clear in our communication that the funding they are getting by the goodwill of the american taxpayer is at risk and they will lose it if they don't show progress on these metrics. that is the progress i am talking about. >> the answer is, yes. let's start with iraq. >> congressman, you asked about ways. the ways that are different, i will answer the metrics one. the number of sunnis that need to be integrated is a metric. we are working that out with the iraqi government as a recognized objective. they know our support will continue to fund them only under certain conditions. special operations forces and syria is a different way. the expeditionary targeting force in iraq is a different way. the foreign fighter initiative that has taken place over the past couple weeks between the state department, department of defense, the cia, fbi, homeland security and so forth is a different way to approach the

foreign fighter challenge. i have seen a much more concerted effort and the will to start the work and recognize how important it is. the last one is the more comprehensive approach we are taking to go after the revenue sources. that is another way it is different from the past. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary carter, i am trying to piece together what it means to have an expeditionary targeting force and without going into too much detail, what does this mean?

is this a group of iraqi soldiers? are we talking special forces? what exactly is this? this was thrown on us today. we would like to know what you are envisioning here. sec carter: i want to avoid some detail, but this is a force that is either american only or more likely, a mixed force. and to give you two examples, so this doesn't tell you anything about our plans going forward, but the two examples i gave were the rescue of the individuals who are about to be hostages, or prisoners, really. they were about to be executed by isil. that was accomplished with kurdish forces, a mixture of u.s. and kurdish forces. it achieved its objectives, although it required the sacrifice of one who wrote american to do that. another example is the killing

of abu's saief and the capture of his wife. imagine that on a standing basis, being able to one occasions arise, and that means intelligence fed, to conduct raids like that anywhere in the territory of iraq and syria. that is, as the chairman says, a new way of achieving our objectives. one of several. and there will be more. >> the follow-up question. what is the status on ramadi? we have been hearing about the iraqis and kurds surrounding and for months, getting closer and closer to ramadi. we are waiting for them to move.

soldiers and iraqi they are just as good as their leadership is. to see them dilly dallying is very frustrating. >> congressman, i think i share your frustration, as to the do theo -- as commanders on the ground. this is something we get in a big on every day. over the past several weeks -- i mean real progress in terms of on the ground will progress. it is certainly not moving at the pace we want to see it move and we are prepared frankly, to provide more support to reinforce the success that the iraqi security forces have in ramadi. they have not lived as fast as we want themast as to move. right now, the focus is on

ramadi. once ramadi is taken, we are thinking north of baghdad. the peshmerga have been successful. so, you are starting to close the noose. we have cut the lines of communication between mosul and raqqa. mosul is a feature operation. i would not put a date to it, but a few weeks from now i would propose we see operations in mosul. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here and thank you for your service, gentlemen. i certainly respect you and trust you. if you tell me something, i believe it is true. i know you expressed frustrations earlier. i guess, it is a simple thing, a couple weeks ago this committee was in classified briefings. the next day, the obama administration came out and announced what they consider to be a strategy of 60 special

operators into syria. they did not have the opportunity to discuss that with congress because congress was on vacation. that was in absolute lie from the administration. we had been in meetings the day before. they withheld that from us. that is an absolute lie. when it comes to those types of issues, it would be helpful if other people in the administration would be honest with this committee. we take this job very seriously, just as i know you do as well. with regard to isis, isil, daesh, whatever we want to call them, secretary, you made it very clear. we are at war. the president disagreed. i think he has come around to that now, but it seems our military lines are conflicting with the goals from our

secretary of state, who wants a political solution. political solutions can take decades. and i would respectfully submit that the longer we allow basis to grow -- the longer we allow isis to grow while we're waiting for the political solution, the hard it will be to take them down. they have been working for years to move asad out. has secretary kerry to you who -- has secretary kerry indicated to you who he would like to replace a odd since they have been working to move him out? replace assad since they have been working to move him out? carter: i don't want to speak for secretary kerry, but i do know that in those negotiations dating back now years, the

united states and secretary kerry, of lung others, have discussed with other parties that have a stake and a voice how syria would be governed post-asad. most importantly, that the structures of the state of syria that have not been associated with the oppression of other people, but can be part of responsible governance in syria going forward are preserved under new leadership. to your point about the difficulty of that, you bet it is difficult. that is what a civil war has been raging there for several years. but, in order to have an end to isil, there needs to be the political transition. >> i would like to interrupt, i am sorry. so there is no plan for who , replace us odd. assad.

they just want to replace assad it would be just as complex to accept religious minorities. >> i don't want to speak for secretary kerry, but these are the talks he is having with the russians, iranians, and others so there can be something that replaces assad that provides decent governance for the state of syria. and lord knows, they really deserve it. >> i think it would be wise for us to engage in honest dialogue with the russians. the dialogue should be occurring at the highest levels among our countries. >> it is. >> i want to switch gears for a second and then talk about the recapitalization of the program. our country has a tremendous need for intel. i want to mention that because if we wait much longer on that, mr. secretary, we will end up with a gap in that capability.

our combatants need the j stores and i hope we can move forward. >> it is important issue in the budget. the discussion is going on right now. >> thank you both for being here and i respect both of you. i would ask you use your credibility with the administration and urge them to be more open and honest with us. >> thank you, mr. chairman mr. secretary, to go back to some comments and questions you answered earlier. if we are in fact at war, how will we know when we have won? sec. carter: the destruction of isil entails their expulsion from any territory they claim to

occupy and their destruction elsewhere around the world, including their various branches and so forth. >> so, as long as isil is in iraq or syria, or libya or afghanistan, or anywhere else in the world, we will still be at war. sec. carter: i believe that in today's world, one -- these threats are difficult to confine to one place. that is the reason why we have to go there and by we have to go to syria and iraq and strike at it and strike at other places where it is. it is in the nature of today -- world. mobility among peoples, you see

that everywhere. above all, mobility of information, which can't radicalize people who have never got anywhere, except for on their keyboard. i think it is important if we are at war to define in the most clear and precise terms, what victory looks like. afghanistans of in mind. we have been in iraq off and on since 2003. to keep us out of perpetual war, i think it is important that we defined the objectives we are fighting. i think we know that to our servicemembers and to ourselves. i hope we could come up with a better definition of victory and success. i appreciate that you acknowledge the importance of political and diplomatic components of a solution in iraq, or in syria. but i am interested in your response to a question asked by mr. gibson in terms of conditionality.

there is so much in those countries. let's use iraq as an example, that we do not control and cannot control and. able to predict when it comes to the political outcomes. when we say we are going to set conditions on our aid, we say we are going to set conditions on our military presence, do we really mean that? is that a viable threat? will we really walk away from iraq if the government does not meet those conditions? i think that is an important question because if in fact we will not, and wonder what the motivation is for the iraqi government to take the very important and very difficult steps to integrate these other minorities, whether they be kurds or sunnis, into a functioning government. >> first of all, with respect to the first part of your question, your point is exactly back to the military and political going together. in addition to the only end state that involves the lasting

defeat of isil is one in which there is local governance that cannot be once again supplanted by isil. that is why the military and political go together at the heart of the strategy. that is what enabling and capable forces that can make victory stick is the other part of the definition of victory. i will start in baghdad with respect to leverage. the leverage involves offering to do more for those who are pursuing the same objectives and withholding our support from those who are taking a different path or not going down the path they are supposed to. so, we find alternatives.

we find people who will act if the people we are dealing with are not capable of that. because we have to act. we will find such forces that are capable. >> what does isis want us to do and what does that factor into our strategy in confronting them? dunford: isis wants us to be impetuous right now, as opposed to aggressive. it would love nothing more than a huge amount of u.s. forces on the ground in iraq and syria so they could have a call to jihad. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank secretary carter and general dunford for being here today. you obviously have a tremendous task. the diversity of what you are trying to accomplish, i think you have heard from members

here is that we have some concerns about whether or not we have the right strategy in total. russia just added a different dimension by putting forward their advanced surface-to-air missiles. how does that change if we are talking about a no-fly zone over turkey. how will that change the dimension for us? to they gain a higher ground on us at this point? >> in view of the fact the chairman spoke yesterday, let me ask him to answer that. >> under the current conditions, we have an understanding with the russians that ensures our safety of flight. we don't take it for granted, but it has been in place now for over one month and the russians have complied with it.

as a mentioned earlier, i spoke to my counterpart yesterday to assure that the russians reaffirmed their commitment to the understanding. you are asking about a hypothetical scenario. for example, were we to have a no-fly zone and then were we to have a no-fly zone and declare war against syria, because that is what we would be doing. particularly with company and ground forces to protect refugees. then, we could expect that would complicate the situation inside of syria. that is a hypothetical. today we are confident that we can prosecute the campaign against isil. if we were at war against syria and russia was supporting syria, the situation is complicated. it does not mean we can't deal with it. >> i appreciate that. going back to november 7 at the reagan national defense forum. it was argued that putting cards in her hand. the outcome of any political negotiations support u.s. interest.

we can surmise from the robert gates argument that we must create a federal and military balance of power on the ground if we are going to seek a political solution acceptable to us and our allies. general dunford, you testified on october of 2015 and said, i think the balance of forces right now are in assad's advantage. my question is, does that still hold true? if that is so, what steps should we take to change the advantage to our advantage? general dunford: when i testified in october, we did not have any capable forces to prosecute the campaign inside of syria. since that time, we have

developed a relationship with the syrian-arab coalition. we had small numbers of forces that had gone through the original training. but we did not have a credible force that could conduct offensive operations. since that time, we do have a force that has conducted successful offensive operations. that is an organization, a syrian-arab coalition, that runs north of 15,000-20,000 forces. >> does that change the balance then, that you had referred to? general dunford: it changes the balance. i would not say today that we have a coalition of forces. assad has the capability to do that with the support provided by russian and iran. >> as we move forward, i think most of us are concerned and i am as a father of three service members, going forward are we going to be in the same position? if we pull out of iraq again, are we going to be in the same position we find ourselves in

today? or will we keep everything to a force in iraq to assist with the training and equipment mission of the iraqi forces? do you see us doing that? keeping additional forces in iraq. if we defeat isis. gen. dunford: certainly, i think we have enduring interests in the region. we have been enduring interest in the stability of iraq. any recommendations i make subsequent to the defeat of isil will reflect those interests. >> i appreciate that, general. >> i think we have five more members. hopefully not everybody will take five minutes. are you all ok with that? mr. secretary, does that work with your --?

sec. carter: let me just check. i am traveling somewhere and i don't have my -- general dunford: i am sorry, mr. chairman there is another thing i need to do. let's keep going. if i need to leave, general dunford indicated he would be willing to stay longer. >> man, that is taking one for the team. think -- think -- i thank you both for your service. send our policy to overthrow the syrian government of assad has brought us into a potential direct head to had military conflict with russia, i have some important questions along this line.

approximately how many nuclear warheads does russia have aimed at the u.s.? and how many does the united states have aimed at russia? sec. carter: i will get you the numbers as best we know them. let me just summarize it by the fact that we have a strong, safe, secure, and reliable deterrent. it is true that russia, like the soviet union precedes it, has a massive nuclear arsenal. >> it would be accurate to say both of our countries have the capacity to launch these nuclear weapons within minutes? sec. carter: we do. >> i have seen pictures, films, and images from nagasaki and hiroshima and i know you have as well. i presume you would agree with me that nuclear war would be devastating to the american people.

the amount of suffering that it would cause the devastation to our families, our children, our planet, our future generations is difficult to imagine. i am wondering if there has been an assessment on how many lives would be lost and the damage that would be done if this nuclear war between our countries would occur? sec. carter: congresswoman, i have been doing this for a long time, including during the cold war and working on nuclear weapons since the beginning of my career. to answer your question, there have been estimates made right along. when there was the soviet union, and then russia. it is a very simple story. it is as you say. nuclear war would be an absolutely unprecedented situation and result in

catastrophic situation. that is why deterrence and prudence in the field of nuclear matters by leaders all over the world is so essential. >> the fact that we now have our forces patrolling the turkey-syrian border with the air to air combat order, there is no air to air combat against isis. they do not have any air assets. so, i can only presume that the purpose of these planes would be to target russian planes. is that accurate? congresswoman, let me answer the point you begin with. we have a different view, a very different view from russia, a bout what would be constructive for them to do in syria. we have that disagreement. we can't align ourselves with what they are doing. we are opposing in and want them

to change what they are doing in syria. that is not the same as the united states and russia clashing. i think the chairman and his counterpart in russia just spoke yesterday about making sure we did not by accident have any incident involving u.s. and russian forces. we have a disagreement there, but that is not the same as blundering into an armed situation with one another. >> i only have one minute here. that sharp disagreement with two diametrically opposed objectives, one, the u.s. seeking to overthrow the government of assad, and russia seeking to uphold the government of assad, will further increase the possibility of that head to head military conflict. russia's installation of their antiaircraft military defense system increases that possibility whether it is

accidental for the potential that one side will shoot down another's plane. that is where the potential is for this devastating nuclear war for something that could blow up into something much larger. sec. carter: i have to correct something, congresswoman, that you said. i would characterize russia's differently.ective what they say and what they do our two different things. they said they would fight isil and pursue a political transition and not support assad, but instead, try to pursue a political solution. what they have done militarily is have the effect of supporting assad and they have not gone after isil. they have gone after moderate -- that is our source of disagreement. we are having that disagreement and trying to get them to come around. that is what secretary kerry is doing to a more reasonable and constructive position. but at the same time, as the

chairman's efforts indicate, we are and the russians agree with this, intent upon uploading an -- avoiding an accidental situation in the air over syria. >> dr. winnstrop. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you for the sacrifices you make. it is appreciated. secretary, you said we will win. we will defeat isis. general dunford, what is our center of gravity in this fight? general dunford: the center of gravity for isil? their critical capabilities include their narrative and the manpower they have. those are the three primary places of strength. the caliphate. to define defeat, what we want to ensure is that isil does not

have either the capability, does that have the capability to conduct external operations that present a risk to the american people or our allies. >> do you feel we are going after those fact is? general dunford: we are going after those factors that include their center of gravity. that is the existence of the caliphate. when i spoke about the foreign fighters, that is a piece of this manpower. >> we spoke about the coalition and it was mentioned before, we have 60 some nations part of the coalition. france has been part of the coalition, but obviously, they stepped up. some of the nations are contributing a box of pencils or something. do you think we are doing enough diplomatically to get these 60 nations for little engaged in this battle of good versus evil that we are engaged in? i would really like to see these

other nations engage, especially our middle eastern allies if we are going to see victory in this. general dunford: we need more contributions from the members of the coalition. you are right, it is good to have political support. just about everybody in the world recognizes that isil is an evil thing and a threat to them, but they are not backing up, as we are backing up, there words with deeds. we are in their swinging and we need more people in their swinging with us. that in my mind, applies particularly to those countries that reside in the region itself. we are a long way away and we are concerned and doing our part. they are right there. >> i do think we need to put more pressure on the state department to gain more support

physically from our allies. a quick question, if i can, general dunford. as far as congressional notifications, have you or general dempsey concurred with any of those? general dunford: i have not. i have only had two cases since i have been a chairman and i have concurred with both. >> the general dempsey, do you know? general dunford: i believe he may have, but you would have to ask him. >> we have been waiting for a plan on that. does the delay of the plant had do with the cost of closing down guantanamo? does the office budget management have anything to say on that? general dunford: cost is one of the considerations in the proposal.

just to relate the whole story, we are working to put together a proposal to which we would submit to congress. >> has anybody done one at this point? sec. carter: they have worked with us on a cost estimate? >> what did they come up with. sec. carter: there is a range, depending on where the program or detention facility would be and what it's nature would be. >> do have some idea? sec. carter: the objective is to -- let me start from the beginning. you talked about transfers. there are people in the guantanamo bay detention facility that will not be transferred. it is not safe to transfer them. those are the people we are talking about detaining under law. we would like to do it in a way that costs less and takes fewer of our people. >> i guess i am trying to determine what the cost is of holding them in the u.s. as opposed to in guantanamo bay?

sec. carter: exactly, they have and that will be part of the proposal that is brought to you. >> thank you very much, gentlemen, for your patience. i know you have sat through a lot of questions. mr. secretary, you said in your comments that president obama is committed to doing what it takes as we see what works as the enemy adapts until isil is defeated in a lasting way. the president is the only commander in chief we have got. we cannot be the commander in chief under our constitutional form of government. you have to report to him. this president has said that isil is a jv team. the debut for the paris attacks he said they were contained. when i go to the middle east, when we go to the middle east and talk to leaders, they say there is a lack of american leadership.

and that is a problem. i don't think that lets them off the hook. i think they have a role to play and they should step up. he made those comments and to people like me to doubt the president is committed, and i have many constituents who doubt it, what would you say to me and people like me who have doubts that he truly is committed? sec. carter: excuse me, congressmen, the only thing i can say is to repeat what i have said before. president obama has given his approval to all of the acceleration steps that i described to you today, many of which were devised by and recommended by the chairman, our military leadership. every time we have turned over a new way of attacking isil, we have gotten the president's approval.

to your point about american leadership, i agree with you. i think american leadership is critical. on the other hand, we need followers as well. american leadership is there important, it is critical. we have values that people find attractive. that is why we have so many friends and allies, we need them to do more alongside our excellent men and women who are in the fight. >> secretary, let me ask you another question. you were talking in a response to other questions. one your predecessor secretary hagel was here, he had his lawyer with him. this may be a question you want to refer to your lawyer. i have looked at the two amf's out there. i am not a military personnel, but i am a lawyer. another you are telling us, we are sending special operation forces into syria, can you tell

me where in those aumf's there is the authorization to do that. sec. carter: i am not a lawyer, but i can tell you the commonsense meaning of the provision. the only when i am from all your familiar with is the one the president submitted. i was asked earlier one of the reasons why i thought it was important. it was important to me that it allow what i thought was essential to defeat isil. >> i am talking about the ones passed by congress and signed by the president. sec. carter: i cannot speak to them. i studied the one that the president passed. >> can you get your lawyers to look at that. the two aumf's passed by

congress, would like to give you that authorization. i want to make sure i give you whatever you need. sec. carter: i am happy to get back to you. >> the last question i have, and i completely agree with you. we need local forces and we need help from the region. we should not leave anybody off the hook. are you getting the sort of support we should be getting from turkey? sec. carter: i have been urging actually since i came into this job, turkey to do more. we need turkey to do more. we need it to do more within its own territory so it controls its border. which it has not done effectively since isil first arose. that it goes after the facilitators, the enablers, and the other tentacles of isil that intrude into turkey. we would like them to operate more both in the air and on the ground. most of their air operations are not directed at isil. they are directed at the pkk, which we understand they are

concerned about. it is a terrorist organization within their borders, but we would like to see them do more against isil. the president has spoken to the turkish president about this in the past few days. it is pretty much at the top of our list and we would like them to do more. their geography, i mean, they are right there next to iraq and syria. they could be a good source of enablement for us. at the same time, they are not doing enough, it is a serious matter. that is why the president was talking to the turkish president. >>, my time is up. i would like to thank both of you for your service. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you gentlemen for your service and time. secretary carter, we spoke in june about my concerns about not using air power. my concern about doing that in a

weak way, but it seems there has been a slight change since then. isis' strength is at their estate, but their weakness is also at their estate. we do have a force on the ground. we need to take them out as a state, not as a counter insurgency. this reminds me of air campaigning planning i went through when i was a young officer. identify the center of gravity and then unleash american air power that overwhelmingly goes after them to defeat them in a way that takes away their capabilities. i don't understand why the study was not done 17 months ago when they declared a caliphate, or 15 months ago, or 10 months ago. we are just now realizing that oil trucks are moving. it has been reported since the beginning.

by my math, it is about half $1 billion that they have been put into their coffers to support the terrorism. i am deeply concerned about the lack of using american air power. there is an average of about 15 strikes a day and we have heard about cumbersome approval processes. unnecessarily high rules of engagement were pilots are going home and not hitting legitimate targets because we want no civilian casualties. as opposed to the law of armed conflict. hit those targets and hit them hard. them where defeat they are. my concern and the problem is, i hear you are saying something has changed, that you mentioned the snowball effect. the snowball has been going in their direction for the last many months. we have got 200,000 pro isis

social media post a day. we have 900 cases in all 50 states right now for homegrown extremists. it seems that they are winning and that has added to their propaganda, to their metastasizing, to their fight. i feel weekly, we have added to that by being weak on the military side. in addition to the changes you mentioned, are we changing the cumbersome approval process? gen. dunford: congresswoman, to the extent you are asking, will be unleashed airpower? we will. in reference to the cumbersome approval process, i can tell you i will try personally to get through it. in terms to collateral damage, i don't think we should apologize or bringing our values to the fight in terms of collateral damage.

while we should absolutely be aggressive in attacking isil, taking away the resources, taking with their fighters, at the same time i don't think we should be killing innocent people. they would merely feed the narrative of isil at the same time. i think we should go after those targets, what do it in an it in an do american way. i think saying that your suggestion is wrong. >> we always have collateral damage. that is what we do. general dunford: i think we have the right damage between collateral damage and instruction of the enemy. our threshold for collateral damage increases with the value of the target we are going after. if we are going after the baghdad command control network, we will go after it as aggressively as necessary to make sure we are succeeding. >> it was also reported that we were not striking the oil trucks because we did not want to hurt the truck drivers and we dropped leaflets on them to warm them. -- leaflets on them to warn

them. if that is clear, and you are driving a truck for a terrorist organization, you are a combatant. can you clarify? general dunford: we did it do that because we assessed the majority of the truck drivers were people just trying to make a living in the region. little bit different from the enemy combatant in my opinion. >> you don't consider them enemy combatants? general dunford: we don't. we were able to separate them from their trucks. whichstroy their trucks, is what we wanted to do. >> my last question. has the a10 been critical for these fights? general dunford: it has been a valuable platform. >> you think this fight will go on for a while? general dunford: i do. >> thank you, i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you, mr. secretary. i want to echo, i have a lot of the same concerns as my colleague.

i was involved in the war in iraq since the beginning. operation enduring freedom, that was in afghanistan. i would like to follow-up on this question about the drivers of these trucks. the leaflets that were dropped, i presume they told them how to surrender. is that correct? those were the leaflets we dropped in iraq the first time around. general dunford: first of all, we did a couple of things. we dropped ordinance in front of a column and then dropped leaflets that said, if you don't get away from your vehicle, you will be bombed. that was the message that was sent. >> there was no effort to capture any of the truck drivers or get any intelligence from their operations?

general dunford: we don't have any forces on the ground that can capture those truck drivers. >> is that a problem? general dunford: if you want to capture them you would have to have someone on the ground to capture them and we don't. >> is it a problem we don't have someone on the ground to capture them? general dunford: the lack of human intelligence hurts the campaign, for sure. >> is that going to be part of what we do going forward ? i am ignorant on this issue. how many isis combatants have we captured? general dunford: i would have to get back to you, congressman. >> is that not a very critical part of trying to win this war? general dunford: i don't have a number. >> can you give me an estimate. is it a couple hundred or a couple thousand? general dunford: it is a

handful. we have not been involved in combat operations. we have not been in a position to capture isil. sec. carter: can i add something? one of the reasons for the targeting forces was to gain intelligence. one person we captured was at the wife of abusaief. >> where is she now? sec. carter: she is being detained. >> by whom?

sec. carter: the government of iraq. >> of course. what intelligence have begotten from that? is this something we are going to change? are we going to start capturing these folks? sec. carter: i think it will be a very valuable source of intelligence and as the chairman said, that is critical to effective employment of airpower, to the effective identification of forces we can enable on the ground. >> how long did we know about these trucks before we destroy them? the "new york times," actually it was the treasury department reported we have $10 million a month to fund isis. how long did we know that these trucks were being used to fund isis before we did anything about it? sec. carter: we knew there were oil trucks in iraq from the beginning, of course. what we could not do is distinguish those that were being directly used to finance isil. we now have the intelligence to do that, which allows us to effectively isolate them and target them. we are using the tactic and we

may change our tactics. >> the truck drivers that ran away because we told them to run away, where are they now? are they now farmers in syria? i am asking the question because this is critically important to try to win a war? sec. carter: i am sorry, i'm not understanding why what the truck drivers are doing now is essential to try to win the war. >> you are telling us that these people did not know they were involved with isis. sec. carter: if they did not know it before, they realized it. >> they knew they were helping isis, but they are not enemy combatants. can you explain that? sec. carter: i think the chairman already did. these were people who were just making a buck and we gave them every opportunity to survive the strike. >> mr. chairman, i am astonished. we need to find out where these people are now. it is astonishing that we are trying to win. >> you have a question?

>> i do, and thank you gentlemen for your service. it is not easy. i guess i am somewhat concerned about putting forces on the ground. particularly the sf-eight. my concern is that whenever we put forces on the ground, we want to make sure we have adequate support for them. particularly medevac. my experience with northern iraq, a ground qrf with some armor would be a good idea. do you concur that having a sufficient force package would incorporate an in theatre, in country medevac for security? gen. dunford: the kind of package you are referring to will be in place. >> thank you. my last question is, look at the threats. we have isis, al qaeda, north korea. where would you put global warming on that list?

sec. carter: when you think about strategy, you need to think about the overall timeframe and the overall of geography. you mentioned china, you mentioned russia. they have not been the subject of the hearing today. i had the privilege of speaking before the simi valley conference that chairman thornberry organized and my focus there was china and russia because we cannot forget, a nuclear deterrence has been raised and there are a lot of different aspects to this world and one needs to think in the long term. climate change does change some of our military conditions. we try to be a department that looks ahead.

>> how will that change our operations? i agree, the imminent threat, the five meter threat. the most damaging threat facing us today would be isis, al qaeda,, hezbollah, and the nomination state terrorist non-nation-state terrorist activities. sec. carter: that certainly is the most eminent. there is nothing distant in time or probability about it. >> thank you, gentlemen for your service. really appreciate it and god bless. >> there is much more we could talk about, but you have all been very patient. i will warn you, the next time you come up i will suggest from mr. smith that we start on the bottom two rows with our questions. i think the best questions come

from our more junior members. with that, the hearing stands adjourned.

>> my sense is, that is what we heard. events dictate that the upsident of ramps things somewhat. my concern is he never ramps it up to make a difference. it is always responding to events, so we are one step behind of where the threat is. i have a lot of confidence in these guys, but the other thing is, as was very explicit, if you two 35 te from 3500 in a rack, you have to get the president to of of it. it is micromanagement of the military and continues to be very concerning.

>> do you think they are backing giveo these changes will the military a glaring? >> no, i did not see anything that indicates the military has a freer hand. the ideal you will send folks in to help target strikes, that has changed. the president has not allow that. after this, the president allows that. again, it seems like we are one step behind responding. what does it take to beat this enemy; military, go do that. i do not get that sense. tags what do you think we need on the ground? >> that is what we need the military to tell us, but we need to defeat on the ground. the consensus of opinion from most of the people who have written and spoken about this is more special operations. more forward controllers.

airstrikes. airstrikes in the first two months in afghanistan than we have had in 16 months in iraq and syria. you know, -- sorry -- i am still concerned about how you develop a ground force in syria. dunford was trying to be careful, but sure. if we had an inclusive government in a racket, that is best. iraq,lusive government in that is best. is there any chance with iranians calling the shots? i do not know. >> caring out to rates, capturing issa leaders, are you ok with that? do you see that as escalation of the mission? >> backup for a minute. i am ok with that if it is part

of a greater strategy for access. what i'm not ok with is, ok do a little of this a little that, and that is the sense i get. the not get to that president allows there to be a strategy for success. has a think that deterrent effect up and down the chain of command. if you know you have got to go all the way to the president himself to get 25 more people in that not destroyed the commander in iraq and sent, and others from asking? it is a big deal to have to go to the president to ask for 25 more people. that micromanagement has a dampening effect on military. >> that does seem to be would secretary carter said they are doing. they are trying to see how sexist -- successful they can be. to put thoseg folks in syria and harm's way

without a larger, better strategy. >> i am concerned about that. peopleam concerned that are people you put in harms way, need a certain amount of support in logistics and medevac and all those things. they could not go into those details and an open session, but it is certainly some of the concerns we will express and ask about moving forward. the broader point that to you make that i am trying to i think, agree with, is there needs to be a strategy for success and then whatever special operations, numbers, number of ice -- airstrikes to accomplish cut, -- to accomplish that, that is where we go. is not saying, ok i need 25 more people. there has to be a form of confidence.

is there any conversation about taking the cap of the rules of "the mark >> i mean, -- know, so -- crash >> i do not think you will ever see congress said a cap. by the way, we had hearings in here even though it is not our jurisdiction. nobody could define and during offensive ground combat operations. i was tempted, at the end, to go back and start asking some of those questions but we were over three hours and i do not think it is appropriate. president hasthe set up a proposal nobody could defend or define. i think we should have a umf. i think the new speaker is looking at that. >> are you saying you do not see

the president changing the rules of engagement? >> somebody else's going to have to tell you with the president is considering. it seems to me the president has been a step behind events. several steps behind the threat. general dunford today talked about the threat growing beyond , egypt, syria and libya afghanistan, what else? haram, nigeria. so, you know. it is growing. we are still behind. >> senators mccain and graham cloud for 20,000 more troops in iraq. you are not willing to put a number on it? a strategy to succeed. 20,000 troops with a restricted rules of engagement are not going to be terribly effective, so, you know, it is not just

numbers. in his regular authorized to do. >> thank you for being here. >> thank you, congressman. x today dance c-span, washington journal is next. lie with your phone calls, tweets, and comments. live coverage of the united relating to, education and energy production and infrastructure. in about 45 minutes we will talk the congressman about investigative panel looking into the activities of planned parenthood and congress's reaction to the planned parenthood shooting in colorado. inn, we discuss policing criminal justice issues with the