re-air our state of the union coverage and republican response starting at 11:00 eastern. we will hear from members of congress with their reactions to the president's address. >> the chairman of the house armed services committee, mac thornberry. the president will be making his final state of the union address and also the house plans to , address the situation in north korea and iran. let me welcome our reporters. felicia schwartz of "wall street journal." and jeremy herb. politico's defense reporter. jeremy, you are first. mr. herb: what is the most important thing you want to hear from him on defense and security issues? is there anything he can say on

the issue of isis that will satisfy republicans? rep. thornberry: i do not really think it is a question of being satisfied. i think the most important thing he could do is acknowledge that some of his policies of the past have not worked as well as he wanted and may have made things worse. in other words, some realistic viewpoint. if that could come through, that the president recognizes he has tried for some things, hoped for the best, but it did not work, then that is what i would like the most. that would tell me that he has a more realistic view going ahead. if he comes, and tells us, ok, we are on the right track, etc., then i'm afraid we will get more of the same. mr. herb: we heard from the pentagon that they have taken back 30% of territory from isis. what are the next us now about

the talk of ramping up? to be have to see boots on the ground from someone? what do you think should be the next concrete steps? rep. thornberry: there has to be somebody's boots on the ground. it does not have be ours. i think it is a mistake though if we get all wrapped up into who controls what town and what percentage of the territory. a lot of the territory has been taken back, taken back by the kurds. i suspect there is a limit as to how far they are willing to go in pushing back against isis. the question is who will be there to do the rest of the pushing back. the other thing is this struggle , is not primarily about territory. it is true the isis has this claim to a caliphate, but what is also happening is isis is in

spreading into many other places . getting stronger in libya and all the way over to afghanistan where they are growing and number of places in between. i think it does not give us the full measure of how things are going to take off territory in percentages and say this town, or that town. it is a good thing that the iraqi army is making progress in ramadi. no question about it. but that should not lead us to think that isis is going away anytime soon. ms. swain: just following up on your first answer, what is an example of something that did not work in the president's policies? rep. thornberry: number one is getting out of iraq completely when he did. that left a vacuum in iraq and that led to the rise of isis. secondly, putting the arbitrary limits in afghanistan, which he has done against the advice of his military commanders, has helped make the situation more dangerous than would be

otherwise. so, you have the taliban. you continue to have al qaeda. now, you have a rise in isis. all in afghanistan. this pulling back, doing the minimum necessary to avoid disaster, that sort of thing has proven to increase danger. of course, we could also talk about the red line in syria, which not only did not help syria but it disillusioned , allies around the world, and among other things, has led them to have less trust in us. there is a long list of things. something that the president would acknowledge that did not work right would give me confidence that he is able to look at the world as it really is. ms. swain: felicia? ms. schwartz: to go back to your point on boots on the ground, the obama administration's military strategy relies on partner forces.

i was wondering, the week again -- the week began with iran and saudi arabia having a lot of tension. saudis, and other gulf states, cut off their relations. are you worried that strife could affect the ground forces that the u.s. is relying on? how do you see this tension affecting the ght? rep. thornberry: i am worried about that. i think this tension, this escalating tension, between iran and saudi arabia makes everything more complicated and dangerous. i think you can make a pretty good case that saudi arabia has felt increasingly isolated as a result of the nuclear deal with iran that the administration put forward because of the restrictive rules that the administration has put on our people in iraq and syria. you see what is happening in yemen. saudi arabia is feeling surrounded.

that has, in part, led to some of the actions that we have seen. there is no question that iran feels emboldened, saudi arabia feels threatened, and this escalation tensions creates a more dangerous world for the middle east, including our troops in that region. ms. schwartz: in terms of restrictions, paul ryan this week is taking the temperature of members to see what sort of aumf could pass. what aumf would you support? how do you deal with the boots on the ground issue? ms. swain: for our viewers, a umf is authorization of the use of military force. rep. thornberry: we are looking for an authorization of use of military force against isis. what we are using now is one that was passed after 9/11.

it refers to those who carried out those attacks on 9/11 2001 and we are trying to shoehorn in isis, which of course did not exist then, into the old authorization of use of military force. i think the speaker would like to vote on and pass an authorization to use force against isis. the constitution puts it on our shoulders to do that. the challenge for republicans, especially is that if the , president is not willing to take actions necessary to win, should we vote to authorize for him to use military force truck so if you do not have confidence in the commander-in-chief, that is a harder vote. what i would support is a broad aumf. we had hearings in our committee last year on the president's proposal which said no enduring ground operations could be allowed. nobody could define any of those

terms. it goes back to what we are talking about. tying the hands of the military, sending them into dangerous situations, but saying, you cannot do this, you cannot do that, that increases danger to their lives, and decreases the chance that they are successful in their missions. and i will beyce holding listening sessions with our members to see what people might vote for. i think we should do it, by don't know yet if it will pass. mr. herb: this combat issue. you have democrats on the other side who said the language in the language in administration went too far, and they want more restrictions. that seems to be a sticking point. is there a way to get past that? is this a fools errand? rep. thornberry: that is exactly what the listening sessions are trying to ascertain. remember, at least for the next year, president obama will be in office.

a lot of these concerns that be -- concerns that we will have some sort of large 100,000 folks being put into iraq, i think is misguided. other side of the story is if you put it into law that you cannot carry out some sort of operations, tie the hands of our military in that way, i think that is congress adding unnecessarily to the risk that men and women who go serve have to undertake. i think that is very dangerous for us to go down that road. mr. herb: noh korea conducted some kind of nuclear test this week. we are not sure what it was. what is the best way for the u.s. to respond to that? is there a way to deter them? rep. thornberry: it is a hard question because getting inside the mind of the leader of north korea is difficult. it would probably be scary if you tried. i think a couple of things. the house will vote on a north korea sanctions bill next week.

it is a somewhat similar approach that has been pushed before to try to tighten down and inflict some pain on that country. i think it is very important for us to push missile defense because while they are working on nuclear weapons, they are also working on the missiles to deliver them to the united states. missile defense, and our own nuclear deterrent, which unfortunately has been allowed to decay over the last 20-30 years, has to be strengthened. that is the key thing, as well as working with our allies -- south korea, and of course, in the last couple of weeks we have seen south korea and japan put some of their differences behind them, and that is positive. if we can get china involved, so much the better, by think there is a limit as to how much china

will help. ms. schwartz: i was going to ask you about china. do you think that -- there have been three tests since obama has been in office, do you think they might be more willing to play a role here? rep. thornberry: i would hope they would. i would hope they would be a more responsible world player. unfortunately, i think china is very concerned about instability in north korea spilling over into their country, and causing them instability, which is their number one priority, preventing that sort of instability. they could help tremendously in putting pressure on north korea. i do think two things. one, north korea has a history of doing something -- a nuclear test, a missile test, some provocative action to remind the world that we are here, you better negotiate with us, give us some concessions.

that is how they earn their living, so to speak. i do worry that there is a perception among friends, allies, and adversaries that the u.s. is in retreat that we are , stepping back, and they can get away with more. anything that the president could do or say in the state of the union to offset that perception would be welcomed. ms. swain: staying with china, we saw two very interesting, somewhat scary, days in the chinese economy. i'm wondering what you think about the implications of that for the role of ina in the world and security issues? rep. thornberry: the number one costity of china leadership is stability within china. this economic roller coaster that we have seen threatens that stability somewhat. one danger is if you have all of this internal turmoil with the economy, and so forth, you need

to distract your people and create some sort of foreign engagement or distraction to focus their attention somewhere else. there are folks who believe that is going on in the south china sea. an attempt to provoke confrontation to divert attention from the economic difficulties that china has. what we should not underestimate is the very real investments in technology and growing their military from the nuclear forces to -- of course cyber and space. that is real. that presents a challenge. particularly if they look for that outlet to use it for their domestic problems. ms. swain: we are at the halfway

point. mr. herb: in the budget deal that you negotiated last year, there was a floor in the special war funding account. if they do send over the budget that will have a shortfall, how do you respond? what are the conversations you have been having with pentagon officials about why they are sticking with the floor for the war funding account? rep. thornberry: it is not clear to me what is going on inside the administration. of course, it is not just the pentagon. it is the white house that really sends the budget over to us. i think you are exactly right. the agreement last year was for a minimum for the base defense budget. then, a minimum for the overseas contingency account to pay for operations. everybody acknowledged that the exact amount of operations depends on the world and what is happening. we have more people in

afghanistan than was expected. we are sending more people into syria, for example. it is not clear to me what final position the administration is going to take. budgetar agreement did not give defense enough money. i think a number of folks in the pentagon, and elsewhere, believe -- if the administration is saying it will not be there after all, i think that will be very troubling. mr. herb: if the budget comes up with a shortfall, will be see congressional republicans try to plus up the shortfall? rep. thornberry: it is clear on both sides of the aisle what the agreement was. a minimum for defense, a floor for the overseas contingency with an understanding that it

could be adjusted depending on world events. i think that is what, on both sides of the capital, the result will be. exactly how we get there, i can't tell you. ms. schwartz: the obama administration transferred three prisoners from guantanamo this week. they are expected to transfer over a dozen more by the end of the month i'm sure the president will speak to this in his state of the union, how he has pledged to shut down the facility. he left open the option that he would use executive action. is there any way for the president to work with congress on this, with republicans? what happens if he tries to get an executive action out? route? rep. thornberry: i don't understand how he could use executive action to order guantanamo closed. there are a group of people that even the administration acknowledges cannot be set loose because they are dangerous, cannot be tried because of the

intelligence compromises that that would entail. the law that he signed explicitly prevents them from being brought here to the united states, as well as altering some facility here to house them. an executive order would expressly violate the law that he just signed, and i do not see how he does it. while he made a campaign pledge to close guantanamo, he also said he would send congress a plan on how to do that. we have yet to receive the plan. as you know, last fall, there were rumors that it was about to come any day. they apparently started to figure out apparently it does not save so much money after all because you have to build new facilities. they are back to the drawing board. we have still not seen a plan. if the administration sense of the plan, i will definitely look

at it, we will probably have hearings on it. if the president can convince congress and the american people that he has a good plan that safeguards the country, fine. until then, the current law restrictions will be in place. ms. schwartz: if he tries to use executive action to move prisoners in the u.s., do u see lawsuits as a possibility? rep. thornberry: i think that would be so directly in violation of the law, and the law that he has signed seven times now. ms. schwartz: some former officials say he can use -- he can invoke national security, and use executive parties. -- executive priorities. rep. thornberry: i have seen a couple of op-ed's arguing that point. most of the legal authorities i have seen and heard say that is ridiculous. it would be in clear violation of explicit law. there is no wiggle room here. again, he signed this provision seven times at least -- probably double that if you count the

appropriations bills. i think that would be a bridge too far. mr. herb: the first caucuses and primaries are less than a month away. donald trump is still leading in the polls, and only gained after the terrorist attacks in paris and san bernardino. are you surprised by that? do you think he is qualified to be the commander in chief? rep. thornberry: we are in a political environment that i do not believe i would be completely surprised about much of anything. i think it is still a fluid situation where there is a lot of anxiety about security. and, a lot of anxiety about the direction of the country. it is not just security, but the economy and where things are headed. it will be interesting when people start voting, and is not just people talking. once people start voting, it will be interesting to see what the results are. mr. herb: do you plan to endorse a candidate for president?

rep. thornberry: no. i think endorsements countless this year than any year i have ever seen. for me, personally, i'm thinking who has the best chance to win and who would be the best commander in chief. they will have a mess sitting on his or her desk the first morning that that person comes to office. i'm listening to what they have to say i'm thinking about it. we will vote in texas on march 1 in the primary before the november election. ms. swain: five minutes left. ms. schwartz: there has been some debate on the campaign trail among republican candidates on how to use force abroad. some candidates like donald trump and ted cruz are taking a more limited view as to how troops should be used, whereas jeb bush and marco rubio are arguing for a more muscular use of american power. where do you think the

republican party should be going on that question? rep. thornberry: on the morning of 9/11, i happened to be at breakfast with the secretary of defense, and left the pentagon about 15 to 20 minutes before the plane hit the pentagon. if any of us needed reminding that those problems that we think are overseas can come home, those of us who lived through 9/11 remember that very clearly. the idea that we can put our head in the sand and say that if someone else's problem, is not true. the rest of the story is we do not have to solve everybody's problem, and we should not try. we should have the judgment to understand what is a real threat to the united states, and try to deal with that problem before it grows, and deal with that over there, wherever that is.

that is the realism about the way the world is today that i am listening for during all of these debates and discussions. ms. swain: you have long been involved in cyber security issues. recently, you have been calling for increased stability is for -- increased abilities for this country to do more surveillance. some of the patriot act provisions. rep. thornberry: we know less about what the terrorists are plotting and planning today than we knew five, 6, 7 years ago. part of that is technology. part of that is because we have tied our own hands and are less able to gather information. part of it is also we don't capture people anymore to interrogate them. we just drop bombs out of the sky on them. there is not much interrogation that goes on after that, which may be connected to the guantanamo discussion we just

had. we face more kinds of threats from more terrorist groups than we have ever faced, and yet, we know less about them. going back to the reasonable sorts of information gathering techniques with the safeguards that we had before, i think would be wise. we cannot just go back to what we used to do because things move on. we are going to have to move on with them. we have incredible people in the intelligence community who are focused on keeping this country safe. i think some of the debates and in congress on both sides of the aisle did a real disservice to those professionals and the national security of the country. ms. schwartz: general kelly gave a sort of farewell interview at the pentagon earlier today. he expressed some concerns about

opening all positions -- combat positions to women. he also said that he feared there would be a lot of pressure, maybe not this year, but in four years or 10 to lower standards. what is congress's role as this change unfolds, and how do you think it can be done in a way that calms some of these concerns? rep. thornberry: we have a strong oversight role. there is no doubt that women have contributed in the past and are contributing today valuable ways. the decision by secretary carter presents a number of interesting questions. one of them is what we do about the draft. another is to you force women into the infantry or the army? you can force men now, do you force women? the third one is you mentioned

what happens to standards. will there be so much pressure to include women in each and every unit that the standards for those units and their effectiveness are altered some way? that is part of what we will look at. chairman mccain and i have asked for a significant amount of information from the pentagon on how they intend to implement this change. we have not gotten the information yet. we will be looking at this closely because the key question is the ability to fight and win. ms. swain: a quick question jeremy. mr. herb: chairman mccain and you had acquisition forms as part of your bill. give us a highlight of what you want to accomplish this year. rep. thornberry: we will build on last year. we need to simplify decision-making. we need to make it ok to try and fail.

experiment with prototype so we know what we are getting before we get 10,000 of them. those are the sorts of things we will try to move towards in this year's bill. ms. swain: thank you for starting off the new session with "newsmakers." after our conversation with the chairman of the house armed service committee, mac thornberry of texas, felicia schwartz and jeremy herb are back for a wrap up. there are a number of threats that this nation faces from uncertainty in china to north korea's nuclear tests, to concerns with isil to the iran deal. are there any areas that they are working in concert on or is it all a clash? ms. schwartz: i think the aumf may be a good test. there seems to be will from both sides. if they could get something

through, maybe things are not as bad as they appear to be. on the iran nuclear deal, for example, they are very far apart. it seems pretty bad. mr. herb: especially when you hear the rhetoric, republicans love to bash the president for not having a strategy against isis, and other things. you do not hear a whole lot from republicans about what they would do differently, outside of maybe john mccain and lindsey graham talking about putting 10,000 troops in. most people on the hill do not think that is necessary the step that we need to take. i think they are obviously divided, and the fact that we have not had an aumf is a good signifier of that. at the same time, they both want to defeat isis. north korea is another area where both sides would like to find a way to respond.

ms. swain: in the waning days of the last session, they were successful in passing the national defense authorization act. what framework does that layout for the military program in the year ahead? mr. herb: for the first time, they may not have to have this protracted budget for the first time in three to four years, except for the fact that they have the war funding issue where the bill allows the pentagon to request at least $58 billion in war funding, and what chairman's -- what chairman thornberry and republicans want is to go above that number. it does not sound like the pentagon will do that. that is where you will see the main fight. in terms of other issues like acquisition reform, personnel perform, they would like to do military health care this year. i think for the most part republicans and democrats are on the same page. ms. swain: how much of a hot

button issue will women advancing in the military be? ms. schwartz: i think it will be pretty hot. it does raise questions about the draft. there is a lot of chatter, especially among some of the more elite communities about standards. a lot of the e-mails i've gotten from readers is most people seem -- a lot of men, obviously feel , ok with the idea that women conserve in combat units, but people are worked up about this idea that standards could be lowered, and it seems like a very serious concern. i think it will be tense and hard to figure out how to do it. there is a lot of well, -- a lot of will especially in , the administration, and a lot of people who support it, men and women. ms. swain: we did not really

spent a lot of time talking about rank-and-file. there has been a lot of concern raised about the level of suicide rates for recent service people, especially in the middle east. what level of attention is congress placing on this? we hear people asking for help, families asking for help. how important of an issue is this and what kind of dollars are allocated to understanding this problem?