number two, we need an aumf. number three, we want the exclusive vehicle of authority not relying on that. >> we gree that. where we need help are the two areas where we disagree. >> on the geographic location. >> there is no communication in one area. it's one area then. it seems like. i'm confused then. that's the only area we are in disagreement. >> two areas. one is in the definition with associated forces. we believe that that requires to you make a definition of ideological association or other affiliation. we believe that gets complicated certainly for a commander in the field or instant decision about retaliation. that's the language used in the interpretation of the 2001 eumf. that's in the application of force. the biggest challenge here is what is the appropriate level of restraint on the president of the united states as commander in chief and congress's micromanaging of what the military can and can't do in the context of the fight. that's all. none should challenge the prohibition that he doesn't pl

number two, we need an aumf. number three, we want the exclusive vehicle of authority not relying on that. >> we gree that. where we need help are the two areas where we disagree. >> on the geographic location. >> there is no communication in one area. it's one area then. it seems like. i'm confused then. that's the only area we are in disagreement. >> two areas. one is in the definition with associated forces. we believe that that requires to you make a definition of ideological association or other affiliation. we believe that gets complicated certainly for a commander in the field or instant decision about retaliation. that's the language used in the interpretation of the 2001 eumf. that's in the application of force. the biggest challenge here is what is the appropriate level of restraint on the president of the united states as commander in chief and congress's micromanaging of what the military can and can't do in the context of the fight. that's all. none should challenge the prohibition that he doesn't pl

we have requested that we work together for aumf. we are requesting an aumf. >> mr. secretary, i look forward to working with you a little more closely. i will grade on a curve. and give you a little bit better attaboy. >> i hope the curve goes up and not down. >> i'm not even going to go there. let me just say that i want to thank you on behalf of all the members. you have a great deal of respect here. i think some of these questions are beyond the role of the secretary of state. and yet you have done a very admirable job of trying to explain to the committee where we're at, where we want to go and how hopefully we can get there. i certainly continue to welcome as i have for month to try to evolve language that can put the administration in a place that is in sync with the congress. i have no concern about our collective goal. our goal is to defeat isis and i am convinced that we will. i think this hearing has helped us crystallize some of the core issues that are still in difference between the legislative and executive branch and i would hope that we could find a

let me come to this aumf. this is as has been mentioned probably the most important type of legislation that we will ever deal with. i have no earthly idea how the administration plans to go about degrading and destroying isis in syria. i have no earthly idea. mckirk yesterday, who is the assistance to our envoy over in the house said there is no way -- no way that the moderate opposition could defeat assad. no way. i read today in the "washington post" where ambassador ford it d about what a fantasy was to think about that. so i know there have been some attempts by my friends on the other side of the aisle to place limitations on what it is that we are doing but what we have no idea at present -- no ea -- is how the administration even intends to go about doing what it is we plan to do in syria. i think we have some understanding in iraq with zero understanding in syria. we've talked about the fact that since world war ii we've had so many conflicts where we and administrations go forward with activities tha

we have requested that we work together for aumf. we are requesting an aumf. >> mr. secretary, i look forward to working with you a little more closely. i will grade on a curve. and give you a little bit better attaboy. >> i hope the curve goes up and not down. >> i'm not even going to go there. let me just say that i want to thank you on behalf of all the members. you have a great deal of respect here. i think some of these questions are beyond the role of the secretary of state. and yet you have done a very admirable job of trying to explain to the committee where we're at, where we want to go and how hopefully we can get there. i certainly continue to welcome as i have for month to try to evolve language that can put the administration in a place that is in sync with the congress. i have no concern about our collective goal. our goal is to defeat isis and i am convinced that we will. i would hope that we could find a way to broach them. chairs, it is the intention to continue a markup on thursday. if we can further narrow those, it would be great. there is a major

aumf's that have included restrictions is the somalia aumf. aumf thatebanon prohibited offensive actions and aumf, they did not express the use of ground forces for the purpose of combat operations. we have a span of nearly 30 years to take recent history. in which they have had no limitations. it is a historical operation. that is not the case. senator mccain who has been greatly involved with this issue , their amendments have driven us to this moment. >> you have not been before us to receive the thanks of this committee for some of your diplomacy. the efforts to help reform the government in iraq. i want to thank you for those because those efforts were important. i wanted to thank you for your efforts to build a coalition to an airbasewent airwent to the combined operations center and we witnessed the cola should an action. full-screen videos, data coming in. all trading information in making decisions together. very impressive. you deserve our thanks create we cannot do military action without congress and we are currently in what the ad

combat troops to be outlined in an aumf. it doesn't doesn't mean we should preemptively bind the hands of the commander in chief or commanders in the field and responding to contingencies that are impossible to foresee. finally with respect with respect to duration. we can be sure this confrontation won't be over quickly as the president and i have said many times. we understand, however, the desire of many to avoid a completely open-ended authorization. i note that chairman menendez has suggested that a three-year limitation should be put into an aumf. we support that proposal. we support it subject to a provision that we should work through together. that provides for extension in the event that circumstances require it. we think it ought to be advertised as such up front. to sum up, mr. chairman, and members of the committee. i ask for your help in, above all, approving on a bipartisan basis with the strongest vote possible because everybody will read messages into that vote. an authorization for use of military force in

the current 2001 aumf and the 2002 a iraqi aumf a time limit. as you know the president has authorized force under those two statutes currently to use in iraq and syria. there are time limits on those two statutes but certainly there could be in a future there could be time limits whether that's a sunset clause or some other provision for re-examination. so that is kind of the coverage of the domestic legal basis for using force that i look at as a military warrior. we also pay close attention to the use of force within the complex itself, what we would call use embolo or complies with the law. it's not just what logic should the conflict in the first place or authorizes you to be in conflict in the first place but also what law governs their actions within a complex itself. we are barely involved with drafting precise and clear rules of engagement so that those operators who do go to combat terrorism know what they are left and right limits are if you will. they know what they are authorized to do. they understand the limits of their authority

but when i read through this aumf and some of the amendments that are filed here, it strikes me thatwhat we're saying if they're to be approved is we are committed to defeating isil but only if we can do it with air strikes alone. or we are committed to defeating isil but only if we can do it in three years or in some cases in a couple of the amendments in one year. we're committed to defeating them but only if they stay where they are right now or if they stay organized the way they are right now. i recognize that doesn't fully describe the manager's amendment and what the chairman has proposed. i'm also including some to have amendments that will appear before us today. and i just think what that basically says is unless we can beat them with only air strikes in three years and where they're currently located then isil gets to stay? and this to me sounds like an unacceptable position for us to take. by the way, i am not in favor -- i am not call farg ground war, although i do recognize ksh and we have ask ourselves this if we're being honest -- we all hope the ground forces current

the treatment of the aumfs is important. this mark would repeal the iraq '02 authorization which the administration supports. they've testified to that here in may. and that would be important so that there aren't duelling iraq resolutions out there that would create any ambiguity. and second, part of the chairman's mark amendments, it would put a three-year sunset in place where we would do exactly what the president asked the nation to do in may of 2013 in the speech to the national defense university, we need to be taking the '01 aumf and figure out how to refine and improve it. the three-year timetable gets substance abuse a discussion in a way. i believe we will find a resolution. on the ground troop, some wonder if it's legal, i circulated fairly extensive large article reviewing the legality of such restrictions. they've been litigated up to the supreme court in the legality of such restrictions are clear because the framers took the whole power to declare away from the president, prior to the constitution of the unit

. -- on a aumf. it included repeated invitations to our most senior diplomats and military leaders to actively engage in briefings with the committee on the anti-isil strategy. secretary kerry represented regarding the use of military force and we appreciate his frank and substantive testimony. but we heard from secretary kerry is that the administration largely supports the aumf with some reservations. the chairman smart authorizes the president to use military ande against isil associated persons are forces, meaning individuals or organizations fighting on behalf of isil. as i said yesterday, the president feels he needs that and he should ask for it in congress can consider it. this text limits the authorization to three years in wires the administration to report to congress every 60 days. as drafted, the text limits the authorization by not allowing ground combat operations except as necessary for the protection or rescue of u.s. soldiers or citizens, for intelligence operations, operational pla

and you could have a time limit on any aumf. the current the e 2001 and umf to 2002 iraq aumf. neert contains a time limit. glooinchts glooinchtsds. >>> certainly there could be a future statute, mr. e whether there's sunset clause or a re-examination. that's kind of a coverage of the domestic legal basis for using force that i look at as a military lawyer when i advise my cliebtsds. we also pay very close attention to the use of force within the conflict itself. what we would call yugs use in bellow. irt's not just what law gets you into conflict in the first place or aut rihorizes you to be in conflict in the first place. but also, what authorizes that conflict it. also, we're very involved with drafting concise and clear rules of engagemented so that that he has e those operators who do go to combat terrorism know what their left and e and right limits are. they know what they're authorized to do. they understand the limits of their authority to act so that commanders at the operational level and operators and the troops that we send out to do these missions understand when

this amendment would set geographic limits on this aumf. it reads, nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed as authorizing the use of force against the islamic state outside of the geographic boundaries of iraq and syria, and no action may be taken outside such area without congressional authorization. now, many have made the argument that we've added too many limitations. there should be no limitations, and they've argued historically that we haven't done this. the national security network looked back at all of the uses of authorization of force since the beginning of the republic, and they found that 60% of those actually did have a geographic limitation on them. some would say, well, you know, we just don't need this. it's too confining. the problem is, when you look back at 2001, we are now using it to mean anything. the words have become meaningless, the authorization has become so blanket that we are now authorizing a new war in the administration maintains that a war resolution has something to do with isil. i think that'

it would sunset the 2001 aumf after three years of enactment unless it has been reauthorized. this period of duration mirrors the text of the isil's specific authorization. so, i just want to say that on that point, it is -- i think it's tremendously important that we work together in a serious way to refine the 2001 aumf. and i think a three-year window is a responsible amount of time in which to do that. i support the three-year sunset because i think without a forcing mechanism we would find it virtually impossible to come to an agreement on how to refine that 2001 authorization. i'm willing to entertain comments. >> mr. chairman, i'm so respectful of every member of this committee. each of us has very strong

i am one who believes the president does have the authority under the aumf i voted for. that does not speak for most democrats. but i still believe we need to update that. so i am grateful to my chairman. this took a lot of guts on his part because this is really in many ways a standoff not only within the parties in the committee, which is understandable given our differing views, but also with the administration who i think we could all admit with senator kerry i didn't sense that he was thrilled with we were going forward. so mr. chairman you are just standing up for the rights and the prerogatives of members of the united states senate and the congress. soy appreciate it. i am strongly supporting your mark for two reason one congress can cannot sit back and take no steps against this evil as isil that is a threat to all of hue manty. when it comes to human rights abuses they are in a class of their own. and we cannot sit back and not speak out against them. and the second reason, after years of a wake that -- war in iraq which i believe was based in false pretense th

however, the aumf should not be open ended in the way that the 2001 and 2002 aumf's were. we've seen how difficult it is to shift gears or even repeal an existing authorization for the use of military force. fourth and finally, this authorization must also address the nonmilitary components of the administration's strategy. i was one of the first members to call for greater support for the moderate, well-vetted syrian opposition. we know that opposition especially in the north is fractured and suffering, especially under a continual onslaught from mr. assad's barrel bombs, not to mention other actions he's taken against the opposition. although efforts to support them are ramping up, the brutal assad regime has done significant damage, and that's an understatement. further, the assad regime continues to commit unspeakable atrocities against syrian civilians. starving, torturing, or indiscriminately murdering them in violation of international law and u.n. security council resolutions -- and that's plural. i have also emphasized on a bipartisan basis with senator rubio seve

so right now at least it doesn't look all that likely that there would be an official blanket aumf that republican controlled senate comes in, there will be a version of it that comes through congress and then the white house would potentially be on board. secretary kerry said the administration was pretty much on board with the wording of senator menendez's proposed aumf. but it's just not real high on the legislative agenda. there is a budget bill that finally came through last night. there's other stuff going on and this is not something that's been months in the making. there's not a real push to get this done right now. >> thank you so much for being with us on this wednesday. >> thank you. >> just ahead, a select group of moms want police accountability. today they come to capitol hill. no. it's called grid iq. the 4:51 is leaving at 4:51. ♪ they cut the power. it'll fix itself. power's back on. quick thinking traffic lights and self correcting power grids make the world predictable. thrillingly predictable. [ male announcer ] the rhythm of life. [ whistle blowing ] where do you h

not believe the aumf should be unlimited. the timeframe will allow the president to make responsible decisions. that said, mr. secretary, we would like to hear from the administration, wwhat the what you see.and i do not believe that placing on this aumf sends a message of weakness. this is meant to authorize the do our er-in-chief to part in the combat against isil. isil not just an american problem, it is a global problem. no strategy can rely on americans alone.

it also repeals the 2002 iraq aumf and sets a three-year timeline for the 2001 aumf which is currently supporting military engagements around the world that we never intended when we originally passed it. but i would still caution we must be watchful so that this engagement doesn't vastly change in scope without the approval of congress or the support from our constituents. i fought to provide congress with an even stronger role. i proposed an amendment to limit authorization to one year. i also cosponsored a proposal with senator paul to retire a new authorization from congress if u.s. forces were to be deployed outside of iraq and syria. we need this authorization to pass now as the conflict has been ongoing for months, but we also must continue to be watchful. costs should not just be charged to a credit card. let's make sure we have a real conversation on how the generation that has decided to go to war will pay for it. again, i urge congress to honor its responsibility, to stay and finish this critical duty. and now to just wrap up, i just once again want to say to my chairwoman,

if we were to include in the aumf a provision banning the use of combat troops, the president's handsould be tied and he wouldn't be able to order a mission like that and that is what we are seeking to avoid and that is why we believe that that doesn't constitute, you know, a responsible limitation on the president's authority. >> but he still stands by the statement that's not putting boots on the ground in this current conflict? >> that is absolutely correct. >> if congress does authorize an aumf that includes the possible use of ground troops, what's to stop this president, the next president from engaging the united states in an ongoing endless war? >> well, these are policy decisions that are made by the commander in chief. the reason the president would like to see the passable of an updated, right-sized authorization to use military force that actually reflects the conflict that we are engaged in right now is an indication that this president is eager to move the united states away from a permanent war footing. secretary kerry made reference to the fact yesterday that he suppor

yesterday secretary of state john kerry was on the hill asking for new aumf, or authorization of usef military force. >> i don't think anybody wants to get into a long-term ground operation here but we also don't want to hamstring the generals and commanders in the field and president who is commander-in-chief for their ability to make some decision they need to make. >> reporter: but the toughest question came from kerry's own democratic party which wants to pass a three-year aumf which bars sending ground troops. kerry warns this operation could take years and years and bristled against the limitations by senate democrats. since august they have struck over 1200 targets in iraq and syria. >> my text prevents u.s. from being dragged into unending and unlimited war in the middle east. >> reporter: they were critical of the administration's strategy inside of syria and failure to target the regime of bashar al-assad. state department senior advisor on iraq and iran says iraq has come a long way since the fall of mosul. >> today we have conducted 1200 airstrikes against isil terrorists

but not create an open-ended set of circumstances based on the 2001 aumf, which many people think hasverly broad and taken us to places in the world it never meant to do. >> why don't we open it up? does anybody have any questions here for senator menendez about his party or the conduct of foreign policy or for that matter anything else? we've got one way back there. is that dan yergen? >> senator menendez, one of the other responses to the russian invasion of ukraine is your legislation with senator corker on sanctions on russia. in the possibility that either things will change, or there will be a post-putin russia, how do you build flexibility into the bill so that one can respond to a changing situation with russia itself? >> i think -- it's a good question, which is similar to the efforts that we did when i authored all of the when i authored all of the iran sanctions along with my colleague mark kirk, a republican from illinois. and in there we created flexibility for the the president to be able to respond to evolving changes, which have not taken place from my view, in iran's

issue, and that is that they, they're not ready to come to congress for an aumf because they are notet in a position to or articulate a strategy in syria that passes the, you know, the common sense test. i do think that general allen -- >> so the president said he wanted congress to pass an aumf -- >> well, he kind of -- >> you're saying they haven't -- >> typically, look, i think everyone here is obviously steeped in the traditions of how we deal with foreign policy. typically, when an administration seeks an authorization, they explicitly seek it by sending up a draft of what it is that they are seeking. they don't, this thing, and i became particularly are upset with kerry the last time he was before us when he said that, look, we don't really need an authorization, but if you guys want to be constructive and write one, that's fine. well, that's a silly game. and what is left out of that is the administration coming up and explaining very clearly and selling to congress what it is that they're attempting to do and telling you how they're going to go about doing that. and that's wh

to the administration about the issue and that is that they're not ready to come to congress for an aumf because they're not yet in a position to articulate a strategy in syria that passes the, you know, the common sense test. do i think that general -- >> the president said he wanted congress to pass an aums but you're saying they haven't -- >> typically, i mean, i think everyone here is steeped in the traditions of how we deal with foreign policy. typically when the administration seeks an authorization they explicitly seek it by sending up a draft of what it is that they are seeking. they -- they -- this thing and i became upset with kerry the last time he was before us when he said look, we don't really need an authorization but if you guys want to be constructive and write one well, that's fine. that's a silly game. what is left out of that is the administration coming up and explaining very clearly and selling to congress what it is that they're attempting to do and telling you how they're going to go about doing that. and that's why to me it's very important as i stressed again ye

been political will to close the prison. 2001 law called the authorization to use military form or aumf. when congress authorized an armed conflict against those who planned the september 11th attacke11th attacks. the detainees still in prison vary greatly. some are of little interest to the u.s. but it's hard to return them to the countries of origin because the countries in question can't promise to keep an eye on them or stop them from joining terrorist groups. then there are the 70 high level prisoners, deemed unable to be tried but too dangerous to release. the obama administration has proposed moving these prisoners to a military run prison inside the united states where most would continue to be held without trial. but congress has banned transferring detainees to domestic soil for any purpose. daniel schwindler, al jazeera, uruguay. >> looking forward from the enhanced interrogations at guantanamo. serious legal hurdles lie ahead for prosecutors. it is a challenge according to the man who once led military prosecutions at guantanamo. retired colonel morse davis. >> once it came

i do think general allen -- >> the president said he wants congress to pass an aumf. >> everyone here is steeped in the tradition of how we deal with foreign policy. when an administration seeks an authorization, they seek it by setting up a draft of what it is they are seeking. thing, and i became particularly upset with secretary kerry, he said, we don't need an authorization. but if you guys want to be constructive and right one, that is fine. that is a silly game. what is left out of that is the administration coming up and explaining clearly, selling to congress what they are attempting to do. that is why to me it is very important, as i stressed yesterday, for them to come and ask. the piece that is so important is, they have to lay out the outcome they are seeking. they cannot really do that today. lay out how they are going to go about making it happen. it is easy to say what i just said, but more difficult -- by the way, it is difficult, i've knowledge that. what i hope is going to occur is they are going to come forth explicitly. toondarily, they are going -- and importantly

we are requesting an aumf. >> mr. secretary, i look forward to working with you a little more closely. i will grade on a curve. and give you a little bit better attaboy. >> i hope the curve goes up and not down. >> i'm not even going to go there. let me just say that i want to thank you on behalf of all the members. you have a great deal of respect here. you have equipped yourself most admirably today. i think some of these questions are beyond the role of the secretary of state. and yet you have done a very admirable job of trying to explain to the committee where we're at, where we want to go and how hopefully we can get there. i certainly continue to welcome as i have for month to try to evolve language that can put the administration in a place that is in sync with the congress. i have no concern about our collective goal. our goal is to defeat isis and i am convinced that we will. i think there is a very compelling reason for congress to act. i think this hearing has helped us crystallize some of the core issues

not, the vote is on final aumf as amended. the clerk will call the roll. >> the aumf will be reported favorably to the senate. i ask unanimous consent a the be allowed to make changes to the --orting so ordered. the resolution signed by every member of the committee, andgain congratulations thank you for your service. [applause] >> i want to thank you again for chairman.ce as our i want to thank all the committee members for the tone and seriousness and i look continuing. thank you all. >> thank you very much. this hearing is adjourned. >> today a discussion about government, public and private surveillance. recognitionce software and sing ray ke vices that locate suspects using their cell phone signals. we'll join the forum at .0:40a.m. eastern on c-span >> here are some of the programs you'll find this weekend. sunday evening at 8:00 on q and a, politico reporters share stories about being on the senator trail with mcconnell. on c-span 2 saturday night at fundraisertical lindsey mark lewis on money and politics and how it's

the president has asserted authority under the aumf. that's a blank check.e don't think there should be a blank check for the executive. this body should vote to make it clear that u.s. forces can't be involved in another ground war in iraq. there's also a bipartisan amendment offered by myself and mr. dent from pennsylvania and others that says we should vote on the question of whether we should now arm the so-called moderate syrian rebels for two years at a price of $500 million or up. now, whether you're for it or against it, we should have a vote. i happen to think it's a bad idea. we're not going to be able to successfully micro manage the syrian -- micromanage manage the syrian war. the target of those force is not isis. in the process we'll be inadvertently strengthening isis. whether you agree with me or not, for goodness sakes, we should have an amendment to make a choice. thought that's what why we're here. we owe it to our troops. instead of a 1,600-page-plus bill that comes to the house floor and doesn't give us an opportunity. so since we don't

that isil poses a threat to american interests and personnel in other countries, we would not want an aumft constrained our able to use appropriate force against isil in those locations if necessary. in our view, it would be a mistake to advertise to isil that there are safe havens for them outside of iraq or syria. >> democrats on the committee want a new uaumf to bar u.s. ground troops. >> i mentioned the secretary of defense in baghdad. what is his message for the baghdad leader. >> the iraqis greated hagel with a request for more air power and heavy weapons. hagel was noncommittal, we're told. this is his first trip to baghdad since the war with isis began. in fact it's the first time any defense secretary has been to baghdad since the iraq war officially enned december 2011. it is likely hagel's last trip overseas as defense secretary. >> they have to lead. they're the ones that have to be responsible for the end results. we can help, we can train, we can assist and advise, and we are doing that and will support them. >> hagel was addressing u.s. and australian troops at the baghdad a

the aumf we pass out of the committee gives the president the wherewithal to do everything he is doing plus. what it doesn't do is give him or any future president a blank check. i think that is an important check and balance. it's what the founders actually envisioned. it's our responsibility to the american people. the three-year time limit we put in the authorization puts it past this administration to who the next one is. it creates an accounting at the end of that period of time that if we haven't defeated i till, fine. let's look at where we are at and what succeed and what has not and make a judgment then. i think it's incredibly important and would urge the leadership to stay and debate it. >> isis or isil are not taking a holiday break. you have done your job. thanks for being here. the man who pushed to ban torture after experiencing it himself. john mccain joins us live. this is "andrea mitchell reports" only on msnbc. (vo) nourished. rescued. protected. given new hope. during the subaru "share the love" event, subaru owners feel it, too. because when you take home a new sub

the hill where lawmakers are debating whether the 2001 authorization for use of military force, or aumfneeds to be updated to cover the current war against isis. a vote is expected later this week, gretchen. >> jennifer griffin reporting live. thanks so much. again, we're waiting for secretary kerry to talk at all about this new cia report that was released. remember, he had asked feinstein to not do it. we'll bring that to you if and when he discusses that topic. >>> reaction in the meantime pouring into the release of that senate cia report. here's arizona senator john mccain earlier today. >> this question isn't about our enemies. it's about us. it's about who we were, who we are, and who we aspire to be. it's about how we represent ourselves to the world. >> let's bring in mike baker, former cia covert operations officer and president of diligence llc, a global intelligence and security firm, and patrick eddington, policy analyst on homeland security and civil liberties for the cato institute. he is also a former senior policy advisor to democratic congressman rush holt from new jer

with reference to the aumf, i agree with senator paul that the authorization for force in this case where the administration has stated there will be a multi-year campaign, that will probably exceed the life of this administration, that congress should act to make such an authorization. i think the nation is stronger , the world is more cohesive, when they know that we are acting together. and i think creating limits on how that authorization moves forward is important. because a 2001 authorization for the use of force that has taken us to multiple parts of the world when it was never envisioned for that is overly broad use of military force. and so how one structures this to give the president the wherewithal to fight the fight against isil is important. viewe a little different from how senator paul describes it. i want to make sure we succeed against isil before it has the operational capacity to create a september 11-like attack. i do not believe it has that operational capacity yet. i don't wish to leave it alone to succeed in having that operational capacity. that is one of the crit

we have not authorized -- we have not passed an aumf to go to war.e tried in this committee on numerous occasions to allow there to be votes on house floor so we could vote whether to authorize this action or not, to do our constitutional responsibilities. and have been routinely shut out. but what frustrates me about this conversation is that all of you have voted for the rules. so i think this is a place where % e deba debated. but we should be consistent here. there ought to be a move that we move into the next congress to appreciate that sometimes you have to support amendments to express a point of view you may disagree with. i agree with the president. i'm glad did he what he did. if you want to debate it, that's fine with me. i'm worried we're going on recess and we have 3,000 troops deployed in iraq and every utterance i hear is we're getting closer to a combat mission and we are going home. i just -- i couldn't let this moment pass without making that observation. i think we ought to have a more open process. as we end this session, this is

mcgovern talks about it, but we need to talk about the aumf. we need to talk about those guiding principles that set up where we are today, things that were passed long before i came to congress. authorizations that go back 12 to 13 years ago and the landscape has changed and we need to absolutely have a strong and long, hard debate in regards to how we authorize the , in force in the future specific instances, as the constitution requires. and we talk about the constitution, we talk about the president just ignoring it. the administration side stepping congress whenever it sees fit. use of force is one of those areas, i think. and the same with what this dministration has done and the underlying rule allows us to address in the president's recent executive order. the bill reaffirms that congress has the right to rewrite immigration laws. it says that the president must enforce the laws that are currently on the books. that's something he wishes, but what is currently law of the land. mr. speaker, the president's action have gotten so out of ha

the where with all to fight isil but not create an open ended set of circumstances based on the 2001 aumf which many people think has become openly broad and taken us to many places in the world. >> why don't we open it up to anybody having any questions here for senator menendez about his party or the conduct or foreign policy or, for that matter, anything else. >> senator, one of the responses on sanctions in russia and the possibility that either things will change or there will be a post-putin russia. how do you promote flexibility to the bill so that one can respond to the situation with russia itself? >> i think that's a good question. rjs e. >> in there, we create the opportunity to respond changes in iran's position. and i would think that you would do the same thing on a different set of circumstances. for russia to stop its aggression, particularly now in the face of ukraine. if it observes, it's not for the amount of punishing russia in a permanent basis, it's an international order. >> anybody else have something? >> yes, right over here. >>> senator, on iran, why do you think

we are at war again and we have not authorized, an aumf to go to war. i have tried on numerous occasions to allow there to be votes on house floors so we can all vote whether to authorize this action or not through our constitutional responsibilities. we have been routinely shut out. what frustrates me about this conversation is that all of you voted for those roles. -- those rules. this is a place where important issues are to be debated, even those i disagree with, but i think we ought to be consistent. to be a move as we move to the next congress to appreciate that sometimes you toe to support amendments express a point of view that you may disagree with. i agree with the president. if you want to debated, that is fine with me. but i am wary that we are going on recess with 3000 troops deployed in iraq, and every utterance i hear is getting closer to a combat mission and we are going home. let this moment pass without making that observation. morenk we ought to have a open process, and as the end the session, this is the most closed rules of the hist

that is changing and secretary of state kerry yesterday testified before the senate and said that any aumf that congress should consider should not include restrictions on the use of ground troops and should not limit operations to iraq and to syria. i worry very hutchmuch that by the time we reconvene, our troops will be in a combat mission, something all of my colleagues should be concerned about. so i urge the committee to support the amendment. >> further discussion, seeing none, those in favor, signify by saying eye. those opposed no. nos have it. >> gentlemen asks for a role call. >> ms. fox. mr. bishop, no. mr. cole, no. mr. woodall, no. mr. webster, no. mr. burgess, no. ms. slaughter, aye. mr. hastings, aye. mr. chairman, no. >> the amendment is not agreed to, further amendments or discussion? >> i have three more amendments. i move the committee make an order and give the necessary waivers to the amendment for the house amendment by myself, representative deloreo and representative huffman, two amendments that will weaken the child nutrition act. scientists and nutritionists say w

the first is the aumf. the authorization for use of military force.at has been happening now. they believe they don't need additional authorization but said they would welcome it. however, don't expect a vote in these last ten days or so of the session. a couple of other things they need to sign off on the request from the pentagon to fund the training and equipping of the syrian rebels. that was part of some funding that is due to expire on december 11th. that is out there for their consideration. and, finally, the lawmakers have to decide on the administration's request for additional $5.6 billion to fight isis. it's part of the overall overseas contingency budget. they have yet to come up with an idea, the republicans, how to respond, they say they will to the president's immigration bill. we'll have to wait to see if the funding items will be affected by that. >> thank you very much so much. >>> with congress set to address the battle against isis an militant organization with ties to the terrorist group is claiming responsibility for the death of

i don't believe the aumf should be unlimited. president time to assess the situation and make responsible decisions. together with the congress about whether and how to continue military action. that said, mr. secretary, we'd love to hear from the administration what the framework is, what you see. this authorization is intended to provide the authority. isil is not only an american problem. it is a global problem. no isil strategy can rely on american military power alone. we need to train iraqi security force and kurdish peshmerga forces, stand up and train and equip for moderate syrian fighterers which are being authorized in the defense authorization bill that the congress will consider this week. work with coalition partners to cut off financing and foreign fighter flous and provide humanitarian aid to address the situation situation of the millions whose lives have been uprooteded. we look forward to working on our mutual goal of degrading and defeating isil. we welcome you back to the committee. let me turn to the distingu