tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 12, 2014 3:00am-5:01am EDT
moderates we tried to equip. >> that's not necessarily true. the weapons that they captured may not have been, according to that story, even american weapons. keep going. >> if we are going to make the moderates in syria strong and effective force, it's going to require some input of american advisors, trainers, supervisors, iran already has boots on the ground in syria supporting assad. the sunni coalition that is vital to the success of this effort may be perfect received by iran as a threat, a sunni coalition aiming to displace a government they are supporting. how can we not be talking to iran if we are building a sunni coalition in the region? if we are putting american efforts into opposing a regime that they support? if they don't feel part of this effort, it may destroy all the efforts we have made to make progress in the nuclear and other areas.
>> if iran doesn't feel part of the effort? they are already there. so they are already making an effort without being part of a coalition. secondly, the government of iraq -- if they want to talk, which they obviously do, they can do it. that's got to be the filter. it can't be direct conversations with iran for practical reasons. i believe. i'm someone who very strongly believes we ought to be negotiating with iran on the nuclear side. against some very strong opposition to even talking to iran on the nuclear side. that to me is the number one goal right now is to avoid that catastrophe of iran getting a nuclear weapon. and i think this could muddy
that water and confuse and complicate those negotiations if in another area we are relying on iran, because i think it could help, it could raise their expectations somehow or other, it could affect what they calculate we might be willing to do on a nuclear side. i don't want them to change their calculus. i want them to know how serious we are. and the people negotiating with them are that they not get a nuclear weapon and think that somehow or other if they are in a coalition over in a different area that that could in any way change our position or weaken our resolve on the nuclear side. >> i'm mitzi of the naval postgraduate school. this has been a fabulous discussion. my question is for you. how do we get the media to explain the story the senator has been telling us? and i understand you-all look for wanting to be the first whether you like the report on conflict, but i think you have to start demanding from congress that they talk together.
i remember when conde rice was sort of talking about all this, how can we sell democracy if we can't make it function here? >> well, the media's -- >> do you have a mike on? >> yes, i do. >> it's a strange beast. i think the senator comes to his views on coverage of afghanistan from where he sits. i would argue generally that i haven't really studied the press on coverage and afghanistan recently. i would argue that if you go back and look at major news organizations, they have done a reasonable job. the problem i think with press coverage often is when the action stops or when american troops are gone, the press coverage goes with it.
i think that happened in iraq and it happened in afghanistan as well. there was intense coverage and many reporters there. when the withdrawals began and u.s. casualties went way down, the coverage actually went way down. one of the weaknesses of the press is perhaps that when americans are not directly involved, when they're being killed or wounded, there is less of a focus on the aftermath. that is in part responsible because there are not enough foreign correspondents. i think that you find in almost any conflict that there is a very significant drop-off in daily press coverage. they have yet to report. they are not teachers. they are there to report what is going on. the interest level drops with editors and the public together when the u.s. involvement drops.
>> senator, i want to add my thanks to your service and your leadership which have been so important. it sounds like you and the president agreed that he has the authority to move as he is described. it sounds like maybe for different reasons. i think he has said he has authority under the 2001 aumf. like an arcane legal question, one of the concerns we have had, we have shared concerns about
that. building that support requires what the mission really is. can you talk a little bit about what the risks might be for open-ended authorization for the use of military force? either how it has been used under the 2001 aumf or article two of the constitution. >> it is used for the field in the area of interest at the time. we get into these legal arguments that the groups we go after our pursuant to that authority and with that authority, somehow or other, it connected adequately to the
group we were going after. it is a legal document and it has to be done with some real care. it is not done in the conflicts we have seen. we didn't have aumf in lybia. we have never had an aumf using airpower. i believe the president should get bipartisan support. i think the policy is right. i believe that the policy that he has laid out his right.
for this moment to disagree on technical wordings a concurrent or joint resolution doing with those limits, no ground troops relying on a coalition. these are themes of this president which i happen to share. it gets to the point of if we are going to try to overcome the complexities of an aumf which might be a complex partisan debate. it leads to that because it is such a legal document that is binding law instead of supporting the title x funding
and having a sense of the congress resolution supporting what 90% of us support. just put in their the parts that we agree. it will stick with a 90%. some might think we go too far and 90% of us think that it is pretty close to being on target. i think people feel that. we have to carry the brunt of the fight. it has to be us assisting them. i think those principles to have general support in the congress and the american people ought to focus on where we can agree
right now. instead of trying to figure out exactly what the parameters are which goes on forever unless there is a limit. we can spend a week debating how long the next aumf will be in effect. that is a really good debate. that is an honest kind of debate we should have. i just think that is the wrong message for the world right now. focus on where we can agree, the
funding 500 million and some kind of sense of the resolution being supportive of a policy which is strong. >> unfortunately, we don't have any more time for debate. it has been a very good exchange. thank you, everybody. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]
>> coming up on the next "washington journal," michael barone discusses the development much republican party over the how the split and between the tea party and mainstream republicans will impact 2016. congressman and 9/11 commission cochair lee hamilton securityut national since 9/11, and the president's strategy for dealing with isis. and later, a look at public that impact higher education, and the role of the big 10. mason,st is sally president of the university of iowa. "washington journal" is live 7:00 a.m.ing at eastern on c-span. and you can join the conversation on facebook and
twitter. today the center for american progress hosts a discussion on for combating isis in iraq and syria. you can watch the event live eastern, onnoon 2.pan >> this weekend on the c-span networks, american history tv is live from baltimore's fort the 200thr anniversary of the star spangle banner. at 6:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv, we'll how fort mchenry and hear war came to baltimore in 1814, about the british barrage on the and why francis scott key was there to witness the fight. c-spany night at 8:00 on the presidential leadership scholars program with former presidents george w. bush and clinton, and sunday afternoon at 3:30 live coverage fry.e harkin steak
an sunday evening at l, author on the conservative politics.n american and saturday author ken silversteen on the secret word of oil. kirsten jillenator en brand. all us, e-mail us, or send us tweet. conversation.n like us on face become, follow us on twitter. >> on the 13th anniversary of attacks, house1 intelligence committee chairman mike rogers and senate intelligence committee vice chair sax by cham byes discuss
the current state of u.s. security. their remarks were part of an society ind by a washington d.c. this is an hour. >> good morning, all. shhh. good morning. we are going to get started since time is not our friend this morning. we thank you also much for coming out on this thursday morning. i am jim, the president and ceo of the ripon society. for those of you who it is your first time to attend one of our events, we are an organization that was established in 1962 by one of congress' own.
our name from the small town where the republican party was established in 1854, ripon. one of the main goals of our group is to promote ideas and principles that made our party great, keeping our issues secure, our taxes low, and having a federal government that is not only smaller, but smarter and more accountable to our people. we promote these goals in a number of ways. four times a year, we promote this through the ripon forum. we also host a daily new site called the ripon advance. do you see the thread here? is focused on solutions for america and those leaders trying to make a difference not only in their communities, but here in washington as wealthy -- as well. we hope that you will visit the site. there isanything -- if anything we are not following, please let us know. we would love to promote it.
we hold a series of breakfasts, lunches, and dinners about the challenges that we face all the time. this is one of those events. before i begin, i would like to reflect on the event 13 years ago today that changed the lives of everyone here in our country. would you please join me in a moment of silence to remember those folks who lost their lives on 9/11 as well as those who to risked and continue their lives in defense of our nation? thank you. some housekeeping details, everyone. i would like to recognize several of our guests this morning could first and foremost, the honorable mike kelly. [applause] we also have the commissioner of the u.s. international trade
commission. [applause] from governor rick snyder's d.c. for the great state of michigan, bill mcbride. [applause] from the european parliament office, the director. [applause] there you are. embassy,the australian tim roberts. [applause] welcome. also, we have a number of staffers here. as you all know, we would not be here today without their great help. let me go through them and please hold your applause until the end or we will be here until 9:00. tyler stevens with senator saxby chambliss, chris with tim scott. diane with mike rogers, david stern with andy barr. frederick,, bobby
grant gardner, formerly with speaker boehner and now with the republican national committee. susan, also with mike rogers. darian flowersll, at homeland security and also with rob portman. martha scott poindexter with the senate select committee on intelligence. and tim butler with mike kelly. welcome. [applause] i would like to call your attention to a number of events we have coming up. next wednesday, we will be hosting a breakfast with egoists . we will be discussing the november elections and the landscape that we will be seeing soon. on september 23, we asked senator bob portman, who will not be here, but will be over at
the monaco. do not forget that. at the monacle. on september 25, back here at the capitol hill club, we are hosting a senior leadership from team majority leader kevin mccarthy. we will have all of his senior staff here. this will be a launch event. do not miss that. as for this morning, we are so honored to be blessed with these two guys. i already miss them and they have not even left yet. they continue to try to keep america secure and i feel that the greatest thing about both of them -- i have traveled with mike rogers. senator chambliss, i knew when he was in the house. the greatest thing about both of theseoth these guys is they have never forgotten from whence they came. as you know, their staff, the falls do not far -- do not far from the tree. we are so pleased to have you here this morn iing, eroduce thn
it over to the senior vice president of affairs. have both of to them take their seats here. so please welcome them. [applause] >> thank you, jim. your timing is impeccable. there is not a better time to hear from our guests today. senator saxby chambliss of , his final term in congress afternoon newly 20 years in capitol hill. he spanned both chambers and provided tireless leadership for his constituents. born in north carolina and raised in louisiana, he graduated from the university of georgia and law school at the university of tennessee. soon thereafter, he began practicing agriculture law with a passion that would prove instrumental during his time served in key roles, both the
agriculture and the select intelligence committees around congress. his congressional tenor -- tenure shows a man willing to work across the aisle. a long and distinguished legacy for this true american statesman. senator chambliss serves as a member of the agriculture committee and is firmly vice chairman of the senate select committee of intelligence. joining the senator is congressman mike rogers, chairman of the house intelligence committee. also in his final term in , he believes that national security issues should be bipartisan or even nonpartisan. the washington post has called his leadership a rare example of bipartisanship. along with his ranking member democrat, the chairman has worked to get authorization
bills signed into law with bipartisan support. he has also taken on critical ,yber security legislation getting it passed the house with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. he was a commissioned officer in the united states army and continue to serve his country as special agent with the fbi in chicago. after being elected to the , he went toate congress in 2000. please join me in welcoming our guests. [applause] >> thanks very much. if anyone cannot hear me, let me know and i am happy to pick up this microphone. i will try to shout if you can't. it is great to be here this morning with my long time dear friend.
it is not my first time to be here. i have known the makeup of the audience. thank you for your great support and commitment to america and what is good about washington and our government. it is also good to be back with my buddy, mike rogers. it has been 24 hours since we were on the platform together. and i missed him all day yesterday. we have shared a few drinks of whiskey now and then and sold lots of problems between ourselves. here without saying that i was on the house committee my last two years in the house. at awas a great experience critical time, obviously.
under the leadership of mike rogers and dianne feinstein, we have made a dedication to not just making that relationship better, but making it a very smooth operation between the committees. we visit regularly and i was talking earlier to a couple of folks yesterday. the four of us have been talking about cyber security for two years now. that is the extent to which we these bipartisan committees. mike has been a dear friend and a great leader. i think it is appropriate that we are here today on the 13th anniversary of september 11. it is one of those seminal moments where all of us remember where we were. i was the chairman of the house
subcommittee on intelligence, terrorism, and homeland security. meeting after september 11, that subcommittee was charged with the first investigation. closely together to produce a report on that. it kind of set the stage for me with respect to what i was going to be doing for the next 12 years in the senate. qaeda that we knew in 2001 was a narrow band of renegades and killers. in 2001, they attacked us on our homeland. today, lord knows, we are thousands and thousands of offshoots of al
qaeda scattered around the world that present a greater threat to us today than al qaeda presented in 2001. when the president talked about we have eliminated core al qaeda , guess what? we have al qaeda in iraq, al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. just in the last 30 days, we have seen the creation or the announcement of al qaeda in india and bangladesh and burma and other parts of the world. struck al qaeda are going to have to continue to fight and continued to strike them. destroy them just like the president has been talking about destroying isil. isil is not an isolated terrorist group, but they are
the most vicious of the terrorist groups that are out there. tvwe have seen exhibited on over the last several months, particularly the last several weeks, they are committed to a caliphate in the middle east part of the world that now stretches from syria into iraq. they want to stretch that into jordan and lebanon and into gaza. if we do not eliminate their capability by destroying them and killing those individuals, they may have the capability to do that. that is why it is so important that we use the only thing they recognize and understand, deadly force, to counteract them and destroy them. with effect to what the president said last night, we have been in conversation --
they have called me over the last several days, couple weeks, regarding our thoughts and opinions. the white house has reached out to both sides of the aisle. where they think we need to go with respect to this heated conflict. the president answered all the questions last night. but look, this is not a partisan issue. we have got to -- it is not about giving the benefit of the doubt as much as it is joining as americans to solidify the offensive action that needs to be taken to kill this group of nasty terrorists. i was pleased to hear some things the president said. obviously, i would like to go a bit stronger on some things. but some things are going to happen. the thing that pleased me the -- mike and i have been
around the world together, talking to our friends in the arab world. they have always encouraged the united states to do what we are doing. they are pleased to have us in their countries, fighting terrorists. but they never really step up to the plate light we have needed them to do. the president has put the ball in their court with his comments last night and the strategy that he outlined. so the challenge is there to the arab world. america is willing to do its part. we will do more than our part. we always do. but the challenge is for the arab world to come forward and really confront these guys. it will have more meaning to it than all of the action america can take. so i am very encouraged by the fact that the arab world is joining hands with us in this effort. our european friends are also joining hands and we have got off thehere,
battlefield, that we have to address. i just got back from a 10-daytrip to europe with some of my colleagues. one of the issues that we talked to our friends about is the visa ways of -- visa waiver program we have with everyone of those countries. it is a very serious situation that we have gotten ourselves into. obviously, a very unintended consequence. we used to never have concerns about anybody coming to the united states. today, with all of the foreign fighters going to syria, going to iraq, and now coming back to their native lands and having the capability with their british passport, french passport, whatever it may be, of hopping on an airplane and coming to the united states, they are representing a different threat, from that
respect, then we have ever seen. we need to join hands with the president and make sure we exhibit the right kind of forceful action to destroy isil. at the same time, we need to make sure that we are given the tools to our intelligence community and law enforcement community to make sure they have the capability to keep these bad or that we are able to monitor them and control them and keep an eye on them while they are here. we are going to be debating some of that as we go forward between now and the end of the year. next year, somebody other than mike and i will have to be making those decisions. is intelligence community composed of a lot of brave men and women who are doing a wonderful job. our military is composed of
great men and women who are doing a wonderful job and if we do not give them the right kind of support from a policy standpoint, they are not going to be able to continue to do that. i will continue working with mike between now and the end of the year to make sure that we continue to accomplish some policy matters that keep those tools in place and hopefully give support and make sure that the table is set going forward in this long, and during fight against isil and other threats out there around the world. thanks very much for letting me be here. [applause] >> thank you very much. councilman invited us today, found outs, and i that he just wanted to see if we showed up. if we did not, he was going to get in the car and go home. so thanks for that. i want to be part of the
dialogue that gets this town right. that is going to be even more important as we go forward. i just want to go back and talk a little bit about some history. when you look at this, since --re is so much debate today we do not look back far enough and look at how we got here. 9/11 is when this fight started with al qaeda or jihadists or extremists -- you remember the , a radicalgermany jihadist movement in the 1980's. 1993, they tried to blow up the world trade center. do you but -- do you remember that? had gotten iteers wrong, that building would have come down then too. and you look at the east african bombings of the 1990's.
of years later, 9/11 happens on our soil. they were against us long before we ever notice. that was part of the problem. the 9/11 commission said something interesting. because we never really engaged them, they believed they could get more emboldened. they could do more emboldened efforts, something like 9/11. one of the things that they also said was that we lacked imagination. because we had bits and pieces of information, but nobody had the imagination to put the information together and say -- we knew they were taking private lessons. we knew that they were jihadists. we knew they were committed to acts of terror and violence. notbody said -- we could quite put it together. no one said, what if they got on our airplanes and flew them into buildings? no one had the imagination to put that together. and so 9/11 happened and we are
where we are today. threat asook at the you see it and notice it today, someone said this whole episode of the last decade created all of these new jihadists. i am going to dispute that for several reasons. the one reason why al qaeda was able to spread its wings -- as you recall, osama bin laden moved around a lot. he was in africa or a long time. he has been moving around for a long time before his demise. finally, he found a home. he found time and space in afghanistan. he found a government that was willing to absolutely tolerate him and support his efforts. you do not mess with us, we are not going to mess with you. we are going to be equipment in the soccer stadium. executing people convicted of adultery. do you think they went back to the stone age?
they made it illegal for girls to read. you could not teach your girls to read. ago, notago, 100 years 200 years ago, this was in the 1990's. when we got there, i was the first congressional delegation, dave hobson, we were the first congressional delegation. it was still against the law to teach girls how to read in afghanistan. if we do not take a step back as americans and pull ourselves out of the kardashian world that we live in and start understanding who they are and what the threats are, maybe you would not have statements like it is the 21st century, people do not act like that. i have bad news for you and america and the rest of the world -- yes, they do. , youyou see now with isis have a group gaining safe haven
in eastern syria, further ,adicalizing their individuals employing their harsh version of , summaryw sum are executions, burning churches. they took that opportunity to grow and took over oil refineries and sell it on the black market. we think they have a billion in cash and precious metals. once they got strong enough they go over the berm and now they're in iraq. and some notion we can call them j.v. or these al qaeda operations as less than serious is a serious mistake. we're getting ready to make that mistake again. i'm very proud of the president candidly that he decided to change his path. he stood up last night and said all right, we have to do
something about it. it's a good start. it's a good day. i'm with saxby who has been a great leader in the united states senate on these issues. he's very humble as the southern gentleman, as you would expect. but he has been very key in all of those authorization bills, all the cyberfight that we had and all of this comedy -- comity we've been able to find between the house and senate, he's been the leader and point man for all of that, thank for you doing that, saxby, appreciate it. what is that saying, thanks for doing it, now get out. [laughter] >> he still wants me to do his radio show. >> yeah, exactly. so i just hope we take a second and stand back and tell you why we do that. for those of us who study national security issues and spend time doing this and reading about it and undergo the threat, there's about 20, 21 now with this new announcement of al qaeda with this new al qaeda affiliate in india and we think that's just to get them on the board. remember, they're jealous isis
is getting the attention. some notion that isis is more brutal than them, remember, they split people's throats to overtake an airplane to fly them into buildings. pretty hard to argue who is more brutal in my mind or you'd be more brutal or more tolerable than one organization over the other. and so what you have is this competition now, by the way, between al qaeda saying hey, we've got to get on the board here so we can show the rest of the world we're the strongest jihaddist organization and you have isis holding ground and calling the califate and now have recruiting offices around the world. and have pamphlets recruiting jihaddists and come and fight be and a part of the group. and when they show up a lot of them have western passports. and i think we got so soft and removed from this threat we decide the n.s.a. must be a bad and horrible organization. dd
the whole reason these program with respect put in place after 9/11 is we did a study and said what did we miss? which pieces of the puzzle would allow us to miss somebody to kill 19 people, killing 3,000 americans? one of them was a phone call from a safe house overseas, an al qaeda safe house to san diego. and they said operation is a go and we missed it because we didn't want to have those kind of communications from a foreign country and a foreigner into the united states. so think about the debate we've had in the last year. well, we've got to get out of afghanistan, they're gaining ground, so the table is gaining ground and with that comes al qaeda. we're saying let's dismantle our ability for the n.s.a. to track foreigners overseas and even watch a phone call from a foreigner overseas into the united states. we have thousands of individuals who have western passports who are coming home.
somebody overseas is going to pick up the phone and call them. do we really want to be blind in that circumstance? do we? america, the political debate is ours. i'm not sure i'm going to take the time to understand that problem but it sounds kind of hard and maybe they might call me. this notion is ridiculous. what we worry about, i know i worry about is this threat is as real as it's ever been. how far the 20, now 21 al qaeda affiliates, half of them have pledged in affiliation to isis because they believe they have to get on this notion of a caliphate. which now you have an organization big and strong and well financed. you have a dabbling of the al qaeda affiliates around the world saying maybe they're the ones, i still pledge allegiance to al qaeda but want to express my support which means you plug into their logistical nodes and their ability to plug in
operations and now you worry, saxby is only 25 years old and look what this job has done to him. now you know what happens when we sit in those dark rooms and go through -- pour over all this intelligence. this threat is as serious as i've ever seen it. and i really don't think america is ready -- in the place to debate the real threat so we can meet this threat with reasonable expectations and using america's diplomatic and soft power and military power to bring these things to a conclusion and disrupt their activities enough we can keep america safe. it is to me a critical time and i just want to tell this last quick story because on that trip to afghanistan, i asked to go down, there was a children's hospital in kabul and i went down to that hospital and it was in -- you can imagine pretty rough shape. the indian government had run it when the table took over, they pulled out and took everything with them. and so this hospital had no air
conditioning, no a.c. at all, candidly, and for their infectious diseases ward, what they'd do is close the window and close the door to stop the spread to the rest of the hospital. when they opened the door to give us the tour, you can imagine it was a, overcrowded, b, they had no nurses because they wouldn't allow their women to be nurses, you can't have take, so they sent them home when the table took over so they had parents, mothers who were there trying to take care of their kids in a closed room about half this size with about 45 people in it, all of them sick. it was the most god-awful thing i had ever seen. and the woman who met me at the door was running it, was a doctor, trained in the united states. when the fighting started, she had been -- let me back up. when the table got there, they sent her home. she is a trained orthopedic surgeon. they sent her home and said you can't do that here in afghanistan under the table. she goes home. six years later she hears the
bombings starting and she walks out, she takes off her burqa and walks nine miles through some pretty tough territory without her burqa, gets to the hospital and she said, i knew i to be here because this is where i could do the most good. she was the one giving me the tour in this hospital. we get up. and by the way, each hospital bed had more than one child in it because they didn't have enough hospital beds. you can imagine, they don't have any way to clean the sheets, this is not a place that was, you might make it there, you might not make it out. i asked her at the end of it after she gay me this tour and we were in the ward where the children had just had surgery so amputations and other things. and i asked her, i said is this important for the united states to be here? and i'll never forget it because she turned and put her hand on my shoulder and said yesterday i had to amputate the arm and a leg of a young boy that stepped on a soviet mine. their parents threw him in a
cart with a donkey, it took them two days to get him to the hospital. they kept him alive. i didn't have the right an setic or didn't even have the right medical tools but if it isn't for the united states, none of us will have a chance at life. neither will he. and you can still hear the bombing in the mountain ranges in the distance. so think about what america is getting ready to do today. the president even announced it last night. i liked a lot of what he said except that he's going to end the war in afghanistan. we have asked these women to come out of the back of their houses, to take their burqas off and join society so that they could temper this problem of the table and al qaeda coming back. and we are going to pull out like we just pulled out of iraq. and the difference between iraq and afghanistan is afghanistan will happen in about 1/100th of the time. and we will slaughter thousands of women who had the courage to
stand up for something bigger than themselves, democracy, engagement, temperament, i hope that america stops for a minute and shakes themselves out of this notion that we are war weary. less than 3% of the population has ever even been asked to do anything in the war. you didn't have to give up sugar, you didn't have to give up your tires. you didn't have to stop eating eggs. you didn't have to stop -- we didn't ration flour. we did all that in this country at one people. those people were war weary and had to give up a lot of their lives in order to win the fight. we have to give up a little kardashian tv. if that's who we have become, then we will suffer the problem of terrorism for generations to come. i hope this is our moment. i hope this is the president's moment. i know saxby and i and dianne feinstein and dutch are going through the details at least on our space on this plan to get this right. i hope america rallies around candidly the president, bucks him up a little bit.
we do this together, republicans and democrats and say we won't tolerate the spread of radical jihadism around the world. and we will not tolerate them threatening the united states in any way wherever we find you. if we don't, you're going to have this conversation with two more members next year on the 9/11 date wondering why this is taking so long. anyway, with that uplifting note, let's go get some of that whiskey. [applause] >> yes, ma'am? >> i watched an interview with the islamist leader, and he said -- inaudible] and i mean, they hoped to shall
law.- sharia what are your observations and have they changed? >> i was in belgium on our first stop on the recent codell we took in visiting the generals and other leadership at nato, and this is a real problem all over europe. muslims are the fastest growing population in a number of countries like france, the u.k. and in belgium. and obviously the more of that population -- and i have to member that 99% of muslims are the right thinking kind of people. but it doesn't take many of them to really wreak havoc in any country. and in most european countries,
there is the opportunity that we don't necessarily have in the united states, for jihadism to be created. there are a lot more radical imans in that part of the world than we see over here. there is a free flow in europe, in all the european union. there's no need for a visa or passport. you can go wherever you want to know. so there's a definite trend, not just an increase in muslim population but in that small percentage of jihaddist, there's also a very trend towards seeing that increase. now, i don't know about the projections on what the population in belgium, which is a very small country to start with, may be. but let me tell you, there is an active group of jihaddist within that community, within
that part of the world that is very capable today and they're just going to get stronger. so our european friend are now understanding that they've got to do a better job of monitoring those folks and trying to make sure that at least from a public standpoint, that jihaddists are not able to recruit and train right under the nose of their law enforcement agencies. i just hope it works for them because that's those folks who have the ability to come to the united states once they are radicalized. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, thank you for your fine analysis. you said earlier today the president's plan requires some affirmative action on the part of congress. what does that mean and is that conceivable? >> well, i think it's the
congressional responsibility to be affirmative because it does go out beyond the bound of the authorization to use military force that was established in iraq. you're talking another country. and it is hard. i hope congress shows its strength here and shows america we can do hard things. we should affirm what the president talked about last night. we're going to have to do some language for the funding portion. i happen to believe we should also do an outright affirmative affirmation of what he's doing to give the congressional approval for him to do this. i think it does a couple things and shows america, yes, this is serious. it shows the rest of the world that yes, america is finally serious and shows the enemy we're taking it serious which means, you know, someone will knock on your door real soon. and i think without that we lose our coalition partner's commitment in a way that i think should be at the level it should be.
i love my nato partners but they need a little encouragement. and i think this can give that encouragement for them to help and participate in this. and they are likely to be the first receiving end of these westerners going home. it's likely to be easier to get that first strike in europe than it is to even the united states. and that's why this coalition building is going to mean something and this affirmation by congress shows it is serious and we can do hard things and we're together on it. i don't know if you may have a difference of opinion? >> i totally agree and i think there may be some requirements for participation and training under title 10 that requires congressional approval and we should give that to the administration and allow them to move forward on that and it's not going to be without some heavy debate but i think it should be done.
>> i was just going to -- you mentioned the visa waiver program and the fact that makes it easier that all these passports can come in the u.s. without a visa. is there com competition in approvaling that and the t.s.o. or people coming into it country can use nor vigilance. >> we do a very good job today putting the bad guys we know about on no fly lists and even if they hold american passports, if they're out of the country and get on a no fly list, they can't get back in the united states. but there's always the potential of somebody slipping through the crack. should we change visa waiver? i don't know. you i do think this is a time in our history of when we ought to review that policy. our european friend are very close associates and they truly are our friends for the most part but when somebody gets radicalized in europe and has
the ability to come to the united states, you better believe those extremists are recruiting them because they know they have the ability to come to the united states. so we've got to be evermore vigilant with respect to the no fly list and keeping bad guys out of the country. but at the same time, i think it presents that opportunity that we need to review that program and see if any kind of changes need to be made or additional tools given to t.s.a. to do a better job of enforcing it if they need it. >> one of the things we have done after 9/11 is we've done a better job in establishing our homeland security in a way to catch bad folks coming in. the problem with this particular case is even we'll tell you yeah, we know x number of folks with u.s. passports and will do everything we can to make sure when they come back, they'll get a welcome. the problem is they're using cutout countries to get into the country. so you may fly somewhere in europe and end up in country x
and from country x you get over land transported into syria. that part we wouldn't know. now, u.s. citizens have a higher legal standard for surveillance, rightly so. nobody is saying we should change that. but that creates a huge gap in our ability to know. if you're talking somewhere between 3,000 and 7,000 western passport holders, you can start getting nervous in a hurry knowing we probably don't know all 3,000 to 7,000 people and we're not sure if that's a light number or heavy number. many in the intelligence community believe it's a light number. we think that number is getting bigger which by the way, quick action has to happen. if you want to stop the pipeline of recruiting, you have to take a right now and make sure this does not look like disneyland to anybody who is sitting in cleveland wondering if that whole jihad thing looks like a good idea. we need to nip that in the bud right now. that is a concern. and other cups have different
privacy rights and requirements that might not track their travels in the same way that other countries might in europe. and canada is a great example. they have a different cultural approach to that issue. once you get into canada, you're a bridge -- you're a toll away from getting into the united states without a visa, without a government check or anything and might not have any idea in the world you had been in syria or iraq. that the challenge that we have and why those of us who are saying, this is an urgent problem, we need to get in front of and why we're -- at least i encourage the president got there last night. >> the 9/11 commission issued a report, a summary for give you n update on where we are today after the first report was issued. and basically what it -- the
bottom line was they thought that we are on september 10 right now. i just wonder your comments about that. >> oh, look at the time. here's the -- i under what they're saying. i think we're better positioned. here's the problem. again, you have these 20 affiliates around the country -- by the way, somebody said we never had 20 affiliates. >> trust me, they were there with different mission sets and i think we need to stop the argument when they got there. it's a complete waste of time. they were there and committed to political jihad and now they've expanded it against the west. and they 1 groups now all have an interest to commit an act of terror. some have the ability -- capability to do it locally and some have the aspiration to do it in the west. all of them have the aspiration to do it here.
what i think they're saying is are we configured in the right way to get the best information to protect us in a way that i think we would be able to sleep better at night. argue the answer is no. because we've engaged in an ideology that wants to pull back -- you can't put a nice face on terrorist disruption activities. let me be blunt. it's a hard end of this business. you can't put a nice face on it. it is what it is. they're cutting people's heads off. you can imagine you're not going to sit down and have a cup of tea with them and talk it over. that's just not going to happen. and so are we configured exactly right in africa and the middle east and other places in southeast asia to make sure that we're doing it exactly right and try to remove any chance that we might have a terrorist attack? i argue we can do a better job and think that's what they're talking about. you might want to think of this configuration so we can try to
handled this problem. nothing's perfect. you want to get as close to never making a mistake as you possibly can and i think they're saying, and i would agree, we're not quite there yet. >> i don't think there's anything in that report where we would disagree with. we understand the world is more dangerous today than it was in 2001. if nothing else by virtue of the cheer numbers. in the past five years the state department has designated 20 groups as terrorist groups. and those are just new ones. and that's added to the list of dozens of others that were already on the terrorist list. so just the sheer numbers make the world a much more dangerous place today. [inaudible] >> will send troops to address this issue. but those countries have
different political systems than we do but i'm sure they have to be cognizant of what the common man things about, muslim organization taking on a muslim organization. what do we know about that dynamic in some of those countries and how it may affect their ability to fully participate in trying to address the problem? >> the culture in that part of the world is different from the standpoint of anything, not just in the united states but in any other part of the world. and it's something that's very difficult for americans to understand. if you're asking muslims to go to fight other muslims, you've got an uphill battle just from the start. but the fact of the matter is that this group named isil is different from any other group of terrorists that we've seen. they do want to establish
caliphate in the middle east part of the world which means shiria law and those women who gained the rights over the last several years, they would medically lose those rights and children all of a sudden won't be going to school again, and i think there is a large segment of the arab world that does not want to reverse to that type of system they'd been living under in some countries. i think there's more inclination on their part today to join the fight. they know that it's their back yard and they've got more to lose than anybody else. but they've never really been challenged to step up to the plate and that's what i was pleased to see the president do last night. give them that challenge and say we're going to be there. we're going to provide leadership. but you've got to come to the fight and join us.
and we need them to be the boots on the ground. we have lots of assets we bring from an airpower, from intelligence, from a logistics standpoint. but we need them in the fight in a big way. and it's their opportunity to do so and i know we've been briefed on the behind the scenes negotiations and i'm encouraged about where we are. but we'll have to see what happened over the next several weeks. >> i would agree. hen they went into mosul, when isis intent into mosul they took the people that were not going to be compliant enough and chopped their heads off and put it on strikes. they call that motivation for owes other urban leader. they have no respect for law strict interp
station of their -- strict interpretation of their faith. i am encouraged by what i'm seeing. i think they have as much to lose in this as anyone and they're eager to interrupt the success of this organization. they're also recruiting from their own countries and those people are going to go home and it's easier to get there from those countries. they have that problem and understand it's a problem for them and think they want to get on with this as fast andically -- fast and quickly as they can. >> you have a long track record working across the aisle and overcome the gridlock and get important legislation through. as you all wrap up your careers on the hill, what advice or guidance to you have to successors? >> it's easy in the senate because for the most part, you still can't do anything other than get a nominee to the bench or to the administration through without getting 60 votes. and
neither one of us have those 60 votes so it's imperative you work across the aisle. and you know, i think our two committees are a good example of the positive things that can happen when reasonable republicans and reasonable democrats sit down together and check our partisan hats at the door and agree that we've got a goal that has to be accomplished and we've got to just talk through our differences and reach that goal. and i know that there are lots of democrats that have good ideas. there are lots of republicans that have good ideas. nobody has a patent on all of that. so i'm looking forward to seeing what the makeup of the next congress is going to be. i'm encouraged where we are on the senate side right now but we've got 54 days to go and a lot can happen there. but i think with the right leadership at the top, you will
see more bipartisan efforts in the senate for sure. >> you know, it takes work. we've had -- we've all four gotten together and don't want people to think we close the door and giggle and come to an agreement in 32 second. some of them have been fairly emotional and heated discussions on how we've come to the right goal but at the end of it, it was done. it was an issue we had to get through and came to it with philosophical differences but with the same goal and worked it out, in every issue. i don't think we had one we couldn't get there. but it takes the commitment to sit down and understand that we have a goal. if you don't accomplish the mission talking about it for 100 meetings means nothing. so we all came to agreement earlier that we were going to do that and national security was too important. but there is that outside influence on congress that says if you sit down with someone who believes something a little lift from yourself that that is somehow some vials of your oath
and your credibility and your principles and i say nonsense. this is a place where you bring your principles to the table and you work out to the best of your ability to get something moved forward. we need to get back to that. we need to have more people come here with the notion that they want to help solve a problem versus just tell you no to a problem. and unfortunately, there's been a lot of political profit made from being against everything, if ue want $80 in cuts, they won't support you unless you get $81 and if you get $81, they really meant $85. and it's unfortunate and disrupted the senate activities and zrutted the house and governance -- disrupted the house and governance as we see it in america. we are paying a price. we don't get to do it in a vacuum. the world watches the united states. i hope you have leaders like saxby, dianne feinstein and like dutch who understand,
yeah, we're allowed to disagree. i'm an old reagan republican. we lost that somewhere. i think we're going to get have to get back to that. the environment now is that we have to disagree with anything. no person or party has a good idea on anything. that is really not helpful. longt's, i don't know how it has been there. a few years. it is getting worse. we travel overseas a lot and meet with foreign leaders. the rest of the world. people are starting to ask questions, if america is going to make it. you get these questions overseas, i get a lump in our throw to think that on our watch we are going to let the greatest nation on the face of the earth just go away and melt away into
mediocrity. again, it is going to take all of us. it takes organizations like this to believe in sitting down and having dialogue. of imparting that on members congress. it is ok to sit down and negotiate and get a settlement where you do not get everything you want. peeay, there is my pet ve. there is my unpaid political advertisement. both for your time this morning. and for giving us a lot of reassuring -- this is tough stuff. and there's so much information out there that we are all picking up at different points. and you guys kind of brought it all together. we know how much both of you lov e our country. on behalf of the ribbon society, we would like to present you to the smithsonian's new book. wihth our thanks. we hope you will come back and give us some more insightful
thoughts on where this country is going, because we know how much you love it. away far, will not go because we have a lot of friends in this town and you'll continue to have a lot of friends. please join me in thanking our speakers. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
>> we're excited to announce that it's launch week for the 11th annual student cam documentary contest. $100,000 in cash prizes will be awarded to middle and high school contest winners. the theme is the three branches and you. we would like you to tell a story that demonstrates how a policy law or action by either the executive legislative or judicial branches has affected you and your life or your community. the competition is open to students in grades 6-12 and student may work alone or in groups of up to three. contestants are asked to produce a 5-7 minute video documentary and to include some c-span programming. that $100,000 in cash prizes will go to 150 students and the 53 teachers, and the grand prize winner will win $5,000.
states. air strikes will be supported by forces fighting on the ground to protect their own countries families homes, communities. but now it's up to congress to rally behind president obama and his decisive strategy. i'm confident we will put our political differences aside and work together to give this administration the tools it needs to meet isis head on. the administration has consulted with congress. i expect the cooperation will continue. senators will be briefed on the situation today. hearings will proceed next week. and i expect a continued consultation with congress and the administration as events unfold including the cr which we expect to get from the house next week. the proposal that the president has given to the american people requires immediate congressional action in
granting the administration the authority to equip and train southeastern rebels under title 10 to fight isis. congressional support for training under title 10 to train and equip rebels is critical to building an international coalition that is so necessary. i expect this to pass congress before the end of next week. our colleagues in the house are currently discussing exactly how they are going to proceed. i expect this to pass congress with broad bipartisan support. this is really the time for americans to close ranks and engage our adversaries as one united nations. matters like this are no place for political posturing. now is the time for us to come together to speak with one voice and tell the terrorists you cannot hide, you've committed horrific acts and we will find and destroy you.
>> last night president obama spelled out a clear strategy dealing with this extraordinary terrorist threat, and it is extraordinary. we have faced and we remember this day more than any day of the year. we have faced terrorist threats in the past. this one is exceptional. exceptional in its organization, in its structure, in its financing, and in its depravet. and i believe the president is right to speak out and single them out as a special threat to the stability of the middle east, the stability of our allies, and even to the i want rests of the united states. what i heard from the president too was encouraging. encouraging that this would be an international effort. that the troops on the ground would be coming from other countries, and that he the president is going before the u.n. security council to discuss this matter. he is engaging those who are freedom loving rooped the world to join us in this effort to stop this terrorist threat. now we have a responsibility, and it will begin this
afternoon. the classified briefing where we will be given even more detailed information and an opportunity to ask questions and perhaps hearings that will follow from that over the course of the next few days, this is our chance to ask specific questions but i will have to join in at this point and say the majority leader is 100% right. make no mistake. when we commit american service men and women in harm's way, it is time to put partisanship aside and stand together as a congress and as a nation. we need to be on their side. >> last night the president laid out a clear strategy to keep the homeland safe from the emerging terrorist threat posed by isis. he made clear he will use aggressive air strikes to attack isis wherever they are found will not put troops on the ground and will not engage in the type of nation building that weakened america at home
during the last decade. this is exactly what the american people want and exactly what the president intends to do. while the president made clear, and we agree that he has the authorization of military force to conduct these strikes, he also asked for congress' support in passing title 10 authorization to train foreign troops. if democrats and republicans can't come together to keep us same from terrorism, i don't know what will bring us together. for far too many months now washington and congress have been marred by partisan gridlock. when it comes to combating terrorism overseas, dysfunction must stop at the water's edge. that's how it used to be. democrats and republicans would work together to keep us safe and we should go back to those old ways. democrats and republicans ought not fight with one another but join together in the fight
against isis. today september 11 is a stark reminder of the threat of terrorism and for the need for america to be ever vigilant and strong against those who seek to do us harm. we can achieve these goals without boots on the ground, without nation building, without being pulled into a regional struggle. the president has set us on the right course to keep us safe from isis, and we strongly support that idea. we are eager to work with our republican colleagues to support the president in his effort and ensure he has the ools to keep the country safe. >> on september 11, er american spends a little bit more time than usual thinking about the threat of terrorist to our homeland we think harder about those that we lost on that day and those selfless heroes in our armed forces who have
sacrificed so much and have done everything they have been asked to do to protect our country in the 13 years since. i know i spend a little more time thinking about how we came together as a nation on september 12 and how we were united in our belief that america should fight terrorists who intend to harm us and do everything we can to prevent future attacks. i thought about that last night after the president finished his speech. it has become clearer and clearer that icele is a brutally dangerous terrorist group. they are murdering civilians, stealing, de stroying and raping. and they have no plans to stop. while i continue to ask the administration tough questions as this strategy is implemented, i was glad to hear president obama lay out an aggressive comprehensive plan address isil across the nation.
was very glad the president made it clear he is not sending large numbers of combat troops back into the region and a primary focus will be on strengthening our partners over there. we have a full briefing scheduled for this afternoon. any time the administration talks about using force we in congress owe it to our constituents to press hard for clarity, of mission and goals, to make sure these operations will make our country truly safer over the long term. but this is not a time for partisanship or political posturing. so i join our leadership here today in calling for bipartisan unity as we work on this in the coming days and make sure congress is giving the president the tools he needs to keep our country safe. >> we'll take a few questions before caucus.
> senator doiben your can he marked up the bill we're talking about the cr. but in terms of long-term looking throughout the year since we don't have an end day on this, do you expect the administration to request more funding for the wars or do you believe throughout the fiscal year that starts october 1 -- >> i'll take a run at this. the title 10 request is $500 million and at that stage that's the only request that we've had. so senator durbin, who is responsible for appropriations funding the defense department, should -- because he has a lot more information than most all of us have because of all the hearings classified and otherwise that he has. >> i just think it's too soon to be speculating on the cost of this effort other than the title ten aspect of it. and we're talking in the most general terms about the oca
account and how much should be included with the administration. senator middle class ski is front and center in that negotiation. but we are not dealing with any specific request to my knowledge in terms of funding beyond what has been said about title 10. >> you said that you expect the congress to vote on this title 10 authority by the end of next week. the house met this morning and a number of them expressed their view that this should be something that is held as a stand-alone vote separate from the cr. one of these is the best way to send a strong message on the president's policy. >> that's a decision the house is going to have to make and we will, as i indicated in my prepared remarks, we await what the house is going to do. i've spoken to the speaker on more than one occasion. we had a nice visity yesterday. and he is moving forward yesterday to try to bring everybody together.
i appreciate what he is trying to do. >> you've been very clear on your position as far as authority goes, putting the title 10 aside but just for the strikes the president has already authorized and any going forward. but how do you respond to those in your caucus who disagree like senator mccain who says he needs to come to congress? >> i think that we should and i think this is what will happen, we had the address to the nation last night. we will have a briefing tonight. people who have questions will ask them. i will conduct that briefing. it will take a long time. there will be a lot of questions. next week as we've indicated there will be some congressional hearings on the situation in the middle east. that's important we do that. we have a new government in iraq that's been formed. they're still looking forward to having -- appointing a defense minister, interior minister, which is extremely
important. we're having ongoing meetings as we speak. secretary kerry is in the middle east. he will be there for a while. when he leaves there he will go into europe. so we have a lot of things. and this is isn't the time to start speculating on what if. what we need to do is make sure that we can take care of what we need to do and that is train and equip the rebels and make sure that we don't do anything that is rash. we have to be very calm and deliberate. and we as a country have to pull together on this. a the president laid out mission to strike isis and roll back isis. how much thought have you given to what happens after that? we've been bombing iraq off and on for 23 years now. if -- are you ok with the president's mission? and this isis has destroyed, what happens? >> i was very satisfied. i think the nation was very
moved by the president's remarks. they were deliberate, they were directly to the point. and i thinki i just thought it was a good presentation to the nation. the middle east is a very difficult situation we have because of the invasion that took place there a few years ago. but as i've indicated, it doesn't do us any good to go i did talk about as yesterday, talk about vice president cheney come up here giving advice. let's get away from that. we're where we are. let's talk about what's gone on . we are in a situation now where we have an evil force that is really trying to destroy much of what we believe in, and nations in the middle east believe in. that's why this coalition is so important. and i just think that we have to focus on title 10 and move on next week and see what the
house does. let's not be negating everything that has been accomplished the last few days. >> for more than a year senator durbin and some of your other colleagues have been raising questions about whether the scope of the current war on terror is covered by the aumf in 2001 that's being asserted for authority in this case. can you explain why that doesn't apply to this and if not what authority grants the president? >> the president said last night that he has authority to do bombing as he is doing now in iraq and in syria. we've had said this several times here this morning. we're at the beginning of a little trek that's going to be taken and we have to do it right. we can't -- i repeat the word rash. we have to be deliberate in what we do. i don't need to run through all the things that have taken place with the speech. we have a briefing today. we have hearings next week.
we have the government of iraq that's being formed. we have center kerry in the middle of this let's not rush in to things. we have a very short outline of thing that is we must accomplish and that can only be accomplished if we work together as a nation. thank you very much, everybody. >> following their classified briefing a number of senators spoke to the press. speakers included senators corker, feinstein, and collins. this is 25 minutes.
>> i had a long conversation with vice president biden last night. i think it was good for everyone to hear from the various agencies. and i still want to say and triple underline i think it's incredibly poor judgment by the administration regardless of their believing they have the authorities already to do what they're doing not to seek aggressively and explicitly an authorization for the use of military force. every president believes they have the authorities. always. their there are title 2 or article 2 people. but in all the conflicts since 1991 presidents have sought those authorizations when you have something that's going to
be this long in duration, at least three years, going into another country. that said, obviously as an american, as someone who cares deeply about the security of our country, i want this to be successful. i really do. and i think that in seeking an explicit authorization, what that means is that all the issues are dealt with, whether in classified settings or in public settings, br you really drill down and actually challenges people engaged in these type of activities to ensure that they have everything buckled down. that's obviously not going to happen. what the administration is seeking -- and this is confusing the public, whether it's purposefully or just confusing. what they are seeking in the cr is an authorization only to use title 10 to train the moderate opposition. this has been something we've been pushing for now for years -- for years -- and so i'm thankful that they're asking for that authorization but that
authorization is confusing to people because they confuse that with an authorization, if you will, for the overall effort. so i'm pretty certain they'll be successful in that. i actually support it. i think it's from a process wise attaching it to a cr is not the way to do it. for instance, i don't really support the cr. so this is going to be in that. so it's not a way of really weighing in on a policy that i do support. and that is authorizing them to do title 10 training. i've been in the surrounding area a lot, and there's been a debate within the administration for a long time about this occurring. so i don't know what's happened. i think you saw the tapes where the president was calling this just a month ago. but i'm glad it's occurring. and i support the policy. but i am disappointed that i am -- again, instead of in a robust way, seeking the approval of congress. things are going to wrong. let's face it.
any time there's kinetic activity problems occur. and i think the administration would be so much wiser to get that authorization and buy-in from congress on the front end instead of having friday morning quarterbacks. they've chosen to go a different route that's different than other presidents have done, different than they did in syria. but again, i want this to be successful and i want to do everything i can as one senator to ensure that that is the case. >> how concerned are you about the ability of the u.s. to identify targets from the air if there aren't more resources on the ground? >> i think the weak link -- and this is where i would like to have far more fleshed out. the weak link is, look, all of us understand how you can build support on the ground in iraq. right? i mean, there's an iraqi military as weak as it is, it is there. you have the peshmerga, the kurds. you have build off that on the
ground in iraq. we understand that. everyone understands that. the weak link is how do you build something on the ground in syria when -- even with the type of training they're talking about, it's a speck of sand. it's -- well, it's very small relative to the type of ground forces that you need to do the kind of thing that is you're talking about. so that's the area where i think tremendous work needs to be done. i know that there are multiple coalitions that are looked at being built. there are coalitions by the way that have never existed. i think by the way it's wise to seek those coalitions. but the weak link is that component. you've identified that i've been asking about for some time. and that is how do you deal on the ground in iraq and syria and how do you provide those types of that information that you know you need from the ground to identify those targets more fully. >> how reliable do you think
our allies in the region would be in this fight? not just the southeastern opposition but also the regional partners. >> i don't want to be perjorative here. i was on the peninsula not long after what happened last year, a year ago, when the president, let's face it, let the world know on cn thnch that he was coming to congress and our allies were poise to take action. i shouldn't have said cnn. they watched it on whatever network you all represent. and that created a huge lack of credibility. let's face it. they were shocked. that's the other piece of this that i think is so important. if they were to take the time, the effort to get congress to authorize this on the front end, the entire operation, i think that our allies would feel much more secure in commiting and actually having flags -- arabian flagged, if
you will, planes flying in the area. to have them on the ground if they knew congress was behind this and that possibly one day the commander in chief wasn't going to wake up and go in another direction. so i think that's the other reason why it would be much better judgment to try to seek that on the front end. not say if you want to weigh in you can, but to actually seek it. i've got to go catch a plane. thank you all. chairman feinstein. >> i'm not going to say much. i will just say we had a good briefing. as you know, it was toney limb and the chairman of the joint chiefs and the policy person nd matt olsen from nctc, the number two in intelligence in the dni. and it was very good solid briefing. it's still going ofpblet were were there many questions?
>> i'm not going to describe this classified briefing. is set ink the course and my hope is that everybody comes together now and supports it. i think that's the most important thing we can do. >> on a different subject why you felt it was important to nd that letter and what your reaction was to the vice video? >> i have no idea whether they had access or not so i really can't comment. >> why do you think it's important that the n.f.l. have a no tolerance policy in concerns of domestic violence? >> because i think that a lot of men underestimate this and i to say. it's very hard but this was an extraordinary event.
in fact, that you got the ctual events and got the -- as somebody very prominent and rrific in his sport, and our society has too much of it. we just can't allow it. so we'll see what the n.f.l. does. i'm out of here. thank you. [inaudible] >> i think the southeastern civil war has gotten much more complicated over the last year. i think that's the most problematic part of the president's plan which i largely support. i don't think that a comprehensive strategy to take on isis necessitates us getting involved in the southeastern civil war and the potential consequences of getting it wrong are pretty catastrophic. there's a chance that the rebels could link up with extremist groups in order to fight assad and there's also the possibility that he will
create space for assad to get even stronger. so i hope that we can move forward on a -- >> were you able to get any assurances? >> i did. i asked -- raised my concerns about a strategy taking on isis including getting involved in the southeastern civil war. i didn't hear anything that changed my mind. >> do you think you have a good sense of definition, well defined has an end game and the administration knows what they're doing logistically? >> i think the administration has been very thoughtful in coming up with a comprehensive plan. there are elements that i disagree with. but i think what they're making clear is that you are not going to be able to destroy isil in a matter of weeks or months. this is going to take years. so your metrics are going to accrue over time. so that's one of the clear smenls that they can make today in the hearing. >> sir, if this were to come up
would you vote against it? >> well, right now the administration is just asking for authorization to move ahead and arm and equip mission attached to the continuing resolution. i would not support the arm and equip request as it stands today. >> would you vote against it? >> [inaudible] >> i would not vote for the cr if it was attached to the cr. >> are there any other senators -- > thank you. >> number one as i'm sure you've heard from the other senators it was a very substantive meeting, a good analysis. we had the state department intelligence the white house and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. a couple of points i think came through loud and clear.
one is that the success of this mission is going to be determined largely by two factors that aren't entirely within our control. one is the viability of the coalition. if we don't have real partners who are in it publicly and in a seriously committed way, it's going to be very difficult to be successful. that's also important because this cannot be a war of westerners against islam. this has to be an area of the world that is willing to police itself and that the muslim world in the middle east is willing to stand up and reject this barbaric potential regime in that area. the second thing that came through i think very strongly is a lot of the success of this mission is going to be determined by the nature of the new government in baghdad. that government isn't
inclussive and doesn't gain the confidence of the sunni majority in the north and western parts of iraq, nothing else is going to work. the reason isis has been so successful earlier this spring and summer is because they were swimming in a friendly sea of sunnis who had been alienated by the maliki regime. if the new rejem can -- the comment i made was that prime minister abadi has to channel his inner man della. he has to show that he can be inclusive and not discriminatory and give the sunni population in northern and western iraq confidence that they have more to gain and more chance to live their lives in peace under the regime in baghdad than they do with isis that i believe is using them but is not their friend long
term. so those are i think the two of the very important thing that is came out of the briefing. the other is that there was discussion of congress' role in this matter. there are many of us i certainly count myself as one who believe that congress has the responsibility to be engaged in a discussion and debate and ultimately some action to provide specific authority to the president for what he is proposing to do. the president and the white house feel that they have authority under the authorization for the use of military force that were passed n 2001-2002 but i believe that his hand would be strengthened particularly in his negotiations with other countries that we're trying to get to join this coalition if indeed he's speaking not only on his own behalf but on behalf of the entire united states government. and if the congress itself
makes an explicit declaration of support and that is also under active conversation whether something along those lines can be completed within the next ten days is difficult but i know that those discussions are ongoing particularly in the foreign relations committee. so that's my statement. >> title 10, addresses the arming. would that be enough? would you be willing to vote for that? >> that to me is something that we should do and i think that's what the white house is specifically requesting but to me that doesn't answer the question of the broader authority for example for air syria and other parts of the strategy. i think there should be some more specific authorization of a limited nature along the lines that the president outlined last night. i don't think the white house would be opposed to such a
resolution. but they are not asking for it. but i don't think the failier -- i think the fact that the white house doesn't asking for it doesn't absolve the congress of their responsibility to exercise their constitutional prerogative in terms of the commitment of this country to armed conflict. >> based on all the things you're learning, how imminent do you think there is for the ramping up of activity? what should the public expect in terms of an intensified level here sfrr i think we're going to see intensified levels -- and this isn't based on anything i heard today but just my own opinion, i don't think the president is going to wait. he has already taken aggressive action in terms of air strikes to protect american personnel and preventing humanitarian crisis. but i think we'll see. we'll see action shortly. it's got to be emphasized, however, that air power alone cannot win this struggle. it is going to take boots on
the ground. but they are not going to be american boots on the ground. the question is whose are they going to be, the iraqi army's, the peshmega of the kurds or other regional players. but i think everybody should understand that ultimately the momentum of isis can be blunted by air power and there are ways that we can degrade them. but if we're going to render them ineffective, it's going to take door to door combat in places like mosul and that means that the -- that burden is going to fall principally, iraqi ew, on the security force which in many ways has to be reconstituted and prepared for this mission. >> you think days not weeks for strikes inside syria? >> i don't think it's appropriate for me to comment. >> boots on the ground in
syria? >> there will be southeastern what they call vetted moderate opposition, vetted meaning they've been -- the background has been checked to see that we're not arming and equiping the bad guys. but they will not be americans. we will be providing training and equipment. sort of -- it's a two-front operation, if you will. it's blunting isis in iraq but also dealing with isis and assad in syria. >> there's been a resolution of a limited nature. what kind of limits would you like to see on any resolution that congress passed? >> well, i don't want to get too far out of not having fully looked at the options. but there are options where you could have an authorization that's limited in time that would have to be renewed. one of the problems i believe with the authorization for force of 2001 is it was unlimited in time, geography,
and in many ways in terms of the target. it was very broad and could be interpreted as a kind of open-ended declaration. so time is one of the possible limitations as long as it's clear and can be renewed the target the mission who we're after and the means. for example, the president said last night no substantial american combat troops. that could be part of the authorization. ok? thank you all. >> i think that you will see the congress will give the support to the president's equest of training
authorization, the training that has been announced to be in saudi arabia of the free southeastern army. -- free seern army. and then i think you will see a deliberative discussion in the congress for a limited authorization for the use of military force over the course of time. i am much more encouraged having heard the questions of the senators of both parties thoughtful and i believe that we're starting to see at least in the senate a unity that is in this senator's opinion desperately needed to send a strong message to not only our allies but our enemies as well. >> do you think an actual new aumf is likely? and how would that go about happening if the president said he doesn't need it? >> well, he says technically he doesn't need it.
but this is not a short-term kind of deal. this is going to be a long-term effort. and you need to have all branches of government coming together to support a major effort to go out and to eradicate something that is as trong as it appears. this isil. and i believe that the congress will give it. >> do you believe the president will actually say he wants it? >> i think this is a matter of terminology. the president wants it because it strengthens the hand of the united states in sending a message to our enemies as well as our allies. >> what makes you think that congress wants to arm the syrian rebels? we've heard people come out of there who say they have more concerns than when they went in? >> at the end of the day you're brutal to let this
savage group keep running without countering that and that is going to take the congress supporting the executive branch. thank you all. >> have you learned anything in the course of these briefings that you think changes where we are? we're hearing other senators say that perhaps there will be a move from congress to have a new authorization to use military force. >> i think that the president should come to congress and request an authorization to use military force. that's the way the system should operate. and i think rather than the president just saying that he would welcome an authorization, he should come to congress with
a specific draft of an authorization and we should have a full debate and an opportunity to put constraints on it if appropriate. but to certainly consider it. it may well be that the president as commander in chief has certain inherent authority. he clearly does so. but he is really talking about a broad, multiyear effort, and i believe that he needs congressional authorization. >> secretary kerry says this is not a war, it's a counter terrorism operation. would you describe it that way? > when you read the language that the administration has submitted, it applies not only to the terrorist group known as isil. it also applies to the syrian regime. if we are going to be taking
action against the syrian regime, then that could constitute an act of war rather than just being a limited counter terrorism effort intended to protect americans nd american interests. >> are you concerned about the position as it was played out? do you feel they know what they're doing when it comes to arming the rebels? >> there still are so many questions. our country spends billions of dollars and took many years to train the iraqi security forces. and yet once we withdrew from the country the terrorist group isis was able to go through iraq with amazing strength and speed to seize territory.
so one of the questions that i have is after spending billions of dollars and many years in training the iraqi security forces, what gives the administration the optimism that they have that they can train so-called moderate members of the syrian opposition to be effective against the terrorist group and against the syrian regime? >> are there enough known moderates on the ground to train? >> a real question that i don't think the administration has yet answered to my satisfaction. is how they are going to vet the individuals that they seek to train equip and arm. three years ago it was much easier to identify who the moderate opposition was in syria and to separate the bad guys from the good guys, if you
will. now it is much more difficult to do so because the opposition groups in syria have largely been infiltrated. >> someone suggested passing this small train and equip rebels resolution and come back in the luck -- lame duck and have a debate about how to handle a use of force resolution. >> i think there is a strong case to be made to give the president just limited authority now and to either extend the congressional session through or into october or come back in the lame duck session where we could have a full debate over this military action over the president's strategy and consider an official authorization for the
use of military force. i think that would be a far better way to proceed. the president waited far too long to present a strategy to the american people and to congress. now we're being asked to react on a very short time line in a matter of days to give him the authority to train equip and arm the so-called moderate opposition. i don't know that we can make the kinds of informed decisions that we need to make about such a serious matter in such a short amount of time. having said that, i do want to make clear that i do view isis as a serious threat, not just to iraq and the region, but to american interests both abroad and here at home. thank you.
>> coming up this morning on c-span house armed services committee chairman buck mckeen. then "washington journal" looking at the state of the republican party. president obama's strategy against the terrorist group sis, and higher education. >> the hispanic national bar association hears from attorney general eric holder today at their annual conference in washington, d.c. you can hear his remarks from the event live at 12:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the pentagon holds a fair well parade for the chareds of the armed services committee in the senate and house today. michigan senator karl 11 and congressman buck mckeen will retire at the end of this congress. we'll have that today at 9:00
.m. eastern on c-span 2. >> this weekend on the c-span net works, american history tv is live from baltimore's fort mchenry for the 200th anniversary of the star spangled banner. then later, we'll tour fort mchenry and hear how war came to baltimore in 1814 about the british barrage on the fort and why francees scott key was there to witness the fight. saturday night at 8:00 the presidential leader's scholars program. sunday afternoon at 3:30 live overage of the hearken steak fri president. and ten the conservative movement. and then book tv afterwards, author ken silverstein on the secret world of oil. and then democratic senator
from new york kristin jill brand on her life in politics and her call for women to rise up and make a difference in the world. find our television schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. >> house armed services can he chair buck mckeen spoke about the president's plan to deal with the terrorist group isis thursday at the american enterprise institute. following the speech the california congressman took questions. this is an hour. an hour.
>> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. thanks for coming, for what has turned out to be an extraordinarily timely doesssion. the chairman not need much introduction. i will save the time so we can hear from him and have more discussion. it is a terrific honor to be able to introduce him on to speak with them