tv Defense Secretary Mattis Secretary of State Tillerson Testify on War... CSPAN October 30, 2017 4:59pm-8:29pm EDT
>> the foreign relations committee will come to order. two housekeeping issues, if i could. we have a number of people in the audience, some of whom like to express themselves. we thank you for being here. senator corker: in the past when there have been interruptions, on occasion, i've been able to have people arrested but we stopped that. so please don't do anything that causes you to have to be escorted out of the room because hen the process continues with being arrested, it's fairly unpleasant, i'd hate to see you go through that. secondly, we have a vote, we have two votes today, which is unfortunate.
what we've talked about doing is adjourning the hearing at about seven minutes to 6:00, everybody rushing down and voting on the tail end of the first vote and the second vote, there'll be no spoking before the second vote. then if we could hustle bam. i know general mattis has a meeting he'd like to attend and others want to complete our work in an appropriate way. with that, i'd like to thank secretary tillerson and secretary mattis for being with us today to share the administration's perspective on the authorizations for the use of military force. we are grateful to both of you for your service to our country and your willingness to come here again as we continue this critical discussion on behalf of the american people. versight and debate of the 2000-2001 aumf is something this
committee has been engaged since i started to lead it in 2013. at that time many of us from both parties sought to craft a revised authority to enable the president to atrezz the threats we face from terrorism while ensuring an appropriate role for congress. when president obama submitted an isis aumf to congress in february of 2015, our committee again held a hearing and debated the issue. but there was really no effort on the part of the white house to actually enact a new authorization. this year we've held two full committee hearings on this important topic, a public hearing in june with private witnesses and a classified briefing with secretaries tillerson and mattis in august. we thank you for that. we've been working to schedule this public hearing since that time. numbers of members both eth -- both on and off this committee have raised questions about the executive authorities with respect to war making. the use of nuclear war weapons, the use of nuclear weapons. and from a diplomatic perfect i,
entering into and terminating agreements with other countries. as i've mentioned publicly this is the beginning of a series of hearings where our committee will also examine those issues. but today it's my hope we will remain focus odd then top exat hand, the 2001 aumf and the 2002 aumf for iraq. the president's defk coe ability to initiate conflict has grown in an age of advanced technology, including the use of unmanned drones and war from a distance, where large numbers of boots on the ground are not necessary to conduct a significant military engagement. examples of significant military actions by recent presidents relying solely on the article 2 of the constitution include air strikes in kosovo, regime change in libya, and the april missile
strike against the assad regime in syria. in his last war powers resolution to congress, the president identified the following 19 countries where u.s. military personnel were deployed and equiped for combat. afghanistan. iraq. syria. yemen. somalia. libya. kenya. niger. cameroon. ewe began ka. -- uganda. south sudan. the democratic public of congo. central africa. african republic. djibouti. jordan. turkey. egypt, cuba. kosovo. as this month's deadly attack in niger proved, those forces can find themselves in combat at any moment. as our men and women in uniform continue to meet threats around the world, i hope our witnesses can help us examine what the appropriate oversight role for
congress is and tow howe we can work together to ensure our nation's political leadership is meeting our response to believe the decide when and where our country uses military force. as i stated previously, in this hearing, we will focus primarily on the two current authorizations for the use of military force. unfortunately, the use of lethal force against isis, alchi a da and other terrorist groups will remain necessary for the foreseeable future to prevent attacks against americans and our allies. the president, just like president obama, believe he is has the legal authority he needs under the 2001 aumf to fight isis, alchi darks and other terrorist groups. and i agree. i iee with -- i agree with the obama administration and i agree with this administration that they currentry have that -- doesn'tly have that authority. it is clear that congress is united in a strong support of the fight against al qaeda, the taliban, isis and other
terrorist groups and i believe congress as a whole would agree that the president should continue to act against these threats. congress has regularly notified -- been notified of troop deployments around the world, including the buildup in niger, and has responded consistently by funding the department of defense and its operations against isis and terrorists around the world. at the same time, i also believe we should update the aumf to reflect the current conflict and reassert congress' constitutional role. but we cannot risk undermining the legal foundation of this critical fight. we must also be mindful that moving an aumf without significant bipartisan support could send the wrong message to our allies and our adversaries that we are not united and committed to victory. so far, congress has been untable bridge the gap between
those who seek a -- who see a new aumf as primarily a way to limit the president and those who believe constraining the command for the chief in wartime is unwise. unfortunately, the inability to reconcile this divide without threatening the existing authorization has allowed the status quo to prevail. this committee has always recognized we have a special responsibility to try to speak with one voice on foreign policy. we have a great tradition of working together in a bipartisan way to advance the national interest. it is my hope that we will be able to do the same on this issue. i thank both of our distinguished witnesses and the members of this committee for the seriousness with which they approach the topic before us today. i hope that together we can have a productive discussion about a way forward. our distinguished ranking member, senator cardin.
senator cardin: thank you, mr. chairman, i join you in welcoming our two witnesses and join you in our strong desire for this committee to operation in a nonpartisan way for the betterment of our national security. i thank you for conducting with hearing. this is one of the most important topics the united states senate and this committee would ever consider. under what circumstances and legal authorities should the united states send men and women into war? mr. chairman, i'm pleased that you are reasserting this committee's prerogatives on this issue. i hope that soon we will also be considering the repeal of the existing overextended authorizationers in use of military force from 9/11 and the iraq war and a new aumf tailored to the current terrorist threats. america faces unprecedented crises around the world. from isis in multiple countries and al qaeda affiliates
continuing to plot attacks against the united states to a worsening nuclear crisis against north korea and a newly manufactured crisis with iran. i'm depp toply concerned about president trump's inclination to go to war rather than find diplomatic solutions to these crises. it seems we have u.s. troops deployed almost everywhere in the world. in addition to significant deployments in iraq, afghanistan, and syria, an major deployments in south korea, japan, and europe, u.s. forces are and have been engaged in counterterrorism operations in yemen, so mall ark ethiopia, yemen, and chad with extensive advice, train, and capacity building efforts in many more. two weeks ago we learned that four servicemen were killed in niger in circumstances that are still unclear. their mission and the mission of what many may be as many as 800 u.s. troops in niger is also unclear. the loss of these four courageous soldiers, sergeant dalaved johnson, staff sergeant
dustin wright, staff sergeant brian c. black and staff sergeant jeremy w. johnson show the danger faced by men and women deployed around the world whether they were deployed with the expectation of combat or not. our hearts are with the families of these soldiers. they served their country courageously and their families deserve the respect and appreciation that all men and women should receive after losing a loved one. during this hear, i'm going to be asking the witnesses some specific questions about the niger incident, the mission these sole juniors were performing and legal authorities for their deployment. that's our responsibility this committee's responsibility. if our witnesses are unable to answer these in open hear, then i'm going to ask that you return to provide this committee a classified hearing. i think we and the american people are now asking if the united states is fighting and dying in niger where else are u.s. forces put in harm's way? some information has been provided to the congress on this
issue, including the june 27 notice to congress that the chairman referred to. but there's been inadequate explanation of what activities are actually being done under what legal authority. that is this committee's responsibility to deal with the authorization. protecting the american people from terrorism stemming from threats around the world is certainly important. but i think there needs to be more public discussion and light on these activities because i do not think the american people want the united states conducting a global, endless shadow war under the radar, covert, and beyond scrutiny. there have been developments since this committee last conversation -- since the committee's last conversation on this topic in august. first, isis control of contiguous territories in iraq and syria have been broken. with hundreds of isis fighters killed and hundreds more surrendering. second, the crisis with north korea has gotten worse, with north korea testing the icbm
with the ability to reach the united states and thermonuclear device amid a bitter war of words and threats between president trump and kim jng uni. -- kim jong un. third the president has responded to the crisis in venezuela. i'm aware we cannot discuss alls a penths for the thrsation of the use of mill fair force in his hearing. secretary mattis and secretary tillerson, i'll be asking you to commit to come up shortly to the committee an brief us in a classified setting on the use of the 2001 aumf including for counterterrorism purposes. as i said at our hearing in union, the 9/11 and iraq aumf have now become mere authorities of convenience for president to conduct military activities anywhere in the world. they should not be used as the
legal justification for the administration's military activities around the world. i am not convinced that the evolving threat of isil to the united states and to our friends and allies necessitates committing more of our brave men and women to ground combat operations and certainly not under the rubric the aumf against al qaeda for their atabsen washington and new york. i'm going to repeat one more time, the 2001 a mumbings; -- aumf says the president is authorized to use all necessary force against those he determines planned, authorized or committed those the attacks on seventh 1 -- seventh 11, 2001, or harbored such people. as one who voted for the aumf when i was in congress in 2001, i never intened and i think all of us never intended it would stim be used today to justify the use of military force gainst isis.
one last point, if i might, mr. chairman. that is, i think it's very clear that under this authorization there is no authorization for the use of military force against north korea, unless there's an imminent attack upon the united states or forces or allies in this region. i'd be interesting in hearing the secretary's belief as to what authorizations exist today for military operations against north korea. finally it's important for congress to better exercise its oversight over the use of force now. the united states has relied for too long on military force as the first response to the problems of terrorism, insurgency and instability abroad. in this administration one wonders whether it's become the first and only reresponse it has proposed dramatic increase in the defense budget while the foreign affairs budget has been slashed by 30%. very soon practly the -- practically the only tools left in the foreign toolbox will be
the massive hammer applied everywhere for lack of better options. we need to authorize and set limits on the use of the hammer. in so doing perhaps the administration will rediscover the necessity and value of diplomacy, development and support for human rights as the means to build safer worlds for everyone, especially the united states. i know our two witnesses share the commitment to our national security and think importance of diplomacy and the use of our military and i look forward to their testimony. senator corker: thank you, senator cardin. we thank you both for being here today, we have tremendous respect by almost every member of this committee. we support your efforts around the world. and if you could limit your comments to about five minutes or so, you'll have a lot of questions, i know. any written materials you'd like to have entered into the record will be done without objection. and i guess we'll start with you, secretary tillerson. again, we thank you for your extraordinary efforts on behalf
f our country. mr. tillerson: thank you. chairman cor -- corker, ranking member cardin, i appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today. i know the senate's desire to understand the legal basis for military action is grounded in your constitutional role related to foreign policy and national security matters. i understand your sense of obligation to the american people well in this regard. in the 2001 authorization for use of military force, or aumf, congress authorized the president to, quote, use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or personals he determined planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on september 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons. congress granted the president
this statutory authority, quote, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the united states by such nations, organizations, or persons. the 2001 aumf provides statutory authority for ongoing u.s. military operations against al qaeda, the taliban and associated forces including against the islamic state in iraq and syria or isis. the administration relies on the 2001 aumf as a domestic legal authority for our own military actions against these entities as well as the military actions we take in con jux with our partners in the coalition to defeat isis. the 2001 aumf provides a domestic legal basis for our detention operations at guantanamo bay where the united states currently detains members of al qaeda, the taliban, and associated forces. the 2001 aumf also authorizes
the use of necessary and appropriate force to defend u.s. coalition and partner forces engaged in the campaign to defeat isis in iraq and syria. in syria, the effort thoaches u.s.-led coalition are aimed at the defeat of isis. the united states does not seek to fight the syrian government or pro-syrian government forces. however, the united states will not hesitate to use necessary and proportionate force to defend u.s. coalition or partner forces engaged in the campaign against isis. the president's authority to use force against isis is further reinforced by the authorization for use of military force against iraq or in more plain terms the 2002 aumf. in addition to authorities granted to the president by statute, the president has the power under article 2 of the
constitution to use military force in certain circumstances to advance important u.s. national interests. including to defend the united states against terrorist attacks. as an example, president reagan relied on his authority as commander in chief in 1986 when hed ored air strikes against terrorist facilities and military installations in libya following a terrorist attack in libya in west berlin which killed and wounded both u.s. civilians and u.s. military personnel. the united states has legal authority to prosecute campaigns against the taliban, al qaeda, and associated forces including isis and is not seeking new congressional authorization for the use of force. the 2001 aumf remains a cornerstone for ongoing u.s. military operations and continues to provide legal authority relied upon to defeat this threat.
however, should congress decide to write new aumf legislation, i submit to you several recommendations the administration would consider necessary to a new aumf. first, a new aumf authority must be in place prior to or simultaneous with the repeal of old ones. failure to do so could cause operational paralysis or n our military. it could cause our allies in the global coalition to question our commitment to the feeting isis. and potential repeal of the 2001 aumf without an immediate and appropriate replacement could raise questions about the domestic legal basis for the united states' full range of military activities against the taliban, activity including against isis as well as operations at guantanamo bay. second, any new authorization should not be time constrained.
legislation which would arbitrarily terminate the authorization to use force would be inconsistent with a conditions-based approach and could unintentionally embolden our enemies with the goal of outlasting us. any oversight mechanism in a new aumf also would have to allow the united states the knee dom to quickly move against our enemies without being constrained by a feedback loop. third, a new aumf must not be geographically restricted as is the case under the current aumf, the administration would need to retain the statutory authority to use military force against an enemy that does not respect or limit itself based on geographic boundaries. as isis' fraudulent caliphate in iraq and syria has crumbled, it's tried to gain footholds in new locations. as was discussed with the senate in a closed briefing in july,
the u.s. has a limited presence in che the chad basis to support partners including france in their counterterrorism actions in the region. this information is being vonvayed to you in periodic reports consistent with the war powers resolution. the collapse of the so-called caliphate in iraq and syria means it will attempt to burrow into new countries and find new safe havens. our legal authorities for heading off a transnational reat like isis cannot be constrained by geographic boundaries, otherwise, isis may regain strength. the united states must retain legal authorities to ensure that nothing delays or restrict ours authority to respond rapidly to thrift threats to the united states. secretary mattis and i along with the rest of the administration are completely aligned on this issue. we fully recognize the need for
transparency with you as we respond to what will be a dynamic regional and global issue. we will continue to regularly update congress and to make sure you and the american people understand our foreign policy goals, military operations, and national security objectives. i thank the committee for supporting our efforts and look forward to your questions. senator corker: secretary mattis, we appreciate you being here not only as secretary but also your many, many years in the military. we appreciate the the fact that the two of you work together constantly to deal with issues in a unified voice and we very much appreciate that. with that, if you'd begin. mr. tillerson: thank you, chairman corker, ranking member cardin, members of the committee. it is appropriate we appear before you today to explain what we're doing from d.o.d.'s perspective in our counterterrorism campaign and
why. this has been a long 16-year global conflict characterized by very different form of warfare. specifically, terrorism. fueled by extremism. aimed at innocents around the globe. traditional campaigns to protect our people must adapt to the reality of today's nontraditional transnational character of this fight. the 2001 and 2002 authorizations to use military force or aumf remain a sound basis for ongoing u.s. military operations against a mutating threat. in the aftermath of the deadly 9/11 attack and to prevent future acts of international terrorism against the united states, congress passed the 2001 aumf finding the president has and i quote, authority under the constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against
the united states. the 2002 aumf provides the president with authority to, and i quote again, defend the national security of the united states against the continuing threat posed by iraq, unquote. previous administrations have cited these statutory authorities to address the threat posed by terrorist groups in iraq and syria. as demonstrate by presidents from washington to lincoln, wilson, f.d.r. and their successors, it lies firmly within any president's constitutional authority and responsibility as the elected commander in chief, to designate who presents a threat to our country. to date this article 2 authority reinforced by the 2001 and 2002 aumf has been used to take action against al qaeda, the taliban, isis, and associated forces. following the december, 2011 pullout of our forces and --
from iraq and the outbreak of civil war in syria, al qaeda in iraq regained strengthened rebranded itself as isis. in 2014, under its new name, isis unleashed mayhem in the heart of the middle east building its self-described caliphate and attracting legiance of terror groups in southeast asia. they plan attacks around the globe, including in san bernardino, paris, london, and the philippines to name only a few. a statement of continued congressional support would be welcome, a new aumf is not legally required to address the continuing threat posed by al qaeda, the taliban and isis. article 2 of our constitution, provide and 2002 aumf's sufficient legal authority for us to engage and defeat the
current threat which we are doing by working by, with, and through our allies and partners. that said, any new congressional expression of unity, whether or not an aumf would present a strong statement to the world of america's determination, demonstrating as senator kaine stated, quote, an important message of resolve to the american public an our troops that we stand behind them in their mission, unquote. with that for background, i would like to note that to successfully prosecute the counterterrorism campaign, any debate on a new or revazed aumf needs to incorporate the following factors. first, the 2001 and 2002 aumf should not be repealed. after numerous court cases and debates there appears to now be a general consensus by all three branches of government that these two aumf's provide
sufficient authority to prosecute against alchi dark the taliban and we believe isis. repealing the 2001 and 2002 aumf's would only cause unnecessary policy and legal uncertainty which could lead to additional litigation and public doubt. the uncertainty accompanying that situation could only signal to our enemies and friends that we are backing away from this fight. it would stall our operations, immediately reduce allied commitments and support and create significant opportunities for our enemies to seize the initiative. additionally, repealing the aumf's without new authority would deprive us of the ability to detain dangerous enemy combatants who could be released to fight again. second, any new aumf must not be time restricted. for example, president trump's south asia strategy is conditions based, not time
based, because war is fundamentally unpredictable. we cannot put a firm timeline on conflict against an adaptive enemy who would hope we haven't the will to fight as long as necessary. instead, we must recognize that we are in an era of frequent skirmishing and we are more likely to end this fight sooner if we don't tell our adversary the day we intend to stop fighting. a conditions-based aumf would not lessen congress' authority. the pow over the purse remains firmly vested in your hand. should the executive branch not present a persuasive case for continuing the campaign. lastly, any new aumf must not be geographically constrained. as has been stated, these are not traditional threats. this is a fight against a transnational enemy, one that does not respect international borders and does not place geographic limits on their areas
of operations. so necessarily to defend our country, we must be prepared to swiftly engaged in this global enemy in conjunction with our allies and partners. regardless of the adaptations, we must make for the common defense, i recognize that it is incumbent upon the department of defense to keep congress fully informed to fulfill its constitutional role and i will as our troops on the battlefield carry out the last 300 meters of foreign policy to protect our way of life, i ask congress for your continued support and commitment to ensure we retain the necessary authorities to take our own side in this fight. thank you. >> thank you very much. i'm going reserve my time for interjexes and defer to our running backing member and then move down the -- ranking member and then move down the line. for those of you who may have stepped in late, i know giving guidance of senators is a useless effort.
but we're going to have a whole series of hearings. this one hopefully is mostly focused on the aumf but we'll have a series appearing, looking at our war making powers, whether it's north korea, nuclear issues. mr. corker: we've had mer members on committee and off ask about these issues. so just know that. but i know you're going ask whatever you wish with that, senator cardin. mr. cardin: thank you. i want to thank senator king to our committee. it's not the first time he's attended our hearings and it's nice to have you here. i would ask consent that the statement from human rights first be made part of our ecord. mr. corker: without objection. mr. cardin: thank you. secretary mattis anderson, i think we all degree that we're not anxious to -- agree that we're not anxious to repeal the aumf authorization without a new authorization being enforced. that's been the game plan.
i would point out that there is significant differences here about whether the 2001 authorization covers the military operation -- counterterrorism operations against isis. many of us believe that is not included in the 2001, but we do agree that congress needs to make sure that there is authorization to pursue our counterterrorism efforts. as i indicated in my opening statement, operational decisions on the use of the aumf are counter-- or counterterrorism i understand would not be appropriate in an open setting. so my request, and i would ask that you respond to it, that you would be willing to return in a closed session in order that the committee of jurisdiction on the aumf has a better understanding of how the operational decisions are being made. >> certainly, senator. >> absolutely, sir. mr. cardin: i appreciate that. i understand the chairman's admonition of about north korea but i really want to put on the
record, would you agree that there is no congressional authorization for the use of military force against north korea? i understand the president's authorities under article two, there's an eminent threat against the united states, he has certain powers. but as far as congressional authorization, there is no authorization, is that correct? >> that's my understanding, yes. >> i believe the president has article two authority only. mr. cardin: thank you. i want to get to what happened in niger and sort of understand where we are. because there is also limitations on the introduction of troops under the war powers act. limiting to 60 days. as i understand it, our troops in northern africa have been there much longer than 60 days. can you just explain very briefly what our mission was in nigeria when are the tragedy
occurred? -- niger when the tragedy occurred, and under what legal authority those troops were there? >> i can. the troops are there under title 10 in a train and advise role. the letter from the president, from president obama in 2013, to the pro temp of the senate and the speaker of the house talks to the total number of u.s. military deployed there in 2013 was 100 in furtherance of u.s. national security interests. mr. mattis: as president obama's report to you. that continues to be the case. at this time. mr. cardin: the specific mission that they were participating in, as i understand it, went beyond that. am i wrong on that? mr. mattis: the mission of those troops on that patrol was a combined patrol, which means they were with niger troops and they were on a patrol where they were teaching them how do you
what's called key leader engagement. i'd have to wait until i get the full investigation in to give you a more complete answer. but they are there with the niger troops to train and advise them consistent with the original intent they were sent there under the previous administration, continued to be the intent today. mr. cardin: so this is not 2001 authorization? mr. mattis: no, sir. this is under the title 10 and requires us to report to you under that authority. mr. cardin: i understand. thank you for that answer. i want to know how far we would go in pursuing military options in that region of the world. boko haram's a horrible group, doing terrible things. do you have the authority under he 2001 to pursue boko haram atrocities? mr. mattis: these troops were there under title 10.
as far as boko haram goes, they have pledged allegiance to isis or al qaeda. and so either way, they have associated themselves with the very group that that authorization is targeted on. mr. cardin: so without any further authorization from congress, you believe you have authorization, if determination is made to deploy whatever force is necessary to go after boko haram, including ground troops? mr. mattis: if the president detects that there is a threat from them against us, our interests, i believe he would have the authority to designate that group, yes, sir. mr. cardin: yes. i understand the threat. but the threat is related to the 2001 threat is what you're saying. mr. mattis: this is a group whose terrorist activities are endangering -- he could declare that to be associated group.
he didn't. boko haram declared that they were. mr. cardin: but the president could authorize them as an affiliate group and then use the full force of our military, including ground troops, without further restrictions? mr. mattis: right now, senator, our troops are there under title 10. i don't want to speculate about that because that's not what they're doing right now. i'd have to go back and study it. but i believe a group that declares its allegiance to the -- either al qaeda or isis would then be part of al qaeda or isis, yes. mr. cardin: my question really is related to how far he could commit our military to these types of campaigns. when we were attacked on september 11, we recognized the need for a military response and we certainly understood that american troops are going to be called upon to protect our country. i'm not sure that congress envisioned that we would have the potential of ground troops in northern africa in combat
missions. if i understand what you're saying, unless we modified this aumf, you would feel that you have adequate authorization to commit american ground troops in northern africa. mr. mattis: senator, if the president determined they're a threat to the united states and under the aumf, if they say they are allied with al qaeda or isis , yes, sir, i believe so. mr. cardin: thank you. mr. corker: senator johnson. mr. johnson: let me thank both secretaries for their service to the country. let me pick up on the point of ground troops. secretary mattis in your testimony you talked about a 16-year global conflict. totally different than anything we've witnessed in the past. i remember when we had this discussion a couple years ago. with the advent of isis. trying to rewrite a new authorization of use for military force.
there's a discussion about limiting ground troops. no ground troops. secretary tillerson, i think you said in your testimony, you talked about the caliphate is basically ended, is it not? or really darn close? mr. tillerson: we've liberated a large amount of area in iraq and syria but that fight is not over yet. mr. johnson: secretary mattis, is there any way we could have done what we've done so far at the caliphate without ground troops? mr. mattis: i don't believe so, senator. mr. johnson: yet two years ago we were debating in this committee replacing the authorization for use of military force with one that would have restricted president obama's and his replacement, the successor, his ability to -- his or her ability to use ground troops. that would have been a big mistake, wouldn't it have been? mr. mattis: senator, generally speaking, when you -- you don't tell the enemy in advance what you're not going to do. that's not a wise -- even if you don't choose to do it, there's no need to announce that to the
enemy. and relieve them of that concern. mr. johnson: in the 2001 authorization, i personally don't think the 2001 applies to this situation. i really don't. when you read it. but by precedent, it does. but it doesn't restrict the president's use of force. it says to use all necessary appropriate force. it goes on to describe what those nations, what those organizations really are. in a real declaration of war ainst japan and germany, congress declared that the president is authorized and directed to employ the entire naval military force of the united states and the resources of the government to carry on the war against in this case, the government of germany. and to bring the conflict to successful termination, all the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the congress of the united states.
so both in 2001 authorization and the declarations of war against both germany and japan, there were no restrictions. we pledged all necessary resources of this country to the defeat of our enemy. in both your testimony you laid out three conditions. one thing i want to clear up, secretary mattis, you said we should not be -- we should not repeal the 2001-2002. later on you talked about without a new authorization. you're not -- there's no difference in your testimony, correct? you can repeal as long as you have something else in its place. mr. mattis: there are some lawyers who will say it's good to hold onto what you have, even if you pass a new one, that perhaps changes it in some way. mr. johnson: is there a slight difference between your two testimonies then? you would prefer keeping the 2001-2002 aumf in place? mr. mattis: i'd have to see what came out next. right now i'd say yes. we've been through a lot of
difficulty trying to get the three branches of government alined on this. mr. johnson: ok. i'm not disagreeing with you in any way, shape or form. you've both said that neither -- if there's a new aumf it should not be time restricted. you both said it should not be geographically restricted. i was waiting for the fourth. but neither one of you said this. there should be no operational restrictions. do you believe there should be operational restrictions as we contemplated a couple years ago, no ground troops or something of hat type of restriction? secretary tillerson. mr. tillerson:, no i do not. i think we can restrict operations, given the way this particular enemy morphs, changes its tactics. as we saw with the emergence of isis, we start with what might be a fairly limited group of terrorists who then are able to overrun large territories in a mass army. essentially their own army of tens of thousands.
that requires a very different use of force than trying to chase and defeat terrorists that are making their way through the jungles in smaller numbers. this is an enemy that changes its names, it moves across borders, it is a nonstate actor. and it has morphed. and changed over this 16 years. which i know is part of why this is such a vexing issue. because it does not fit a declaration of war. certainly it doesn't fit the criteria that congress has used in the past for declarations of war. mr. johnson: it's a totally different enemy than we faced in the past but this has been a 16-year struggle. i don't think it's going to be over any time soon. secretary mattis, can you in thee what has changed administration that's allowed to us defeat the caliphate in relatively short order compared to what had been happening the previous two years? mr. mattis: senator, what we did was we changed the tactics.
we accelerated the number of partnered units that had american forces with them. not to do the fighting, but to call in air support. the change in tactics was one that -- where we could, we would surround the enemy first so they could not fall back and reinforce the next site, thus making it harder. and you saw the surround tactics ed in mosul in cal far, -- califar, in raqqa. those are the big changes, as we accelerated the campaign. but also lessened the chance that foreign fighters could escape to return home or to reinforce the next position. mr. johnson: would you say it's true we've allowed the commanders on the ground to make the decisions to defeat the enemy? rather than direct them here from washington, d.c.? mr. mattis: i've delegated authority to the appropriate levels, yes, sir. mr. johnson: both of you seemed to indicate that a continued congressional support would be welcome. if it was a statement of unity.
but it has to be an authorization that does not restrict the military's ability to defeat our enemy, is that correct? mr. tillerson: that is correct. mr. mattis: i agree, senator. assuming strong and very robust feedback loops to the congress to keep you fully informed. mr. johnson: i have no further questions. thank you for your service. mr. corker: thank you. senator udall. mr. udall: thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you both for your service and thank you for being here today. secretary mattis, the existence of multiple local militia forces in iraq remains a major problem, as isil is driven out. kurdish aspirations ofhood may -- of the tip of the statehood may be just the tip of the iceberg. how many different groups are the department of defense advising and assisting in iraq?
mr. mattis: we advise and assist iraqi security forces only in iraq and i would just mention that secretary tillerson just returned from there and this issue was brought up with the prime minister. mr. tillerson: yes. the prime minister is asserting authority himself over other various militias, including popular mobilization forces, the p.m.f., which are by and large iraqi forces, they are iraqi citizens who are fighting under militia arrangements. including the peshmerga forces of kurdistan during the war to defight isis, to liberate mosul. to liberate large parts of other provinces. these forces put themselves under the command of prime minister abadi. so there are multiple forces but i think as the secretary indicated, our support is through the iraqi forces, working with prime minister
abadi and under his authorities. mr. udall: -- mr. udall: i'm glad you brought that up because it was reported that the iraqi prime minister was pretty blunt in his response about shi'a iranian backed militias in iraq saying they are already home and they're not going anywhere. and that maybe u.s. forces should leave. if u.s. forces are told to leave, will we depart iraq or will we stay uninvited as our forces are doing in syria, and under what legal authority will they remain? mr. tillerson: senator, the prime minister -- i never heard the prime minister say u.s. forces should leave. what he did clarify is that, as i said, many of the p.m.f. forces are iraqi shi'a forces. so they are iraqi citizens. my comment was regarding foreign fighters. foreign fighters that may have come to iraq.
we know there are foreign fighters in syria. and my comments were that any foreign fighters, particularly those from iran, needed to leave iraq and go home. certainly p.f.m. iraqi citizens, this is their home -- p.m.f. iraqi citizens, this is their home. they will remain. but the iraqi prime minister has made it clear as to his expectations of how these forces will organize themselves, or put their arms down and just rejoin their villages as citizens. mr. udall: we've reached this new phase. i think this is a real possibility that i'm asking you about. if u.s. forces are told to leave, will we depart iraq or will we stay uninvited as our forces are doing in syria and under what legal authority? mr. tillerson: we will remain in iraq until isis is defeated and we are confident that isis has been defeated -- mr. udall: under what legal authority? mr. tillerson: under the 2001
and 2002 aumf's. having said that, we are there also at the invitation of the iraqi government. and prime minister abadi has given me no indication that he is in any particular hurry to have usdy part. mr. udall: secretary mattis and secretary tillerson, do you agree with the assertion that this fragmentation of security forces will pose difficulties to the iraqi government, maintaining order in areas that the u.s. government recently regained control of? what is your advice to ensure that these areas do not see resumed sectarian violence now that the fight with isil is nearly over? and does this necessitate u.s. troops on the ground? mr. tillerson: senators, areas have been liberated. we are working with the coalition partners and with the united nations and other nongovernmental organizations to create stability around
liberated cities in particular. as well as villages. and that means having the military forces, the armies, pull back out of the villages, allow our coalition to enter those villages, undertake demining of the villages, so that it's safe for people to return, and then begin the process of training local basically police forces. we have a number of coalition partners that have undertaken that activity. so as we are liberating areas, we are preparing security forces, local security forces, to transplant the military forces. prime minister abadi made this direct observation to me. he said, i have to get my armies out of the cities. they're not policemen. they're not trained to be policemen. and they're not equipped to be policemen. and i have to replace them with trained security forces to carry out police activities and provide security for the civilians as they return. there's a lot of work to do to stabilize these areas, but that is how we will lock in the
military gains that have been achieved with the liberation. mr. udall: secretary mattis, do you have a comment on that issue? mr. mattis: it's the iraqi forces and, you know, operate under prime minister abadi that have liberated these areas. it's not any other armed groups. now, there are p.m.f. forces that are engaged with them. but he's insisted that they fall under the authority of his field commanders. that is being imperfectly done. i wouldn't say it's happening in all cases. but you have seen the successes enjoyed so far. -- we are moving now against with iraqi forces to restore the border against syria. so you see it unfolding in that direction. the next step is exactly what the secretary of state has laid out. mr. udall: thank you both. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. corker: i think, senator flake, you're next. maybe we'll go with about three minutes of your questions and
then come back and you can resume if that's ok. mr. flake: that's fine. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here. i think that in the senate we aspire to be more than just one cog on a feedback loop. this is the body, with article one authority, to declare war and to authorize the use of military force. i understand the importance, in looking at your three items, that shouldn't put a new aumf in -- or shouldn't repeal the old one until a new one is in place. no time constraints. or not geographically limited and the aumf that senator cain and i have introduced, it meets the conditions of one and three. but number two, with regard to time constraints, anybody want to hazard a guess of how many in this body right here in the senate foreign relations
committee were in the senate when the 2001 aumf was passed? not one. not one member of this panel was in the senate when the 2001 aumf was passed or the 2002 for that matter. seven of us were in the house during that time and voted on it. but not one has had the opportunity to weigh in on it. 16 years later. i would argue that the concern about giving our adversaries notice that we have to vote on something may be an issue but it's overwhelmed in a big way by not having congress buy in and not having us have skin in the game. it simply allows us to criticize the administration, republican or democrat. if we don't like what they're doing. because we haven't weighed in. we haven't said our piece. we haven't voted on this. so i would simply say that any concern about having to come
back, we have a five-year sunset on ours. five-year. that's pretty long. but congress needs to weigh in. we have to make sure that our adversaries and our allies and most importantly our troops know that we speak with one voice. and so i hope that as we go along, we can talk about the relative importance of signaling that we might leave or might not finish, and not having congress weigh in at all. to go for 16 years before we actually weigh in or have any skin in the game -- we, as i said, ought to aspire to be more than just a feedback loop. article one authority is more than that. so with that i'll hold back. mr. corker: thank you. if you'll keep miles an hour fins understand -- minutes and 15 -- four minutes and 15 seconds on mr. flake's time.
setting a time limit, 14 minutes. so maybe you can set your clock for when the foreign relations committee will return. senatorses leaving, heading over to the senate floor. there's a vote under way for judicial setting a time limit, 14 nominee for the d.c. circuit court. so we expect the committee to gavel back in in about, well, under 14 minutes now. to resume the hearing on the authorization for the use of military force. washington examiner writes the foreign relations committee has wrestled for months over a new aumf. which the white house has argued it does not need. but the october 4 niger ambush has ratcheted up urgency for debate on capitol hill about the legal basis of the global war on terrorism. according to numerous lawmakers. that from the washington examiner. when the hearing resumes we'll have live coverage. in the meantime, we'll show you the start of this afternoon's hearings. the opening statement here from senator corker.
cork cork we are grateful -- mr. corker: we are grateful for you coming here. oversight and debate of the 2001 aumf is something in which this committee has been engaged for as long as i've helped lead it. beginning as ranking member in 2013. as that -- at that time many of us from both parties sought to craft a revised authority to enable the president to address the threats we face from terrorism while ensuring an appropriate role for congress. when president obama submitted an isis aumf to congress in february of 2015, our committee again held a hearing and debated issue. but there was really no effort on the part of the white house to actually enact a new authorization. this year we've already held two full committee hearings on this important topic, a public
hearing in june with private witnesses and a classified briefing with secretary illerson and mattis in august. we thank you for that. we've been working to schedule this public hearing since that time. numbers of members both eth -- both on and off this committee have raised questions about the executive authorities with respect to war making. the use of nuclear war weapons, the use of nuclear weapons. and from a diplomatic perfect i, entering into and terminating agreements with other countries. as i've mentioned publicly this is the beginning of a series of hearings where our committee will also examine those issues. but today it's my hope we will remain focused on the topic at hand, the 2001 aumf and the 2002 aumf for iraq. the president's ability to initiate conflict has grown in an age of advanced technology, including the use of unmanned
drones and war from a distance, where large numbers of boots on the ground are not necessary to conduct a significant military engagement. examples of significant military actions by recent presidents relying solely on the article 2 of the constitution include air strikes in kosovo, regime change in libya, and the april missile strike against the assad regime in syria. in his last war powers resolution to congress, the president identified the following 19 countries where u.s. military personnel were deployed and equiped for combat. afghanistan. iraq. syria. yemen. somalia. libya. kenya. niger. cameroon. uganda. south sudan. the democratic republic of congo. central africa. african republic. djibouti. jordan.
turkey. egypt. cuba. kosovo. as this month's deadly attack in niger proved, those forces can find themselves in combat at any moment. as our men and women in uniform continue to meet threats around the world, i hope our witnesses can help us examine what the appropriate oversight role for congress is and tow howe we can work together to ensure our nation's political leadership is meeting the responsibility to decide when and where our country uses military force. as i stated previously, in this hearing, we will focus primarily on the two current authorizations for the use of military force. unfortunately, the use of lethal force against isis, al qaeda and other terrorist groups will remain necessary for the foreseeable future to prevent attacks against americans and our allies. the president, just like president obama, believe he is
has the legal authority he needs under the 2001 aumf to fight isis, al qaeda, and other terrorist groups. and i agree. i agree with the obama administration and i agree with this administration that they currently have that authority. it is clear that congress is united in a strong support of the fight against al qaeda, the taliban, isis and other terrorist groups and i believe congress as a whole would agree that the president should continue to act against these threats. congress has regularly notified -- been notified of troop deployments around the world, including the buildup in niger, and has responded consistently by funding the department of defense and its operations against isis and terrorists around the world. at the same time, i also believe we should update the aumf to reflect the current conflict and reassert congress' constitutional role.
but we cannot risk undermining the legal foundation of this critical fight. we must also be mindful that moving an aumf without significant bipartisan support could send the wrong message to our allies and our adversaries that we are not united and committed to victory. so far, congress has been unable to bridge the gap between those who see a new aumf as primarily an opportunity to imit the president, and those who believe constraining the command for the chief in wartime is unwise. unfortunately, the inability to reconcile this divide without threatening the existing authorization has allowed the status quo to prevail. this committee has always recognized we have a special responsibility to try to speak with one voice on foreign policy. we have a great tradition of working together in a bipartisan way to advance the national interest.
it is my hope that we will be able to do the same on this issue. i thank both of our distinguished witnesses and the members of this committee for the seriousness with which they approach the topic before us today. i hope that together we can have a productive discussion about a way forward. our distinguished ranking member, senator cardin. mr. cardinr: thank you, mr. chairman, i join you in welcoming our two witnesses and join you in our strong desire for this committee to operation in a nonpartisan way for the betterment of our national ecurity. i thank you for conducting with hearing. this is one of the most important topics the united states senate and this committee would ever consider. under what circumstances and legal authorities should the united states send men and women into war? mr. chairman, i'm pleased that you are reasserting this committee's prerogatives on this issue.
i hope that soon we will also be considering the repeal of the existing overextended authorizationers in use of military force from 9/11 and the iraq war and a new aumf tailored to the current terrorist threats. america faces unprecedented crises around the world. from isis in multiple countries and al qaeda affiliates continuing to plot attacks against the united states to a worsening nuclear crisis against north korea and a newly manufactured crisis with iran. i'm deeply concerned about president trump's inclination to go to war rather than find diplomatic solutions to these crises. it seems we have u.s. troops deployed almost everywhere in the world. in addition to significant deployments in iraq, afghanistan, and syria, an major deployments in south korea, japan, and europe, u.s. forces are and have been engaged in counterterrorism operations in yemen, somalia, ethiopia,
yemen, and chad with extensive advice, train, and capacity building efforts in many more. two weeks ago we learned that four servicemen were killed in niger in circumstances that are still unclear. their mission and the mission of what many may be as many as 800 u.s. troops in niger is also unclear. the loss of these four courageous soldiers, sergeant la david johnson, staff sergeant dustin wright, staff sergeant brian c. black and staff sergeant jeremy w. johnson show the danger faced by men and women deployed around the world whether they were deployed with the expectation of combat or not. our hearts are with the families of these soldiers. they served their country courageously and their families deserve the respect and appreciation that all men and women should receive after losing a loved one. during this hear, i'm going to be asking the witnesses some specific questions about the niger incident, the mission these soldiers were
performing and legal authorities for their deployment. that's our responsibility this committee's responsibility. if our witnesses are unable to answer these in open hear, then i'm going to ask that you return to provide this committee a classified hearing. i think we and the american people are now asking if the united states is fighting and dying in niger where else are u.s. orces put in harm's way? some information has been provided to the congress on this issue, including the june 27 notice to congress that the chairman referred to. but there's been inadequate explanation of what activities are actually being done under what legal authority. that is this committee's responsibility to deal with the authorization. protecting the american people from terrorism stemming from threats around the world is certainly important. but i think there needs to be more public discussion and light on these activities because i do not think the american people want the united states conducting a global, endless shadow war under the radar, covert, and beyond scrutiny.
there have been developments since this committee last conversation -- since the committee's last conversation on this topic in august. first, isis control of contiguous territories in iraq and syria have been broken. with hundreds of isis fighters killed and hundreds more surrendering. second, the crisis with north korea has gotten worse, with north korea testing the icbm with the ability to reach the united states and thermonuclear device amid a bitter war of words and threats between president trump and kim jong un. - kim junk un. third the president has responded to the crisis in venezuela. i'm aware we cannot discuss alls a penths for the thrsation of the use of mill fair force in this hearing. secretary mattis and secretary tillerson, i'll be asking you to commit to come up shortly to the committee an brief us in a classified setting on the use of the 2001 aumf including for ounterterrorism purposes. as i
said at our hearing in union, the 9/11 and iraq aumf have now become mere authorities of convenience for president to conduct military activities anywhere in the world. they should not be used as the legal justification for the administration's military activities around the world. i am not convinced that the evolving threat of isil to the united states and to our friends and allies necessitates committing more of our brave men and women to ground combat operations and certainly not under the rubric the aumf against al qaeda for their attacks in washington and new york. i'm going to repeat one more time for the record with that said. the 2001 aumf says the president is authorized to use all necessary force against those he determines planned, authorized or committed those the attacks on seventh 1 -- seventh 11,
2001, or harbored such people. as one who voted for the aumf hen i was in congress in 2001, i never intended and i think all of us never intended it would still be used today to justify the use of military force gainst isis. one last point, if i might, mr. chairman. that is, i think it's very clear that under this authorization there is no authorization for the use of military force against north korea, unless there's an imminent attack upon the united states or forces or allies in this region. i'd be interesting in hearing the secretary's belief as to what authorizations exist today
for military operations against north korea. finally it's important for congress to better exercise its oversight over the use of force now. the united states has relied for too long on military force as the first response to the problems of terrorism, insurgency and instability abroad. in this administration one wonders whether it's become the first and only response it has proposed dramatic increase in the defense budget while the foreign affairs budget has been slashed by 30%. very soon practically the only tools left in the foreign toolbox will be the massive hammer applied everywhere for lack of better options. we need to authorize and set limits on the use of the hammer. in so doing perhaps the administration will rediscover the necessity and value of diplomacy, development and support for human rights as the means to build safer worlds for everyone, especially the united states. i know our two witnesses share the commitment to our national security and think importance of diplomacy and the use of our military and i look forward to their testimony. mr. corker: thank you, senator cardin. we thank you both for being here today, we have tremendous
respect by almost every member of this committee. we support your efforts around the world. and if you could limit your comments to about five minutes or so, you'll have a lot of questions, i know. any written materials you'd like to have entered into the record will be done without objection. and i guess we'll start with you, secretary tillerson. again, we thank you for your extraordinary efforts on behalf of our country. mr. tillerson: thank you. chairman corker, ranking member cardin, i appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today. i know the senate's desire to understand the legal basis for military action is grounded in your constitutional role related to foreign policy and national ecurity matters. i understand your sense of obligation to the american people well in this regard. in the 2001 authorization for use of military force, or aumf,
congress authorized the president to, quote, use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, rganizations or persons he determined planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on september 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons. congress granted the president this statutory authority, quote, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the united states by such nations, organizations, or persons. the 2001 aumf provides statutory authority for ongoing u.s. military operations against al qaeda, the taliban and associated forces including against the islamic state in raq and syria or isis. the administration relies on the 2001 aumf as a domestic legal authority for our own military actions against these entities
as well as the military actions we take in conjunction with our partners in the coalition to defeat isis. the 2001 aumf provides a domestic legal basis for our detention operations at guantanamo bay where the united states currently detains members of al qaeda, the taliban, and associated forces. the 2001 aumf also authorizes the use of necessary and appropriate force to defend u.s. coalition and partner forces engaged in the campaign to defeat isis in iraq and syria. in syria, the effort thoaches -- the efforts of the u.s.led coalition are aimed at the defeat of isis. the united states does not seek to fight the syrian government or pro-syrian government forces. however, the united states will not hesitate to use necessary and proportionate force to defend u.s. coalition or partner
forces engaged in the campaign against isis. the president's authority to use force against isis is further reinforced by the authorization for use of military force against iraq or in more plain terms the 2002 aumf. in addition to authorities granted to the president by statute, the president has the power under article 2 of the constitution to use military force in certain circumstances to advance important u.s. national interests. including to defend the united states against terrorist attacks. as an example, president reagan relied on his authority as commander in chief in 1986 when he ordered air strikes against [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] mr. corker: the committee is now coming back out of vess. as with the senate we had one member who lob loggy gagged around and took -- lolly gagged around and took longer than we thought. it's the story of the united states senate.
we're glad to be back in session. senator flake, continue your work. mr. flake: thank you, mr. chairman. we talked a little before the break about reasons -- we need an aumf. i mentioned how few people were actually here. nobody on this panel voted in the senate on the aumf. in the house, fewer than 100 members of the house were there. when the 2001 aumf was passed. i think a total in the senate, nobody on this panel, but only 23 members of the senate were here to vote on the aumf. simply helps, we have to have a situation where the congress is more involved here. i understand you say that a new aumf would be welcomed but not required. just for the benefit of everybody here, no administration would ever , cede that you need an aumf
because the absence of it would suggest that what we've been doing for 16 years would be illegal. or for certain activities we've undertaken. we all understand that the administration will say that no new aumf or no new authorities are needed. but whether or not they are needed to provide a legal basis, it's certainly needed politically. we can't continue to go on in a situation where, you know, 70% of the house and the senate has never voted on an aumf and has no reservation at all to criticize whatever administration is in power and their use of military force. because they didn't vote on it. and we can't continue to go year after year after year without doing that. but specifically on a question here with regard to niger. i understand you say that's title 10 authority. you expressed concern about not
having authorities that expire. so as not to tip off the enemy that we might leave. explain title 10 authority with regard to -- that's part of the ndaa that we gratefully, the one authorization bill that we pass every year, but what if we weren't going pass that next year? if we failed in our duty to do t, what would that do? mr. tillerson: ebel we'd still have title 10 authority under the u.s. code. so we would not -- i mean, we would have trouble probably getting appropriations if we didn't have the ndaa -- the authorization. mr. mattis: but i think that under the u.s. code we still exist as a military. so i'd have to turn to my general counsel to give you a better answer. mr. flake: you mentioned in your remarks that we still in congress here have the power of the purse and that maybe should
be sufficient. there was one member of our body who said, when he was briefed on what was going on in niger, he said that congress -- we need to decide whether or not we want to authorize this operation through the appropriations process. that or us authorizers, ought to be a hit right here. that only the appropriations committee in this body has authority to look at what we're doing and decide whether or not appropriate authority exists. and through the appropriations process, give that authority. i would suggest that this committee ought to stand up and say, that's not enough. that's not enough. let's pass a new aumf. i know that -- i hope senator kaine will go into the aumf that we have proffered. it is gaining momentum certainly
and support and i hope above all else that we can come to a point where we speak with one voice overseas. whether it's use of diplomacy or use of military force. and under the current situation, with a 16-year-old aumf, i would suggest that we don't. and our adversaries, our allies and our troops need to know that we do. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. corker: thank you. if i could just for clarification, when you say title 10 you're talking about the train and equip program? mr. mattis: that's correct, chairman. basically we have the authority under title 10 to carry out these kind of partnering activities, yes, sir. mr. corker: throughout the world? mr. mattis: if the president directs it, yes, sir. mr. corker: senator murphy. mr. murphy: thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you both for being here, you're both patriots and thank you for your service to the country. i want to maybe get back to this
question of exploring the limits of that title 10 authority. but i wanted to build upon a question preview that senator cardin referenced and that's on the existing authorities in north korea. the president has talked about our military options, should we choose to use them in north korea. and i just wanted to make sure that we understand the range of authority that the president has today with respect to potential military operations in the korean peninsula. absentou both agree that a strike against the united states or the imminent threat of a strike against the united states, the administration would need congressional authorization to engage in military activity against north korea? mr. tillerson: senator, i think it would depend on all
circumstances. it's a fact-based decision. i think clearly today we're there under article two authorities. and article two is really, you know, if you look at historically, it's been grounded in kind of two try tearia. one is to -- criteria. one is to protect united states persons, property and national security interests. and secondly, it's been used for circumstances that do not rise to the level of a declaration of war. i think that is the circumstance we have in the peninsula today in korea. so it is a question of the threat, the imminent threat, the nature of the threat, as to whether the president then would exercise his authorities without the need of further congressional authorization. so it will be fact-based and all of those will have to be considered. mr. murphy: secretary mattis.
mr. mattis: i believe under article two he has the responsibility obviously to protect the country and if there was not time, i could imagine him not consulting or consulting as he's doing something. along the lines, for example, what have we did at the air field here in syria, when we struck that and thing on was notified immediately, this was after the chemical weapons use by the assad regime. but in this case of north korea, it would be a direct imminent or actual attack on the united states. i think article two would apply. mr. murphy: i think i would agree that if it's an attack or an imminent attack and we can all split hairses as to what the definition of imminent would be, but let me try to get to the bottom of that. would the possession of a weapon, a nuclear weapon, capable of reaching the united states, fill the definition of an imminent threat to the united states? would a possession -- the simple possession of a weapon that is
capable of doing great damage to the united states be sufficient to qualify as an imminent threat? mr. tillerson: again, i'm always reluctant to get into too many hypotheticals because the possession could be sitting in an underground, not ready to be used condition. or possession could be sitting upright on a till about to be launched. i think it would have to be fact-based and given consideration as to the circumstances around an imminent threat. mr. mattis: i fully agree with secretary tillerson. i think this is an area that a number of facts would have to bear on the problem in order to give you a complete answer, senator. mr. murphy: i thank you both for your answers. i think the primary fact is whether there is an attack or an imminent attack, i think other than those two facts, you need to come to congress for
authorization. but i appreciate your answers. secretary mattis, i wanted to drill down a little bit more on the title 10 authority. you certainly have title 10 authority to conduct training missions abroad. you're using that authority in niger. today you've properly notified congress. you referenced president obama's notification. but how do you answer concerns that our constituents may have when it looks as if a training mission is something more than training? that we are actually putting american troops out in harm's way, partnered with local forces, engaged in activities that imperils u.s. men and women . to many folks this didn't look like a train mission it. looked like we were side by side with domestic forces. but we were actually helping them carry out pretty critical mission components. how do you address concerns that some of our constituents have that a training mission can very
easily morph into something that looks much more like operational and offensive capabilities that are unauthorized by congress? mr. mattis: it's a great question, senator. when you look at why did president obama send troops there, why did president trump end troops there, it's because we sensed that as the physical caliphate is collapsing, the enemy is trying to move somewhere. and so those troops are there, most of them are providing frankly intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support, intelligence support, refueling support. there are some doing this train and advise mission. in this case, we're trying to build up the internal defenses of another country so they can do this job on those in favor say aye observe -- on their ofpblete the french have carried the burden -- on their ofpblete the french have carried the burden of this and taken casualties in this mission. we're supporting them. but in this characters since april, i believe, and weet get the specific numbers -- and
we'll get the specific numbers once the investigation comes in, over two dozen patrols in this area, with no enemy contact. i think it was reasonable to think they could go out and continue training these troops without the idea they're going into direct combat. but that's not a complete answer. inside wait until i get the investigation to fully appraise you. mr. murphy: you referenced the falling apart of the caliphate at the beginning of that answer. and so that suggests that this might not be a title 10 authority mission. this might be a 2001 aumf mission. if that's the case, then -- ok, you're not -- mr. mattis: i misled you there. this is a title 10 train and advise and we're trying to prepare them if, as the apart their ls country comes under attack so they can defend their own population. you'll remember boko haram nearby and the 276 girls they a country kidnapped. it's a real problem up in that region and we're trying to get them in a position where they
can defend themselves and do it according to the law of armed conflict and a very complex environment. this is tough train, sir. mr. corker: thank you very much. senator young. mr. oung: thank you, chairman. secretary mattis, you said in the past, you said again here today that a new aumf by this congress would send a message of resolve to our troops and to mr chairman. secretary mattis, our enemies. i absolutely agree with that. i'd like to get into the law, though. the legal components of this. legally there are at least one, it seems we'd have to make -- concede that there's a principle, there's a logical argument that the 2001--- 2001, 2002 aumfs don't apply or have a highly ten waited application to current circumstances. 2001 aumf was in response to 9/11. directly in response to 9/11. 2002 aumf was directed against the saddam hussein regime. in fact, it was invoked here today but the language of that aumf says a threat posed by iraq
. and then in 2014, isis leadership actually disavowed very publicly any association with al qaeda. secretary mattis, you indicated that a terrorist group, i think it was boko haram, but a terrorist group was covered by the 2001 aumf because they swore allegiance to al qaeda. now, by that same logic, if isis broke with al qaeda, why would the 2001 aumf apply? to the fight against isis? mr. mattis: what we've seen is these groups come apart, go back together. they change their names, adopt as a rock 'n roll band. they're keenly aware that they've got certain legal strictures on our side that they can take advantage of. we call it lawfare, where they use our laws against us. we've seen it. we read their mail. we know what they're thinking in many cases. it is an associated group because if you look at the photographs we have from
intelligence that shows who is leading in baghdadi's outfit, there's a remarkable resemblance to other photographs we have under al qaeda and iraq. so when the same group and the same area seems to be spawning from the same people, a disavowal is something that is of interest, but it's not necessarily compelling, especially since they seem to have many of the same tenants to their ideology as mr. mattis: i am not sure i would call them highly attenuated in that circumstance. >> that is my characterization. i respect years, mr. secretary. it seems like these are humans could be made both ways. they have sworn allegiance, and therefore, they are covered by the aumf. factor is nothat all that important in our
consideration based on a range of other factors. it might be helpful to lay out what multi factor analysis legally your attorneys are looking at to help make this decision. 27, 2015, you testified before the senate armed services committee saying, "we observe the lack of detainee policies that has resulted in the return and released prisoners to the battlefield. we should not engage without resolving this issue up front, treating hostile forces as hostile." when asked about that, you continued "what we have to do is have a repeatable detainee policy so that when we take them, we hold them, and there is no confusion about their future, mind org the enemy's among our own." why do you think it is important o upfront regarding detaining combatants until the
end of hostilities? when weis: senator, release people and eventually find them back on the , when held fighting us was taken prisoner in north, we theyot let them go because let him take another shot at us at normandy. we held him in prison camp until the war was over. i think that is a straightforward proposition. we take our own side in this. mr. young: if this body were to pass another aumf, would you seek to eliminate any uncertainty regarding our nation possibility to detain enemy combatants until the end of hostilities? mr. mattis: for those taken overseas? yes, sir. i want to make sure you understand i am not talking about people here in the united states. .r. young: nor am i
thank you. another legal point going back to the lost year, i would argue, you invoked litigation risks. the further away we get other country from 2001 or 2002, the more attenuated the relationship exists between our ongoing fight ininst associated forces that period time in which a previous congress working with a previous commander in chief past an aumf. going ton risk is only grow. timely consult with your attorneys and give me their analysis about why i have it wrong or right. i might think i have it right. secretary tillerson and secretary mattis, both of you over the course of this hearing have indicated that there are three essential elements for a new aumf. i think you worded them differently, but they are
distilled down to no lapse in authorities, no time constraint in negotiated geographic research and. is that a correct and fair so summary? mr. mattis: yes. mr. young: i know for the record, the aumf i introduced on march 2, senate joint resolution 31, meets those criteria. it certainly satisfies that. a different topic. secretary mattis, you mentioned and in testimony before the senate armed services committee on march 9, 2017, the om, statedof afrik that only 20% to 30% of requirements are met. situationall limits understanding, support to operations, and fails to offer threat indications and warnings.
this inplease discuss the operational impacts of those shortfalls and what we can do to help? mr. mattis: yes, sir. insufficient basically worldwide. i can go to a number of other commanders from the pacific in the mideast. they would all say they have shortfalls. as you know, we have been under continuing resolutions. we have been under budget reductions and eventually real capability is insufficient. at the same time, i think in this case, the general is 100% correct. that was in an area where a reasonable person looking at the last several months with a contact was not imminent or likely to be imminent. so you look at how you prioritize it.
isre is a finite amount of assets. we deal them out like gold coins. mr. young: thank you both for your service. you for this important hearing to rethink you, secretary mattis and secretary tillerson for the service you rendered to our country and for the men and women you lead in our command. i think it is important that we as a committee come together in a bipartisan way and provide you with an updated authorization for the very demanding and difficult work that your men and women are doing around the world. and loss oftragedy american soldiers helped focus us on the fact that we have got citizens and senators who are unclear on exactly where in the we are engaged against this morphing, changing enemy in a new era of skirmishes, as you put it, sir. the opening list you gave
of 19 countries, i will tell you, it is striking, the majority of them are on the continent of africa in a region that is not that familiar to many senators and americans. so i will just assert that i believe it to be in our national interest to have a renewed, clearer strengthened authorization of the very difficult work that you and the folks you lead are doing around the world, and i take seriously the risk presented of potentially emboldening our adversaries and undermining confidence of our coalition partners if we do it in a way that is roughhewn. it just defies my sense of our a 2001 aumfpt that where fewer than one third of the current serving congress voted for it has become so youruated, i think was freight. so convoluted that it is hard to two youngth from --
american men and women serving in the philippines, yemen, and niger. we have to do this together. and i find it beyond my ability to get my head around that we must authorize an unlimited war. has no limits of job if you come up time, or of an oversight mechanism. i commend my colleagues who put together what i think are strong drafts. we are to have to make concessions in order to provide war fighters and diplomats with the authorization that makes it clear what we and how long we intend to do it. i think that strengthens our country. that shows democracy at work. it also means we will have to take some risks. talk to mute if you would for a moment about how we make sure that our citizens and senators
know where we are fighting beyond the current system of notification. because i think it is not fully effective. what do we think is the appropriate level of public transparency for military deployments outside of areas of hostile activity? is it helpful? ?is it important ? and how do we strengthen accountability to the senate and public of where we are deployed? and what are the limits on that? >> senator, i would say that in my department's case, we submitted 901 reports to the senate, which are the number of days we were in session, is about six a day. 17, sobeen added in fy we will be submitting seven reports a day. under the war powers resolution notification that comes in, niger has been reported every six months under the previous administration as well as under our current administration.
the most recent in june reported 600 45 thanks to the appropriation by the congress, the work on their field we have .ctually done probably 150 more engineers working on an airfield with the money you provided to make the airfield that will provide more isr opportunity for our troops in that region. so i think the most important thing is we look at the reports weare giving you to see if are burying the important information inside a massive report every day literally and make sure that maybe tier one issues -- you would decide tier one -- that we are highlighting that information to you to include in any close hearing briefings that filled in any gaps you sent. sen. coons: secretary tillerson. sec. tillerson: i think what you really put your finger on his
what is a big concern to this committee and others, and that is the level of transparency and understanding of where our forces are deployed and in what role they are deployed and what levels they are deployed and what is the expectation for the engagement?f combat but i think that when i consider the current aumf, and i do not want to pretend to know what the intent of congress was in 2001, but quite frankly, maybe the intent recognized that this was a completely different situation than we ever faced before. this was not a sovereign state actor that we can do a war decoration against. war decorations, as senator johnson pointed out, do not have timelines. we did not tell the japanese we were going to fight for 3.5 years and then we are going home. we have done that over the aumf, announced withdrawal from iraq. we saw what happened.
i sold emerged and created an enormous caliphate. anything that signals our intentions, this enemy takes advantage of it. we have learned that lesson multiple times. i do appreciate the issue over what congressional control or oversight there is for this authorization. on the other hand, article one gave the congress the right to declare war. article two gave the commander the right to conduct military affairs through the founders recognized in writing article one and article two that you cannot fight war by consensus with a collective approach. there has to be one commander in chief to fight the war because someone has to take the hard decisions to win, and so the separation is in articles one and article two, and the reason there is not a declaration of war here is because i indicated earlier the circumstances do not give rise to a declaration of war, which then put into motion
a number of other authorizations. the authorities have been properly used by the congress in the 2001 aumf. secretary mattis would recognize a strong statement that in many respects, the congress can express its will. now, 16 years later, and say this authorization is all valid and serving the purposes of this war against this very unique and unusual enemy that we will fight for we don't know how long or for where or with what forces. that is the nature of this fight we are in. sen. coons: mr. secretary, i would like to thank both of you. i will comment in closing, having spent time in west africa, i am particularly concerned about the ways in which associated forces morph and change, affiliate, and his associate, and the way in which who we are fighting metastasizes, and how it is
possible for something like boko haram to split into two and to become two enemies. one al qaeda affiliated, one isis affiliated, but without funding or control from a core enemy. this is a different kind of fight that we have been in as a nation before. our constituents affect some type of strategy, trajectory, timeline, and cost. i am not blind to what you raise as very real risks if we undermine the confidence of our coalition partners and troops by failing to deliver a strong consi consensus. >> i will say, before turning to senator isakson, with a few exceptions, i have been here 11 years, i really have not heard a member specifically raise questions or criticize efforts that are underway against isis, al qaeda, boko haram.
so i know everybody is concerned . i mean, i know when this began, nobody expected we would be continuing as we are today. i understand that, and i would like for us to strive for a balance, but in fairness, and one member may expect that in just a moment, i have not heard a member go down to the senate floor and criticize the bush administration as it relates to al qaeda now. the bush administration, the o bama administration, or this administration. the senate and the house generally speaking do support the efforts that are underway. with that, senator isakson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you very much for mentioning the four folders in niger who lost their life
last week. i want to be sure and mentioned dustin right from georgia who was one of the four troops who lost his life. i want to thank you. whose sunday was in the united states army, is overseas now, and she talked about how proud she was to be serving -- for him to be serving under people like you. i want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for that. that is what the people in the streets are telling me. senatorns: and i -- coon and i go way back. we saw some of the horrible things happening in africa. i appreciate on the one hand oon said how c complex it is and how many players there are and how hard it is to keep up, but that underscores the reason that you cannot just write and aumf with
restrictions or try to be so prescriptive in the way you prescribe the geography where they fight or the tools they can use or anything like that, and do so without risking the life of your own troops. i was in the military. a long time ago. muskets back then. [laughter] sen. isakson: i remember the limitations on your ability to serve, and what you could do in the rules of engagement. i'm sure the aumf, the rules of engagement flow down from the aumf. am i right? >> yes, sir. sen. isakson: when we are writing an emulator -- an aumf, ,n the end, we are packing potentially affecting, the rules of engagement they have on the ground in countries where there are no rules, like niger and the other countries we talk about in africa. we had to be very much aware. the people who are working for , potentially affecting, the rules are the soldiers in the
field, airmen, folders, naval personnel. they operate under rules of engagement where they are limited to what they can do to carry out their mission. those limitations are somewhat affected by the aumf that exists at the time. we have to be very careful about what -- we are not just dealing with limitations. we as senators want our country to have. are dealing with volunteers who want to save our country day after day and very dangerous conditions. am i right? >> you are, senator, in terms of geography and time, this sort of thing. people run on hope. if the enemy hopes we are going to quit on a certain day and no we will not deal with them if they step over a certain border, the enemy will do exactly that. the enemy gets a vote. >> your comment about a rock and
all band -- my staff will get mad at me for doing this, ad-libbing now. i come from madison, georgia. is -- the best fans that is what happens in africa. groups talking about within those countries who are waging war within their own country that we end up getting engaged with one way or another. my next question, secretary of state tillerson, from the standpoint of any limitation whatsoever, from your testimony, i tell you that you do not think there should be -- if we were to write a new aumf, it ought to simultaneously going to force and replace the one today. is that correct? yes, senator.: we cannot afford to have any gaps in terms of our authorities. sen. isakson: secretary mattis,
you do not think there should be any limitation, geographic or otherwise, in an aumf? sec. tillerson: no, sir. sen. isakson: we have to be ready to make the decisions that those lack of limitations allow us to make and drop ahead in today's type of warfare and conflict around the world. sec. tillerson: i think we have seen up we this enemy can collect itself, raise forces, and overrun territory. ansaw that happen in astounding level of speed in iraq. sen. isakson: i have been giving ofot of thought to this. one them is north korea, which is a serious problem that all of us recognize as serious. i do not know if we recognize that it is as serious as it really is. i was in college in the early 1960's. it was a period of time where the russians put missiles in cuba and had the potential to
launch missiles into the united states in miami. that got everybody's attention. most everybody in this room -- they were tough and hairless times. president kennedy did a great thing in that conflict. there was a book that describes it. we got to the point where we had done the photography, had the evidence. it was clear the missiles had been installed in cuba. he had put his shoe on the table and talk about how he was gone to take him out. kennedy had done everything but tell him yes, he was. finally, president kennedy and his brother, bobby, decided it was time to draw a line that he would have to cross. they used an embargo on an island as a red line in the sand, so to speak.
north korea is not an island. don't think i am comparing that. it was a nonlethal but provocative way to force them to have to come into the game they started with, the north koreans. we are getting close in my mind to that point. y'all are thinking about that everyday. the last thing i want you to do is talk about it because he is over there in north korea watching our television anyway, getting his intelligence. we are getting close to that particular time in our country where it is an example of how you go the next step without necessarily risking your life by drawing the line in the sand that somebody has got to cross or else you do end up engaging with them. i wanted to throw out that thought. i thought it was a great example of leadership, a great president at that time that was similar to what we face in north korea. thank you. >> thank you very much. senator markey.
senator markey: thank you for your service. during the last congress and this past january, i introduced the restricting first use of nuclear weapons act with representative ted lieu. this bill would ensure that no president can launch a first use nuclear attack against any anywhere without a declaration of war from congress. ther existing laws, president possesses unilateral authority to use a first use nuclear strike on anyone, anywhere, around the world. even in the absence of a nuclear attack against us or our allies. there is no question that since the dawn of the nuclear age, it has been essential for the president to have clear authority to respond to nuclear attacks on the united states, our forces, or our allies. in my view, no one person should have the power to launch a first withoutear strike
congressional approval. under article two of the constitution, the president has authority to repel sudden attacks as soon as our military and intelligence agencies inform him of such an attack. nothing in our bill changes the president's authority to use nuclear weapons against anyone who is carrying out a nuclear attack on the united states. united states, our territory, or our allies. what we propose is a common sense check to check any president's authority to launch a first use strike unless expressly authorized by a congressional declaration of war. since the dawn of the nuclear we haven decades ago, been relying upon cooler heads and strategic doctrine to forestall the unthinkable, but too often, those kind of ad hoc measures seem less reassuring than ever. mattis,hink secretary
that the president has the authority to launch a nuclear strike without congressional approval? mr. mattis: senator, first, i would not say it is ad hoc. it is extremely rigorous discussions, and we step through process for decision-making, and i prefer not to talk about a hypothetical that we have never we basicallynce have never had something like that come up. sen. markey: do you contemplate a circumstance in which the president of the united states could launch nuclear weapons against another country, where that country has not launched nuclear weapons against us? we saw they were preparing to do so and it was imminent, i can't imagine it.
it is not the only tool in the toolkit to try and address something like that, but i doesve national oversight not equate to operational control. i think we have to keep trust, keep faith in the system that we have that has proven effective know for decades. >> again, we are in a circumstance now where the president talks, at least, elliptically to preventative war , which would mean the united states launching nuclear weapons potentially against north korea, and as we did in iraq, but starting a war in order to disarm saddam of nuclear weapons . that was at least the us sensible justification that did cheney gave two days before the war began. so in your opinion, is there a
circumstance under which we would be able to use nuclear weapons if we had not been attacked with them? mr. mattis: the question again, please, senator? sen. markey: again, i am coming back to this question of whether or not there is a scenario under usinga first strike nuclear weapons could in fact be used by the president of the united states without consulting any member of the united states congress, much less the entire congress in its entirety. mr. mattis: senator, again, it is a hypothetical. i think there if there is an imminent strike, and it was the only way to stop it, and i am not saying that what happened, there may be different tools, conventional tools, to stop it, but he has a responsibility to protect the country. too markey: i think it is
important a subject for the united states congress not to be informed as to what the circumstances are under which we would use nuclear weapons first. i think that it is imperative for you and for secretary of states and others if necessary to give us the classified briefing as to what those circumstances might he as to when you think they would have to be used. they could be used without ever consulting the congress at all. would you be willing to come up and to give us a classified briefing on when you think first use of nuclear weapons is appropriate when we have not been attacked? mr. mattis: senator, i have a record of never being reluctant to come up and speak. some hearings are best in closed session, but i am often reluctant to speak to hypotheticals, but i can certainly go partway down that road in terms of what might occasion something like that
imminent attack. sen. markey: in my opinion, no human being should have the authority to use nuclear weapons if there has not been an attack. we have the most powerful military in the world. air force, navy, army. if there is a threat that is conventional, then we have a conventional response, but if nuclear weapons are used, i think there has to be a process by which the united states 'congress is consulted. states congress is consulted. this is not something in my opinion which is any longer hypothetical. i think it is something that president trump contemplates good although i will add that we introduced legislation when hillary clinton was ahead by seven points last september, so it has to do more with whether or not any president should have this authority unfettered. what would be the process right now to use nuclear weapons?
what would the president have to go >> with a lot that through in another hearing, if that is ok. you have asked about this and i appreciate that. we have met and understand that there has not been a hearing on this topic through them. it could be incorrect. since the 1970's. we do plan on having a hearing how the process works. there are multiple scenarios that come into play. i think a full hearing would be much better. thank you for your service. i've been nine years on this committee. debates,d dozens of ,rguments, hearing, witnesses
trying to redo the 2001 and 2002 or replace them to do a new one. i am struck with a number of things after all that time. everybody once to do something. the parties on both sides are working. it certainly is not a partisan exercise. there are people on both rides -- both sides. i have seen dozens of iterations of what a bill would look like. is, we get centered on the details. after listening to this, i am pessimistic about whether we can actually do something new. the old system is in place. with all due respect to my good
flake, none of us voted on the original 2001 or 2002. times, we vote multiple times a year depending on how many crs we do or you congress -- we do. fighting.ould stop we put restrictions on funding for what money cannot be used for. knowroblem is, we both thanthe will is different what we would like to see in a perfect world. i agree with you. we did not vote on it directly, but we have all had a say every angle year. -- single year. the founding fathers had a good idea. the first branch of government should decide when we are going toward. a really good idea because we are not made up of a military
branch. it is more likely to pull the trigger quicker than the civilian branch. the other idea they had was an excellent idea. would not run a war. you need a commander in chief. that was a good idea. the difficulty today is that things have changed so dramatically since the time that was done. war fighting has changed and those guys could have never thought that the war we are fighting is against nonstate actors come against people dispersed all over the world with a common idea of what they want to accomplish. it is so different today than it was then. we have the constitutional provisions, which are pretty clear. we have the war powers act.
we are moving forward, but we do not seem to be headed towards evolution -- a resolution. i would like to get your thoughts on an initiative. we have talked a lot about terrorism because that is where the fight is. i think north korea has been raised a couple times. to me, that is the biggest issue that we have, if you are going to describe big. what happens when somebody knocks on the door of the oval office. north korea has just launched, what do you want us to do? there is no time to get the lawyers involved to determine what can or cannot be done. somebody has to make that decision. i appreciate the chairman spots that we should have a separate hearing on this issue. i would like to get your
thoughts. i know the lawyers on both sides of this. i would like to get your thoughts on the scenario i just talked about. as far as terrorism, we deal with that regularly in the intelligence committee and on this committee. tell me about north korea. what happens if somebody knocks on the door and says mr. president, they have launched? the first step, the various radars would be feeding in. they would do what they are designed to do as we make every effort to take them out. the response, after the dependte defense would on the president and laying out
options, wide array of options. asalliance with our allies well, because many of them have roles to play and have indicated they would be with us. congress would be intimately involved. this is a matter of minutes, that -- not days or hours. sec. mattis: the president would be woken up, but we have are hearst this. we rehearsed this routinely. i can leave it at that in this open session. sen. risch: secretary tillerson, do you have anything to add? sec. tillerson: we do have defensive recognize him's -- mechanisms in place.
there would be some judgment made over whether a necessary response is required. strengths has been the deterrent. no president, republican or democrat, has ever for sworn the first strike. that has served us for 70 years. any consideration of forgoing verydoes change him in a material way. the strength of that deterrence. sen. risch: i agree, mr. secretary. it seems to me that the enemy that we are dealing with here in north korea, that deterrence issue does not seem to be phasing them because they would have to be absolutely crazy or incredibly stupid to not know what was going to happen. in that scenario, it is a 15 to 20 minute process.
i think it would be very edifying for us to walk through that. cain, i turn to senator you have said on several occasions that you think it would be great cain if congresse with one voice on this issue and showed support. i hope we have an outcome. does anybody get any sense, anywhere in the world of the united states and people within the united states are somehow divided over fighting isis, al qaeda? sec. mattis: there have been times when allies and our adversaries have been convinced we are willing to give up and places. of certain those are operational aspects. as far as --
sen. corker: you are speaking more to what happened in iraq. what he speaking to would you say them in concerned -- being concerned? that was one of the reasons isis had a chain -- chance to grow. when we were talking about pulling out of afghanistan, as we were pulling outcome we have dropped to 39. that is turning around and allies are coming back on board. troops based on the rollout of our southeast asia strategy. .ou can see what happens when we pulled out of afghanistan, people thought the taliban would want to make peace. if some of us doubted that. it actually accelerated their campaign. you can see the enemy's response, the allies, 11 of
them, leaving the field. it does have an effect. i do not think it is that the enemy believes america was suddenly willing to vote for the enemy existsgs our for and believes in. they at times question whether or not we have the will to stand. the question is whether we can be in an endless war with no congressional vote against newly formed terrorist groups all over the world forever. i've heard testimony before that this could go on for generations with a no vote of congress. it was a june death of a green beret. it raised many questions about the geographic scope. i repeat what i have often said. it is time for congress to have a public debate about an
authorization for u.s. military action. many of us believe we are legally required to do so. others believe we would be wise to do so. -- ral secretary mattis our troops in the american public deserve an open debate. yeart in your 2017, in 2040 or 2050. contract -- seeking a contact with an entity available recoverye rescue and for high risk activities in africa. it designates 14 nations, five of which have been identified to congress. thend no fault with contract solicitation. i believe this level of planning , the obama administration era
for terrorism activity in -- it is significantly greater and what the american public understands. -- you signed a letter to congress on september 5, opposing the proposal. i think we can stipulate that this administration believes that the 2001 authorization gives it broad power in this area and we would rather not have any congressional revision. we have a job to do. let me ask you about your reasoning. your first objection is that "the legislation would arbitrarily terminate the authorization five years after date of enactment. this is inconsistent with the strategy.
it could also unintentionally embolden our enemies with a recognizable goal of outlasting us." it expires every year. congress still manages to pass the next one. they are followed by subsequent appropriations. other critical legislations must -- a need forons congressional we authorization. do either of you view the congressn as "arbitrarily terminating our support for the military"? sec. mattis: no sir. i suggest the ums is substantially different. sen. kaine: do you have any
evidence that it intentionally emboldens our enemies? the continuing resolution is certainly inhibited our ability to adjust the military to the modern threat. sen. kaine: do you think enemies are emboldened that we will not pass an appropriation? sec. mattis: i do not think they understand those kinds of intricacies. sen. kaine: do you count on being able to get the next bill passed because you have confidence in your request and you have confidence in congress to take seriously the need to defend the united states? sec. mattis: that is correct. is several dozen people have been waiting for hearings in order to give me the civilian oversight of the
department of defense. we need to respond appropriately in keeping congress informed. i cannot seem to get hotter votes on some -- to get votes on some. the speed of relevance for something like this, we want to make certain that when you get into what can be construed as the oversight and management or has aion of this fight degree of continuity that destroys the enemy's confidence that they can outlast us. sen. kaine: if you think it is advisable that we should continue the battle against these authorizations, do you doubt your ability to make the case to congress or doubt the ability of congress to take seriously the need to defend the nation against terrorist organizations? sec. mattis: i'm not in the political realm.
i realize i play a political role appear -- up here. sen. kaine: you do not doubt the will of congress to battle terrorist organizations, do you? sec. mattis: this war is so nontraditional. sen. kaine: you do not doubt the will of congress to defend the nation against terrorist groups, do you? sec. mattis: no, i do not. the resolution includes a definition of associated persons or forces that is inconsistent. the definition says associated persons or forces are individual entities other than sovereign state that are part of or substantially support al qaeda, the taliban or isis and are engaged against the u.s. armed forces and personnel. it is crystal clear. there is no uncertainty about it. the third and final objection in your letter is a joint
resolution would create a review process for use of force against forces and countries. does the administration object -- targeting with military force? believe that in article two of the constitution, the president has the authority to declare a threat to the united states. sen. kaine: does the administration object to notifying congress of the associated forces against what you are taking military action? sec. mattis: i do not think so, sir. we have been very forthcoming area -- forthcoming. sen. kaine: you do that in the war powers letters. sec. mattis: we do that routinely. sen. kaine: we require you to notify us about countries and notify us about the associated
forces. you can immediately take action against them, subject only to a resolution of disapproval to congress, which is the current wall. if i could conclude, based on the answers, it is tough to do it so quickly. i have the -- a hard time understanding the resolution. there is a five-year sunset we authorization. we do with the patriot act and appropriations. the associated forces definition is extremely clear. the process for countries is not the geographic limitation. it is just a notice requirement that they take steps under the normal rules of the constitution . i recognize that the administration feels like it does not want any more of 30 -- authority, but we are more than
a feed bag. this is a constitutional power and we should not be putting troops in harms way as congress stands back and tries not to have our fingerprints on it. i think it is a forever war, and i worry about handing the power over to presidents to do this without the need to come to congress at all. sen. corker: i do have remaining time. what the senator said is true. notify theve to countries. -- you have toy notify the additional groups. i would like to know what the problem is with the associated forces. it does appear to be very broad. i would like if it takes a classified response. we would be glad to take it.
i do not understand what the problem is with associated forces. i actually asked, and i know you will send me a response to that. senator paul. sen. paul: it should not surprise any of us that they say they believe in the article to power. what should surprise us is it seems they also argue that they have unlimited power to initiate and execute war. that is where the real problem comes here. like everyone else, i do not want to have you restrained. i want to engage and kill the enemy. the initiation of the war was given to us. mattis -- with studied care, we gave that power to the legislature. some could argue it was not appropriate. --becomes very deep
difficult. no one was to be accused of not giving money to soldiers in the field. our only chance of preventing more is not to initiate the war. , you willm we have not even tell us we will have preventative war with north korea. not justs a signal that we are willing to do for a strike, but what message does it send to other nuclear powers? reserving the right, if we do not like what weapon you have and take it will reach as we might take you out. you have israel pointed at saudi arabia, pointed at iran. you have all these enemies. if we assert we have the will and the right and will take preemptive war against a nuclear power, i think that is very troublesome. .e complain we should reassert our power.
it has been generation after generation of congress acquiescing in this. if it does not limit the authority, i am not sure we are better. my problem is the executive branch thinks it is too restrictive. when we look at this and we want to ask whether there should be limitations, whether we are prepared to be involved or whether we are prepared to let any president involve us in perpetual war, we have to think about this. war started in the first generation. they still remember the battle. they still more not battle some 30 years later. are we willing to not have any more votes? --intellectually person
it says specifically we are going after enemies that attacked us. had anything to do with 9/11. i do not think we gave the executive branch a blanket authority to go to war anywhere they want. to be diplomacy involved in this as well. -- will we ever into the war and the war -- end the war? dick cheney once said it should be unconstitutional to challenge article to authority, which he also meant to be unlimited. very clear.tion was we were supposed to initiate war. comes fromof war congress. i believe that very strongly. we should assert our power. we have the ability to assert
our power and we should resist when the administration, republican or democrat comes before us and tells us they have the ability to make preemptive war anywhere at any time. think it is very dangerous and this should be a wake-up call to all of us. just passing a umf is not enough. -- aumf is not enough for me. to this warg a umf is not see d historically. i think the war and answers will come from within islam. i think islam will have to eventually stand out. if we can defeat anyone -- we went to yemen. you are in a new war theater. you have 17 million people on the point of starvation in yemen. we are assisting and aiding the
saudi's and blockading. they kill civilians. village and you guys say we have great information. no one will tell me the information came from that village in yemen. i do not blame our soldiers, i blame us. women and children were killed in that village. we did not try to do that, sure. what do you think they tell about us and the surrounding communities? say about the timing americans came in the night and a whole village was wiped out? traditione at by oral -- they will repeat that by oral tradition. there will have to be another way to involve some diplomacy and discussion. that does not mean we can not heret the enemy, but i am to say that it is not your power.
the only way we can change that is if we stand up and say enough is enough. we want to reassert the power of senate and congress. my admonition is to do that. i am alarmed to find out that article 10 basically has us involved in civil wars in africa. it sounds like you have a conflict going on there. you have conflict going on in niger. we were given this authority under article 10 to be anywhere at anytime. i am even more alarmed that section 10 sounds like you can believe anywhere at any time whether there is a war going on or not area i suspect there is more going on -- or not. i suspect there is more going on. i hope we pull together and resist.
you want what is best for your country. , we woulde of power pick ambition against ambition. -- we have been checking and balancing the executive branch. that is my admonition to our body. it is an admonition that we should have a debate created -- a debate. sen. corker: under title 50 authority, there is a great deal under way that the american people are aware of. that is part of what we are dealing with. sen. markey: thank you for your management. , thetary tillerson retention of the potential for nuclear weapons has been a foundational doctrine that has about 70ep the peace
years. did i get that right? sec. tillerson: i would say, maybe not. it has not generally been the retention, it has been an assured destruction and retaliation that has kept that piece. there is a significant difference between the two. i believe i heard one of you refer that we have not weapons.d the use of did i get that right? we have noton: initiated the use since world war ii. sen. merkley: we have had serious conversations about the potential of using a nuclear weapon. mr. chairman, i would like to
submit for the record a cia document that goes through march 18, 1966. it noted that they were analyzing in the context of a debate using nuclear weapons the issues that might flow, should we choose to do so. they noted some of the following things. they said they would be badly shaken that once a taboo was broken, there would be no effective barrier to such weapons. there would be decelerated momentum -- accelerated momentum. government would fail to condemn the u.s. and that there be pressure from media. concerns all kind of
but you would share if the u.s. was to utilize a nuclear weapon , where itrth korea was a conventional setting? are you asking about a first strike? sen. merkley: yes. sec. mattis: i would need to study it and give it greater thought. i would have to study it. we have not been discussing this sort of thing in any kind of an actionable way. sen. merkley: i am very pleased to hear that. i was very struck when i heard this. they would stand up today if we were to start -- discussing the effect. list for today's
conversation. aumf, myo the 2001 colleague from kentucky, please correct me if this is wrong. the most rational people, aumf wouldthe 2001 not see the connection. i have it here in my hand. earlier, secretary tillerson, you were noted that you were not sure of the motivations behind that aumf. it is so clearly laid out. it is very specifically targeted to use all necessary and appropriate force against nations, organizations and persons authorized or committed to terrorist attacks. those 2001about attacks.
what we are struggling with as a committee and our role in this constitutional balance is between a situation, a vision of the past in which our cost -- ourn was framed and constitution was framed and the modern battlefield of the world, in which terrorist troops are scattered about. whether what you are asking for, which sounds like permanent, worldwide ability for the to take onn its own radical islam. that is quite a different version than the one laid out in our constitution. am i describing it fairly in timeline, did hear no no geographic restraints or restriction on types of operations. that sounds like a permanent transition of power to the executive that takes congress
out of the picture, once such an aumf. sec. tillerson: that statement goes on to say that in order to prevent any future act of international terrorism against the united states and -- by such persons, i think you bring up a very valid point because obviously it has been thrown aside by the very powerful transnational groups that we see right now. this, toe deal with strongngress constitutional power in play, we have to recognize that traditional forms of welfare are no longer used. there are ways to do this.
there are many variations that have been offered that can addressthis or will not it. we do have to recognize that congress was very blunt that it was to prevent future acts of terrorism. by such nations that had been involved in planning, authorizing and assisting terrorist attacks on september 11. a numbere have heard of times today that this has been reinterpreted to involve associated forces. there is no wording in this about associated forces. people think that those words exist in here. i do understand that the point of organizations change name and move on. we are quite distant and purpose time frompurpose and
these groups in 2001. the challenge here is if one takes associated forces as an add-on, as an implication of this, the question becomes is an almost anything associated in the world #where is that mine -- world --orld -- in a the world? sen. corker: thank you very much. sen. gardener: one of the advantages of congress passing the aumf is to show the result and unity of congress. what does that look like?
a united congress? what does the united aumf look like? sec. mattis: i am not 100%, but it would have to show a bipartisan embrace of the definition of the threat. it would at least have to have sufficient congressional support for what to do about that threat , that we would see america standing up. that is where we stand. sen. gardener: have there been any changes that president obama had not defined that way? sec. mattis: there have been some changes in the application, but i cannot think of any change
in the authorities that we are operating under. sen. gardner: have there been any additional grant of authority since president obama left office? sec. mattis: i do not believe so, sir. sen. gardner: if you move from a title x to in -- title 10 authorization, what would that look like? sec. mattis: it would have to be an authorization that defines the enemy sufficiently, that it does not restrict our operations in the field, and it sets a condition under which we are to fight for an objective. sen. gardner: we are in the philippines under title x, correct? we have special operators in the philippines? sec. mattis: yes, sir.
sen. gardner: are they under title x? i know we have had them under the title x. now with the fight going on in under, we reported them aumf. i am not positive about that. sen. gardner: is there a cold break between the title x action and the other? sec. mattis: if they are sent into direct combat, which they are not in the philippines, that would cause a war powers resolution to notify you of that. i think we notify you of the troops there under our normal maintaining your knowledge of where we have troops deployed, not in a combat role.
sen. gardner: i want to move on to north korea. what is the most never get will of engagement change that we have seen in our fight against isis from previous administrations? sec. mattis: i believe it would be in afghanistan, where we have authorized troops not to have a requirement of proximity to the enemy. wherever we see them, we can attack them. they are hostile. to beis no need for them in self-defense mode to call air support. that goes to your point -- sen. gardner: our enemy knew that. that is your point on warfare. we have made significant progress in the fight against terrorism because of the change of the rule of engagement,
correct? sec. mattis: yes, sir. sen. gardner: you said north korea was the most eminent security threat. sec. mattis: yes, sir. sec. tillerson: yes, sir. sen. gardner: kim jong-un has not given up his first strike capabilities, correct? unclearlerson: it is what his striking capabilities are from a nuclear perspective. sen. gardner: should he have a nuclear weapon, has he given up first strike capability? sec. tillerson: not to my knowledge. sec. mattis: no, sir. sen. gardner: any change between this administration and the previous administration? that is all the same? sec. mattis: yes, sir. sec. tillerson: as far as i am aware, nothing has changed.
sen. gardner: an additional question on north korea. you said that if there was in action going into north korea under article two, the president could act if need be, is that correct? sec. tillerson: i would think an aumf declaration of war would depend on the circumstances surrounding the requirement to engage in conflict. announced several new sanctions about chinese entities. are there more forthcoming in the sanctions? sec. tillerson: there are additional targets. secretary mattis,
deeply the iraqi security forces use of u.s. armor is legal but -- under the iraqi constitution? havemattis: right now, we a pause in the activity on both sides. we are talking our way through it right now. sen. gardner: i would like an answer on iraqi forces use of u.s. armor and whether that is legal under the iraqi comes to shin -- constitution. that is one question i would like an answer to. the second question has to do with the authorization. -- is theretary department of defense asking for section 702 to be we optimize -- reauthorized? sec. mattis: i need to talk with
the president about that, sir. sen. corker: as we move through -- is shelost their upught -- issued you brought was a big problem. i think that was a good line of questioning. senator booker? booker: i appreciate your service to our country. mattis, a lot of dod funding in the program. there is a new air force ?acility, correct sec. mattis: that is correct. we're seeing military operations in the region with troops and
resources. is that correct? sec. mattis: we have been operating in niger a little over 20 years now. sen. booker: my point is there has been a significant increase area -- increase. sec. mattis: there has been. sen. booker: at the same time, we are seeing a proposed ajit from the administration for budget from the administration for program being to niger.lateral aid is that correct? sec. mattis: i will have to go back and look at the figures. sen. booker: those figures are correct. a proposed decrease. -- i haveat up to you
heard you talk to this, but i would like you to speak to it now. we are seeing a lot of these states in africa, very different conditions similar to have often seen in other places we are involved in. train and equip programs or fighting in the sense of what is happening in a lot of these countries. nigerian military forces have crimes --significant nasa cures -- massacres of muslims. bombed,an air force was killing 236 refugees. .njuring thousands more 2014, accused of over 600 -- killing 600 unarmed refugees. there has been very little
accountability for these incidents. involved in place is like nigeria. you know that as we decrease democracy. stabilize we are involved in partnering with militaries that are responsible for atrocities. that creates an environment for more terrorism. do you disagree with that statement? do. mattis: what we tried to is maintain our diplomatic engagement, our development support, at the same time provide sufficient security by training them how to do their by which the development can occur to remove the root causes anywhere. you see u.s. troops will find them schooling local troops,
part of our training. guys, trying to get this across. sen. booker: i do not take issue with that at all. you say we are trying to maintain our efforts of diplomacy and foot support because that is not reflected in budget numbers. let me continue to the point i was trying to make. there is a lot of extensive research that in addition to socioeconomic status, excessive force by police and military lead to radicalization. the heavy-handed responses from andtary drives recruitment extremism and organizations that lead to terrorist activity. you are aware of that research. sec. mattis: i am not aware of what we have done in may of 2014
where is the nigerian girls were kidnapped. i do not find the connection theeen our activities and kidnapping of hundreds of girls. i was not making that connection. i was making a point. senator paul made a point about yemen. we are engaged in counterterrorism activities, partnering with military operations in saudi arabia. operationsnducting in a way in which civilians are killed, atrocities are accomplished. does that often drive the creation or the condition of radicalization? sec. mattis: it certainly could. we are trying to keep that from happening. in this case come the united nations recognizes government in inside a civilng
war. they are trying to restore that government. if we do not get it restored, that will set the conditions for the growth of terrorist groups that you mentioned. somalia, thein language of your current advisestion also accompanying regional forces. does that mean we could be accompanying regional forces as a combat role for troops in somalia? sec. mattis: yes, sir. isever, our mission there still to train and advise and assist them by helping them carry out their own security. we are not taking over the or theg from somalia africa union forces. sen. booker: i have run out of time. there are a bunch of of
questions -- of questions that i would love to get answers to. it strains say that my understanding of what the officers asian -- the authorization is. this idea that somehow that inhorization is being used indonesia, where there is terrorist activity in the philippines. we are still relying for all these activities, there has been no conversation to see that we are achieving u.s. aims or engaging in a way that is making this world a much more complex place. i really do agree with a lot of my colleagues that we should be having this debate openly and more in congress.
>> as we were discussing, you just not back from korea, right before this time today. you were at the dmv and said north korea accelerated threat -- it's threat. today north korea announced it will be launching more satellites into space. are these just another way for them to test ballistic missiles under the guise of a space program? sec. mattis: the application of technology is the same. sec. tillerson: i am very concerned about the christians, the disputed territories that are being impacted by this. there have been reports of
christian families being forced to flee their homes. many of these iraqi christians were able to return home to their villages after isis forced them out of the area. what are you hearing from christian leaders in these communities and what is the u.s. doing to ensure that other minorities are being protected? is. tillerson: the good news they are trying to get back to their homes, their villages that they fled. many of their villages have been spared because the fighting did not occur there. we have been in direct contact with leaders in those communities who are concerned not be foughtlict out in their villages. they have pooled their forces out.
assurede minister has stayat their forces will out of those villages. we have direct engagement with local leaders of those communities and christian that are trying to bring those populations back. sen. barrasso: there were violent clashes. the media reports indicated that the iraqi government had moved forces into this -- the disputed areas of kurdistan. one effect of this have in terms of moving military equipment and applies to allied forces in iraq and syria? sec. mattis: the fighting has disrupted and delayed those movements. the iraqi forces moved into
the 2004 t of . secretary tillerson has been engaged diplomatically. we always lead diplomatically on all of our efforts. those have been successful. effectme minister has an . he has been able to hold things in control and make sure the militias are not creating more sort outas the kurds their situation. sen. barrasso: in terms of moving diplomatically, turn to pakistan. president trump gave a primetime address addresses strategy for afghanistan. he said a pillar of that strategy was to change the approach and how to deal with pakistan. you briefly discussed this issue
traveling the region last week. certain you have given expectations that we have of their government. you went on to say that you are attempting to put in place a mechanism for sharing and action organizationsny to launch attacks. can you talk about what is the change in the approach to pakistan? sec. tillerson: i can share some broad contours. we might need to do that in a closed hearing. to recognize that they will be one of the great beneficiaries of a successful peace process in afghanistan. augustana lives with two very , one withorders afghanistan and the other with india. denying safe haven to
any of these organizations that launch attacks from your territory. we are going to enter into an effort to have greater sharing of certain intelligence information. the pakistanis have indicated that if we provide the information, they will act. he will have to test that and give them an opportunity -- we will have to test that and give them an opportunity. begin to disassociate these long-standing relationships that have developed over time. the taliban, inside pakistan, which may have served their purpose for stability once upon time, but the deal longer -- they no longer serve that purpose. to think about their longer-term stability by changing that relationship with these organizations. sen. barrasso: thank you very much.
thank you, mr. chairman and secretary tillerson and secretary mattis for being here and for your service and stamina. years, asast several has been pointed out, the range of threats that we face from terrorist groups and state actors has become increasingly diverse, fragmented and geographically expansive. militants that we defeat in one country have spread their ideology to other areas. iran andors like russia are increasingly expanding their reach beyond their borders, particularly in the middle east and africa where our troops are present. i am concerned, as many on this committee are, that without an adequate understanding of the parameters that the administration is using to
justify the use of force, that our strategies will remain ambiguous and our troops will have few limits to where they will be asked to go and to do. i believe in that the importance of u.s. engagement in the world. i am not an isolationist. i do not believe we should withdraw from everywhere. i want to make sure as senator booker said that we are achieving the aims we set out to have. secretary tillerson, the american people and our soldiers have a right to know where they ,re being asked to go and to do what the expectations are and what the end game is. places where it is not at all clear to me what the endgame is and that we have a strategy for that in game is in syria. the conflict there is one of the things that has allowed
terrorist groups and isis to move the way they have. as we look at the liberation of endgame?at is our do we intend to continue down the euphrates? will the assad regime or russians do that question mark it is not clear. we have not just -- russians do that? it is not clear. this is for you, secretary mattis. it is the most complex battlefield i think i have ever experienced. aspect by, with and through partner allied
forces. that is why you see us helping a positionut them in to supply them. raqqat one soldier taking . the kurds lost over 600. what we will what we'll do is knowing they moved their external operations elements, as we gather strength from the arab tribes we'll continue to move against isis. move against isis. because we -- this thing isn't over until it's over. regime, me time, the the pro regime forces, iranians -- iranian-supported elements, lebanese hezbollah and other forces are moving in the same direction. we do decon flix with them at several levels. so we'll continue to move
against them. the iraqis will move against them from their side of the border, even as the kurdish referendum issue has been a distraction further north, they are continuing to move. so we're stoinl the move. we're still deconflicting. secretary tillerson is coordinating the larger issue of they have end state diplomatically. >> so is the expectation as we drive isis out we'll leave remaining sections of syria to assad, to the russians, to iran? because it's not at all year -- it's not at all clear what will happen in those territories. thisillerson: that's where de-escalation shone. in order for that to happen that means the regime hold its
position and not try to overrun or retake areas that were liberated by others. we've successfully put one de-escalation zone southwest o syria in conjunction with jordan and syria. that went into effect january 9. there'll been no aerial bombings in that area since and we have had success moving iranian presence as well as lebanese hezbollah presence out of those areas. we're working to create addition ale de-escalation zones. these are not demarcation zones, they're not intended to divide the country they're meant to de-escalate, decommit so we can get representatives to the geneva process pursuant to u.n. security council resolution 2254 which has a very prescribed process for how syria will work its way toward new elections over the next few years. senator shaheen: sorry to interrupt interrupt, i would
like to pursue this discussion in a classified session. i would like to follow up, secretary mattis you say we always lead with diplomacy. i would like to think we always lead with diplomacy but given the current reorganization at the state department, the current cuts to the budget at the state department that were requested by this administration, the number of pers the, the amount of years of expertise of people who have left the state department, i guess i question whether in fact we are leading with diplomacy and putting our best foot forward. so i don't know, mr. secretary. can you explain to me why this is a good time to let go of those personnel, to cut back on the budget of the state department? mr. mattis: we have let no one go. some people have retired, some have decided to leave on their own. there have been no layoff no,
terminations. quite frankly, senator, i have to speak on behalf of the professional men and women at the state department. mr. tillerson: they have stepped up in open positions that are still open because we're waiting for confirmations, doing a superb job representing the american people's interests. our diplomacy has not stopped, it is not hampered, it has not slowed. these people are engaged with our counterparts in leading this diplomatic effort. i'm proud of them. they're doing a great job. with eneed some more help, some leadership help but we haven't depleet our ranks of expertise and quite frankly on their behalf i want to defend their expertise to you. senator shaheen: i certainly wasn't attacking the men and women of the state department. my concern is we have seen people with experience at the state department who have left because of the direction they're
seeing it go. but i share your support for the work they're doing. thank you. >> general mattis, secretary tillerson, in an increasingly dangerous and volatile world i'm glad you are where you are. we've got a lot of challenges. i think the current aumf covers the fight against isis even though as was stated earlier, there was no isis as such. however, i also believe having a new aumf has benefits. i think it can be worthwhile in providing greater clarity and guidance, including to our military commanders and your diplomats, mr. speaker. i think it can help you establish a firmer base of splill support for overseas operations. i think it can send a clear signal for from the united states congress to friend and foe alike so i'm interested. but i'm only interested in the right aumf. it has to be helpful in
empowering those who are undertaking this incredibly important task during a time of such danger. i guess my question to you would be, i understand, your testimony, having been here earlier, you have laid out what you think the guiding principles ought to be but are there authorities or guidance you now lack that a new aumf could provide? >> on the military side, senator, i would just say no as it stands right now and again when i spoke, i just thought the yield to incorporate those things i brought up. i'm not going to tell you how to to your job. but i think those factors of conditions based and the
timelines, anything that we do we have to recognize has an impact on both our operations and on the enemies -- enemy's view and we have to take that into account. that's a reality. i'm not saying there's some prescript of one way to solve these. senator portman: secretary? mr. tillerson: i don't think there's anything we lack. we think the current authorizations allow us to pursue this enemy wherever they choose to fight us. again, i think this is all about fighting them over there. so they don't come here to attack ounce the homeland again. >> the threat has evolved and geographic limitations would make no sense, i assume given that we've seen the threat
metastasize through countries we would never imagine would be part of isoirs al qaeda. let me ask a broader question, this is a tough one. but i have as with many of my colleagues been frustrated with sarea, you called it a complex battlefield. i know the president and our administration has focused on defeating isis as is appropriate. but there's a broader issue, how did isis evolve in the first place? and how do we deal with the underlying problems and chaos in that region, the instability that fueled the rise of isis in the first place. and i guess my question to you is, let's say we continue to be successful with isis. you talked about raqqa earlier and the success we've had on the ground. as we do that, i would think our coalition partners and us are going to see the limitations of a military approach because you'll continue to have sectarian divisions, competing
interests, worsening humanitarian crisis. i want to be sure if we're doing a new aumf we're covering that. this is not just to give you the authority to use military force but to get at the causes so we don't have to go back again. i guess secretary tillerson to ask you first, as an example, do you think there could be a lasting peace there as long as isaud is in power? and does the current aumf give you the ability, general mattis, to be able to deal with that issue if you think that has to be resolved? that might be one example. >> the current aumf only authorizes our fight against isis in syria, as i indicated in my remarks. we're not there to fight the regime. there's no authority beyond the fight against isis. mr. tillerson: therefore we have to pursue a future syria that's kept whole and intact and a process which the u.n. security council process does provide a process by which in our view the
assad regime will step down from power. how that occurs will be part of that process. that's what we continued to indicate. that's a view that's widely held by others in the region as well. it's widely held by our allies in europe and broadly by the coalition. so what we want to do is create conditions so geneva has an opportunity to succeed. >> how does this play into the p ten rble new aumf? secretary mattis you might focus if you would, on the military operation side of this thing. in order to secure the peace after isis is defeated if we're successful, what would you like to see in an aumf that would be broader and give you the ability to do what has to be done? mr. mattis: i think the aumf has to address the two basic brands of terrorism we have seen strike at civilized people everywhere and determine what it takes to
define that problem in sufficient detail and to appoint here in the congress we're in agreement if you go forward along those lines so that we speak with one voice on the threat. if we spend time basically defining the threat, sufficient rigor, i think much of the response to that threat will be understandable and supportable across the political spectrum. senator portman: do you think a broader aumf is needed to deal with underlying issues, not just the immediate elimination of the isis threat in syria but some of the factors that have led to the rise of isis? mr. mattis: it could do that, if properly constructed it could do that. mr. tillerson: i think it's a question of, after we are successful, as we're having success now, how do you stabilize these areas?
and do we, is there any military role for that stableization? i'm not -- i'd have to think about it further as to whether it's a military role or whether it's really, we equip which is what we're doing today, we equip local capacity to maintain the security of their communities ministersaid, as prime abu dee noted, armies are not good at serving in a police role. we have to train for that. we have to train security forces that are able to provide a policing function. to maintain stability and security for these communities which helps tamp down the conditions that give rise then to this violent extremism again. senator portman: i guess -- i'm out of time. appreciate your indulgence in letting me go a lit 8 over, mr. chairman. i do think this is a discussion we can have as part of this potential new aumf. what is the broader stat injury
here we ought to be pursuing to avoid get back in the fight again. thank you, mr. chairman. senator corker: before i turn to senator cardin for his closing note, you're not asking for an authority to go against assad? mr. tillerson: no. senator corker: and if you felt you needed to go against assad you'd come to congress because we'd be going against a country, is that correct? mr. tillerson: that's correct. senator cardin: toiled thank our witnesses for their service to our country and their participation in this hearing. there may bh disagreements about what the aumf covers currently and what congress should include in a more up to date aumf. that's a healthy debate we're having. there's no debate about our resolve to go after terrorists who are attack our interests and
our allies. we want you to have the ability to root them out and destroy them. there's no disagreement about that. i just would sort of conclude on this, and that is i think there's a real willingness of all of us to work together to modernize the aumf. we're going to try to be able to do that. but i particularly want to thank you for the direct answers to our questions. i think you were very clear in responding to the questions asked by the members of this committee and that's very encouraging. because this hearing, i think, has been extremely helpful to us to try to sort out how we can best represent the national security interests of this country. senator corker: i want to thank you both for coming, for your service to our country, for the concrete answers you gave. obviously the next logical step is for us to mark up an aumf and i would just ask while you're
here that you agree to work with us promptly in the work period -- and the work period is short, we've got other issues to deal with. if you would both use your resources to respond quickly to questions we might have legally and otherwise relative to an aumf. mr. tillerson: will do. mr. mattis: absolutely. senator corker: thank you. there'll be additional questions, we'll take those through close of business on wednesday if you could answer those promptly, given your other work load. i can't can not thank you enough. with that, the meeting is adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
>> c-span's "washington journal" live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up tuesday morning, inside elections editor nathan gonzalez discusses the early outlook for campaign 2018. and george washington university law professor jonathan tur lee talks about the indictments of three former trump campaign counsel in special mueller's investigation. watch "washington jounl" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern tuesday morning on c-span.
join the discussion. >> representatives from twitter, facebook and google testified before congress on tuesday and wednesday. as part of the investigation into russia's influence on social media and the 2016 election. complete live coverage is available on the c-span networks. tomorrow, at 8:30 p.m. eastern, ive coverage on c-span3. sean edgett from twitter, colin stretch, general counsel from facebook and richard salgado, director of law enforcement and information security from google, testify before the senate judiciary subcommittee on crime and terrorism. on wednesday two hearings live on c-span3. the house select intelligence committee. hear testimony from sean edgett of twitter, colin stretch of facebook and kent walker, senior vice president and general counsel for google. watch all three hearings on c-span3, online at c-span.org or listen live on the free c-span
radio app. >> tonight on c-span. an update on the indictment of former trump campaign chair paul manafort. that's followed by today's white house briefing. after that, a texas tribune forum on president trump, ethics, and the law. later, defense secretary mattis and secretary of state tillerson testify before congress on the use of military force. president trump's former campaign chair, paul manafort, was indicted in federal court on monday for charges including money laundering. mr. manafort and his associate, rick gates, were charged as part of a special counsel investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election led by robert mueller. they pleaded not guilty. mr. manafort's attorney spoke to reporters outside the courthouse. here's a look.
>> i think you all saw today, president donald trump is correct, there's no evidence that mr. manafort or president trump colluded with the russian government. mr. manford represented pro-european union campaigns for the ukrainians. and in that, he was seeking to further democracy and to help the ukraine come closer to the united states and the e.u. those activities ended in 2014. over two years before mr. manafort served in the trump campaign. today you see an indictment brought by an office of special counsel using a very novel theory to prosecute mr. manafort
regarding a fara filing. the united states government has only used that offense six times since 1966 and it only resulted in one conviction. the second thing about this indictment that i myself find most ridiculous is the claim that maintaining offshore accounts to bring all your funds into the united states as a scheme to conceal from the united states government is ridiculous. thank you. >> what does the white house think? hould the white house worry? >> talk about the charges that have been laid and the prospect of what happens next, jonathan tur lee a law professor at george washington university. good morning, thank you for joining us. on the phone. good morning. ofld you give us explanation the charges that have been brought? guest: well, there are 12 counts
have been brought against these two men. and they include many of the that we anticipated. farra violations, foreign agent registration act violations. also include things like conspiracy against the united states. of the charges seem to be foreign n manafort's transactions and dealing eparate from the trump campaign. so it's a mixed bag for the white house. it is comfortably separated from campaign in large part from what we can see. he center of gravity on those charges are removed a bit from the campaign. types other hand, these of charges tend to concentrate middle-age men who have never been part of the criminal justice system. clearly hope s
when they bring these charges hat one or both of them will seek to cooperate as a witness. of 're certainly a lot occurring, the indictment appears to be on manafort's many oreign connections and his transactions. this is one of the reasons why as the 's selection campaign manager for those couple months was a bit odd. he was well known to have a array of foreign transaction and contact with various governments usually ine, that is not someone you want to select. you don't know what baggage they table.ing to the host: both rick gates and paul anafort will make appearance before the magistrate judge this robinson 1:30
afternoon. do you know judge robinson? guest: yes, very well respected judge. this will be very relatively quick. it will be, there will be repeat charges, confirmation of the two individuals. fairly y will move quickly. as the hearing ends, the question will be supported that's wherements, this narrative could change. and f.b.i.rosecutors agents in affidavit or the to other , will elude evidence and other individuals. white house r the is that paul manafort's connections include ukrainians ties to the kremlin, now that obviously plays into the russian collusion. so as we glimpse those ocuments, we might be able to see what mueller has on that other issue of collusion.
walk us through then what happens after today. ultimately they will be charged, they will be unlikely that is they would be held they are not what i can from see. prosecutors art the superceding indictments. start of t only the special arges by counsel mueller it is start of charges against the individuals, uncommon for prosecutors to go back to the grand jury, tack on another counts. so these men can't assume that they will face in a trial, now they will have a they want to her weigh the speedy trial, usually
indication paul mannafort continue questionable practices working onime he was host: law professor, host:than turley walking us through the process now that there have been charges against manafort and gates. >> president trump's former campaign manager and a business associate pleaded not guilty to money laundering, tax evasion, failure to register as agents for foreign interests and conspiracy to defraud the u.s. government. a federal judge ordered the men confined at home and set bail at $10 million for mr. manafort and $5 million for mr. gates.
the article also notes george papadopoulos a former foreign policy advisor, was reveal to have had pleaded guilty earlier this month lying to f.b.i. investigators over his contacts last year with two people with apparently close ties to the russian government. one was an unnamed professor identified by "the washington post" as joseph bisout who offered, quote, dirt, on hillary clinton. another was a woman who portrayed herself as putin's niece. at monday's white house brief, press secretary sarah sanders spoke about the president's timeline for tax legislation and took questions on the federal indictment of paul manafort and two others. this is just over 20 minutes.