tv Defense Secretary Mattis Secretary of State Tillerson Testify on War... CSPAN October 31, 2017 3:54am-4:57am EDT
live coverage is available on the c-span networks. c-span3,2:30 p.m. on general counsel from twitter, general counsel from facebook, and director of law enforcement and information security from 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 google. facebook, and watch all three hearings on c-span.org,ine at or listen live on the free c-span radio app. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies.
it is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. defense secretary james mattis and secretary of state rex tillerson testified be for the senate foreign relations committee on the authorization for the use of military force. this hour-long portion of the hearing took place before a break. stop endless war. stop endless war.
sen. corker: 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. 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 then 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 noo speaking before the second about. if we can keep going, general mattis, secretary mattis has a meeting he would like to attend and i know others wants to complete the work in an appropriate way. with that, i'd like to thank tillerson and mattis are being -- 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. oversight 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, enteri ng 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 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, 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 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.
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 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 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, 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 ladavid 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 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 this hearing. secretary mattis and secretary tillerson, i'll be asking you to -- for the use of military 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 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 attacks in 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 september 11, 2001 or harvard such persons to prevent future acts of national terrorism against the united states. as one who voted for the aumf when 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 against 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 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 as well as activities we take with our new partners in the coalition to defeat isis. it provides a domestic legal basis for our detention operations at guantanamo bay, where the united states
members ofetained the taliban, al qaeda, and associated forces. using appropriate force to defend u.s. coalition and partner forces engaged in need to defeat isis, rock, and syria. in syria, we are aimed at the defeat of isis. the united states does not seek governmente syrian or pro-syrian 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. to usesident's authority force against isis is further reinforced by the authorization for use of military force against iraq or and more plain umf., the 2002 eight
in addition to authorities granted by statute, the president has the power under article two of the constitution to use military force under certain circumstances to this important -- to advance issues.t as an example, president reagan relied on his authority as commander-in-chief in 1986 when he ordered airstrikes against terrorist facilities in libya following a terrorist attack i libya and west are live in which killed and wounded both civilians in the u.s. military personnel. the u.s. has the authority to prosecute campaigns against the taliban, al qaeda, and associated forces including isis and is currently not taking any new additional authorization for the use of force. the 2001 8 umf remains a cornerstone for ongoing legal operations and continues to
provide authority relied upon to defeat the threat. however, should congress decide to write new legislation, i submit several recommendations the united states would consider necessary to a new eight umf. first, it must be in place prior to or simultaneous with the repeal of old ones. failure to do so could cause operational paralysis in confusion in military operations. diplomatically speaking, it could cause our allies to question our commitment to defeating isis and potential repeal of a amf without an immediate and appropriate replacement could raise questions about the domestic united states activities against the taliban, al qaeda, and associated forces including isis as well as our detention facilities at guantanamo bay.
any new authorization should not be time-constrained. legislation that would arbitrarily terminate will be inconsistent with a conditions-raised approach and that unintentionally embolden our enemies with the goal of outlasting us. allow would also have to the united states to quickly move against our enemies without constrained by the feedback loop. eight umf must not be geographically restrictive as is the case under the current amf, the administration would need to maintain the statutory authority to use military force against an enemy that does not respect or limited self based on geographic boundaries. the regime has crumbled it has tried to gain footholds in new locations. a closedsed during
briefing in july, the united states has a limited military to support partners including france in their operations in the region. information is being submitted the and multiple periodic reports consistent with the cease-fire revolution. so-calledse of isis caliphate means it will attempt to burrow into new countries and find new safe havens. our legal authorities for heading off this transnational threat cannot be constrained, otherwise isis may reassert itself and vulnerable spaces. the united states must restrain the proper legal authorities to make sure nothing delays our taking care ofn threats.
we are completely aligned on this issue in this administration. fully recognize the need for transparency as we respond to what will be a dynamic regional and global issue. regularlyntinue to update congress and make sure you and the american people understand our foreign-policy goals, military operations, and national security objectives. i think the committee for supporting us and look forward to your questions. forenator, we thank you being here and for your service as secretary and through your many years with our military. we appreciate the fact that the two of you work together constantly to deal with issues in a unified voice and we very much appreciate that. thank you. chairman corker, ranking member thank you.ber -- >> it is imperative we appear
before you today to explain what we're doing from a dod perspective and our counterterror campaign and why. this has been a long, 16-year conflict characterized by a different kind of warfare, specifically terrorism fueled by around the globe. people must adapt to the reality of today's nontraditional transnational care to her of this fight. in 2001 in 2002, authorizations to use military force remain a 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 terrorism, congress passed the 2001 8 umf finding the president has "a authority under the cousin to deter and prevent acts of
international terrorism against the united states." invites themf president with authority to "defend the security of the united states against a continuing threat posed by iraq." deciding these new statutory authorities to address the threat i terrorist groups and it iraq and syria. -- interact and syria. quoting from lincoln, wilson, fdr, 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. today, this article to authority, reinforced by the 2001 and 2002 amf has been used action against al qaeda, isis, the taliban, and associated forces.
the 2011 pullout of our forces from iraq and the outbreak of civil war and syria, al qaeda and iraq regained strength and rebranded itself as isis. under its new name, isis unleashed mayhem in the heart of the middle east, building a self-described caliphate and attracting the allegiance of groups whichups, plan, inspire, and conduct external attacks around the globe. attacks and include san bernardino, paris, orlando, london, and the philippines to name only a few. continuedtatement of congressional report would be welcome, a new eight umf is not required to address the by aluing a threat posed qaeda, the tell them, and isis.
article two of our constitution, the 2001, 2002 8 umf provides sufficient legal authority for us to engage in defeat the current threat. which we are doing by working by, with, him through our allies and partners. that said, any new congressional expression of unity, whether or not and a umf would present a strong statement to the world of american determination demonstrated, as senator kaine has stated "an important message of resolve to the american public and our troops that we stand behind them in their mission." with that for background i would like to note that to successfully prosecute the counterterrorism campaign, you umf with revised eight the following factors, first the be1 and 2002 amf should not repealed. after numerous court cases and to be a there appears general consensus by all three branches of government that
provideo amf's sufficient authority to go thenst al qaeda, and telegram. repealing the 2001 and 2002 a's would only cause legal uncertainty which went lead to additional litigation and public doubt. the uncertainty of accompanying that situation can only signal to our enemy and friends that we are backing away from this fight it would stall our operations, immediately reduce support, and create significant opportunity for enemies to seize the initiative. repealing it without authority us of the ability to detain dangerous enemy combatants who would then be released to fight again. timeew amf is not the restricted.
because war is fundamentally unpredictable. we cannot put a timeline on conflict against an adaptive enemy. recognize we are in an air of frequent skirmishing and we are more likely to end this fight sooner if we do not tell our adversary the day we intend to stop fighting. and conditions-based aumf would not listen congressional authority. this rests in your hand should the executive branch not present an effective case. lastly, any new aumf must not be restrained.ly this is a fight against the transnational enemy. one that does not respect
geographical borders and is not place geographical limits on their operations. swiftlybe prepared to engage this global enemy in conjunction with our allies and partners. regardless of the adaptations we must make for the common defense, i recognize it as incumbent to keep congress fully informed to fulfill its constitutional role and i will continue to do so. accordingly, as our troops on the bottom fold carry out the last 300 meters of foreign policy to affect our way of life, i ask congress for your continued support and commitment to make sure we retain the to retainauthority our own side in this fight. my timeoing to reserve for intersections and defer to our ranking member. for those of you who may have stepped in late, i know giving
guidance to senators is a useless effort, but we are going to have a whole series of hearings. this one hopefully is mostly twosed on the 2001-2000 aumf. but we will look at others. whether it is nuclear issues or other things. we've had members on the floor and off ask about these issues. so just know that. with that, senator cardin. >> first, want to welcome senator king to our. i would ask for consent that the statements of human rights first be made part of our record. >> without objection. >> thank you. , secretaryadison tillerson, and think we all agree we are not anxious to repeal the 2001 authorization
without a new authorization being enforced. that is certainly the game plan. but i would point out there are significant differences about whether or not the authorization covers the counterterrorism operations against isis. many of us believe that is not included. a we do agree congress needs to make sure there is authorization to pursue our counterterrorism efforts. as i indicated in my opening statements, operational it would, i understand not be appropriate in an open settings have i request, i ask you respond that you would be willing to return in a closed session in order to commit jurisdiction and have a better understanding of how the operational decisions are being made. >> absolutely. >> shirley.
>> i appreciate that. i understand the ammunition about north korea but i want to put on the record, would you agree there was no congressional authorization for the use of military force against north korea? i understand the presidential authority under article two, if there is an eminent threat he but as far powers, as congressional authorization, there is no authorization. is that correct? >> said is my understanding, yes. i believe the president has article to authority only. >> 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 60 days.ting it to as i understand it, our troops in northern africa a been there much longer than 60 days.
can you explain briefly what our mission was in niger when the tragedy occurred, and underwent legal authority those troops were there? drugs i can, senator. the troops are there under title 10. in a train and advise role. the letter from president obama and the 13 to the president pro tem of the senate, then speaker of the house, talks to the full number of u.s. military deployed 100. in 2013 was in furtherance of u.s. national security interests was president obama's report to you. that continues to be the case at this time. >> but the specific mission they were participating in as i understand it when beyond that. am i wrong and that? >> the mission of those troops on that intro was a combined patrol which means they were with niger troops.
they were on a patrol. teaching them how you do what is engagement.eader i have to wait to i get the full investigation to give you a more full answer but they are there with the niger troops to train and advise them. consistently with that, they were sent there under the previous administration and it continues to be the case today. >> said this is not 2001 authorization? >> no. this is under title 10 and requires us to report to you under that authority. >> understood. cards thank you for that answer. >> thank you for that answer. i would like to know how far we would go in pursuing military operations in that world. boko haram is a terrible organization doing terrible things. do you have authorization to atrocities? rum
rides they were there under title 10. as far as boko a rum goes, they have pledged allegiance to -- a boko haram goes, they have pledged allegiance. so it is the very group that authorization is targeted on. exit so without any further authorization from congress, you believe you have authorization of determination is made to necessarytever forces to go after boko haram, including ground troops? ask if the president detects there is a threat from them against us, our -- >> if the president detects there is a threat from them against us, yes sir. bags i understand the threat but the threat is related to the --0 threat is what you say >> i understand the threat, but the threat is related to the 2000 threat is what you said.
under that, yes. >> he could declare that to be an associated group? >> see he did not, but boko haram did. full force use the of our military, including ground troops, without further restrictions? title 10.ow, under i don't want to speculate about that because they are not doing out right now. i would have to go back and study up but i believe a group that declares its allegiance to either al qaeda or isis would then be part of al qaeda or isis, yes. >> my question 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 would be called upon to predict our country. i'm not sure that congress haveioned we would have
potential of ground troops in northern africa in combat missions. if i understand from your cinema sweep modify this aumf, it you would feel that you have adequate authorization to commit american ground troops in northern africa. >> senator if the president a threat to the united states and got into the aumf who said they were allied with al qaeda or isis, yes, sir, i believe so. >> senator johnson. exit want to start by thanking but the secretaries for the service to the country. >> i want to start by thanking the secretaries for their service. you talked about a 16-your contract. totally different than anything we witnessed in the past. i remember when we had this discussion a couple years ago
with the advent of vices, trying to rewrite a new authorization for use of military force was about limiting ground troops. no ground troops. secretary tillerson, you talked about -- has basically ended. really darn close. >> we have liberated a large amount of area in iraq and syria yet.he fight is not over >> is there anyway we could've done what we did so far with the caliphate without ground troops or generic drugs i do not believe so. >> yet, two years ago we were debating in this committee replacing the authorization for use of military force with one that would've restricted president obama's replacement, the successor, his will, his or her ability to use ground troops. that would've been a big mistake, one in it? >> senator, generally speaking you don't tell the enemy and toance what you're not going
do. even if you do not choose to do it, there's no need to announce that to the enemy and relieve them of that concern. >> in the 2001 authorization, and personally do not think the 2001 advisement situation, really don't when you read it, but by president, it does. it does not restrict the president's use of force. it says "to use all appropriate and necessary force." into goes on to describe what those organizations really are. war,real declaration of against japan in germany, congress declared the presidents authorized and was directed to employ the entire naval of the united states and resources of the government to carry on war, in this case, germany. successful determination, all of
the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the congress of the united states. so the 2001 authorization of the declarations of four gets germany and japan, there were no restrictions. we pledged all necessary resources of this country to the feet of our country. in both of your testimony you laid out three conditions. .ne thing i want to clear up secretary mattis, you said we should not repeal the 2001-2002. later on, you talked about ." there authorization is no difference in your testimony, correct? you can repeal it is on is you have something in its place? kind there are some lawyers who say it is good to hold on to what you have either you present new one that perhaps changes it and subway. >> so is their difference in your testimony? you would prefer keeping the 2001 hundred 2002 in place?
>> i would have to say what came out but we have had a lot of difficulty trying to get the three branches of government aligned on this. >> i'm not in disagreement. thereve buzz that even if is a new aumf and should not be time having constricted. you also said both of you that it should not be geographically restricted. another, nog for operational restrictions. do believe there should be operational restrictions? no ground troops or something of whichype of restriction mark secretary tillerson? >> no, i do not think we can restrict operations given the enemyis particular changes its tactics. as we saw with the emergence of isis, we started with what might be a fairly limited group of terrorists who were then able to large territories into
armies 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 and smaller numbers. this is an enemy that changes its names and moves across orders. it is a nonstate actor. it has morphed and changed over these 16 years. that is why this is such a vexing issue. it does not fit a declaration of war. it does not fit the criteria that congress has used in past years as a declaration of war. exit is a totally different enemy. this has been a 16-year struggle. i do not think it will be over anytime soon. secretary mattis, can you discuss what has changed in relatively short order.
secretary mattis: the change in tactics was one that we could surround the enemy if they did not fall back. you saw the surround tactic used inbozo, california, -- in mosul and other places. the soldiers could escape to reinforce the next position. think -- >> i have delegated authority to the appropriate levels, yes sir. >> both of you seem to indicate
continued congressional support would be welcome as a statement of unity. but, it has to be an authorization that does not military ability to defeat our enemy. is that wrecked? >> that is correct. >> i agree, senator, assuming strong and very robust feedback as to the congress to keep them fully informed. >> thank you for your service. >> senator udall? you for your service and for being here today. secretary mattis, the existence of multiple local militia forces in iraq remains a major problem as i soul is driven out. the curtis aspiration of nationhood may just be the above the iceberg. i am concerned we are adding up on multiple sides of a complicated conflict in a post-isil barak and syria. how many departments are the
departments of it defense ?ssisting and advising in iraq rx we advise and assist the iraqi security forces only in iraq. secretary tillerson just returned from there on this issue was brought up with the prime minister. >> yes. the prime minister has asserted authority himself over other various militias, including the iraqiich by and large forces, they are iraqi citizens fighting under militia arrangements, including the peshmerga forces of kurdistan during the war to defeat isis, to liberate mosul and large parts of other preferences. these forces put themselves under control of prime minister a body said there are multiple forces but indicated our forces
are through the iraqi forces, working with prime minister adi.ty -- prime minister ab >> it was reported the iraqi prime minister was pretty blunt in his response about shia-backed militias stating that they are already home and they are not going anywhere. and, that maybe u.s. forces should leave. if u.s. forces are told to leave, would we depart from iraq or would we stay and invited, as our forces are doing in syria and under what legal forces will they remain? >> i never heard the u.s. prime minister -- the prime minister say u.s. forces should leave. when he did clarify was that many of the pmf forces are rocky-shia forces. they are iraqi citizens. -- they are iraqi citizens.
we know there are foreign fighters and syria. my comments were then any foreign fighters, particularly those from iran needed to leave home.nd go certainly, pmf-iraqi citizens these are their home. they will remain. i think the prime minister has made it clear as to his expectations of how these forces will organize themselves or put their arms down and rejoin their villages as citizens. we have reached this new phase in and i think this is a real asking you that i am 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? reince we will remain in iraq until lysis is defeated -- >> we will remain in iraq until isis
is defeated. -- under what legal authority? >> 2001 in 2002. we are there under the invitation of the iraqi prime minister. we have no indication they are depart.ry for us to >> secretary mattis and secretary tillerson, do you agree with the assertion that this fragmentation of security forces will post difficulties to the iraqi government maintaining order in areas that the u.s. government recently regained control of? what is your advice to ensure these areas do not seem resumed sectarian violence now that the fight with i soul is nearly over? this is necessitated u.s. troops on the ground? >> areas have been liberated. we are working with the coalition partners and with the united nations and other
nongovernmental nations to create stability around liberated cities in particular as well as villages in that means having the military forces, the armies, pull back out of the villages. allow our polish and to enter those villages. de-mining and begin the process of training local, basically police forces. live number of coalition partners that have undertaken that activity. as we are liberating areas, we're preparing local security horses to transplant the military forces. prime minister abadi made this direct observation. he said, i have to get my armies out of the cities. they are not policeman, they're not trained to be policeman, they are not equipped to be policeman. after replace them with trained forces to provide services for
the civilians as they return. there is 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. >> secretary mattis, do have a comment? >> if the iraqi forces operate under prime minister abadi that have liberated these areas, it is not any other armed groups. there are pmf forces engaged with them but he has insisted they fall under the authority of his failed commanders. that is being imperfectly done. -- those filled commanders -- his field commanders. that is being imperfectly done. you see that unfolding. that is what the secretary of state has laid out. >> to wipe both. , we will go with
about three minutes of your questions then you can resume. >> thank you mr. chairman. here, you know, in the senate, we aspire to be more than just one cog. a feedback loop. this is the body with article one authority to declare war and authorize the use of military force. i understand the importance, looking at your three items that oruld not put a new aumf should not repeal the old wanted to learn new one is in place, no constraints. not geographically limited and the aumf the senator kaine and i have introduced, a bipartisan aumf i think meet the conditions of one and three, but number two in regard to time constraints, can anyone hazard to guess how many in this body right here,
senate foreign relations committee were in the senate was passed?1 aumf not one. not one member of this panel was the 2001 aumfwhen was pastore the 2002 for that thematter. seven of us run the house at that time and vote about 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 if we have to vote it may be an issue, but it is overwhelming in a big way by not having congress by -- by endt having us and not having us have skin and game, simply allowing us to criticize the administration, republican or democrat if we do not like what they are doing because we have not weighed in. have not set our peas. we have not voted on this.
aboutsay that any concern having to come back, we have a five-year sunset on ours. years. that is pretty long. but congress needs to weigh in. sure that oure adversaries and our allies, and most importantly our troops know that we speak with one voice. so i hope that as we go along we relativeabout the importance of signaling that we might leave or might not finish and might not have congress weigh in at all to go for 16 years before we actually weigh in or have any skin in the game. i said, onto aspire to be more than just part of a feedback loop. article one authority is more than that. with that, i will pull back. >> thank you. -- if welanks time
>> following a short break for votes on the senate floor, the senate foreign relations committee continued their hearing with defense secretary james mattis and secretary of state rex tillerson on the authorization for use of military force. this portion of the hearing is two hours long. [apple pound -- devil pound -- [gavel