tv Defense Secretary Mattis Secretary of State Tillerson Testify on War... CSPAN November 1, 2017 1:37am-2:40am EDT
constitutional danger. if we accept such a view we accept the situation that they are depended solely on the good judgment of an incumbent president. we may not always be fortunate enough to see a person with such qualities in the white house and with that i would note the absence of a quorum. >> [inaudible conversations]
[inaudible conversations] the relations committee will come to order and i want to deal with two housekeeping issues if i could. i know we have a number of people in the audience, some of whom sometimes like to express themselves and we thank you for being here. in the past, when there've been introductions p, and i've been able to have people arrested that we stop 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 as fairly unpleasant and i would hate to see you go through without process. what we talked before about abot doing is adjourned the hearing at about seven minutes. there will be no speaking before the second vote and then the secretary has a meeting to attend. i would like to thank them for being with us today to share the administration's perspective on the authorizations for the use of military force.
we are grateful for your service to the 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 2001 video is something that has been engaged since the member in 2013. at that time many of us sought to craft a revised authority to enable the president to address the threats we face from terrorism while ensuring the appropriate role for congress. our committee again held a hearing and debated the issue, but there was no effort on the part of the white house to actually enact a new authorization. this year we already hope to committee hearings on this important topic and public hearing inpi june with private witnesses and classified briefing with secretaryng tiller and we thank you for that.
we've raised questions about the executives authorities with respect to warmaking. the use of the nuclear weapons and from the diplomatic perspective and turning into and terminating the agreements with other countries as i mentioned publicly this is the beginning of the series of hearings where our committee will also examine those issues. but today it ists my hope that e will remain focused on the topic at hand, the 2001 and the 2002 au. the de facto ability to initiate the conflict has the advanced technology clearing the use of unmanned drones and war from a distance where large numbers of boots on the ground are not necessary to conduct basic against military engagement.
in article two of the constitution including airstrikes in kosovo, regime change and the missile strike against the regime. the president identified the following 19 countries where the u.s.fo military personnel were deployed and equipped for comb combat. iraq, syria, yemen, somalia, libya, kenya, nigeria, cameroon, uganda, south sudan, democratic republic of congo, central africa african republic, jordan, turkey, egypt, cuba and those
kosovo. the forces can find themselves in combat at any moment. as the men and women in uniform continue to make threats around the world i hope that our witnesses can help us examine the appropriate oversight role in how we can work together to ensure that the nation's political leadership is meeting the responsibility to decide when and where our country uses military force. in this hearing we will focus primarily on the two current authorizations for the use of military force. unfortunately the use of legal force in al qaeda and other terrorist groups will remain necessary for the foreseeable future to prevent attacks against america and our allies. the president just like president obama bbc has a legal authority under t the 2001 to fight isis, al qaeda and other
terrorist groups. and i agree they currently have that authority. it's clear congress is united in the fight against al qaeda and 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 the deployment oaround the world including the build up and has responded consistently by funding the department of defense and its operations against isis an and d terrorists around the world. we should also update them to reflect the current conflict and reassert the constitutional goal, but we cannot risk undermining the foundation we must also be mindful that moving
a aumf with support could show the allies were adversaries we are not united were committed to victory. to seek them as primarily an opportunity to limit the president and of those that believe the commander-in-chief in wartime is not wise. without threatening the existing authorization ha to allow the status quo to prevail. the committee has always recognized we have a special responsibility to try to speak with one voice on one 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 think both of the distinguished witnesses and members of this committee for the seriousness with which they approach the topic before us today and i hope we can have a productive discussion about a way forward. the distinguished ranking member senator clark. >> i join you in our strong desire. in a nonpartisan way for the national security i thank you for conducting this hearing. this is one of the most important topics the united states i senate in this committe could ever consider. under what circumstances and legal authority should they send men ande. women into the war. i'm pleased you are reasserting the prerogatives on this issue. i hope that soon we will be considering the appeal of the
overextended authorizations for the use of military force from 9/11 and the iraq war and the new aumf tailored to fit for purpose threats. america see faces unprecedented crisis around the world from the multiple countries and affiliates plotting attacks against the united states to the worsening nuclear crisis in north korea and in effect crisis with iran. we have u.s. troops deployed almost everywhere inn the world and in addition to significant deployments in iraq, afghanistan and syria the forces are engaged and have been in the counterterrorism operations in somalia, ethiopia, chad, with extensive advice, training and capacity building efforts and many more. we learned the servicemen were
killed in and circumstances are unclear. the mission of whatwe made manys many as 800 u.s. troops it is also o unclear the loss of these courageous soldiers. the staff sergeant jeremy johnson showed the danger faced by the bigger deployed with the expectation of combat or not. our hearts are with the families of the soldiers. they served the country courageously so all men and women should receive after losing a loved one. i'm going to be asking the witnesss has some specific questions about the incident. the mission the soldiers were performing in the legal authorities for the deployment. that is our responsibility, the committee's responsibility. if the witnesses are not able to
answer these, then i'm going to ask that you return to the committee for a classified hearing. i thinkme that we are asking whe else are the u.s. forces put in harms way. some information has been provided to the congress including the june 27 notice the chair referred to but there's been an adequate explanation of what activities are actually under what legal authorit authot is this committee's responsibility to deal with thes authorization. protecting the american people from spreading this around the world is important, but i think there needs to be more public discussion 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've been developments since the committee's last conversation on the topic with secretaries in august there's
hundreds more surrendering and second, the crisis with north korea has gotten worse testing both the icbm to reach the united states and the nuclear device between president trump and kim jong aaro. they threatened the use of military options in response to the crisis inp venezuela. finally i know where we cannot discuss all the aspects of the use of the authorization for military force in this meeting. they have jurisdiction over the aumf and security assistance in the senate top provide oversigt on how they can be used. the secretary, i will be asking you to come up to the committee in a brief essay classified setting on the use of the 2001
aumf including counterterrorism purposes. including the 9/11 at the aumf has now become authorities of convenience to conduct military activities anywhere in the world. they showed not be used as a justification for the military activities around the world. i am not convinced the threat to our friends and, allies necessitates the committee's brave men and women to ground combat operations and certainly not under the rubric of the 9/11 aumf attacks on washington and new york and i will repeat one more time for the record what that says. it said they use on the appropriatede force against the persons he determines. it's in 2001 harboring such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts
of terrorism in the united states by such nations organizations and purposes. as one who voted for that when i was in congress in 2001, i never intended, i think all of us never intended it would still be used to justify the use against isis. one last point if point is fin, mr. chairman and that is i think it is clear that under this authorization there is no authorization for the use of military force against north koreais unless there is an imminent attack on the united states were forces or allies in the region and i would be interesteded in hearing the secretary's belief as to what authorizations exist today for the operations against north korea. it's important for congress to exercise its oversight o of the use of force now. the united states relied for too long on the first response to the problems o of too gruesome,
insurgency and stability abroad. one wonders whether it has become the first and only response itns has proposed dramatic increases in the defense budget while the foreign affairs have been slashed by 40%. very soon the only tools left in the toolbox will be the hammer are playing everywhere a better lack of options. in so doing perhaps the administration will reach necessity for the development and support the human rights as the means to build for everyone especially the united states. i know the two witnesses to share the commitment to the national securitnationalsecuritf diplomacy and the use of the military and i look forward to your testimony. >> we think bot thank both of yr being here today and have tremendous respect by almost every member of this committee. we support your efforts around the world.
you could limit your comments to about five minutes or so i know any written materials and click enter into the record will be done without objection and i guess we will start with you and we thank you for your extraordinary efforts on behalf of the country. >> thank you mr. chairman, ranking member cardin, distinguished members i appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today. i know the desire to understand the legal basis for military action is grounded in your constitutional role related to foreign policy and national security matters. i also understand the obligation to the american people in this regard. in the 2001 authorization use of military force or aumf, congress authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against
those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the attacks that occurred on september 11, 2001 or harbored such organizations or persons. congress granted the president the statutory authority in order to s prevent future acts of international ticker was an against the united states by such nations, organizations or persons. the 2001 aumf provides authority for ongoing military operations against al qaeda, the television and associated forces including against the islamic state in iraq and syria were isis. the administration relies on the 2001 as a domestic legal authority for our own military action against these entities as well as those that we take in conjunction with our partners in
the coalition to defeat isis. the 2001 aumf provides a domestic legal basis for that detention operations at guantánamo bay where the united states detains members of al qaeda can't tell them and associated forces. of the 200 2001 also authorizese use of necessary and appropriate force to defend the u.s. coalition and partner forces engaged in the campaign to defeat isis. the efforts of the us-led coalition are aimed at the defeat isis. the united states doesn't seek to fight the government or proceeds reinforces, however the united states will not hesitate to use force to defend the partner forces engaged in a campaignoa against isis. the authority to use force is
further reinforced by the authorization for the military force against iraq in more plain terms the 2002 aumf. in addition to the authority granted by the statute, the president has the power under article two in the constitution to use military force in certain circumstances to advance important u.s. national interest, including to defend the united states against it or risk attack. as an example, president ronald reagan relied on his commander in chief in 1986 when he ordered air strikes against terrorist facilities and militaryin installations following a terrorist attack in west berlin. ..failure to do so could cause
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 could all sprint over and spread back, you can start again as soon as we get back and we will recess for about 14 minutes i hope. you're welcome to come into the back or do whatever.
[apple pound -- devil pound -- [gavel pound] >> we're glad to be back in session. senator flake, if you will continue. senator flake: thank you mr. chairman. we talked before the break about an aumf.e need i mentioned how few people were actually here. than 100use, fewer members of the house were there was passed.1 aumf 23ody on this panel but only members of the senate were here to vote. simplyjust is