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. Simply helps. We have to have a situation where the congress is more involved here. Newderstand, say that a aumf would be welcomed but not required. Just for the benefit of everybody here, no administration would ever aumfde that you need an because the absence of it would suggest that what we have been doing for 16 years would be illegal. Certain activities we have undertaken. I think we all understand the administration will say that no aumf or no new authorities are needed by whether or not they are needed to provide a legal basis, they are certainly needed politically and we cannot continue to go on in a situation 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 not vote on it. We cannot continue to go your after year after year without doing that. With regards, i understand you say that his title x authority. You express concern about not having authorities that expire. So as to not tip of the enemy we. Ight leave explain title x authority with regard to, that is part of the nva that we gratefully, one authorization bill we pass every year, but what if we were not going to pass that next her . If we failed in our duty to do that. That do . D i believe we would still have title x authority over the u. S. Mean, wee would not, i would have trouble getting probably appropriations if we did not have the authorization the u. S. Nk that under code, we still exist as a military so i would have to turn to my general counsel to give you a better answer. Ask you mentioned in your remarks we still in congress of the power of the purse and that maybe should be sufficient. There was one member of our body who said when he was briefed with what was going on in knight chair, he said congress in we would need to decide whether or not we want to authorize this operation through the appropriations process. Is, for us authorize there that ought to be a hit rate here, that only the Appropriations Committee in this body has authority to look at what were doing and decide whether or not appropriate authority exists enter the appropriations process give that authority. I would suggest this committee ought to stand up and say, that is not enough. Lets pass a new aumf. That i hope senator kaine will go into the aumf that we have proffered that is gaining momentum and certainly support and i hope above all else that we can come to a point where we speak with one voice overseas whether it is with use of military or use voice and under the Current Situation with a 16yearold aumf i would suggest that we do not. That our adversaries, our allies, and our troops need to know that we do. Thank you mr. Chairman. When you say title x you are talking about the training request program . That is correct, german. Basically we have the authority under title x to carry out these kind of partnering activities. Yes, sir. If the resident directed, guess so. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much both of you. You are both patriots and thank you for your service to the country. I wanted to get back to this titleon of exploring this x authority but i wanted to build upon a question preview that senator cardin referenced. That is on the existing authorities in north korea. Has talked about our military options should we choose to use them in north make and i just wanted to sure we understand the range of authority the president has today with respect to potential military operations in the korean peninsula. Absentou both agree that a strike against the united oftes or the imminent threat a strike against the United States, the administration would need congressional authorization to engage in military activity against north korea . Oni think it depends circumstances. It is a factbased decision. I think clearly today, we are there under article two authority and article two is really if you look at it historically, it has been grounded and kind of two criteria. One is to protect United States persons, property, and National Security interests. It has 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 and insulin today in korea. Inin the peninsula today korea. So it is an imminent threat as to whether the president wants to exercise his authority and without the further congressional authorization. It will be factbased and all of consideredhave to be. Secretary mattis . Sec. Mattis i believe under article two we have the responsibility to protect the country. I can imagine him not consulting or consulting as he is doing something along the lines for example of what we did at the airfield here in syria when we struck. Notified immediately, this is after chemical weapons use that aside was using. In this case of north korea, it , ord be a direct, imminent attack on the United States and i think article to would apply. We could all split hairs as to what the definition of imminent would be. At with the possession of Nuclear Weapon capable of reaching the United States fulfill the definition of imminent threat to the United States. With the simple possession of a weapon capable of doing great damage to the United States qualify as an imminent threat. Already reluctant to get into hypotheticals. Sitting in an underground ready to be used could be sitting upright until its about to be launched. Again, it would have to be about factbased and giving consideration to the circumstances, imminent threat. I fully agree with secretary tillerson. This is an area that a number of facts would have to bear on the problem. Or to give you a complete answer. Both for your answers. I think the primary factor 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. I want to drill down you are using that authority and today you have properly notified congress. Concerns that our constituents may have what it looks as if a Training Mission is something more than training. Local forces and women. U. S. Men and to many folks it did not look like a Training Mission. We were helping them take pretty mission pretty critical components. How do you address components that a Training Mission can very easily morph into something that than much more operational are unauthorized by congress . It is a great question. When you look at why president obama centrics there. Why did President Trump send troops there, it is because as the physical caliphate is collapsing, the enemy is trying to move somewhere in so those troops are there, most of them providing Intelligence Surveillance and reconnaissance and feeling support. Tothis case, we are trying build up the internal defenses. Have carried the burden for this. Case, since april i believe and we will get the specific numbers once the investigation comes in, over two dozen patrols in the area with no enemy contact. That is not a complete answer. I need to wait until i get the investigation. Reference the falling apart of the caliphate and that suggests this might not be a Authority Mission and if that is the case who i misled you there. This is a title x and we are that trying to prepare so they can defend their own population. Our member boko haram nearby a real problem up in that region and we are trying to get the in a position where they can defend in a very complex environment. This is tough training. Into senator young. A secretary mattis, you said new amu wouldf send a new message of resolve to our troops and our enemies. It seems there is a logical argument that they dont ly or now have a highly 2001 was in response to 9 11. And it was invoked here today in 2014 Performance Group sworet allegiance to al qaeda and by that same logic if isis broke with al qaeda, why would the 2001 amuf apply . We have seen these groups come back together. Got are keenly aware this certain legal issues on our side. We have seen it and read their mail. If you look at the photographs, we have some intelligence that. Hows who is leading in the same group in the same area seems to be spawning from a disavowal is, something of interest, but not necessarily compelling. They sworn allegiance and are covered by the a. M. U. S. Amuf. To lay out helpful what multifactor analysis is legally. We shouldnt engage in another fight without resolving this issue upfront, treating Hostile Forces as hostile. When asked about that i think what we have to do is have a repeatable policy. There is no confusion about their future, not an enemys minds, certainly not our own. Statements . Se i do, center. Why do you think it is important upfront that theres no confusion . Senator, when we release people and find them back on the , we did not let them and we help them in prison camp until the war was over. I think that is a rather straightforward proposition. Pass,if this bodywork to eliminatesupport to the detainment of enemy combatants until the end of hostilities . Yesor those taken overseas, sir. Another legal point, i would argue that you invoke litigation risks. The further we get away from a 2002, theom 2001 and more the in that time in which a Previous Congress working with a current previous commanderinchief muf, whose litigation. Isk is only going to grow andetary tillerson secretary mattis, both of you over the course of this hearing have indicated that there are three essential elements for a new amuf. I think they are distilled down to no lapse in authorities, no time constraints and geographic restrictions. Thank you. I know for the record that the amuf i introduced on march 2 needs all those criteria so i think it certainly satisfies that. Im going to pivot to a different topic. Secretary mattis, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services 2017, statedch 19, in his written text money his written testimony the shortfall support operations and offers threat indications and warnings. Secretary mattis, can you these the operational impacts of those shortfalls and what we can do to help . They are insufficient basically worldwide. They would all say they have shortfalls. As you know, we have been under resolutions for the last several years. That forced again was in an area woulda reasonable person say contact is not likely to be imminent and so you look at how you prioritize it. There is a finite amount of assets and we deal amount like gold coins. Thank you for your service. Forhank you chairman corker this important hearing. 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 work your men and women are doing around the world. I think the tragedy for american soldiers helps focus us on the fact we have citizens and senators who are unclear on exactly where in the world we. Re engaged list you gave of roughly 19 countries, it is striking a majority of them are on the continent of africa in a region that is not familiar to many senators and americans. I will assert that i believe it to be in our National Interest ,o have a renewed, clearer strengthen authorization. I think the risks presented of potentially motioning our adversaries and undermining confidence of our Coalition Partners. At the same time, it just defies a sense of our role to accept 2001 amuf fewer than a third of the serving congress voted for. Path hard to trace the from 2001 from al qaeda in afghanistan to young men and serving a year who are in niger who are serving. We must authorize an unlimited war that has no limits of geography, time or oversight mechanism. I commend my colleagues who put together a strong draft in an attempt to tackle this and i think both sides are going to have to make concessions. I think that strengthens our country and shows democracy at work, but it also means we will have to take some risks. Talk to me about how we make sure that our citizens and senators know where we are fighting beyond the Current System of notification. What do you think is the appropriate level of public transparency for military deployment outside of areas with active hostility . Is it helpful and important and how do we strengthen i accountability . Senator, i would say my departments case, we submitted 901 reports to the senate. We will be submitting seven reports per day. Under the war powers resolution notification that comes in, niger has been reported every six months by the Previous Administration as well as our administration. The most recent reported in about 6045. We have probably got wanted 54 more there with the money you to will provide more opportunities for our troops in that region so i think the most important thing is we look at inside a mass of reports that pour into you everyday literally and make sure that maybe pier 1 issues and you would decide that we are highlighting that information to include any briefings that filled in any gaps. Thank you. I think what you put your finger on is a big concerning and that is the level of transparency and understanding of where our forces are employed and what role they are deployed and the expectation for the likelihood of combat engagements, but also think when i consider the current a. M. U. S. , quite frankly maybe the intent recognize this was a completely different situation that we faced. This was not a sovereign state actor that we can do a war declaration against. Or declarations dont have timelines, but we did tell the japanese we have done that. We see what happened. Anything that signals our intentions, this enemy takes advantage of it. Overreciate the issue congressional control and oversight. On the other hand, article one Gave Congress the right to declare war. Commandero gave the the right to conduct military affairs. Consensusfight war by , with a collective approach. There has to be one commanderinchief to fight the war. Someone has to make the decisions to win. The separations and the reason there is not a declaration of war here is the circumstances dont give rise to a declaration then puts in another motion of authorizations. I think authorities have been property used. Secretary mattis i think would welcome a strong statement from the congress and in many respects congress can express its will now and say this authorization is still valid and a serving the purposes of this war against this very unique enemy that we will fight for we dont know how long. That is the nature of this fight we are in. I would like to thank both of you. I will just comment and closing. Having spent time in west africa, im concerned about the ways in which associated forces ped and change in the way who were fighting and how its possible for Something Like boko from two split into two and now become to enemies, but without a ,ignificant amount of direction this is a different kind of fight we have been in as a nation before and i think our constituents expect some sort of tragedy and projection or cost. I look forward to working on i will sayou both before turning to senator. Sakson, a few exceptions here i really havent heard a member questions orraise criticize efforts that are underway against isis, al qaeda, boko haram so i know everyone is concerned. Oneow when this began, no i understand and will like for us to strive for balance, but in fairness, there may be another number that expresses that in a moment, but i have not heard a member go down to the senate floor and criticize the Bush Administration as it relates to al qaeda. The Bush Administration, the obama ministration or this administration relative to the activity, it does seem to me the senate and house do support the mys that are underway thank you very much. I want to mention dustin who was one of the four troops who lost his life. I want to thank you when i was whosethis lady came up son is in the United States army, so we are seeing she talks about how proud she was in the leadership we have in this country so i want to thank you from the bottom of my heart but also tell you what the streets are telling me. The senator and i go way back. We saw some of the horrible things happening and i appreciate on one hand what senator cowan said. I think that underscores the reason he cant write restrictions or be invitetive where you tools of the use or anything like that and do so without risking the life of your own troops. Was in the military it was a long time ago. We had muskets accident. Limitations on the to serve and what you do. When we are writing an amuf to restrict our soldiers, we are potentially affecting the rules of engagement they have on the ground in a country where they have no rules. Aware ofe have to be people working for us. People working for us are our soldiers and personnel. They operate on rules of engagement were they are limited to what they can do to carry out their mission in those limitations are somewhat affected by the a in u. S. I want to bring that point out. We are not just dealing with limitations. To save ourpeople country day in and day out. It is a very dangerous place. In terms of geography or time , i think people run on hope and if the enemy hopes we are going to quit on a certain day or no we wont deal with him if they step over a certain border, then the enemy is going to do exactly that. I read your comment about it rock n roll band. I went to the university of georgia and founded a lot of bands. One of the best is widespread panic. Is from thetion of any limitation whatsoever, i take it if we were to write a new amuf it ought to go and enforce the one put in today. Have anynot afford to in terms of our authority. You dont think virtually any limitation . Again, no this is the nature of the enemy we are confronted with. I think we have seen how quickly this in many enemy can collective health. Theaw this happened and level of speed in a rock iraq. Serious problem tha