Negotiate the release. Most recently even in the last two months before he was barbers lee killed i was talking with people in one of the middle Eastern Countries to travel to syria on our behalf in order to try to find out whether there was a way to secure the release of these hostages. And we i know that you also made an incredible effort to reach out to country after country. I know the Czech Republic and others, you were very much active and engaged. And we get them out of libya, which we worked hard to do, you know, i was in touch with people who i know very closely. Theyre friends of mine who are part of that effort, so they were always in touch with me and talking personally about it. I have read these accounts of things that have happened, their judgment. I talked to diana and john after jim was killed. I think that everybody here would just, you know, i shudder at what they have to go through. So this is something that we feel very deeply. So much so that i remember the hours that we sat in the situation room in the white house working with our brilliant military he did a remarkable job of designing a rescue mission and the president made the difficult decision because it is always difficult putting American Service people at risk. If you dont know what will happen. Even know that youre going in where there is isil. And i sat in the white house and the situation room and watched that entire mission unfulfilled. I was amazed by the capacity of our military people to do what they did. A highrisk mission performed flawlessly, and the intelligence was correct to every degree that they went to the right place, they did things correctly. It just was empty. They had moved them, and we do not know exactly how soon or when have time. And you have no idea how just a feeling in that room with a message came to our people on the ground saying nobody is there. So we felt that and feel it to this day. But you know, if they feel im happy somehow that it was not done properly, however agency it was, we have to make sure in the future that were going to make sure that that is just not a feeling. First of all, we hope no other family has to suffer that are feeling, but to whatever degree that is a possibility or any eventuality, we have to make sure that people feel better about the process. I can assure you, the president on down, everybody feels that that feels that sensitivity. I appreciate that and for the hostages who are still being held, i hope there will be an effort to look at how those families are being supported. Mr. Chairman, i know that my time is up, but i wanted to make one more comment. I know, mr. Secretary, that you have repeated the president s argument that this military campaign does not require a separate authorization for the use of military force. But i certainly believe that if we are going to commit to longterm effort to address isis that having specific congressional action that is bipartisan to support that effort is important, and i believe we should undertake that. Another chairman has said that he intends to do that regardless of whether the white house and administration comes to congress or not. I support that, and i hope that the administration will work with us as we do that. Well, we are coming to cars speed we are here and we welcome it and look forward to working with you want. And the senator has expressed to me on more than one occasion your desire to work with the chair and others on behalf of such a aumf and we look forward to working with you as well. Senator. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, obviously these are complex issues. I do not envy you in your task. Your and my purse. I should ask all americans to include you because if you succeed that means america and americans remain safe. I have been listening to you and the president s carefully. I am sure that the world has been. Barack words have meaning. I appreciate the fact you testified that isil must be defeated. The president in his speech to the nation said that the goal here is to degrade and ultimately destroy isis. Here is my concern. In the final two paragraphs of his speech to the nation president obama said, our own safety and security depends upon our willingness to do what it takes to defend this nation. Mr. Secretary, by taking options off the table isnt president obama really saying to do what it takes up to appoint . As secretary of state, you are dealing with potential Coalition Partners who are also listening. If we stay a goal and the world does not believe were committed to it, is that going to be difficult to get the kind of commitment out of our potential partners to do what they need to do to actually achieve that ultimate goal . That is a fair and a really good question, by the way. Thank you for your comments in your purse. The answer is that the president s and and the military folks currently be the fed we have the capacity, the plan, the coalition to be able to do the job. Now, you know, there are a lot of countries in the region who have capacity Going Forward who, in our judgment ought to be lining up first to be on the ground. There are a lot of options before we start getting to the top. Okay. We have covered that ground. In your discussions with, for example, saudi arabia, potential arab states, do they understand how fragile American Public opinion will be to this effort, toward this destruction if they do not fully commit . And when i think fully commit, and thinking back to the first goal for when america only paid for about 15 percent of that and almost 50 percent of that war effort was paid for by gall states and the other by germany and japan. Do they understand why it is so important for them to step up to the plate and visibly support this effort . Yes. In fact, King Abdallah has said to me personally, we will do whatever is needed to be done. We are committed fully to this effort, and they have been. Now, there are bigger complications than just sitting here and talking about having the kingdom of saudi arabia put troops on the ground and syria next door to iran with all of the extraordinary complications of the reasons regarding other geostrategic challenges. So we need to be working with his carefully with all the nations on the part of the coalition recognize only after when were just Getting Started about that i can tell you were not going into this in order to fail, nor any of these other people. Senator carton. I would like to offer whatever i can do to help convince those arab states that they do need to be fully committed to this battle. Here is another concern of mine. This will literally take years. If you identify a hornets nest in the backyard for me realize we have to get that taken care of. All we are doing is going in the backyard and poking that nest with a stick, is that a concern right now . If we are not fully committed to wipe out isis quickly. You mentioned powerful testimony to this committee back at the end of july of all the threat that isis really does represent him of being able to funnel suicide bombers and. Now we have seen those suicide bombers come from australia and germany and america with passports. And his comment was that they could easily be funneled into the west and american. That is my concern, not being fully committed, not getting in there, not cleaning up that hornets nest as quickly as possible, dont we just increase the time where we are really under threat in danger . Well, we hope not, senator. Obviously that is not a strategy. Look, isil, why do we have to focus first on isil and focus on it the way that we are . Because they are seizing and Holding Thousands of square miles of territory, because they are claiming to be a state. They are not a state in so many ways, and we can go through that. They are confronting in defeating this far conventional armies with conventional tactics. They have they are allowed genocide this who have already practice genocidal activities at a certain level. And they have a very large amount of money, unlike lots of other terrorist organizations because they clean out the banks and have sold oil and done other things in the process. So even al qaeda, bold as they were in what they decided to do, did not exhibit these characteristics and capacities. That is why we believe and we think most of the region has come to understand this, including the moderate opposition who are already fighting isil. So we believe we have the makings of an ability to be able to have a very Significant Impact and already, by the way, france and the United Kingdom are flying with us over iraq. And several other countries are now starting to be willing to join that. We think we have the building of an ability to be able to turn that around. I guarantee you, the president s goal is to keep them. And as you and we see this unfold and make judgments about how well were doing, we can, you know, have further discussions about what else it may or may not take to get the job done. At the moment these are the judgments that are being made. Well, thank you. You make a strong case for defeating isis and being fully committed to doing it, the sooner the better. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Secretary. Mr. Secretary, as i look at this challenge from isil, i think there are two distinctly different parts to it relating to iraq and syria. I cannot believe there is any future for iraq unless iraq is committed to that future. The new leaders there have given us hope, but ultimately we have to trust that we can either train or provide the skills and support necessary to the iraqi army that, in fact, there will not be an overrun of corruption that they cannot be an effective fighting force. That is a big task, but i think that it is at least hopeful. It is within our grasp. And look at syria and see a totally different circumstance there. Syria is a dogs breakfast of violence and terrorism and deceit and carnage. It has gone on for three years. Here we are talking about harming, a clipping, and training a moderate force within syria. I have read the language that is being considered in the house unless it has been changed in the last fare so, never mentions the word assad once when it talks about what we are trying to achieve in syria. Comes down to this basic question. It looks to me that there are at least three identifiable forces in syria , assad, isil, and what we hope our moderate Opposition Forces that we can work with. But i am also told that have been told there are up to 1500 different militias in that country, some are neighborhood militia. How can we chart a course here that defeats isil and syrian and does not in the end of strength and assad . How can we find it the socalled moderate opposition in syria and believe that something will emerge there that results in serious deciding its own fate and future as their responsibility . A very good question. The calculation is that, even with the difficulties that they face over the last yearandahalf particularly , i remember when i first kamen and unborn february of last arbil, the opposition in syria was actually in a slightly better position with respect to assad and the other groups commander were not as many of the other groups at that moment time. And then regrettably they started to squabble politically as well as which military group would do what they lost some momentum with that. They did not get enough supplies at that point in time. The country began to be flooded with these external fighters from outside. Some countries in the region who wanted to get rid of assad started finding people who seemed to be tougher fighters who morphed into either isil or other groups and began to fight. So concentration on assad was dissipated. During that time some of the support that was coming from countries in the region was, frankly, also very badly directed and managed. All of that has changed. We have up our support and engagement, training, things that we are doing. Other countries have upstairs. They have worked out many of the issues that existed. Theyre seems to be and despite these difficulties they have been able to fight isil and move it out of certain areas and keep fighting assad. You have seen is continually our belief therefore is that as the principal antagonist more so than assad in some ways starts to take hits and a gain greater strength, training, equipment, capacity, the success will bring to them, we think, larger structure as well as greater knowhow and ability and if isil is defeated, they are going to be taking that experience in the same direction that they originally set out to which is to deal with assad. I would like to ask one last question. We know, and you have said it in this testimony that russia is supplying assad. We have known in the past when there have been sources of money, equipment, and other support for enemies. As we look at assad today you told us in testimony that russia, you mentioned russia, and china and we know by its nature iran is a shia nation oppose isil. Which countries are aiding and abetting the isil cause either by providing resources, equipment, arms, or allowing their trade to create resources and wealth so that they can continue to fight . We do not believe at this point that it is a statesupported. What we believe is that because of their success and particularly getting the bank and other successes along the way as well as and selling oil let me stop you there. You are they selling it to it . And just about to get there. We have raised with a number of countries in the region the question of how they could possibly be getting oil. Net is part of the approach youre. Through what countries do you believe it is being smuggled . The border countries of syria obviously. Through turkey 11 on. Of a joining us to stop the smuggling . They are. Obviously turkey has difficulties right now. They talked about the publicly. We have had some conversations within. The sooner we can cut them off from their source of funds exactly what the objective. Now, if there is other money that comes through social media, internet, individuals fundraising and, we have been able to trace a one time lumpsum hundred 40,000 that came through one country from an individual in the region. And excuse me. That is where were going to have this focus on the movement of money and began to get tough in shutting down the flow of funds. Senator. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Secretary, for laying out the strategy. I think you know where this committee is and where i am in terms of wanting to get the president and the administration the authority and where with all to move ahead and succeed in this mission and all our Foreign Policy missions, but i am a little confused that the position is being taken by the administration now that a aumf is now required, desired but not required. I look back at the last hearings they you appeared in. It was with regard to syria and chemical weapons. The president , as you know, had drawn a red line and said that he would act if they went beyond it. They went beyond it. Then the president came to congress and said, what do you want me to do . I question whether or not that was a wise move. You said to me these are your words, it is somewhat surprising to me that a member of congress are particularly one of the Foreign Relations committee will question the president for fulfilling the vision of the Founding Fathers when they wrote the constitution, divided power on Foreign Policy to have the president come over here and honor the original intent of the Founding Fathers in ways that do not do anything to distract from the mission itself. Now, what are you and i think others would as well that that to distract from the mission. In fact, it torpedoed it. If coming to congress where we said we would strike and what was described as a ten days or two week mission to degrade the ability to use chemical weapons. But then in this case in what you yourself today described as a what will be a multiyear effort said you do not need, your desire but do not need congressional by an. It is best when we speak with one voice. Our allies know that, and in order to build the kind of coalition that is going to be required to defeat isil and sustain that defeat overtime, our Coalition Partners and adversaries have to believe our threats and promises. And i would submit that it helps for us to be together. So i question the unwillingness to come and ask for a renewed aumf. Can you enlighten me as to why the change of heart from the last hearing . There is no change of heart, senator, honestly. Their is a big difference between the authorities that are available. We did not have authority in the form sufficient without Congress Passing a except for article two. Excuse me. In article two authority for the president of the United States, which is always there. And no one has ever gone to the question of whether or not he would have exercised it had congress not passed a but the fact is, the president did make a decision to strike. He made a decision and publicly announced it. He said, i have made decision to strike. Then, as you know, there was a lot of request and our briefings with congress to come to congress. And since we did not have authority beyond article to and that is the distinction between then and now. Then the 2001 aumf did not cover chemical weapons with assad. It covered terrorism and al qaeda. And so if it werent isil that was this direct component of al qaeda command we were talking about one of the other entities there, we might not have the same capacity here. We are looking at an entity that was al qaeda from 2004 or five all the way through until 2013 and then tried to disassociate itself by name but continued to do the very same things it was doing the entire time. That is not true of what happens with assad. Now, it also happened and remember this distinctly obviously. That during the walk up to the process of the request for the aumf the russian president and president obama had a conversation in st. Petersburg regarding the removal of weapons. Prime minister netanyahu called me and we talked about the possibility of removal of weapons. I just have a few seconds here. I appreciate that history. I hope that we have a better explanation than that when we go to our allies and said that we are going to be in it for the long haul and that we are united in this mission. And that is why we Want Congress to pass a aumf. I think five times in the course of this hearing have said, we welcome the effort to work with you to refine the aumf Going Forward and, yes, we will be stronger and better with the passage of