stopping us from becoming oil independent. and we could do that. the keystone pipeline needs to be built, we all know about the jobs, more importantly there's not a single good reason why it shouldn't happen. tom steyer's goal is to stop the oil in canada from being developed but he can't do it. the canadians have already -- we've seen this just in the last week. they have conversations going where they are -- with china to have them accept this if we don't complete our keystone pipeline. with that i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i ask unanimous consent to call up senate bill 2280, a bill to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline, that there be up to four hours of debate, and that the senate then proceed to vote on passage.

mrs. boxer: mr. president, reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: reserving the right to object, and i want to explain how i will come to my conclusion at the end by saying a couple of things. i say that these are all my friends who i really enjoy working with. i say to my friend from oklahoma, he said tom steyer is from california. this is a fact. so is justice kennedy. so was richard nixon who signed the clean air act. richard nixon signed the clean air act, and republican president george herbert walker bush signed the clean air act amendments. mr. inhofe: would the senator yield on that point because i was a cosponsor of the clean air act. mrs. boxer: i will not yield, and the fact is republican objection to controlling carbon pollution took that case all the way to the supreme court. now, another thing i need to correct the record on is my friend senator barrasso who talks about our president as if our president doesn't care about our being energy

self-sufficient. the u.s. is producing more oil at home than it is buying from the rest of the world for the first time in nearly two decades. let me repeat that. the u.s. is producing more oil at home than it is buying from the rest of the world for the first time in nearly two decades and politifact marked that as true and accurate. and then i want to say to my friend who has left the floor, senator kursk, another really -- senator murkowski, another good friend of mine, we offered a vote on keystone as senator portman's bill, and we said we would treat it the way mitch mcconnell treats controversial amendments. we offered a 60-vote threshold. now they come to the floor decrying the fact that we didn't a vote, but we did. but here's the point. whenever america considers building a major infrastructure project, we make sure there is a

process in place, and we've done that since 1968. it's a well-established process, and that process was updated by george w. bush in 2004, and so this unanimous consent request which would approve the pipeline bypassed the entire process that we have set up in this country for these kinds of major infrastructure projects that has been in place since 1968. now, we need to know whether the building of this pipeline is in the national interests, and it is critical that the process not be circumvented because there are major issues on behalf of america's families. and frankly, the u.c. that is before us would cut short the process that protects our families, so rhetorically i ask why would anyone want to do that? they talk about a lot of jobs. that is in great dispute. the permanent jobs are like 35. so let's be clear here. it's about other things.

it's about special interests. that's what it's about. there is a lot of money that follows this pipeline. now, i want to talk about the human health impacts. tar sands is one of the filthiest kinds of oil on the planet, filthy, dirty oil. that is why senator whitehouse and i called on the state department to conduct a comprehensive human health impact study, because the pipeline itself is one thing. it's the type of oil that's going through the pipeline. it's dirty, filthy tar sands oil. and if you don't believe me, ask our health professionals. a gallup poll found that 12 years in a row the most trusted profession are america's nurses. the national nurses united, the nation's largest professional association of registered nurses, with 185,000 nurses,

they also called for a health impact study of keystone because we know if this pipeline is built, immediately we'll see a 45% increase in the tar sands coming in. eventually we will see a 300% increase in the filthiest, dirtiest of oil coming into our country. we also know that this oil has higher levels of dangerous air pollutants and carcinogens because we have documented that in our own country where they burn tar sands oil. mr. inhofe: parliamentary inquiry i ask of the chair. the presiding officer: the senator will state his inquiry. mr. inhofe: our point is, i believe the senator, the distinguished senator from california is reserving the right to object. i would ask her does she object? mrs. boxer: mr. president, may i complete my remarks before i make a decision on the pending request?

the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. inhofe: further parliamentary inquiry. does the senator wish to finish her remarks before objecting or not objecting? the presiding officer: a reservation for the right to object occurs at the discretion of other senators. mrs. boxer: i didn't understand what you said, senator. i could have finished by the time to -- the presiding officer: there is no right to reserve the right to object. mrs. boxer: all right. then i would ask unanimous consent that i complete my remarks. the other side had many minutes and then object. and i'd also ask do we not have time on our side at this point in the debate? the presiding officer: the senator does but there is unanimous consent pending. mrs. boxer: just to allay my

friend's concern and his excitement about whether i will object or not, i will absolutely object. i do object because we know that misery follows -- the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. boxer: misery follows the tar sands, from extraction to transportation to refining, to waste storage. we're going to show you some pictures, folks, in case you don't know what it looks like when you refine this oil. we're going to show you photos from port arthur, texas. this is what it looks like where there is a playground where this stuff, this filthy, dirty stuff is burned. this is not a good place to be. we had people at a press conference with the nurses from port arthur, texas, and they brought us these pictures and said this is what it's like when they burn the tar sands. now, let's talk about the types of cancers that are linked to these types of chemicals, including leukemia, non-hodgkin's lymphoma. why would anyone want to short

circuit a process? just because the oil companies want it? we've got to think about our people. tar sands oil from the keystone pipeline will flow to our gulf refineries, increasing this toxic air pollution that already plagues communities like port arthur, texas. i ask you to meet with some of those kids, meet with some of their parents, meet with some of those health professionals and they will tell you the asthma rates that are happening, the respiratory illnesses, the skin irritations, the cancer. all they talk about is a pipeline. what about what flows through it? what about the toxics that get burned into our air? now, we know a pipeline does wurs. we know a pipeline does burst. we have seen many of those incidents, and we know one did burst with tar sands oil in kalamazoo, michigan.

they still haven't cleaned up the river. three years, they still haven't cleaned it up. and we know that the pipeline goes through communities in environmentally sensitive areas in six states. why would my friends want to bypass a process that is going to look at the potential damage to the health of our citizens to the safety of our drinking water to the effect on kids and asthma and cancer, and let's not forget the tar sands waste, by the way. here is a picture of that in case my friends want to know what it looks like. this is called pet coke, petroleum coke. it's lining already because we have increased tar sands importation, it's lining up around our seas. in chicago, in detroit. massive open piles of tar sands waste product known as pet coke,

billowing black clouds containing heavy metals. there was a story that was told to our committee, children playing baseball have been forced off the field to seek cover from the clouds of black dust that pelted homes and cars. so you have got problems when you extract, you have got problems when you transport, you have got problems when you refine and you have got problems when you store the waste. why do my colleagues want to bypass a process that's been put in place since 1968? so we can look at the impacts on our people. pet coke dust is particulate matter. it's among the most harmful of all air pollutants. when inhaled, these particles can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, reduce the body's ability to fight infections.

do you know, mr. president, the federal government has said that asthma is a national epidemic. i'm quoting. it affects one of every 12 people or 26 million americans. i know if i ask people in this chamber, which i can't do because it's against the rules of the senate, to raise their hands if they have asthma or they know someone who has asthma, i guarantee you half of the room -- half of the people in the room would raise their hands. we don't need more asthma. we have a very important system in place to look at the effects of tar sands oil and i don't think we should be pushing this project forward. exposing americans to pollutants linked to cancer and respiratory illness is not in the national interests. lastly, i want to talk about the climate change impacts. for those people who are

listening to the news, they must be surprised to see how many former republican environmental protection agency officials have come out and said to their colleagues who are here now wake up, climate change is here, it's real and human activity is adding to it. the planet is in trouble. tar sands oil have at least 17% more carbon pollution than domestic oil. the state department concluded even if their flawed study that the annual carbon pollution from just the daily operation of the pipeline, should it be built, will be the equivalent of adding 300,000 new cars on our roads. so why do we want to short circuit a process that's been in place since 1968 that was then renewed by george w. bush in

2004 to protect our people from just this kind of a project? if you walk up to an average american and say should we build the keystone pipeline, they will say well, a pipeline is a pipeline. but when you explain the kind of oil you're putting through the pipeline, that's a different situation because this is the filthiest, dirtiest oil, more carbon intensive. the oil is linked to all kinds of illness. i stood next to people from canada, doctors, who were so glad that i was raising these issues. even the newspapers in alberta have called for a much better study on health impacts. so outside of this chamber, more and more republicans are coming out in support of doing something serious about climate change. my friend showed a picture of tom steyer. let me thank him from the bottom

of my heart. this is someone who's a very successful businessperson who realized that he has got to just step up to the plate and preserve the planet for his kids and his grandkids. thank you, tom steyer. just last week, four former republican e.p.a. administrators who served under presidents nixon, reagan, george herbert walker bush and george w. bush spoke out on the need to address dangerous climate change. i want to thank senator whitehouse, my subcommittee chair in the committee who called these four incredible -- it was an icon i can moment, frankly. see if i remember them all. there was rucklehaus who started off with nixon. there was christie todd whitman who worked for george w. bush. there was william riley who worked for george herbert walker bush. and then there was mr. thomas who worked for ronald reagan, ronald reagan. and there they sat, and there

they spoke and there they said very clearly wake up, republicans, this is a serious matter. and now today a bipartisan group of former treasury secretaries released a report showing that the u.s. economy is already feeling the negative financial impacts of climate change. these respected leaders say climate change is real, and we must act. so why would we want to short circuit a critical review process when approval of the keystone tar sands pipeline would be a major step in the wrong direction? the equivalent of 300,000 cars added back on our roads when we struggled so hard to clean up carbon pollution. now another concern that remains to be addressed is the keystone pipeline's impact on national security. i met with a former seal team

six leader and he was involved in assessment of the keystone tar sands pipeline impact on becoming -- on that pipeline becoming a high-profile target vulnerable to attack. and they concluded it absolutely was a high-profile target, and it would be vulnerable to an attack that could trigger a catastrophic tar sands spill. as i said, the last tar sands spill three years ago in michigan has still not been cleaned up. this stuff is filthy, dirty oil. it is filthy, dirty oil, the dirtiest. and why on earth would we want to see eventual 300% increase in the importation? the nurses don't want it and the public health doctors don't want it, and they came to the press conference with us. so we can't afford to take a shortcut in the keystone tar

sands pipeline review project when so much is at stake. the health of our communities, the impact on climate change. and finally, i'm going to show you a picture that i show a lot these days, and it's a picture of what it looks like when you throw the environment under the bus. this is a picture of a province in china where the people walk out with masks over their faces because everybody said who cares, we can just do anything we want. who cares? well, i can tell you i went to china recently. in two weeks i never saw the sun. i did not see the sun. and on one day when we had a little bit of sun peeking through -- i mean barely at all -- the people there got so

excited. and do you know the people who work in our embassies get hazardous duty pay because it's so dangerous there, for their families. they can't go out and breathe the air. they get sick. so we can have economic growth and a clean environment. you know why? we know it. we did it in the 1970's when everybody objected to the clean air act. you should have seen the folks come to the senate floor. you should have heard the chamber of commerce railing against the clean air act. and you know what has happened since then? tens of millions of jobs have been created. the air is clean. thousands and millions of lives over time have been saved. heart attacks reduced. asthma attacks reduced. cancer reduced. we can quantify it. so when colleagues come here and they try to do something to

bypass a procedure that's going to protect human health and the environment, you can count on me standing right here. i am proud to do it. and i can report back from california that under the leadership of our great governor jerry brown, we are moving to clean energy. we are moving to thousands and millions of new jobs. we have added more jobs in this last couple of reporting periods than any other state. we are balancing our budget. we have a surplus because we are moving to energy efficiency, and that means people are going to work. i understand that my friend from new hampshire is interested in making a few remarks, so at this time i would say to my republican friends, it is with great respect and friendship, truly, that i just say to you all, we just see the world differently. and you know, that's okay.

that's what makes this the greatest country on earth, that we can come here, we can speak out. but i wanted to say to the american people today, this rush to build this pipeline before the process is completed is dangerous to the health of the people and to the health of the planet and to the importance of our national security. and i would yield the floor. mrs. shaheen: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire mrs. shaheen: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate my colleague from california giving me an opportunity to respond. mrs. shaheen: you know, as those of us on the floor probably remember, several weeks ago we were talking about trying to address the energy efficiency and industrial competitiveness act, also known as shaheen-portman, an effort that senator portman and i had worked

on for three and a half years to try and put in place a comprehensive energy efficiency strategy for this country. the bill had -- has no mandates in it, no new spending. it has the support of over 260 groups, everybody from the u.s. chamber of commerce to the national association of manufacturers to the nrdc to several trade unions, companies from the johnson controls to honeywell, the american chemistry council, a broad coalition of people. and according to the american council for an energy efficient economy, if the legislation that senator portman and i sponsor were to pass this year by 2030 it would help create 192,000 jobs. it would save consumers $16.2 billion a year. and it would be the equivalent of taking 22 million cars off the road. and as part of that discussion,

we actually had what we thought was an agreement to have a vote on shaheen-portman on a date certain that would have a 60-vote threshold and also to have another vote on the keystone pipeline on a date certain when, you know, all of us here in this chamber would know when that was. and, again, it would have a 60-vote threshold. and sadly, some of the sponsors of that legislation who had worked with us to try and get a bill put forward refused to vote to consider the bill. and so it went down. it's unfortunate because we could have had a vote on the keystone pipeline at that time, an agreement that i thought we had all agreed made sense. so, mr. president, at this time i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the

majority leader, after consultation with the republican leader, that the senate resume consideration of s. 2262, the shaheen-portman energy efficiency bill, that the motion to commit be withdrawn, that amendment numbers 3023 and 3025 be withdrawn, that the pending substitute amendment be agreed to, that there be no other amendments, points of order or motions in order to the bill other than budget points of order and the applicable motions to waive, that there be up to four hours of debate on the bill equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, and that upon the use or yielding back of time the senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill as amended, that the bill be subject to a 60 affirmative vote threshold and that if the bill is passed, the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 371, s. 2280 at a time to be determined by the majority

leader, after consultation with the republican leader but no later than thursday, july 17, 2014, that there be no amendments, points of order or motions in order to the bill other than budget points of order, and that the applicable motions to waive, that there be up to four hours of debate on the bill equally divided between the two leaders or their designees and that upon the use or yielding back of time the senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill. and finally that the bill be subject to a 60-affirmative vote threshold. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. inhofe: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. inhofe: thank you, mr. president. i do reserve the right to object. i have listened carefully to my very good friend from california, and i'd like to offer, because it has to do with my decision taos whether or not to object -- my decision as to

whether or not to object, the reason that we are no longer, that the american people are no longer interested in all the hype and all the world coming to an end with global warming is really about four reasons. number one, that according to the ipcc -- let's keep in mind the ipcc, the intergovernmental panel on climate change -- is the science behind the united nations sciences behind this, that they even admit today that there has been no warming in the last 14 years. not just the ipcc but "nature" magazine and several -- mrs. boxer: parliamentary inquiry, please. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: my understanding is the senator is using the time of the senators on this side to make a speech before he objects. am i correct? is it our time? the presiding officer: that is correct. mrs. boxer: i would ask the senator object and senator shaheen have the rest of the time because we're running out of time. mr. inhofe: i'm reserving the right to object.

the presiding officer: the senator doesn't have the right to reserve the right to object. i'm sorry, you do not have the right to reserve the right to ofnlt. mr. inhofe: as i recall a few minutes ago, the distinguished senator from california reserved the right to object and was giving her reasons. is that incorrect? the presiding officer: the time was under the democrats control, under the senator's control at that time. mr. inhofe: thank you very much. i object. mrs. boxer: thank you. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. shaheen: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: thank you. let me just say that i'm disappointed to hear that we can't move forward in a way that i think would address both the concern about voting on the keystone pipeline as well as the concern that senator portman and i have to have consideration of the shaheen-portman energy efficiency bill. shaheen-portman is legislation that would go very far to

address our energy needs. after all, energy efficiency is the first fuel. it's the cheapest, fastest way to deal with this country's energy needs. it's something that has support from those people who believe in sphiewms and from those -- those people who believe in fossil fuels and those people who believe in alternatives like wind and solar. it's something that everybody benefits from and it's something that would move us in a direction that would help address the pollution that we're seeing not just from carbon but from so many other pollutants that are being thrown into the air. and it's a reasonable way to address both our concerns as well as the concerns of those people who support the keystone pipeline. let's have this vote up or down with a 60-vote threshold. i believe we've got strong bipartisan support for shaheen-portman. we saw that in the motion to proceed when it got more than 70

votes here on the floor. we had strong bipartisan cosponsors on the legislation. and i think we could have those votes now. everybody would be happy, and let the votes fall where they may. so i'm disappointed to hear the objection. i hope we will have an opportunity to reconsider. i hope we can all agree that there is benefit to both sides of the aisle in voting on both of these issues in a way that gives the american people some idea of where we stand. so thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. ms. heitkamp: would the senator from new hampshire yield for a question? mrs. shaheen: yes. ms. heitkamp: i'm obviously not as schooled on the

procedures of the united states senate but i want a better understanding of what happened here. you moved to bring the bill you worked so tireless lily on, you and portman, agreeing to allow a number of of amendments which would include i would love a vote on, which is the is keystone pipeline. obviously i don't believe you and i share the same opinion, but i think it's important that we have a discussion about it. so with all of the discussion about how we aren't moving things forward in the united states senate, i'm curious about why someone would object to that consideration and moving that bill forward. it seems like it is -- it is a reasonable and appropriate, an appropriate consequence. mrs. shaheen: i know that my colleague from california wants to answer, but i'll tell you that i share your disappointment because i think this was a great opportunity for us to address both energy efficiency and the

shaheen-portman legislation, and also to get a vote on the keystone pipeline, which is something that we had discussed several weeks ago when the energy efficiency legislation came to the floor, that i thought we had some agreement that we would vote on the bill and then separately vote on keystone, and they would both have a 60-vote threshold. and then, sadly, some of those sponsors of the legislation didn't vote for it when the bill was filibustered, and so it did not pass. i'm hopeful that we can still bring it back, and i'm happy to bring it back in a way that allows us to have the same 60-vote threshold for a vote on the keystone pipeline. mrs. boxer: will the senator yield, please? mrs. shaheen: i will. the presiding officer: the senator yields through the chair. mrs. boxer: it is not good governance to just come to the floor and ask unanimous consent to move to a bill and

short-circuit a process that's in place, that's been in place since 196, an 196, to make 8, tn we build an infrastructure process, that it's safe. but i think -- i have said all along on of an amendment of controversy -- i'm ready to vote on the keystone pipeline. and i supported senator shaheen and senator portman's bill. what a great 3weu8 bill, what a win-win. she's willing to take a 60-vote threshold for that. that's the right way to go and i think, you know, the nocialg the republican leader, senator mcconnell, said it over the years, over and over again, whenever there's controversy, if people feel it is controversy, have a 60-vote throas threshold.

all of a sudden when it comes to repealing president obama's climate action plan or keystone, somehow that doesn't qualify as controversial from his point of view. but the thing about controversy is,ness the eye of the beholder. you know, i don't think it is controversial to raise the minimum wage. it hasn't been raised in years. but my friends on the other si side, oh, they don't like t they demand 60 votes. so we had a 60-vote threshold much so that's where we are. that's why we're in this mess. thank you very much. the presiding officer: question occurs on the nomination.

is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: any other senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 52 and the nays are 43. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: of mr. leader. mr. reid: i ask the senate now resume ledge leafb session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 738. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed say nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: cheryl ann krause of new jersey to be united states district judge for the third circuit. mr. reid: i send a cloture

motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of cheryl ann krause of new jersey to be united states circuit judge for the third circuit signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the named be names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate now proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous

consent that the previous order with respect to h.r. 803 be modified as follows, that at noon tomorrow, wednesday june today 25 the senate proceed to consider h.r. 803 with the time until 2:30 equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with senators flake and lee controlling five minutes each of the republicans' time, that the provisions regardening 10 minutes of debate prior to the amendments listed in the order on the bill be vitiated and the all other provisions remain in effect. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent when it adjourn it's jiewrn until 9:30, following the prayer and pledge, the journal be approved, the morning business deemed spoirpd, and the time for the two leaders reserved for use later the day. following any leader remarks sentence be in a period of morning business until noon with senators permitted to speak therein for ten minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority the final 30 minutes and that following morning business the senate proceed to consideration of h.r. 803 under

the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: madam president, there will be up to four roll call votes tomorrow at 2:30. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

so they get that for a really good price from us. the little leaves here are the

type tram and that can be dried and made into joins or it can be sent to the places that make extraction and made into hash and not guarded to. and right here they have this finished that sent over to cure and hang to dry and cured docket for a couple weeks before the relative dispense three. >> next, from today's "washington journal" come a discussion on u.s. military and diplomatic options in iraq in a discussion on various or postals designed to stabilize the country and bolster u.s. interests in the region. >> and as we've watched the unfolding crisis in iraq a more greener viewers views and is from a number of different sources. today we are joined by north

bend the at the center for new americans purity and in a plethora of the american enterprise institute. glad you are both here. but service secretary of state john kerry's visit to iraq. he called on iraq leaders to form a new government immediately. do you think it is possible at this point? >> guest: i think it is possible they have a little less than a week to go before the deadline of july 1st and clearly talks have been going on even before the christ is escalating. the row question is whether the prime minister nouri al-maliki will create a broad coalition or rather someone else will end up crude in the coalition. >> i think that is exactly right. this is a short amount of time in which to form a government, something iraq has taken the immense to do in the past. i do think the crisis gives this a new emergence be. the u.s. has come to the edges in maliki has to does the neighbors of iraq and the region has it that out right.

i think is going to have a difficult uphill battle to convince other groups to join him in a national government. >> surprised at how unstable the iraqi political system has been in this christ is that has sprung up in just the past couple weeks and months? >> guest: it is always in unstable. that is not new and not related to this crisis. it evolves so rapidly to not have a government place is problematic. >> host: ms. pletka, do you think iraqi political system was designed to handle this? >> guest: well, there is a huge argument in the league of nations was put in charge. the systems proportional representation and the pattern. i was gob smacked by it. i thought it was a really bad choice, but that's this is the

main house. it means there is a lot of power for party leaders. there is a lot of winner take all mentality, but there's also my fridge that small, small parties get because you need to form a majority in the 320 the parliament and that's a real challenge. >> host: let's talk about u.s. involvement. united peace and "the wall street journal" talking about what the plan could be or how the u.s. gets involved here. can you lay that out for us? >> guest: but i laid out in "the wall street journal" last week was a series of steps we believe are necessary to push back and that is the decision of the united states. the first is that the president announced last week, which is dispense social forces into iraq to begin to help with isr intelligence surveillance reconnaissance and those are out totally vital. when we pulled out in 2011, we pulled out all of our intelligence cooperation is such an intelligent even about

terrorism threatening to us. so lighting up the screens again it's important for the iraqis. we also read about the necessity of training, something the president also announced we released domain. in addition, we suggested it would be important to conduct our interdiction against ifas, movements inside iraq and syria and if necessary close arab support to the iraqi forces going against. most of the headline in the "washington post" today, u.s. will defend interest in iraq talking about secretary kerry's visit there yesterday. dr. bensahel, what is possible here? to >> guest: the president will be cautious about going down the path outlined. the decision to send 300 visors in is not just to help start the intelligent s. meant and try to help regenerate them of the corporation, but to assess the state of the iraqi security force is in disarray in most

parts of the country. what a president can information on not to be able to know which iraqi units are stills drawn, which ones are not, where the order rattled by, it is enough it is a matter for us to gain intelligence about exactly what is going on on the ground there as well and i think that will set up a set of choices that the president will make. i don't think he will make decisions on airstrikes or anything else until he is dead or situational awareness on the ground. >> guest: i agree with you. the president will take a cautious approach. i'm hoping he will betray his own words because of course kerry and the president has said this is an important interest for us. what's amazing to me is the likely rate. we don't have any idea about the iraqi military. we don't know which units are good, we don't know which units are bad. imagine less than three years ago we had thousands and thousands of troops on the ground. we were the key trainers and leaders inside the iraqi military. it is crazy.

>> host: how much time will it take? reports that some sources are as close from 20 miles from baghdad south. if u.s. forces there have enough time to do that and make those assessments? >> guest: honestly i don't know. i don't know because i'm not expert enough to know how these assessments were, but i also just don't know what the president is thinking about in terms of timelines. secretary kerry met with prime minister maliki. he presumably laid out in the bee stings and presumably make political demands of the prime minister is about, but we don't have a lot of insight into what the details are. >> host: if you want to go ahead. >> guest: there's a difference had been in baghdad and doing it baghdad. isis will hold at risk. but they don't have that many fighters. estimates are 10,000. differently not have to fight all that hard because there's a lot of frustration with prime minister maliki and some support

locally for those troops. taking baghdad is a very, very different situation. they will be much more cautious even if they come to the city is a big difference between getting close and trying to go in and take control. >> host: at eras have questions or comments as we talk about issues, nora bensahel for the center for new american security and danielle pletka at the american enterprise institute. phone lines are ensnared republicans call (202)585-3881. democrats to a 25853880. independents to a 258-5382. outside the u.s. to go to private eye of 383. he will chat for the next 40, 45 minutes. i want to stay on isis for a minute. surprised how quickly they've come on the scene and how much do we know about who actually makes a isis at this point. >> a lot of folks are surprised how quickly they swept through the western part of iraq, the people who've been watching iraq

for a long time and following the conflict area have known about the group for a long time. they been building strength is area. they have been fighting in syria with obviously much larger goal they've announced publicly. i don't think it's necessarily gotten a lot of attention in the u.s. press and possibly the european press. folks who watch developments close we have known about this for a long time. the speed and dramatic ways in which the iraqi security forces has been able to cope with that threat has really been the big surprise here. >> host: danielle pletka. >> guest: i think you're absolutely right. isis is not a new crew. it's a newly named crew. it is a reconstitution of what was al qaeda in iraq, which is one of the terrorist groups we fought on the ground. but he really has been sort of a lethal mix of the problems in syria we have seen and all hottest groups on the ground fire that had just poured and in huge numbers that are armed by the cafés and others and the

political problems on the ground in the sunni areas of iraq that have enabled them to come in and spread out the fragmentation of the iraqi armed forces. >> host: victor has a question on twitter. but his american interests here beyond the oil and gas prices? keeping shiite and sunnis the part isn't in interest is what victor says. >> guest: you know, i am always disappointed when the president does not clearly articulate what our interests are because americans might rightly ask wait a minute, we are not interested in what is going on in syria were not interested in the death of 160,000 people, but we are interested in what happened in iraq? we have interests in iraq where we saw comics and it led them where we installed a democratic system that has more or less been working the elections that have been covered largely free and fair. the problem is the president

hasn't made clearbrook interests are. when we look at the region, we are not just about are ran. we are not talking about jesse rea. this is a region that is increasingly spiraling out of control. worse we have interest. host: respondents were asked, has barack obama clearly explained what the u.s. goals are in iraq? 23% said he clearly explained them. 67% said the president has not clearly explain those goals. as that surprising to you? not surprising to me because the president has not wants to dowhat he yet. i think if you see a push towards military action, there will be a much clearer statement

about why the u.s. is going in and what the objective will be. and that the u.s. objectives will be. i do think there are some direct u.s. interests that go beyond the political system in iraq and even beyond some of the regional dimensions that you mention. if isis is allowed by default to consolidate control of territory in western iraq and eastern parts of syria and possibly more if syria i think in the short-term u.s. interest may not be directly affected that over the meeting to long-term you're talking about a group that could have a strong potential to conduct terrorist attacks against u.s. allies in europe and possibly united states. it would be perfect a perfect sanctuary area where isis could begin to training camps and so on and if left unchecked over a longer period of time maybe not tomorrow and maybe not next year but at some point could pose the same kind of threat or even more of a threat that al qaeda did in afghanistan before september 11.

>> host: respondents asked do you approve or disapprove of the way the president is handling the current situation in iraq? 37% approving and 52% saying that they do not approve. let's get to the calls. john is waiting on our line for independents calling for minnesota. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i have a couple of questions. one of them is first of all i did duty in vietnam and spent time in czechoslovakia. the question i have is, who is supplying all the arms, food, clothing and everything for all those groups? with all the technology we have today are we capable of finding out where all of this stuff is coming from? i don't have any political solution for it right now but this is materials.

if the armies do not have the food, clothing and ammunition we should be able to stop all do we have over there right now. >> host: danielle pletka you touched on this a little bit earlier. gaska you are asking a person -- perfectly reasonable question. one of the reasons weapons are everywhere the iranians on the side of bashar assad have been arming syria and hezbollah a terrorist group based out of lebanon fighting on their behalf. the russians have been aggressively and generously arming the syrians notwithstanding what's going on on the ground. on the other side we see islamist extremists like isis and al-noosra and other groups we haven't yet heard of have been armed by the qatar government and by other private gulf individuals. there are arms flowing from

almost every border. serious borders are not secure and so what we have is those moderate forces and by mice forces and i might hazard and it's become such an ill used the word but those forces that are less extremist and more to our values and interests are the only ones that haven't gotten any support but the syrian army has gotten limited support from the united states. we are all may now talking about ramping it up. three plus years after the war has ended so it's not surprising. in addition of course isis has taken over substantial inside iraq and they control u.s. weaponry that we left behind. the further they get the more they have. they are also robbing banks and they have got a lot of money and believe me with money in that part of the world right now you can get your hands on a lot. >> host: let's go to carol waiting in salisbury north carolina on our line for republicans. carol good morning. >> caller: good morning. i just want to say if the people over there have so much money

since our country is bankrupt why don't we borrow money from them to fight another war? that makes a lot of sense. you know the people in america when they go bankrupt i don't think that they have the most -- enough money to get out and fight their neighbors or to buy guns or any of this other stuff. why don't the people in washington realize that we are in bankruptcy? >> host: nora bensahel i will let you take that on funding and who's paying for this. >> guest: as daniel mentioned they been sunning themselves. they have been taking control of all sorts of assets of every ability to really thrive without external support much anymore. the sources of where their money comes from i think is now not how they are supporting themselves go a head in the future. >> host: is the government iraq going to reimburse the

united states for its involvement especially if that involvement grows in the next days and weeks? >> guest: why would be surprised if it is. that's not the way these things work. >> guest: by the way we are not a mercenary country. carol may be extrapolating from the fact that she sees people hurting economically and of course we are coming to one of the most serious economic crises we have seen in the united states in many decades that we are still the richest country in the world and no matter what we see in the region i hope that nobody would ever believe we are for rent. >> host: jack is in egg harbor township new jersey on our line for independents. good morning. you were on with nora bensahel and danielle pletka. >> caller: good morning. i had an observation and the question. the observation is both of your guests have said that they doubt if isis could be successful in taking baghdad. i want to point out that armed

forces, american forces found it very difficult because we have rules of engagement. we don't have suicide bombers and we don't resort to poison gas that they possess. we wouldn't cut off water supplies and electrical supplies. none of these would take a nice isis forces. neither observation is relatively small forces alexander the great in world war ii germany and japan took on a much much larger countries and forces and were quite successful. so saying that isis could not see each starve them out and cut off water and electricity use illegal weapons is all off the

table. >> host: danielle pletka how do you respond to jack? >> guest: your historical observations are correct and i don't think either nora or i believe that it's impossible for isis or any group to make incursions into baghdad but don't forget where they have been operating up until now is then much simpler areas where there are sunni groups where their sunni cities and tribes and where they have encountered much less local resistance. once they start getting into shiite dominated areas of baghdad they are going to confront groups that are also not deterred by the rules of engagement and by the normal conduct of war. and what we saw in the last couple of days was that shia militias that used to dominate the -- have reconstituted themselves and are marching. they brought 10,000 to the streets of baghdad yesterday so they are not an insignificant

force themselves. could it be ugly? absolutely. could there be civilian casualties? for sure. could they take the neighborhood's? >> guest: i think it's a recipe for dare i say it a quagmire for isis if they pushed further ahead than i can. what is so interesting is to see how strategically they have moved. this is really a much more professional fighting force than i think we realized it was up until now. >> host: nora i will let you respond as well but i want to show viewers this map from today's "washington post" showing iraq and serious and the areas where isis has an operational presence. that is the pink area as you can see that expanding down towards baghdad now and the red dogs in this map, the cities that isis has gained control creeping closer and closer to baghdad. >> guest: gym the biggest danger is not that isis will push into baghdad and take

control of it because probably reasons you mentioned i would be an incredibly difficult task plus prime minister maliki does control special operations forces and which are in relatively good show shape although you have to take reports with a relatively small grain of salt initially. they are on the way to baghdad and also reconstituting in the southern parts of the country. now start taking matters into their own hands, start pushing back against isis and pushing back against the sunnis and their local communities communities and whatever community still remain mixed, although it is a relatively small number in there you have a recipe for a strong internal civil war that may be triggered by isis moving in but it's in fact incompetent separate dynamics. you overlay that a shiite against sunni revenge scenario along with splits in the shia community because we shouldn't forget they are not unified. they are different groups and

factions jockeying for power. you overlay on bat on what isis is doing patrolling the west and moving towards a cauldron of problems that none of which have easy solutions on their own but you put them together and it becomes very difficult to see how you prevent it from escalating out of control quickly. >> host: danielle pletka if we are talking about hypotheticals. asked if our embassies attacked or a 300 advisers are attacked or killed will we face a second iraqi invasion? >> guest: i don't think so. first of so. first of all the president first sent and i think 275 wasn't it, marines to evacuate most of our embassies though we only have a small core remaining dare. in addition certainly we do face the possibility that our special forces will be put in harm's way and i don't think we can ever deny that especially if they are on the ground advising iraqi units that are confronting isis but i don't think there's any

interest even among people who were strong supporters of the iraq war like me and actually engaging in additional complex. while we don't want to see as the president sticks his toe in the water so to speak and then someone bites it off and we run away. that's a bad message to send so i think that is why the president is thinking hard about how to calibrate a response in a way that doesn't draw us to prevent him but doesn't allow isis to my slider to be there. >> host: nora bensahel you want to respond? >> guest: with the u.s. is doing is to support the iraqi security forces wherever and whenever possible. again we don't know where the strongest elements are but we are not going to be doing this directly. we are going to be searching in whatever set of options the president chooses precisely because we don't want to go down the path of having large numbers of u.s. ground troops involved in direct combat operations again. everything the united states is reasonably going to contemplate is going to be on how to support the iraqi forces in securing

their own country. >> host: benjamin is up next from littleton colorado on our line for republicans. benjamin good morning. >> caller: good morning. i have a question in good time for this to come out. they mentioned there might be some air support in things like that there were offered. i wanted to know what your experts were thinking on how we would make sure that the information we are given as good before we act on it because if we were given information to bomb a school or something to that effect that's going to look very bad on the u.s. because we are operating on potentially dangerous intelligence. plus good danielle pletka is this the job of these 300 special forces? >> guest: the problem for the iraqis as they don't have eyes on the scene. they don't really know what's going on in their own country. they haven't had that kind of visual intelligence from the air

for a long time and so if we go when while there is always going to be some danger of misinformation or disinformation or bad intelligence that we get the truth is that our troops are going to be acting in providing guidance as nora said based on our own intelligence which obviously is of a much higher caliber. >> guest: we don't know yet exactly whether the u.s. is going to choose to conduct airstrikes but it's possible that if we do that those advisers who are there now could act as spotters on the ground providing their own direct view precisely to avoid the kinds of things you're talking about. it still is a relatively limited number and this is hypothetical but if the president does decide to go down that route he faces two choices. he can either spend more adviser to the fill that role or risk not having people on the ground spotting and then having these kinds of things that you mentioned. limit the size of

airstrikes the president considers. we have about 15 minutes left with our guests. ei.org if you want to check out the american enterprise institute. romney waiting in southern pines, north carolina, on the line for independents. good morning. i had a couple of points and then a question. some have artie been addressed. it almost sounds like the walls of genghis khan coming down when you read the descriptions in the newspapers and the news. host: talking about the atrocities? caller: yes. and the advancements. my question is, does everybody

when you asked them about whether it is al qaeda, everyone seems to be hung up on semantics. i think at this point it does not matter what they call themselves or don't call themselves. they after tomorrow they regroup into something else. the question is, do we want them to have a foothold in the middle east for where they can carry out what happened in afghanistan and finally led to 9/11? thank you. good: you make a very end of theh at the day of a lot of the groups are very similar to each other. they are either affiliated with al qaeda or are groups that are similar in their aim to al qaeda. i think the distinctions i have heard, this group is too extreme

for al qaeda. when one group tops off another one's head but another group tops off someone's head and then play soccer with it we see a distinction? engagede people who are in total war with no regard for human life or civilian or any of the decencies that we consider important. we talk about them, analyst should understand what the difference is between isis" and the arabian peninsula, but ares not pretend there aims somehow different from each other. host: want to ask you about a ince about secretary kerry his meeting with the prime minister secretary. -- article says

guest: i think iraq is in for a very turbulent political time in a matter what. if the prime minister is able to form a color red dust government, there will still be accusations it is not conclusion -- inclusive enough. several other shiite names that have emerged in recent days. folks who are not quite butliated with malik have served in government positions and may be able to serve -- step into the role. but no matter what, they are going to deal with very difficult challenges.

threat posed with isis, the internal government and forming a government and starting to figure out how to govern in all sorts of other ways in terms of the daily lives of the people, which is what the call is for the new in the inclusive government. going to be a difficult challenge for anyone. host: one of the potential replacements. wanted to ask you about him. honestly, it is like a farce. i have not heard his name in the contestant inble a long time. we would oust a democratic government and push a partyone not part of that prevailed in the elections seems to me to be really bizarre.

he was the head of the iraqi national congress throughout the 1990's. a group created, an umbrella group of the iraqi opposition to saddam hussein. the supreme council for the islamic revolution. all of these groups. there were eight of them. he was the head of that. he became a very controversial figure for a variety of reasons. very unpopular with the cia. became unpopular with the united states government. turns out americans were even worse at manipulating iraq you politics than the iraqis themselves. the ones who are really good at it are the iranians. that is something we have not talked about. they have very serious interest in iraq as well. one reason we have had such as we have until now

not been there but the iranians have. host: back to how the u.s. should move forward. nott: whether we like it or iran will be part of the solution. they have for a long time shared a couple of common and trusts and iraq. both have an interest in a stable iraq not completely engulfed in iraq. there.oncerns any solution for the u.s. going to have to work somehow in conflict with iran. i think they are savvy enough to to keep it stable they need

to be involved. i think they are savvy enough to know the u.s. will still have influence and leverage an better off working with the u.s. 12 entire country't breaking down and secretary in conflict. good morning. war.ember you well for the you and others of the american enterprise institute were pushing strongly to invade iraq. a lot has been made about the surge and how sunnis fought other sunnis. after it was over, there may not have been al qaeda there but the sunnis were seizing because the situation remained the same. was still in power and still miss treating and

excluding the sunnis. when the bush administration had our troops and treasure in iraq, we have the clout and leverage to make changes. iki ton't bush push include the sunnis? it was clear they would revoke because of the mistreatment. how convenient to now blame president obama on the wonders of the bush administration. the collar make some interesting points. thank you. i think what we need to understand is that the prime minister, and i do not vote for him, let me be clear the prime minister when he first came to power did work very closely with the sunni. took a number of very courageous steps. exclusiveness and sharing. the problem is not really the

first maliki elected in the iraqi solution -- election but the post-withdrawal. that is not to say he is a good guy that just wants to do the right thing. because honestly i do not know what is in his heart of hearts. what i do know is when the united states was there, when we were reliable security partner, that maliki was much more willing to push back on the iranians. the problem now is they are the only game in town. we have not been very serious and addressing the problems that have arisen since the withdrawal of 2011. we can sit around and talk about the iraq war and who is to blame and whether it is bush's fault or obama fault and i am sure that is enjoyable for the c-span audience but at the end of the table he -- they we are to

realize there is a challenge we face right now. i believe there is a strong imperative to do something about it and to have done something much sooner. to dore is not a reason something about it. that is for the commander in chief to articulate about it. www.c-span.org there is a -- guest: there is a much more than a mental problem. statesblem is that oil are almost never democracies. there is reasons why countries where oil comes into the central state tend to have authoritarian system and it is because you cannot make credible commitments to share power, even if you as a leader want to come up with inclusive government, there are the office the parties that you want to bring in that have no reason to believe you really intend to share power because the person in charge control the oil revenue.

something well documented in all regions of the world, not just the middle east. there are some exceptions, and i am not think that means every oil state under all conditions turned into a deck hitter ship, in the countrycy temperature cooling for the type of political conclusions that the u.s. and others are now pressing for a party face an uphill battle, and particularly given the kind of security challenges on the ground right now, makes that task all the harder. your piece -- oil, boringct of file clerk ask you -- they have arty gain control, some of the pipeline in areas, correct? oilt: i think you will see

prices go up because of the instability. iran the same reports that isis controls one of the key refineries. i do not know if they will continue to hold it. oil markets do not like an stability. -- instability. host: frank waiting in memphis, tennessee. caller: hi. ain't never been stable. got to sacrifice our brothers and sisters. they spend all their money on warp. they are wracked people never did anything to me. -- the iraq people never did anything to me.

they have never been stable. even when we were over there, they still were blowing up humvees. setting off bombs. it is a race thing to me. [indiscernible] our let the history be told. iraq has been stable for some reasons good and some bad. briefare were times after times of independence when it was stable. unfortunately the problem is just a sub back here. i think we can make arguments about any of the countries having been unstable.

for thelenge here is president to articulate what our interests are. i think it's an average guy in the united states. he is waiting to hear from the president of the united states and the challenge here is like do not- george bush or like george bush, he came out every week and gave a foreign-policy speech. this president has not wanted to do that. at the end of the day, he will have to make the case. he would have to make the argument to the american people, to people like frank, what it is that should bring us back into a iraq into whatever form. that, he will do find he loses support from the people who brought him into office. host: what would you advise him

to say? guest: i think the president has a very powerful pulpit. it is a fight between his ideological preferences, what he wants to do, and what the national security imperative is for the commander-in-chief. he clearly sees we're being pushed into a position. this is always the challenge. timing right now is that. you are stuck with a too little, too late problem. is theree problem here are no good options for the president and have never been good options for the president even going back to looking what to do in syria. we might have a different set of problems if we had intervened earlier. as you mentioned, a region that has tremendous difficulties. not isolated to one particular

country. they are all interrelated. i think with the president is doing is trying to gather more information about what is going on in the ground before committing the u.s. to a task. there is a crisis there, and i think there is an attempt to use decision-making to avoid picking the worst of the bad options out there. prudence is always important in anybody. process isn-making one that lets the situation run out of control, ultimately we decide we have an interest, we are going to have to commit more than we would have had to initially. of course all choices have consequences. at the end of the day these have

become excuses to do nothing. there is another world out there. the iranian nuclear problem. there is what is happening in ukraine, which we have not mentioned. keep going about problems in the world. you cannot spend all of your time thinking about what to do. david is waiting on the line for independents. caller: good morning. i am a veteran also, and i do not think we belong there in the first place. not to long and many of those countries -- we do not belong in any of those countries. we do not need to stow all of our boys over there for nothing. except for oil.

we should not be going around the whole world making wars so it cannot more oil. that is the only reason we were there in the first place. to send people to stop the insurgencies, we will never stop them. the only time we did not have them is when genghis khan was there. host: second reference to genghis khan today. i will give you your chance to respond. guest:guest: thinking about a large ground presence. i think that is off the table politically. i think it is off the table in iraq as well. i think the u.s. does have interest in the region and a rack that go far beyond oil.

threatens it the most is the terrorist threat that from the country. so there are challenges that directly could run the u.s. that will be driving a lot of the decisions. we come back to the same game again, if you're going to commit troops, even limited, you have to make the case and explain it to the american people. then you have to explain why it was they said it was a bad idea. now he needs to do this. while he has support from many people in washington, he needs the support of the american people. that means getting out there and explaining where it is. does not mean holding back.

at the end of the day, you are right, this is not just about iraq. this is about threats to our rootsal security from related to al qaeda and al qaeda itself that have gained enormous ground over the past few years. host: the foreign and defense studies vice president of the american enterprise institute. senior fellow responsible for defense program codirector of the center for a new american >> the associated press reporting iraq top kurdish leader warned secretary of state today that a rapid insurgent advance has already created a new reality and a new iraq. a united nations says more than 1,000 people, civilians, have been killed in iraq this month,

the highest count since u.s. forces withdrew in december of 2011. is primary day in a number of states with voters heading to the polls to select candidates for that november elections. they're is a runoff in mississippi. new york's congressman charlie rangel is running for a 23rd term. oklahoma senator tom coburn choosing not to run again with candid it's fine for his open seat. tonight after the polls close here on c-span2 we will bring you live victory and concession speeches following the results and remarks from new york. watch live coverage along with your phone calls and tweets tonight here on c-span2. the nation's top archivist told congress today that the irs did not follow the law when it failed to report the loss of records belonging to a ac near

the irs official. one secretary was asked about the e-mails during today's briefing. >> the irs commissioner has been testifying up on capitol hill. he said that he did not know about the loss team else from lois lerner until april. then, of course, the diet -- irs did not inform congress until june. is that an acceptable level of transparency? two months that the commissioner of the irs knew about these lost e-mails but congress was not told until june. >> i cannot account for that timeline. i encourage you to read tea to she -- to direct that question to the irs text. >> whether that is acceptable. >> i think the question is bag by your instruction is, what would congress have done, had they known about it.

the fact of the matter is that this is -- that there is not anything that is tangibly different about the situation right now. this administration -- as i mentioned, you should check with the irs. our commitment to cooperate with legitimate congressional oversight and in some cases illegitimate congressional oversight is pretty well documented, but i will do it again. >> are you saying that what -- oversight is illegitimate? >> i'm saying there are legitimate questions that could be raised above the partisan motivations of those inducting oversight. the effect of the matter is, there have been 17 congressional hearings into this matter, to allow 17 hours, and three in the last 44 hours. they have had as many congressional investigations into this in the last 204 hours of by has had to eat. thirty interviews of irs employees, 50 written congressional requests, 750,000

pages of documents. after all of that amount three long congressional hearings in the last 24 hours, zero -- the other key number, zero evidence to substantiate any of the claims. >> is in the problem here that you have a key figure -- >> the problem, i think the problem is that despite all of this, despite all of this we see an unwillingness -- >> this may sound like the dog ate my homework when you have two years of missing e-mails. on the face of it it does not sound credible. >> if you listen solely to the arguments offered by republicans might have reason to a question their credibility. the fact of the matter is that despite the failure of the hard drive, the fact of the matter is 24,000 e-mails from that time frame had been reconstructed and produced a congress. because of our commitment to

curb property of corporate with congressional oversight. that is what we have been focused on. i understand why your eyebrows are raised when you see republicans on capitol hill suggesting there are two years of his team else. that is not true. a large chunk of those in house of already been provided. when they say that, it is an indication that they are becoming increasingly desperate to try to substantiate why conspiracy theories they have been propagating for some time, but the key number is zero evidence to support the claims made by republicans. >> low level of disclosure. >> all the reasons eyesight. thirteen months of congressional hearing, 17, including three in the last 44 hours. the thing that our record of cooperation on this is probably something you are tired of hearing about right now. it is so long -- >> but the white house is also comfortable that people had to

go looking into the missing e-mails. >> the inspector general is independent. i would not render a judgment upon their activities. i do not think it would be appropriate for me to, and their independence. >> you can watch the entire press briefing at c-span.org, and you can also see today's house oversight committee hearing on the missing irs take a stand with testimony from the archivist of the u.s. tonight at 8:00 eastern on our companion network. and treasury secretary jack lewd testified on the annual report of the financial stability oversight council in charge of implementing the dodd-frank financial regulations. appearing before the house financial services committee, this is 90 minutes. >> the committee will come to order. without objection that chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time. hearings for the purpose of receiving the annual report of the financial stability

oversight council. presented by the hon. jack lew, secretary of treasury and chairman of financial of -- financial stability overset council. i now recognize myself or five best to give an opening statement. we welcome back secretary jack lew to discuss. but before we do i would be remiss if i did not bring up the continuing scandal at the internal revenue service, an agency that is part of treasury. mr. secretary, 13 months ago you appear before us and said, my highest priority is to restore confidence in the irs. i think we know that that has not yet occurred. back then president obama's said of the irs scandal, the misconduct is inexcusable, and americans are right to be angry about it, and i am angry about it. he said his administration would cooperate with congress to uncover the truth. that is what he had said. regrettably, that is not what

happened. in the last few days we have learned the administration as nonsense at least february that years, years worth of irs e-mails of 85 employees at the epicenter of the scandal have simply vanished. how terribly convenient for the administration, but how inconvenient for the american people who expect equal protection under a lot. the american people regrettably but understandably are becoming increasingly cynical and fearful of the government. they're is a growing resentment of one set of rules for washington and another set for everyone else. in other words, no one believes that simply saying, sorry, i lost my e-mails, is an excuse the irs would accept from a taxpayer being put through a torturous audit. mr. secretary, i trust you agree the american people deserve better, and it is past time for openness and transparency from this administration on what you told this committee 13 months ago was your highest priority

and it is also pastime for openness and transparency at fsoc, which you chair, mr. secretary, while you and other administration officials habitually said the reported dangers of finance was stability posed by the shadow banking system. you ignore those presented by the shuttle regulatory system, of which fsoc is front and center. with the exception of agencies dealing in classified information related to national security, fsoc may very well be that nation's least transparent federal entity. the public cannot view their proceedings because two-thirds of them are conducted in private , executive sessions. when the minutes are produced, on average they weigh in at a mere five pages long with half of the pages devoted to demoralizing attendees names and resolutions considered. better markets the public interest groups that consist of the advocate for more regulation of our financial sector have stated, the fsoc proceedings

make the politburo look open by comparison. no one in america even knows who they are, and the few open meetings they have they snap their fingers and it is over and they're are all scripted. they treat their information as it were state secrets. to begin to remedy this sad situation is one of the reasons this committee has ordered h.r. 4337, the fsoc transparency and accountability act is favorably reported to the house. this is important because fsoc can designate practically any large financial firm and our nation as a systemically important financial institution and thus render effective control over it and has the authority to render great damage to our economy and set back the dreams of tens of millions of our unemployed and underemployed americans who are counting upon their capital markets to work for