to work. by the 2012 election cycle, "the washington post" and center for some of politics determined a donor network organized by the koch brothers spent $400 million to influence that election. this graphic shows the complex apparatus that the koch brothers used to pull those political strings. in the 2014 election cycle, the government accountability group common cause has tallied over $34 million in political donations all right. from 30 of the country's largest oil, gas, coal and utility corporations. that does not include the dark money that fossil fuel corporations have given to political groups which do not disclose their donors. groups such as the american petroleum institute, the u.s. chamber of commerce, the koch

brothers' own so-called americans for prosperity organization, or the secretive identity laundering machine known as the donors trust. we don't know how much these groups have actually raised or spent on election activities, but the koch network is expected to spend nearly $300 million on the 2014 midterm elections. the center for public integrity reported last week that the koch brothers are sponsoring 10% of all ads in competitive senate races. that's more than 43,900 senate ads between january 2013 and last month. americans for prosperity alone, that koch brothers organization, sponsored 27,000 ads.

that's one in every 16 ads in all senate races this cycle. and, of course, those polluter-funded ads make up way more than 10% of just the republican ads. why is that? because the focus of this apparatus is on republicans, on buying and co-opting the republican party as the polluters' political instrument. the numbers are staggering. and let's be clear about one thing -- their intention not to add to constructive debate on carbon pollution and climate change. the polluters are determined to silence meaningful debate on the catastrophic effects of their carbon pollution. and it's working. there was a lot of republican activity on climate change until january of 2010 when citizens

united was brought down. and after that, you can't find carbon pollution activity on the republican side. they have been buried in the threats and the promises of that polluter funding. well, climate denial may work for republicans in the short run if it keeps wide open that spigot of polluter money that is funding republican candidates. we will see how that works out. but no matter how much money the polluters poor into the republican party, even a republican senate cannot repeal the laws of science, not of physics, not of chemistry, not of oceanography. if they win the senate, it's not just going to be time for them to wake up, it's going to be time for them to grow up.

being in the majority means responsibility, not just obstruction and mischief. being in the majority means answering your country and the world, not just your polluter funding base. being in the majority means hearing the vast majority of americans who want u.s. leadership on climate change, not telling voters the problem doesn't exist or that america should abdicate any responsibility for forging an international solution. our republican colleagues will discover, if they don't know it already -- and many do know it already -- that former senator and secretary of state hillary clinton was right when she called climate change recentl recently -- i'll quote -- "the most consequential, urgent,

sweeping collection of challenges we face as a nation and a world." secretary clinton went on to s say, "the data is unforgiving. no matter what the deniers try to assert, if we come together to make the hard choices, the smart investment in infrastructure technology and environmental protection, america can be the clean energy superpower of the 21st century. this is about our strategic position in the world. this is about our competitiveness, our job creation, our economic growth as well as dealing with a challenge that we ignore at our detriment and our peril." so the choice for republicans stands before them -- america as a clean energy superpower

leading the world or america bedeviled with polluter-fueled political gridlock and climate denial? their choice so far is obvious. i yield the floor. mr. roberts: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: madam president, i would like to return to the discussion of the constitutional amendment to restrict speech. i made considerable comments yesterday and there is a -- or there are some other things i just feel should be said about this. there are probably a dozen other things. however, i want to return to t the -- to that discussion. we've heard a lot in this debate

about commercials. everybody is concerned about commercials. those 30-second ads that are driving everybody crazy that everybody or everyone wants taken off the air, that we want to regulate and restrict and punish. we don't like them. no one likes them. we want to make -- we want to make them go away. well, let's forget about the commercials for just a second. let's talk about the show. has anybody watched the show? it sometimes seem like the only thing on tv that my colleagues care about are the commercials about themselves. but there actually are other things on tv. there are actual programs that fill up the time between the commercials.

let's talk about those. there are, of course, all sorts of programming on television -- sports, movie, sitcoms, reality shows. pretty much everything -- and i mean everything -- is on tv now. and there's a lot of politics on tv. the politics comes in a range of formats. it comes unvarnished on c-span. it is delivered through news and commentary on cable channels. it is satirized and made fun of on the late-night shows. it appears in documentaries and feature films. the citizens united case itself was the result of a political film, a film about hillary clinton. during the litigation, there were arguments over whether the film and its advertisements could be treated as

electioneering -- electioneering communications and, therefore, regulated and restricted by campaign finance laws. in rendering its decision, the court properly saw, in my view, the film for what it was -- an encouragement for people to vote against hillary clinton. this is what the court said in its holding. "the movie, in essence, is a feature-length negative advertisement that urges viewers to vote against senator clinto clinton" -- then -- "for president. in light of this historical footage, interviews with persons critical of her and voice-over fair in ration, the film would be -- voice-over fair in ration, the film would be viewed by most people as a criticism of the character and her fitness for office of the presidency. the narrative contains more argument than facts but there's

little doubt that the thesis of the film is that she is unfit for the presidency." then the court went on to say, "the narrater reminds viewers that americans have never been keen on dynasties and that a vote for hillary is a vote to continue the 20 years of a bush or a clinton in the white hous house." then the court found this -- "there is no reasonable interpretation of hillary other than as an appeal to vote against senator clinton and, therefore, the film qualifies as the functional equivalent of express advocacy." having made that determination, the question then becomes, should the government be able to prevent it from being seen? the court held the answer to that question was no. and struck down as unconstitutional the laws that would prevent or constrain the distribution of the film. my colleagues on the other side want those laws to be put back in place. they believe the government

should be able to control the content, the financing, the distribution of films that reference candidates for office, and they are pushing this constitutional amendment to make that possible. now, we can expect there will be a lot more about hillary clinton on tv over the next couple of years. some of it will be favorable. some of it will be unfavorable. thanks to citizens united, or that decision, the government won't be able to control what is said about her or any other potential candidate for the presidency, either party. my colleagues do not have much to worry about when it comes to programming about hillary clinton. i don't think they need to worry about the show th. they know there are a small number of conservative film makers who will attack her and that whatever they produce is unlikely to reach a wide audience. on the other hand, there is a huge multitude of liberal film

producers, directors and writers who like, if not love, hillary clinton and want to see her get elected to the presidency, and they will do whatever they can to help her achieve that goal. secretary clinton's recent book tour provided a good preview of that kind of programming. we can expect to see more of it should she decide to run for president. and luckily for her, there are plenty of television personal at thes who will help her sell herself to -- personal at thes who will help her sell herself to americans, not just her book. for example, one personal appearance on the steven cobert show was clearly designed to soften her image. in an extended segment that could be seen as either amusing or nawd united stating, depend -- nauseating, depending on your perspective. cobert conducted an interview designed to show how smart and funny hillary clinton is. now, of course cobert can do whatever he wants with his show.

no one questions that. but it should be obvious that the show amounts to a corporate financed and political expenditure. everything on the show -- the studio, the host. the equipment, the writers, the director, the cameraman -- everything -- is paid for by a corporation. is there anyone in the chamber who thinks that a corporation doesn't have the right to do that? of course not. they like the show. and those on the other side know they can expect all sorts of similar programming in the months and years ahead. that doesn't bother them. but the commercials? well, that's a different story. what if someone wanted to buy a 30-second ad during the show to present an alternative perspective? well, we can't have that, can we? that would be intolerable. it would present a threat to our democracy. we have to amend the constitution to prevent that. that absurdity is evident. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think our first amendment allows one sort of

programming to have unrestricted and unhindered access to the media while other sorts must be limited and constrained. i submit that is preposterous. in our system of government, all voices have the right to be heard. the first amendment gives them that right. there is so much nonsense in this debate about buying elections and drowning out voices. we have a system that allows all voices to be heard, even those that have closed the majority. that is not the antithetical -- tha --the antithetical to democ. it is the essence of democracy. so it means that stopping more recognizes to be heard somehow poses a danger just because we don't like what they're saying. elections can't be bought. voters will decide who wins them. they will make that decision

based on what they think of the candidates and what they think will be based on what they see and hear of the candidates. and then they will vote. when they do so, their vote will be equal to that of every other citizen. it doesn't matter how rich they are or what they do for a living or whether they even have their own tv show or never even watch tv. every citizen gets one vote. as they make the decision about how they are going to cast it, we need to make sure they are able to hear all voices. that is what the first amendment does. it ensures all voices have the right to be heard, and we don't need to change it to make that happen. those who are pushing this constitutional amendment don't want more voices to be heard. they want less. there should never be any confusion about the intent of this constitutional amendment. it is to allow this majority to pass laws that will silence

their opponents, and ignores all the pious claims about the grand intent and recognize it for what it is -- a cynical attempt to protect themselves from criticism. don't be fooled. don't be fooled. thank you, madam president. mr. brown: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you. one man, one woman, one american, one vote. that's what the writers of our constitution put in the

constitution, not one corporation, one vote. i -- what i hear on the senate floor today and yesterday from those candidates who seem to rely on corporate money, who are the beneficiaries of a showering of not thousands, not tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands, not millions but tens of millions of dollars, candidates that benefit from the showering of tens of millions of dollars for their campaigns, what they are saying on this senate floor is almost laughable. it would be laughable if it weren't so serious. it would be laughable if it didn't contribute to the corruption of this institution, of this government, that we are so proud of of the people, by the people, for the people. one man, one woman, one american, one vote.

with citizens united, with mush come i don't know, the -- with mccutcheon, the supreme court effectively ruled the more money you have, the more influence you have over our democracy. when i hear of those who are the beneficiaries of the tens of millions of corporate dollars, often oil companies, often big drug companies, often big tobacco companies, when they come to the floor and plead -- they are pleading in many ways -- that support of this constitutional amendment are restricting the right to free speech, i agree that the -- whether it's the koch brothers, whether it's the big tobacco executives, they should get one vote, but when they can spend millions and millions of dollars and shower some of my colleagues with this kind of corporate money to get their way, we know what's happened in this country. we know for the richest 1% of people in this country that incomes have grown and grown, gone up and up and up. we know for the broad middle,

for the bottom 90%, for the middle that for the great majority of people in this country, their wages have been flat. no, they have actually been worse than flat over the last 20 years. the wealthier get an extraordinarily -- are getting extraordinarily wealthier. the middle class, even sort of the upper middle class let alone people who are working minimum wage jobs or making $15 an hour, their wages have been stagnant or worse. one of the reasons for that, mr. president -- the presiding officer from massachusetts has spoken out nationally about this over and over again. one of the reasons that wages have been flat in this country and the rich are getting richer and richer and richer and richer is that as the corruption of big money in our political system. i know how it works. in my race for re-election in 2012 -- and i'm not complaining about this. as my wife's book publisher said no whining on the yacht. if you get to be in the u.s.

senate, don't complain. but, madam president, i also understand that when they spend spend $62 million against me in my campaign, i'm a big boy, i can take it, but it was oil money, tobacco money, wall street money. it was mostly out of state money. it was money from some of the richest people in the united states of america. what did they want? they didn't dislike me personally. i assume they didn't. i don't really care. but what it was really about is they wanted -- they wanted whether the person came from troy, ohio, or troy, michigan, or troy, new york, they wanted a politician in office from ohio, as they want in new hampshire, as they want this year in new hampshire, as they want this year in kansas, as they want this year in north carolina, in louisiana, in alaska and colorado, they want a lap dog. they want somebody that will go to the well and vote with big tobacco and go to the well and vote for wall street and go to the well and vote for oil companies. and, you know, that's what they will get if we continue this

corrupt way of campaign finance. the presiding officer remembers after we passed the dodd-frank legislation in this congress back four years ago when she was working to establish a consumer protection agency, and after the vote on dodd-frank, do you remember what the leading financial services lobbyist in this town said? the president signed the bill within an hour or two, at least the same day. the lobbyist said well, folks, it's half time. what that means? he wasn't talking about the nfl. he was talking about well, we lost in congress. they actually passed a bill that wall street wasn't wild about. they actually passed a bill that the largest financial institutions were not particularly happy about, but they knew they could use their lobbying, and they have thousands of lobbyists in this town. they have a number of lobbyists for every member of congress. they knew they could use their lobbying force. they knew they could use the politicians that they had -- i won't say that people here were

bought but you might suggest they were here on a long-term lease in some cases. they were suggesting they knew that just the threat of spending money. so you cast a vote in this institution next week, say, on a controversial issue, you know what you know. you know a couple things. you know you should do the right thing. you know what your constituents back in florida or massachusetts or ohio are saying, but you also know one other thing. you know if you pass a vote that wall street might not like, if you cast a vote that big tobacco might not like, if you cast a vote that big oil companies might not like, you know what's going to happen, what's in your mind? if they are going to come to th state in the next election and spend $10 million or $20 million. i had up to $40 million spent against me because i don't do what wall street wants. i don't -- i don't do what big tobacco wants. i don't do what the oil industry wants. so of course they are going to come after me. they fell short in 2012, not by much, but they fell short, but

you know they will do it again. you know every time we cast a vote they are keeping a scorecard and they think well, we like what that senator did. we'll help him or her. usually him in that case. we don't like what she did, we don't like what he did so we will be looking out to spend this kind of money. one man, one woman, one american vote, not a corporation. one vote. fortune 500 companies straddle the globe. they reap billions of dollars in profits. american corporations are at their most profitable time perhaps in their history, sitting on tens, hundreds of billions of dollars of profit. it doesn't take a ph.d. in math to understand it. they spend a small, small, small microfraction of the money they are making to protect those profits. how do they do it? they come to ohio, they come to massachusetts, they come to florida, they come anywhere in the country and they spend millions, tens of millions to

protect themselves on behalf of wall street, on behalf of big oil, on behalf of these big tobacco companies. it's all pretty simple. one man, one woman, one america, one vote. citizens united, mccutcheon make clear there is now an entry fee for participating in our democracy. that's why i support the constitutional amendment proposed by senator udall that curbs unlimited campaign spending. one man, one woman, one american. this amendment grants congress the authority to regulate and limit the raising and spending of money. we're not shut -- shutting anybody off. anybody can give fairly significant amounts of money. but we do know -- do the math here, madam president. after the mccutcheon decision, donors can now contribute up to to $3.6 million in an election cycle. $3.6 million. i don't know for sure because i have never -- i have not met most of the 300 million people in our country, but i don't think there is all that many that have the wherewithal financially to contribute 3.6 million. but i also know this because my staff did the math on this one,

i acknowledge. the average person making minimum wage, $7.25 an hour. and parenthetically, the same people that love mccutcheon, then love the millions of dollars spent showered on us from wall street or against us, from wall street, from big tobacco, from big oil. those same people are stopping the minimum wage from being increased. the minimum wage is at its lowest level in buying power since 1968. it has been stuck at $7.25 an hour. back in the era of bipartisanship on minimum wage, we actually passed one in 2007, my first year in the senate, signed by republican ebb president bush, those days seem to be past. but think about the math. $7.25 an hour, you are allowed to give $3.6 million in an election cycle under the mccutcheon decision, a decision passed by corporations that seem to -- pushed by corporations and handed down by a supreme court that says corporations are people, too, more or less. for a minimum wage worker, it

would take 239 years working full time, 239 years making making $7.25 an hour to make make $3.6 million, and then they would have to give it all away in that election cycle to be able to compete with the oil companies and the drug companies and big tobacco and wall street. so, madam president, this is pretty clear. we can change this. again, back to the arguments of the other side. they are laughable at home. i don't think i know anybody that thinks it's okay that we're allowing somebody to come in and spend -- except for colleagues, whom i like. most of the people on the other side of this issue, i like them personally, but i don't know very many people, unless they are in washington, unless they have a stake in this system, i just don't know people that think it's a great idea to let people spend $3.6 million, because they're not spending it out of their charitable whims. they are spending it because they want their people, their water boys, their water girls for the drug companies, the water boys and the water girls

for wall street, the water boys and the water girls for big tobacco, they want those people elected, not people that will stand up to those interest groups and do the right thing. to restore voters' faith in the political system, to ensure voters that their voices are being heard, one man, one woman, one american, one vote, that's what we stand for. those are our values. that's why this is an important issue. madam president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i thank the senator from florida for allowing me to do this before his final remarks of the evening. i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 423, s. 1934, and calendar number 418, s. 898 en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask consent, madam president, s. 1934 be agreed to, the bills if amended be amended a third time and passed en bloc, the title amendment to 1934 be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the

table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 538 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 538, expressing the condolences of the senate to the families of james foley and steven sotloff and condemning the terrorist acts of the islamic state of iraq. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. brown: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 539, which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 539, relative to the death of james m. jeffords, former united states senator for the state of vermont. the presiding officer: is there okay to proceeding to the

measure? without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent -- madam president, i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: madam president, i ask unanimous consent when the senate completes its business today, it adjourns until 9:30 a.m. on wednesday, september 10, 2014. following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. and that following any leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s.j. res. 19 postcloture. further, that at 2:00 p.m., all postcloture time be considered expired and the senate proceed to vote on the motion to proceed. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: madam president, we expect a voice vote on the motion to proceed to the

constitutional amendment on the campaign finance reform shortly after 2:00. we expect a roll call relative to the paycheck fairness bill. if there is no further business to come before the senate i ask that it adjourn under the provisions of s. res. 539 as a further mark of respect to the sign of james f. jeffords former senator from the state of new hampshire and my used to be chief of staff for senator jerked gave a eulogy at his funeral, had immense respect for the late senator from vermont. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from florida. mr. rubio: thank you, madam president. i appreciate the opportunity to speak for a few moments before the senate ajournals for its work today. i want to begin with a couple of points of personal privilege, one is to congratulate a local high school in florida, booker t. washington, it's won 28, 29

consecutive games, were the national champions last year in high school football, are headed to that again this year. what impresses me about the program is the work they do with these young men. they come from a challenging part of the city of overtown and have overcome tremendous obstacles in their personal lives to achieve in the classroom and on the field and what i'm most impressed about as i tell coach harris every time i see him, is not the kind of football players, they are excellent, but the young men they're becoming. i was at their game on friday against another very good team from south florida ranked in the top 10 nationally in high school from states like california and texas, i assure you while your football is good, our football is special, and anyway, enough bragging on them. they're a great team and we're fortunate to be able to witness what they've been able to do over the last couple years. the second point which i think is related to my comments here in a moment is towards the

family of steven sotloff who lost his life tragically in the middle east over the last few weeks. steven actually lived in miami, florida with his family literally blocks away from where i go to church, blocks away from where i live. he was a member of our community and an american. as i said last week at his memorial service, steven dedicated his life to revealing the suffering and reality of what was happening in the most dangerous areas of the world. while he lost his life tragically, i think it is ironic and appropriate that in his last act as he lost his life he revealed the true nature of what we confront in that part of the world and the true nature of the islamic state and who they are and what they're all about. and this was a young man who as i said, dedicated his life not just to journalism, to journal nfl the most dangerous part of the world and in so doing was able to bring that reality to us even in the last moments of his life. intriguing, of course, is the

debate that has occurred on this interesting political matter, a lot of hyperbole thrown around about the influence money has on our political process. i've found there is plenty of money on both sides of every issue and certainly all of my colleagues including those who support this amendment that's before us have been the beneficiaries of vast amounts of campaign spending. some of my colleagues pointed to earlier, the majority of the money being raised and spent in political campaigns including from wall street are on behalf of many of the same people now here condemning them and so in fact it is so insidious as they say, perhaps they should take unilateral pledge not to accept these sorts of funds. but, of course, they won't. but it's an interesting dynamic at a time our nation faces so many struggles and what i hope and wish more time were dedicated to the issues this country is facing the. the ones that threaten our status as a special and unique nation. up look across the country at the economic challenges our people are facing, they're pervasive and they are real.

you see sea the 21st century has brought extraordinary and rapid change to our lives. the economy that once produced millions of jobs that allowed people to make it to the middle class and achieve that american dream, those jobs many of them have been outsourced or automated, they've gone away. you have millions of people out there who worked their entire lives struggling to find a job that allows them to keep pace with the cost of living. yet people stuck in low-wage jobs and i'll have more to say about this week. people working for $9 or $10 an hour or cannot make ends meet especially with the cost of living continues to rise and every facet of our lives. you have students who have gone to school, graduated, done everything they were told they needed to do to succeed and cannot find a job with the degree they sought but they potentially owe tens of thousands of dollars in student loans, an issue i'm tense sensitive to and familiar with. i myself owed well over $100 --

$100,000 including the day i swore into the senate. there are millions of americans who are bout every doubting that if you work hard and get ahead, they're starting to doubt if that's tile still true. this is something we need to address. you address it by addressing the challenges of our time which are not the different issues that i hear thrown around here today. the core challenges of our time is that first and foremost, the nature of our economy has changed rapidly, america faces more global competition than ever, for investment and for innovation, there are more countries than ever competing for us for investment and innovation and tragically we haven't kept pace with that change. we still have policies in this country that are deeply rooted in the last century in an era that has come and gone. we impose taxes and regulations and national debt and a health care law and other measures that put us at a competitive disadvantage. i wish that the number-one

priority of the united states senate was to make america once again the single best place in the world to invest and to innovate. so we could create millions of higher paying jobs, 21st century jobs. i wish that was our number-one priority. followed closely by our number-two priority which is equipping people with the skills they need for the jobs of the 21st century. you see, it wasn't that long ago where you could come to this country or grow up in this country not have a lot of advanced education and still make it to the middle class. my parents did it. they worked service sector jobs. my mother was a maid and a cashier at hotels. my father was a banquet bartender. they achieved the american dream. the american dream has never been about how much money you make or how many things you own. it's about achieving happiness. for them it was giving us the chance to do all the things they never could and they were able to do that in the 20th century in service-sector jobs. that's still possible in america

for many people, but it's increasingly more difficult. and i wish we would address that because the reason why it's become more difficult is because all the higher paying jobs of the 21st century, almost all require some sort of advanced skill acquisition. millions of our people simply don't have it. the reason is because our educational system is not a 21st century one. why have we stigma stigmatized vocational education in america? why have we told people if they want to be a truck driver, or a welder, any number of vocational profession, have why have we stigmatized that when there are jobs available in those fields and we need people to fill them? the second issue is what about the people trapped in low-paying jobs? the single mother who works as a home health aide for $10 an hour. the receptionist at a law firm making $11 an hour. 2 beam in a fast food restaurant for $9 an hour. there's nothing wrong with those jobs but i'm sure as time goes

on they want more. and we have to equip them with the skills to be able to do more. the home health aide can welcome become an ultrasound technician, making $30 an hour. so that the young man who is on the unemployment line can become a welder or some other 21st century career or profession that gives him the tills skills they need for those better paying jobs. i wish we were focused on that. and, by the way, how about informing our college students about the true value of their degrees? in america, a free country, you can study anything you want but before you borrow $50,000 to attain a major in greek philosophy you deserve to know that the market for greek philosophers is tight and it's going to be difficult to pay off that loan. and i think every student in america who is taking out student loans has a right to know how much people make when they graduate from their school with that degree so they can

make informed and educated decisions about whether they should borrow money to pay for the specific degree that they seek. this is an important issue and i wish that was our second top priority here we would focus on how to help people trapped in low-paying jobs, help people struggling with the challenges of the 21st century. how to help these people acquire the skills they need for better-paying jobs. we've seen virtually no conversation about any of those issues here just in the last few days. and so no wonder people are disgusted with washington because we don't spend mini time here talking about the things they're worried about. we spend very little time here talking about the things they're concerned about. our discourse in this body is so irrelevant to their daily lives that they have reason not just to be disgusted with politics but quite, frankly, to be tempted to give us on us and our ability to address any of these challenges. but there's a third 21st century challenge. and one that i hope to speak about here in the moments i have left. and that is the reality that

world events have an impact on us greater than ever before. i'm not saying world events never used to matter, of course, they did. but we are increasingly members of a growing global economy which means today when there is instability on this planet it isn't just your national security that's threatened, it's our economic security as well. we're 6% of the world's pop pop police station. in order to achieve more prosperity we have to sell more things to more people everywhere in world but that depends on peace and stability across the planet and you can't have peace and stability when the world is in chaos. so i would say today that foreign relations and foreign policy matters more from an economic perspective than it ever has in the history of this nation and i wish there was more focus in this body on what's happening all over world because the world is in total chaos. in the asia pacific region, china is undergoing a dramatic, a dramatic modernization of their military capabilities,

increasingly challenging u.s. air power in the region and increasingly acting out on illegitimate territorial claims. in latin america, erosion of democratic order, the rise of governments that threaten to erode almost two decades of progress in the region. by the way, in this body we have endeavored to address one of those challenges in venezuela, a place pull if of corruption and human rights violations, an anti-american government that does everything possible to underminus and our interests not just the interests of their own people. we've been blocked in our efforts to address it because issue the venezuelan government, acting through citgo got lobbyists to come to the senate and lobby for blockage and stoppage of a measure we were ready to pass by unanimous consent. i come to the floor to ask the majority leader to please schedule a vote on these sanctions on venezuela because it will pass overwhelmingly. do not allow lobbyists for the

venezuelan government to come to washington, d.c. and impede action on this matter. in europe we see chaos, too. russia has invaded ukraine. maybe they switched uniforms but they have invaded ukraine wand 234509 has been helpless to do anything about it. i hope we will be more forceful in our response because the implications f just for you that region but for the world are significant. but the one i want to close focused on tonight, this relations to steven sotloff is what's happening with isil. tomorrow the president will give the most important address of his presidency, perhaps the most important in the last decade. tomorrow night i hope he comes before the american people and explains to them what is truly at stake here. look, i was about to say i thought he should have done this weeks ago, maybe months ago but i'm glad he's doing it. i would ask my republican colleagues tomorrow that -- all might have colleagues that at this time such critical national

security importance we try as much as possible to rally behind our effort to address this challenge. because it is a real challenge. if and when this group comes after the united states, both around the world or here at home, they're not coming after republicans and they're not coming after democrats. they're coming after americans. and the threat we face is real. i know we have a tradition in this government of rallying and acting in a nonpartisan way when it comes to national security. that's not just we do because it's polite. it's something we must do because unity is important in order to address these challenges. i've been critical of the president, critical of his slow response and i think it is valid to point out the mistakes he's made so we can learn from them so can be held accountable. but i think it's important to look forward at what we can do now and i thought what the president is about to do now he should have done weeks and months ago but i'm glad he's finally doing it. tomorrow night's address to the nation is important. i hope all americans tunes in

and here's the three points i hope the president will make. the first is i hope he clearly outlines to our fellow americans what's at stake here. isil is not just a collection of crazy terrorists. it is the single most dangerous terrorist challenge this nation has ever faced and we faced some dangerous terrorists before. we're familiar with al qaeda and their capabilities. we are familiar with some of the nation states we faced down in the past. this group is uniquely dangerous for a number of reasons. first, it is by far the best funded terrorist operation perhaps in all of human history. they are generating millions of dollars a day alone just from oil revenue. second, they are replete with foreign firefighters including thousands of foreign fighters that have visas waiver passports from countries where tall a they have to do is buy a plane ticket to come to the united states. among those, by the way, are americans. including one who was from florida. who even came back to the u.s. for a number of weeks and

returned and conducted a suicide ÷ last butbehalf of this group. not least, they control territory. now, we know in order to carry out the 9/11 attacks, al qaeda needed a safe haven in parts of afghanistan. well, these folks at the islamic state, these line particulars, they control a -- lunatics, they control a vast space. most of northern syria and vast portions of iraq is under their control. this makes this group a very significant and dangerous group, with intention not just on taking over iraq but dominating the region, ultimately moving into jordan, saudi arabia, lebanon and other places. and conducting attacks against the united states. it's simple -- isil cannot fulfill its regional imaitionz if it doesn't drive the -- ambitions if it doesn't drive the united states out of the middle east. and the only way they can drive us out of the middle east is by terrorizing you out of the middle east -- out of the middle east. and to terrorize us, they will have to conduct terrorist attacks both against us both

abroad and here in the homeland. here you have the most well funded, most capable terrorist group in modern history, with the clear intention and desire to attack us in order to terrorize us out of the region. this is a very serious national security threat and it is important for the president to clearly explain that to our fellow americans. the second thing i hope he will do is outline a clear goal about what we intend to achieve and that goal should be unequivoca unequivocal -- the complete defeat and annihilation of isil. and that goal is accomplished in three steps. first, by stopping their continued spread. second, by eroding their capability and control of territory and ultimately by defeating them as an organization, by eliminating them as an organization. so after he's outlined who this group is and why it's in our national interest to defeat them and he's outlined our clear goal to defeat them, i hope he will explain to the american people in as much detail as possible -- now, clearly there are some things he cannot share for operational security purposes -- but in as a much detail as possible how he intends to

defeat them. and i think this is a multifaceted process but it should include the continued airstrikes in northern iraq. by the way, airstrikes that are most successful when they're done in coordination with kurds and iraqi ground forces there on the ground right now. by continuing to supply and equip the kurds, by giving them, by the way, logistical support that they need in order to take on these supplies and get them out to their troopsmen troops. by hopefully working with the new iraqi government that was just formed to stand up a unified iraqi government that is capable of not just providing a functional government that unites all the people of iraq but also one that's capable of fielding security forces, capable of conducting operations without dividing the country along a shia-sunni line. we also need more cooperation from arabs in the region, because they're immediately threatened. they are coming after the crown in saudi arabia. they are coming after the crown in jordan. they are eventually going to move into lebanon as well. they pose a real and present threat to all the nations of

this region and they must act. we need their cooperation both militarily and diplomatically but also by using the megaphone that their government and their state-run media provides. to stigmatize this group by revealing them for who they truly are. there should be nothing romantic about isil in the minds of any young arabs about joining their ranks or becoming part of their efforts. and we need these governments' help in spreading that word and in revealing that reality. by the way, we also need to work with them and other regional governments, especially the turks, to help cut off isil's access on funds and to fighters. the turks need to step up and do a better job of securing that border. by the way, cutting off their funds require us to go after perhaps their most significant source of funds and that is their refinery capacity in syria. and i'll have more to say about that in a moment. but we should target that because the black market sale of oil in syria is the single and fastest-growing source of revenue for isil but also of

fuel for their terrorist operations. but ultimately, there is no way to defeat isil without defeating them in syria. someone is going to have to confront them in syria and defeat them. it is my hope that it will be a combination of u.s. air power and qualified, well-equipped, well-trained, competent moderate rebel forces within syria. because here's the problem. if you eliminate isil but you don't have some sort of capable group left behind, moderate group left behind, then all you're doing is replacing isil with al-nusra or some other radical islamic gound on the ise ground there. it's important we do both. and i know no one wants to get into another conflict. we have no choice. we are going to have to deal with isil. the choice not whether we deal with them or. the choice is, do we deal with them now while they're still growing, or do we deal with them later when they've grown, when

they now control vast and larger territory than they do now, when they have more fighters and are better funded? that's the choice before us. i would submit to you that i know of no medical condition that is easier to treat later rather than earlier. every medical condition that i know -- isil's been compared to cancer -- every cancer that i know is easier to treat and cure if you catch it early rather than later. i would say the same is true with this cancer, isil. if we deal with them sooner, it will not be costless, it will not be fast but it will be easier to deal with than it will be if we wait till later. but to do so will ultimately require someone to confront them and defeat them within syria itself. and defeating them in syria alone is not enough. we have to ensure that there is some group there on the ground, some moderate rebel force that can take over not just for them but for the assad regime. because there is collusion between assad and isil. those refineries they control in

syria, those were former assad refineries which he won't bomb because he hopes to retake them one day in attacks so he can use them. there are collusion between them f. anyone has no i will liewgs about who assad truly is. and so i hope that the president will clearly outline this tomorrow. it is important for our nation and for the future. and i'll make one more point why i think this is the most important speech he's given in his presidency. because this threat will probably outlive his presidency. we have to be prepared for the fact that isil may not be defeated in 24 months, that the next president of the united states -- and many of us, whether it's serving here, whether it's controlled by republicans or democrats -- will have to remain committed to this goal. because this threat in all likelihood will outlive the presidency of barack obama. and it is important for him to put in place a clear goal and a plan that can survive his presidency so that we can carry out this task. it is critical for our country. i wish the president the best on

his address tomorrow. and i hope that we can come together in a bipartisan way to confront and defeat this evil before it is too late. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow under the -- under the provisions of s. res. 539 as a further mark of respect to the memory of the honorable james m. jeffords.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: mr. president, i have filed today and would like to insert in the record, if i to insert in the record, if i >> mr. president i have filed today and would like to insert in the record, if i may be granted the senate joint resolution that i have filed today. >> without objection. >> mr. president, this is a resolution that will express the authorization for the use of united states armed forces against the islamic state in iraq and the levant.

would mr. president it is a resolution that has been necessitated by legal scholars sends since the president has used his existing authorization for the use of military force in iraq. most recently against isis, isil, isis it's the same thing. the levant is that area broadly from about baghdad all the way to the mediterranean. that is isil. isis is the islamic state in iraq and syria. and of course we know that this

organization that is calling itself an islamic caliphate, it knows no jurisdictional boundaries. it has taken large swaths of territory in syria as well as iraq and when the president successfully employed the use of airpower, both manned and unmanned, against isis targets as they were marching toward erbil, the capital of kurdistan and then likewise as they were marching toward the mosul dam, the president used his authority in iraq and also his authority as commander in chief to protect

americans are good there are americans in or bail -- erbil. there are americans in other places in iraq and the protection of the dam in mosul was to protect those americans downriver because if the dam are blown, that would have flooded all downriver and it would have flooded baghdad. legal scholars disagree with me that the president has the authority under the constitution as commander in chief to go after isis in syria. i describe the isis as a snake. if the head of the snake is in

syria, which it is, a lot of their organization, a lot of their leadership is there, then we ought to go after the snake where the head is and decapitate the snake. in doing that, we are going to have to go into syria. now i believe that the president has the authority to do this under the constitution anyway but there are some who disagree, so rather than quibble about legality, i have filed this legislation. there is no pride of authorship. the senate is obviously going to debate this. i believe that if you are seeing the polls from today where 90% of the people of this country are concerned about isis and some huge number want us to go on and attack isis in other

places than we are attacking now, then i think it is obvious that the united states is going to have to continue this attack on isis. now i want to complement the president. often as i have talked about this issue people have come as members of the press and said well the president has dillydally and so forth. i don't think he has at all. i think the president indeed has employed a very successful strategy of going after isis in iraq. in fact stop their march on erbil. in fact stop their march on the mosul dam and is going after them in other locations in court nation with the peshmerga of the kurds as well as the iraqi army.

and indeed, the president started on august the 25th. the surveillance flights over syria so that we can collect the intelligence that is necessary as you prepare to go after them in syria. but the president has done something more. he has started to put together a coalition, realizing that the american people have no appetite for american boots on the ground in syria to put together a coalition so that maybe the free syrian army, and maybe other members of the arab league, maybe some other members of nato would participate. but the way weich or this

resolution, it talks about that there would not be a recurring military presence in the implying of an american army on the ground. it means the flexibility that clearly there would be american boots on the ground just as there are he has been when we send our special operations forces in there to try to rescue the two american journalists that subsequently met such a brutal and uncivil and in their beheading. so american boots have been there and we might need special operations kinds of missions in the future. we might need forward air observers actually on the ground

to direct in airstrikes. so there is flexibility in this resolution. i want to say that if there is anybody with any doubt about the intent of isis, they have made it so clear not only in taking the lives of these journalists, a second one of which was from my state of florida but in their statements of what they intend to do, setting up an islamic caliphate, the leader al-baghdadi even calls himself the caliph or religious leader but they have also said that they will not stop until the black flag of isis is hanging and flying over the white house. so their intent is pretty clear.

and so we are going to have to deal with them not only in iraq as we are now but elsewhere and it's going to be sooner or later. now it's not going to be a one or two-day operation. the american people as the president has already indicated, this is going to be long-term kind of operation. and the fact is that the united states is the one that has to lead the coalition, so to get this right out front and center of what we need to do, i have filed and is considered as part of the record, the resolution that i'm offering to give the legal authorization from congress or the president to strike isis in syria and to do

as the president has said, to bring it to a successful conclusion, to stop this horrendous uncivil, extraordinary kind of inhumane behavior that is being illustrated by these folks. mr. president i yield the floor. >> mr. president one month ago the president initiated an air campaign against isil in iraq. i cillizza dangerous terrorist organization committing atrocities against thousands of people including american hostages and a strong american response to include military action is certainly warranted. in the first month of the air campaign to explanations for the mission were given by the president. we began with a mission for a humanitarian person and also the need to protect american embassy personnel. since that time the white house

has stated that the airstrikes may go on for some open-ended period of time despite a pledge not to place american boots on the ground more american military personnel have been deployed to iraq as advisers are on the ground now. in order to clarify what's at stake and set out a path forward many of my colleagues and i have called for the president to bring before congress and the nation a clear plan for defeating isil. i'm gratified that the president will address the nation on this topic tomorrow night. i am supported generally of the limited imprudent steps taken us far while congress is in recess to slow isis momentum. expect they will hear conference of strategy tomorrow. i support the u.s. diplomatic push that is forced iraqi government formation and i'm pleased that iraqi political developments are moving to form a unity government and iraqi leaders now must follow inclusively. i'm especially heartened to hear reports that the administrations worked hard to find a number of

willing to partner to deal with the isil thread including nations in the region. the u.s. cannot be a police force for your region unwilling to police itself. the u.s. should not bear the sole burden of defeating a terrorist organization opposes a more imminent threat to any other nations than the threat it does to america. i look forward to the president's address and i'm confident that a well thought out plan against isil will compel the support of the nation and of congress. mr. president we are a nation of laws but also of values. i writes particularly today to urge the president not just to inform us of what he plans to do but to follow the constitution and seek congressional approval to defeat isil. they do so for two reasons. first i don't believe that the president has the authority to quote go on offense and wage an open-ended war on isil without congressional approval. second and making the momentous decision to authorize military

action we owe it to our troops to risk their lives to do our collective job and rita consensus supporting the military mission that they were ordered to complete. let me first deal with the legal issue, the constitution is clear and it's the job of congress not the president to declare war. some parts of the constitution frankly are vague and open to interpretation. what is due process and what is cruel and unusual punishment? some are clear and constitutional. you have to be 35 years old to be the person of the united states. the power to declare war is a clear and specific power. it's an enumerated power of congress in article i. the clear wording of the constitution is additionally eliminated by writings of the principle draft the virginian james madison. our letter to thomas jefferson after the constitution was ratified madison explained the war powers clause in article i. "quote our constitution quote our constitution supposes with a history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive

of the branch of power most interested in more and most prone to it has accordingly bested the question of war in the legislature. so if president must seek congressional approval for significant military action that as commander-in-chief a president can now is take steps to defend america from eminent threats. the framers understood this. but even in those instances they attended -- intended the president returned to congress to receive ratification of those actions. if we take the constitution seriously as a pledge to do when we take our oath we must follow the command that the president must come to congress to initiate military action. during a congressional recess president obama began in the military action against isil. he is indicated for military action may continue for an extended. back of time. you stated the action is evolving from a narrow ever to protect americans from threat to the campaign to go on offense in order to degrade the ability of

isil to harm. this is precisely the kind of situation that calls for congressional action and approval. some have asserted mr. president that the administration need not seek congressional approval for an extended campaign of airstrikes. humbly and respectfully i deeply disagree with that assertion. the president's article to power allows him to defend america from eminent threat but it does not allow him the ability to wage an offense to war without congress. the 2001 authorization for the use of military force crafted by president bush and congress in the days after the 9/11 attacks limits the president's power to actions against the perpetrators of those attacks. isil was not an 9/11 perpetrator and didn't form until 2003. president bush sought a broader a umf at that time to allow action against terrorist groups posing a threat to united states. had congress granted such power the war against isil would have

been covered by that amuf but congress explicitly rejected giving the president power to wage preemptive war against unmanned terrorist organizations without additional congressional approval. any attempt to justify action against isil by reference to the 20:01 a.m. u.s. would fly directly in the face of the clear congressional action rejecting the preemptive war doctrine. congress passed a second amuf to allow military action to topple the iraqi regime of saddam hussein. that task was completed long ago. the administration has testified recently before the senate that this amuf is obsolete and should be repealed. it provides no support for military action against isil. there is no treaty of collective defense ratified by congress that would justify the president commencing military action against isil. the iraqi government has asked for our help which solves

international sovereignty questions but that request does not create its own domestic justification. finally the 1973 war powers resolution creates a set of timing rules for presidential action and congressional response in matters of war. the resolution has been widely viewed as unconstitutional for a variety of reasons but even accepting its felicity and a president like most almost certainly does not accept a 60-day limitation on this article to powers it does not change the basic constitutional framework vesting the decoration of war and the legislative branch. i believe a reluctance to engage congress on this mission against isil is less due to an illegal analysis supporting broad executive power than to a general attitude held by all presidents that coming to congress on a question like this is too cumbersome and unpredictable. that attitude is shared on the hill by some with questions of military action especially under a difficult circumstance like

this is best avoided if all possible. i urge the president and my colleagues to resist the understandable temptation to cut corners on this process. there is no more important business done in the halls of congress been weighing whether to take military action and send servicemembers into harm's way. if we have learned nothing else in the last 13 years, we should have certainly learned that. coming to congress is challenging but the framers designed it to be and we have all pledged to serve in a government known for particular checks and balances between the branches of government. remember the days after 9/11 whose anniversary we commemorate this week president bush brought to congress the request for military action. the ruins of the pentagon and trade center were still smoking in the search for for the loss for the loss of still unknown certainly the american public would have supported the present strong and immediate executive action in a circumstance that

president bush knew the nation would be stronger if he came to congress to seek authority. similarly president bush came to congress prior to initiating military action in iraq. so many painful lessons were learned in the aftermath of that authorization but it's important to remember that was not unilateral executive decision but congress was included and voted to support the mission. i believe it would be a grievous mistake after 13 years of war to evolve toward a new strategy of taking prolonged military action without bothering to seek congressional approval and i particularly worry about the president he would create for future presidents to assert they have the unilateral right to engage in long-term military action without the full participation of the people's legislative branch. as president obama said last year when announcing he would come to congress to seek military authorization to combat use of chemical weapons in syria quote this is not about who occupies the office at any given

time. it's about who we are succumbed. i believe that people's representatives must be invested in what america does abroad. mr. president i focus my remarks on the legal reasons for the president to engage congress on a new plan to defeat isil. let me conclude by offering an additional reason, even a more important reason about why the president and congress should work together to craft a suitable mission for this important effort. when we engage in military action even only an air campaign we ask our troops to risk their lives and their health, physical and mental. of course we pray for their complete safety and success but let's be realistic enough to acknowledge that some may die or be injured or be captured or see these things happen to their comrades in arms. even those who come home physically safe may see or do

things in war that will affect them for the rest of their liv lives. the long lines of people waiting for va appointments today are hoping to have their va disability benefit claims adjudicated are proof of this. in short mr. president during the time of war we ask our troops to give their best even to the point of sacrificing their own lives. when compared against that how much of a sacrifice is it for a president to engage in a possibly contentious debate with congress about whether military action is a good idea? how much of a sacrifice is it for a member of congress to debate and vote about whether military action is a good idea? while congressional members face the political cause of debate on military action are servicemembers they are the human cost of those decisions. if we choose to avoid debate, avoid accountability, avoid a hard decision how can we demand

that our military willingly sacrifice their very lives? so i was right to present centers on the threat posed by isil with a firm willingness to offer support to a well-crafted military mission. i believe the american public and this congress will support such a mission. it is my deepest hope that we have the opportunity to debate and vote on the mission in the halls of congress has her framers intended and as our troops deserve.

>> steve pucci served for three decades as a special forces officer and top official at the pentagon and now works as the director as as the director of air guitar nation the director of air guitar nation's policy center for foreign policy studies and joins us to discuss the threat posed by islamic state and u.s. options in iraq and syria. first on the threat posed by the islamic state he recently wrote

about the ways in which the danger posed by isis is in some ways more dangerous than that posed by al qaeda. talk a little bit about that please. >> guest: al qaeda's we remember actually was a relatively small organization. it was off in afghanistan. there's not a lot of infrastructure there to work from but they were still able to exfiltrate the people around the world and into the united states to take action. isis, much bigger organization as far as number of fighters. it controlled territory. it has an independent funding stream based on either money they have stolen from different banks and their oil revenues selling oil illegally on the black market from areas they have captured. and they have a leader who has proclaimed himself the caliph and established a so-called caliphate in that area of

eastern syria and western iraq. all of these things together make them potentially much more dangerous than al qaeda was. >> host: when you say more dangerous to mean specifically against the u.s. homeland are dangerous to the world community? >> guest: both. they are definitely a danger in iraq and syria. they are a danger in the wider middle eastern region through regimes that are friendly to us like jordan, israel, iraq, saudi arabia, turkey and they have made open threats to the united states. they have executed two of our citizens on the internet and they have promised that they would come here and conduct acts of terror against vienna -- american people. that makes them a viable threat. we can't just discount those threats. >> host: we have seen already over 140 strikes conducted against it the islamic state. can you talk about the legal landscape as it stands today for the president conducting those strikes and what the congressional role is or what it may be this week as he's talking

to members of congress? >> guest: the president of united states in his role as commander of chief -- commander-in-chief has a responsibility to protect united states and our interests. there are lots of legal debates. i'm not a lawyer so i won't get into those aspects of it. we feel though that it's wise whenever the president can have the time to consult with congress to inform congress to help build support from congress from the american people for military actions. it's wise to do that. but i don't think that necessarily restrains the president or restricts his actions but it's not a good thing to go alone when you could get the american people along. right now after the two executions of the american journalists the american journalist, thee and people are ready to support action as our legislators and i think the president probably should at least consult with them, not asked for permission to consult with them and get as many on board as possible.

>> host: white house press secretary josh earnest was asked several questions yesterday at his press conference at what the white house is looking for from congress. here's a bit of what he had to say. >> i would say jared at the level of consultation that this administration has demonstrated a commitment to indicate our genuine interest in a dialogue with members of congress about our policy in iraq and syria and our policy more broadly for confronting isil. i think that is evidenced by the fact that we are having continuous conversations. some of the conversations have occurred before the president has made important decisions. there is than regular consultation from the department of defense and the department of state, other senior members of the president's team at the white house there has been intensive consultation. that is evidence of our genuine interest in members of congress

partnering with this administration as we develop a policy to degrade and ultimately destroy isil and to protect american citizens in iraq. >> host: you spent a long time at the pentagon. if you are part of that effort to develop a policy as josh earnest said to degrade isil in iraq what would your recommendations be? >> guest: i have stated those recommendations at other times in right now i don't think our options at the ends of the spectrum to do nothing, that's just a nonstarter. we have to address this problem. it's a big enough threat that just leaving it alone in hoping it will go away is not useful. at the other end i don't think it's useful to contemplate a major invasion or reengage and of iraq. i don't think that's useful nor would it be supported by the american people. in the middle there is a lot o of -- you do need boots on the ground to address a threat like this but they don't have to be

american boots. i think to make those local militaries, the iraqi military that peshmerga and perhaps the jordanians, the turks and the saudi's to make those units reached the maximum effectiveness i do think we need to deploy more of our special operations forces, embed them with those forces much like we did at the beginning of the afghan war where we had american special forces units together with the northern alliance fighting against the taliban and then use the special operators to advise, to train, to guide those local forces and to control american airpower and perhaps allied airpower as well. one would hope we can maximize the effect from this and i think really take isis down. >> host: the commitment you are talking about, how long of a commitment would that be? we are talking years it seems like. >> guest: i'm not sure for would take years. it's not going to be over in a

week. i think the president's articulation of a three-year period i think he was giving us the outside limit. some people would say he did that for political reasons so of the outside his term of office. i think that's a really long estimate. i think it could be less than that but again it's not going to be weak. it's not going to be a month. it's going to take some time to take down the number of military forces that isis has. >> host: some thoughts as to where members of congress are on this. two members of congress have introduced bills authorizing the use of military force against isis. that is democratic senator bill nelson of florida republican congressman frank wolf of virginia. nelson's bill would give president obama congressional authority to order airstrikes against isis in iraq and syria but limits the authority to three years according to "the hill" newspaper in it also states the authority would not allow the president to deploy ground troops as part of the effort. it would allow the president to

use necessary and appropriate forces against terrorist groups including isis. the republicans will does not forbid the use of ground troops and that includes no time element. we are talking with steve bucci who is the national security policy director at the heritage foundation's center for foreign and national security policy. he is here to answer questions and take your comments for about the next half hour or so here on "washington journal." we will start with vb calling from pennsylvania on her line for democrats. good morning. >> caller: good morning to you. what i think it's that we have to look out for those people, those terrorists in the heritage foundation. who is going to protect us from you guys and your warmongering? that is basically my comment. >> host: mr. bucci you want to talk about your work at the heritage foundation in your background? >> guest: i do. i have to tell you as a career soldier who fought and led

special operations forces in combat i'm not a particular fan of war. i don't lightly recommend that we use military force and to be honest with you we have been very reticent to do that. in this case isis is a big enough threat to the homeland, to america that we do need to take some action. i would like to see it be a circumscribed as possible but no maam, i do not champion war in any way, shape or form unless it's absolutely necessary. unfortunately in the case of isis i think it's actually necessary. >> host: you talk about what is going to be necessary in terms of building international support for the defeat of isis. we showed a clip earlier of secretary kerry headed to the middle east to try to bring in other regional players here. who are the key nations that need to be convinced to join this effort? >> we need to have the nation's right around the area that isis

now controls so the jordanians, the turks. obviously the iraqi government, the new one which is much more broadly based than the molecules are met. we need to get some support from the gulf states, saudi arabia and the various emirates they are who in the past have actually supported some of the more radical elements in the syrian resistance that eventually gave rise to isis as it stands right now. but we also need some help from some other western countries that have more of a technological capability, the brits, the french, some of our other allies that have already said yeah we will come in hell. i think the administration is working to build that coalition. it's kind of small right now, that nine countries or so but hopefully the secretary of state will get some more countries on board. we don't need every country in the world but one would think as evil as isis has proven itself at every civilized country in the world would be willing to at least give us a vote of

confidence and affirmation in dealing with them. >> host: is the administration works to build an international coalition efforts underway at home to convince the american public of the threat that isis presents here is a new poll today from the "washington post" noting that more than seven in 10 americans support airstrikes against the sunni insurgents in iraq. that's up from 45% when the threat of the state first became apparent in june. that question also asked, if respondents were amenable to expand the strikes in its insurgents and serious 65% said that they were and also asked about the u.s. army and kurdish military forces who oppose the insurgents, 58% say they would be in favor of that. was that. was this president need to say to the american public tomorrow night? .. is

the right thing to do to realistic threat, not the hype, but the real poses and lay s out at least the outline of the action s actions he feels we should take. a big fan of the president stridently delineating what we're not going t >> >> as the situation in those four word. >> host: steve bucci assistant secretary of defense donald trump -- donald rumsfeld is here taking your questions and calls. georgetown massachusetts on the independent line. >> caller: thanks for having me.

i had then following actions here since 2000 when everything seemed to be put to in the american and citizens face you are with us are the terrorists. that is when i drew a big question mark because that seems to be the most anti-american and things that i have heard as far as who we label terrorist. we seem to not go for the root causes but to react to current conditions. >> host: what is the root cause is your? >> caller: the so-called isis group? >> i would say it is our

intervening in the middle east we went into iraq under false pretenses that was sold to the american people because they would send a drones with nuclear stuff to blow us up over here. that scare tactic to get the american people to power down to do as we're told to listen to authority. >> guest: al qaeda as you recall a attacked us september 11, 2001, well before anything we did in iraq. isis originated al qaeda in iraq and was an affiliate's they did come to iraq because our soldiers were there but that is said different debate than i think but the fact is there has declared war on united

states now it is a little hard to blame that on us. watching those to you journalist have their heads cut off on the internet is not a scare tactic. they are evil people who want to do ill to american interests and their allies around the world. it is hard to characterize their threats as justice scare tactic. looked at president obama who is not ideologically aligned with president bush the fact he wants to respond i would hope gives folks a little credibility it is not a continuation of past policies. >> host: there is a question on twitter about the terminology of boots on the ground and what that means. please explain why special forces are not included in

the turn of boots on the ground. >> guest: this is the point of debate some people think no americans touch stand anywhere but generally we talk about the large formations of conventional military forces the 82nd airborne division, those conventional infantry type forces special operation types are sent under different authorities than conventional military because of capabilities and what they can bring to a fight like this. we do make a distinction between deploying special operations forces than just standard information. >> we have 1,000 troops on the ground in iraq but obama says we have none don't they count? >> they are advisers in

special operations types or additional security to protect civilian assets it is a distinction that is washington only type that we do make a distinction between people in big forces to go fight actively in combat an actor and a security post we do not count those as boots on the ground. >> caller: good morning. i am having difficulty understanding where your guess lies. it seems he was part of the george bush administration with his department of defense of his expertise is only a leading our country into a disastrous war and causing some much grief and

pain and human suffering suffering, loss of treasury i don't know why they're brought before us on television to explain what we should be doing out. talk about the persian a gulf talk about the operation desert under. as well was that 82nd airborne. >> just quickly i spent 28 years of active service as a military officers serving the country in a lot of places that were on pleasant and difficult to wean the bidding of the administrations of both parties military officer does not swear allegiance to a leader but to the

constitution and i have lived my life that way. added served under president bush and secretary rumsfeld and secretary gates and fat spent not only combat but helping the american people with well fires and hurricanes sway except you don't think my time under president bush was credible because you disagree with the policies but i have to tell you we all tried to do what we thought was right to in that situation not deceive the american people but to face the threats that we saw there after the analysis that we applied for to it now i give you my honest opinion how we should go forward but strangely at this point i kind of agree

with the obama with what he is doing. [laughter] i am not trying to beat us down a path that the president i assume you voted for is proposing as well aqad we have a caller on the independent line. >> caller: they think people need to understand history and politics. if you want to stop what is going on over there that we made a mistake isis are not muslims there actually christians we have been bombing the hell out of them. still vague to stop that all

of them with all sorts of military weapons let them go. they had been fighting before people got out of caves over there. >> host: we have heard this frustration before the history of fighting in that region. >> this is a very difficult situation and i admit there is conflict in this region for centuries upon centuries but the world is too interconnected now to do this to let them go deal with whoever is left that is okay if you want to keep those genocidal responses that are perpetrated. america is not responsible for policing the entire world we don't have the burden better responsibility in the community to do

something not just to help the people in the region but we have interests there and we need to protect those and unfortunately we have a threat that is strong enough we have to protect by force of arms. >> talk about the threat of u.s. citizens to choose to go overseas to join isis? >> this is a difficult problem because our intel thinks there is 100 up to 200 american citizens that have or are fighting with isis in western iraq also potentially nearly 2,000 western europeans primarily. some of them of arab descent some have blond hair and blue eyes to have passports that don't register they are fighting in syria. any of those american citizens or western

europeans could come to the united states and a slip through to conduct a terrorist attack rebel think there is people lined up at the border right now but the threat is there and law enforcement and homeland security forces are working overtime to catch them on screening as they come into the country. >> host: what about efforts if they can be identified to strip of the citizenship? >> there is of precedence for that if you fight as a mercenary in another conflict there is a legal basis to go after them as far as citizenship. they need to be stopped, a question of the intelligence figure out if they are a threat or not but it is difficult to find them and catch them. >> host: here is senator cruz talking about that the legislation to strip those

individuals when he introduced a bill of the senate. >> mr. president that is why i have today filed legislation, with the expatriate terrorist attack of 2014. this would amend the the existing statute governing renunciation of united states edition ship -- citizenship to designate fighting for a hot style government or organization as an affirmative pronunciation of citizenship. by fighting for isis u.s. citizens have expressed their desire to become citizens of the islamic state. that cannot and will not:exist. >> host: that was yesterday on the senate floor.

we have 50 minutes left with steve bucci from the senator of national security policy at the heritage foundation. now we go to arizona on the republican line. >> caller: it seems like a complicated problem with a simple answer. anybody where is the face mask blow them up cent as many troops get it done hard and fast and now to get them off the planet. >> guest: that is an option. the difficulty there is a lot of innocent people been is mixed in with them so it becomes tough when the bad guys know how to hide isis was out in the open doing almost mobile warfare but as soon as we started that air strikes they started to blend back into towns and

villages with the populace it is very tough. these are horrendously people that need to be addressed with violence rather than have our people do the whole thing. >> i heard you refer to the terrorist group but have not heard of the goal is to have that fundamentalist day if you understand that i don't know how you could address the problem. it seems to be a problem of the region and not of the problem the saudis have be headed 40 people for non-violent crimes if you

don't understand this is a group to govern we miss the point entirely. >> that is one of the reasons isis is more dangerous because al qaeda has a goal to have a governing role but they saw as the distant future they have invited doctors and lawyers and politicians to help them govern their radical muslims to the extreme with al qaeda leadership repudiated the tactics against other muslims to kill christian children they indeed to be

addressed to the muslim world. >> host: what about the arab league ban their announcements recently how to deal with isis? that the era of league agreed to take urgent measures as the resolution issued after late-night meetings of ministers on sunday if that does not explicitly back u.s. military actions but a resolution issued as the separate statement reflecting the new sense of urgency with the member states that has seized large swath of syria. >> guest: never liked to see that declaration backed up with troops or findings but to be frank they are the first targets it has already

been declared that they are treated like infidels. and isis comes after them. and the arab league in particular have their responsibility to fight this brett as much as we do. >> host: we have a caller on the independent line. >> caller: you hang up on people when they tell the truth. don't hang up on me. >> host: go ahead. >> caller: 99% of the people that come on the show are republicans. >> host: that is wrong if you check the archives but go ahead. >> caller: with the heritage foundation when you buy stocks they send your letter to join the organization.

i just watched the christian channel their selling a book how to cut social security and food stamps. this is a nonprofit group who is on fox news all the time they are brainwashing. >> host: do want to talk about the heritage foundation, a steve bucci? >> guest: up at heritage foundation is nonprofit although we fully admit those more that read our stuff but we do not have any religious affiliation. but we are conservatives we believe in smaller government, less intervention in our private lives, we're not libertarian but conservative. realize some people don't like those positions we

tried to defend them intellectually with what we write. my guidance when i joined it is about policy not politics the president does something well we will congratulate him and support him if he does something for lee we will try to point that out we do the same for the republican legislatures if we have a republican president redo the same may defend the positions we take to do the best we can we are open to dialogue and debate maybe we will hear for -- from new. >> host: what has president obama ed done well so far? >> we have taken some action. there are some mumble sides to say we should not be

involved in this at all but the president recognizes we do have interest in this area and taking steps to address it. and not sure if it is enough but we will see if that policy goes for word if he has a robust policy we think is right we will champion it. 2.0 the deficiencies. >> good morning. how were you? >> caller: you said stephen less government and the privacy of your lives one that affects the rest -- the rest of society the government is also held accountable. but the question to ask you

is isis a fax our communities right now we are considered isis of america. and how we are scrutinized and we find people are retreating the enjoining groups like isis because we have lost african-american males to isis so what do you suggest as a conservative individual that you could do a republican party could do to create some type of balance so we make victims out of the people in our community? >> guest: i will not attempt to speak for the republican party but i will give you my opinion i don't do domestic policy but ford

and security policy but as a citizen we need to treat all citizens equally the differentiation that comes up in some communities is problematic when law-enforcement steps out of line there should be held to task and prosecuted if they have broken the law. the same with any citizen should be treated equally rare moving in that direction in my lifetime clearly not there yet but we need to keep moving in that direction and be honest where our weak spots are and keep moving in that direction. >> host: good morning. >> caller: good morning. i was wondering if a strong economic preventative could be implemented before

september 11 that is rapidly approaching to clear the make the point that there is a precedent of for the work to of there is an attack on the homeland muslim owned businesses would be nationalized. >> a problem there there is a huge number of muslim owned businesses in america that are just regular citizens i don't think that has any positive defect on isis fell like the muslims that live here anymore than the non muslims they would consider them apostates and would execute them if given the chance but would not advocate going after our own citizens in that way to influence isis. number one it would not work and never to it is not consistent with our

constitution or society. good morning. >> caller: last year we had individuals breaking into the reservoir. i don't know what they we're doing there were not charged with anything it was early-morning idle think the president has done nearly enough i know where everybody gets the idea i am 53 years old i served in the military i will put my boots back:tamara to fight these arabs they're all pretty depressed they kill children. little babies that is the lowest form of life on this

planet. >> guest: i thank you for your service. but you are right there are a lot of americans out there who would be very comfortable with stronger action that is the role of the administration to make that call. i know the administration looks out for public feedback so let them know what you feel. these are patently evil people that need to be dealt with hopefully not by the united states by a wider community of people who were also threatened by them but do it in a way that minimizes the risks to the united states and looking forward to what the president has to say we are approaching september 11 that is always an end -- and anniversary we hold our breath but the security

forces military and intelligence community work overtime watching for this to catch any thing that might have been it is a herculean task but they do the best they can hopefully they will keep us safe. >> host: the line for republicans good morning. >> caller: schleicher and a reebok isis recruiting citizens from the media and the internet? is there a way to do that? >> it is very difficult. we do have the fbi intelligence domestically with assets overseas watching the internet looking for those indicators

for those stepping over the line of radicalization it is very difficult. the internet has been a boon for recruitment and radicalization you used to have to go face-to-face to close the deal that is rather good guys could catch them. value could be on a different continent to close the deal to end up to end up with that army psychologist to shot the guys in ft. hood he never had physical contact -- contact with those that radicalized him he was based on the internet connectivity it is difficult to do that when our folks try within the boundaries of the reconstitution. >> host: on the line for democrats. >> caller: i want to ask

teeeight nine see the affordable care act was the brainchild of the heritage foundation how you feel about republicans calling is socialism? >> guest: i don't think that came out of the heritage foundation we did have some rights things that people picked pieces from but as it was passed is problematic for me as a citizen and not domestic policies while not comment on specifics but i do not particularly like the plan but i recommend you go to the web site to read this stuff written by our health care policy people is very enlightening and educational >> host: back on foreign policy the president has used the term to degrade and destroy ice this. what point is it destroyed? >> that is tough with the terrorist group because win

isis was al qaeda in an iraq we thought we had gotten them down to a point where they were destroyed and they regenerated. i don't think one can ever effectively say you have destroyed a terrorist group just you can read something the group has put out in the past that they can become then again but we have to remove the of military ability to oppress people in the region then we will be successful. >> host: steve bucci from the heritage foundation. thank you for your time this morning. >> guest: thank you for having me.

[inaudible conversations] hispanic the room will come to order we want to welcome our guests been especially the first panel and our second panel. one month ago today, and then on to man named michael brown was shot and killed by a local policeman in the town of ferguson misery and it is stated acting in self-defense