you us warmly toward both as a public servant and as a person and ted strickland i that he really sets a great example of public service that stems from a moral compass that is undeniab undeniable. if you know him for five minutes you detect a very strong and that's one reason i'm so happy to be with you. to talk about an issue that is sadly topical. the war on isil, and that phrase is used by secretary hagel at the armed services hearing last week, we are engaged in the war on isil, has been going since the middle part of august when from a defensive mission to protect american personnel at the embassy and consulate in irbil too often submission against isil. by my quick calculations, including the events announced this morning by the president, that have nothing thousands of virginians who have been directly involved in the airstrikes and other activities since that time. i now know we have people there from all over the country, and

there are hundreds or thousands of folks from your states involved as well. what i want to do is talk briefly about the threat which is a very real threat. i take it seriously and i know all who are here will take it seriously as well, and that threat is why i support the basic pillars of the presidents four-point initiative announced two wednesdays ago. i'm going to talk about that, the president's four points briefly. but whatever want to dig into with, i hope you will see my passion coming through my wonkiness because i'm going to dig into this in a significant way, is a series of six reasons why i think it is absolutely critical legally, or president reasons, for the reputation of our institution, and especially for the servicemen and women we are asking to risk their lives, i think it is critical that congress complete the authorization that it began last

week when a boat on the army of moderate elements in syria. it is critical that congress do this. if we're going to engage this mission, we've got to do it right or not do it. if we don't to coax on board with it, we're not doing it right. if congress won't get on board then we should stop doing what we are doing. finally i want to talk about not just what congress should do generally come that congress should involve, i want to talk about specific what i'm doing with my colleagues as we are tackling this issue legislatively. first in terms of the threat. the isil threat, and i used the phrase isil. there's different terms. i use isil because their geographic ambitions extend beyond iraq and see to encompass a broader area of a lot so i tend to like the isil phrased better. they are engage in 19 that could be destabilizing in lebanon right now. the campaign that they are engaged in violates basic

international norms of human rights and subjugation of women, persecution religious minority, crimes that they could consider genocide, violations of national sovereignty, a whole series of significant violations of the most basic norms of human rights and they have carried out past atrocities against individuals. for them to claim to be the islamic state that anything is a profanation of an important religion and that is a significant matter. they pose significant threat not only to iraq and syria but other nations in the region that we work closely with allies. they pose significant threats to allies in europe and africa. i traveled recently with members of the house and senate armed services committee and intel and foreign relations committees to morocco and in very different ways. they expressed huge concerned about the foreign fighter issue. tunisia and morocco and foreign fighters have joined the battle.

with isil often come from europe, not even come from tunisia and morocco but funky stable -- destabilizing pockets. i'm convinced they pose a significant threat, isil does, to the training. it's a significant threat, a growing threat. recently testimony of counterterrorism official in the training have not said there's any credible evidence of any movement -- in an attack but that does not mean that they're not a significant and growing threat and clearly they have been stating in words and demonstrating infactions whether it's the beheading of american journalist in such a grisly way, the recruiting of american foreign fighters are pledges to take action against the united states, that this threat is when we have to take their research led to in addition to having a desire to do harm and do a crime in the reason -- region that sources of funding.

they have disciples capacity because of the power they been able to amass, weapons they been able to amass. that's the reason, that's what the isil poses, that's the reason i believe united states needs to take action as part of a multinational coalition to include military action against isil. i believe that strongly and i frankly think that the steps the president has taken as he outlined are all steps that can be reason to justify. we need to get into the debate in congress and it sure some sandpaper we take into the nation and to be changed as we do but the four basic pillars of the present proposal i do not find controversial but the first one is not controversial. humanitarian assistant at the president talked about that. u.s. is the largest provider of humanitarian aid to sudan refugees in the world. i hear my colleagues on foreign relations says u.s. doesn't have a strategy with respect to syria and the region. being the largest provider of the managing aid in the world is not my accident. it doesn't just happen out of

the ether. it's an intentional strategy that the u.s. has chosen and was we have often chosen to the complete destruction of this unique chemical weapons stockpile did not happen by accident. it was a huge victory in a ship that was involved with the destruction of the chemical weapons that returned to virginia last wednesday. that's a strategy. in humanitarian area that is until we can all support but we shouldn't be bashful about talk about what is being done in that area. the three military points the president presentation two wednesdays ago were counterterrorism operations against isil there should but i detect broad support for that amount members of congress. a targeted airstrike campaign in iraq and syria to blunt the momentum of isil and move them back. and to support ground forces battling isil on the ground. and then finally that pillar, the training and equipping of the ground forces that will carry the battle to isil on the ground.

a piece of it that's gotten the attention is the training and equipping of syrian matters at that's not the entire bill. this is not the training and equipping of the iraqi secret forces, the training and equipping of the peshmerga, allies in the kurdish region, and also the front more difficult task of the training and equipping of opposition forces that will battle isolation. i think those four points, humanitarian, airstrikes, the train and equip missions and counterterrorism operations against isil there should are all very reasonable. and worthy of support with something conditions of the benefit of in a bit of the point i think is so critical is the president should be doing this without congress. may be more to the point, frankly is, if are going to set some culpability, congress shouldn't be allowing it to happen. let me get into the reasons why i think it is so important that this mission has to be done right and what that means as the

congress has to be on board with all of it. i want to talk about sort of six things. the constitution, the authorizations that congress passed in the 2000s that are being used by this administration as justification to his presence own words as actions and that's president. the reputation, the president assets for future presidents and future congress, and finally the most important thing, and underlying value that really kind of is spread throughout all of the points that i'll talk about, especially the constitutional allocation of power. governor strickland stated it right with respect to the constitution. i think it's extremely clear. the constitution is an interesting document that is composed of both complete precision, you can't be present if you're not 35 years old, and very carefully worded ambiguity. you can't take somebody's property without due process of law. what does that mean? nobody can be subject to cruel

and unusual punishment to the framers chose often to be specific individuals in of instances to be paid. along the spectrum from specific debate, the war powers peace is among the most specific. you did a great job. it's congress to declare and the president to carry out the mission. president has article ii powers as commander-in-chief to execute a mission once initiated because the last thing you need is 535 initiatives. the initiation of action is for congress to do. not only is the language of the constitution provision clear, the purpose is also clear. the principal drafter of the constitution, james madison, you will forgive me, i use a lot of virginia references, but the principal drafter made very plain why the provision was drafted of congress as the declare of war. madison wrote a letter to thomas jefferson if years after the constitution was finalized and basically said this. our constitution supposes what the history of all governments

demonstrates, that it is the executive that is the branch of power most interested in war and most prone to it. it is for this reason that we have with study care to the question of war in the legislature. madison was me with executives, frankly monarchs, that had had the power of the declaration of war. and so in drafting the constitution, madison any other gases were very careful to pull the power away from where it traditionally been placed and to put in the legislative branch. the framers understood clearly that a president as commander in chief would have a solemn obligation to defend the nation immediately, especially when a congress in recess you to get every which right horseback. they would be a need for any action defend the nation and congress intended that the president should do it. but they had a very clear understanding of what that article to commander-in-chief power was and that was to defend

against imminent attack. the first real test of this came when thomas jefferson was president, and jefferson was seeing american ships both merchant and military subject to repeated attack by the barbary coast pirates in the mediterranean. jefferson knew, i can order my commanders to repel attacks all the longer i'm the commander-in-chief. i can defend our shipping interests. but at some point is that what are we going to do? diskeeper about what attack after the next? it was almost the exact phrase that president obama used on "meet the press" two weeks ago. we need to go on offense against the barbary pirates. not just repel attacks the court offense to eliminate the tax come and when jefferson made that decision that it was now time for an offensive mission, he said without sanction of congress i cannot go beyond the line of defense. he had to come to congress to get authority for the actions against the barbary pirates that were offensive in nature. that was the understand when the constitution was drafted but to

give everybody their appropriate credit, beginning with the whigs and federalists and onto democrats or republicans initial understanding has often been violated. as the governor said, the executive overreach into powers has been made the particularly acute in the last 100 years but there's never been a really long-standing period of american history where we did it exactly according to hoyle. what madison made wasn't quick enough to see was legislators like to advocate. the symbiotic relation between legislative abdication and executive overreach has been the source of this problem up to today. but constitutionally the president does not have article ii power to go on offense against isil, and less they are involved in an actual ongoing, imminent threat against the united states. and there's no evidence that they are as indicated by other

administrative testimony. that's the constitution to the president and his team indicate that this mission, the four pillars, are justified by the 2001 and 2002 authorizations passed by congress. but beginning to that for a minute. i think that argument is an extremely creative stretch like extremely creative lawyers that even come a, i made some great bargains when i was a lawyer, and even given the ability to lawyers doesn't stand out. in the hours after the impact of 9/11, president bush brought an authorization to congress, and the authorizations said give me, the president, the ability go after groups in order to prevent terrorist attacks on the united states. that was what the original authorizations had essentially. even in the aftermath of the attack on the pentagon and world trade center, with emotions were high and we had a righteous desire to even the scales,

congress overwhelmingly rejected that authorization. that was the cheney preemptive war doctrine. give the president the unilateral war power that he sees fit to wage war. congress wouldn't give him that after instead congress insisted that the one authorization be narrowed and be near to those who perpetrated the attacks on 9/11. isil did not perpetrate the attacks on 9/11 to isil was not formed until a few years after nine 9/11 so call the eiffel perpetrated of the 9/11 attacks is to basically do toward to the english lang which and i would do it is essentially falling back into the printer for doctor that congress rejected. the authorizations as he describes the perpetrators of 9/11 because both the bush and obama administrations sadly with the tacit acquiescence of congress have said also we can go after the perpetrators al-qaeda, but you can also go after groups that associate with al-qaeda can associated

forces. that definition by both the bush and obama administration has been made so bad as to sweep in virtually anybody. i ask administration witnesses at a hearing before the armed service committee in may of 2013, okay, associate with al-qaeda, so what if a young star is born in 2010, 2011, 10 years after 9/11, and in 2035 joins an organization in nigeria that claims to have a splinter relationship with al-qaeda and that organization has just formed and that organization has no intent to do any harm to the united states, does the authorization cover it? and the administration official said that, absolutely. no sense of irony, married life, absolutely it covers it. even in that instance to call isil and associated force with al-qaeda when they have separated from al-qaeda can

win in separated from al-qaeda can win in parts of c. they are battling with al-qaeda can i get such torturous read of the language that i don't believe a clear reading of the original language or even the broadening lawsuit put out by the administration would allow isil to be fairly encompassed within the '01 aumf. site leader to 2002 aumf the president has cited. that aumf was to authorize the war in iraq and is a war to topple a regime, the regime of saddam hussein to the regime is long gone. there been a number of governments since the the administration's claim that this own to authorization so justifies this action against isil at least in iraq. i think that argument is specious. the purpose of that authorization was not to engage in open ended war in the zip codes that happened to be iraq without limitation in terms of time. it was directed at the top of a particular regime.

both of the authorization cited by the white house for statutory support for its no to operation ivy as they don't provide support at all. let me not go to my third argument to the president's own words and actions, the president understands precisely the constitutional argument i made when he was running for president in 2007. he said the president doesn't have unilateral power to wage war without congress. absent an actual or imminent attack on the united states. those were his exact words. he knows the limits of article ii power. second, the president understands the limitations of the 2001 aumf. he gave a speech in may 2013 at the national defense university where he said we shouldn't be broadening that aumf that was put together with no geographic limitation, we shouldn't be broadening it. we should be narrowing it. we should be refining it. we should ultimately on the path to repeal it. and with respect to the 2000

iraq authorization that administers now glance gives support for the mission, just a few months ago we had a hearing on it before the foreign relations committee, administration witnesses can prepared to be asked about it and when they were asked they said it is the position of this administration that the 2002 aumf is now obsolete and should be repealed. so i would argue that the president's own words as a candidate and as a present demonstrate the understanding, the no scope of article ii powers, and he understands that the authorizations are not to be stretched further but are instead to be narrowed in one instance and repealed in the next. i which is a parenthetically i know lawyers make broad arguments. that's what lawyers do i don't think you so this particular president well by advancing an open ended and broadened interpretation of these authorizations when the president's own words and actions have suggested what he wants to do is narrow and repeal

them. let me go to my fourth argument about why it's important for congress to win it is congress' reputation. there's a million reasons what our approval rating is so low. there's a million of them but i would argue that kind of in big picture, the major reason that the approval rating of congress is low is the belief that we can easily, to quickly decide guys, it's too complicated to come up with a funding for infrastructure so let's do another patch job for a few months. it's hard to grapple with fixes to this or that program so let's just do a patch job. it's too hard to do a budget or appropriations bill let's do a c.r. for a couple of months. i think the overall view that people have about congress is, i don't usually agree with vice president cheney but i've got to be he had one good line. he said congress likes to kick the can down the road but the problem is they don't get very well and they don't get very far. i like that line and i think it

speaks -- went to acknowledge looking in the mirror that's a challenge we have. congress' unwillingness to embrace the responsibility that we have constitutionally and the most somber thing that we do is part of the reason we're in the fix we're in with the american public. i think this particular congress has a real opportunity as well as an obligation to start fixing some of what ails us, fixing some of what is appropriately precise about our behavior by taking seriously this most somber responsibility. beyond this president and this congress, this is ultimate about a precedent for the future. if congress allows the president to begin his campaign against isil and as he said go on offense against isil without congress authorizing it, we will have created a horrible precedent that future presidents, i have no doubt, will use to suggest i can take unilateral action against groups

that may pose some terrorist threat to the united states. in fact, would love created by president excitement congress refused to do when they voted the bush administration down on the initial draft of the 2001 aumf. i would wonder why would we do that. after 13 years of war, after learning the lessons we should have learned, after living under an authorization that was drafted safety words long without a geographic limitation, without a temporal limitation, that the administration says may justify war for another 25 or 30 years, why possibly would we want to even further the precedent that would suggest, you know what, congress should have voted for the cheney preemptive war doctrine in 2001 and should've handed it all over to the executive to make these decisions. congress was right then and they did in a period of intense emotion after we were attacked. congress could easily have gone along with the broader definition of the aumf in that

emotional, difficult, tragic time whe when we were mourning a when we were morning as the nation. congress was smart enough not to do it. if we do not weigh in on this mission and have an up or down vote on it we will basically be heading back to the executive but the 2000 congress refused to do. the last reason we need to tackle this is the value reason. i did constitutional law, civil rights law in my law practice but i'm not a constitutional law scholar. it is enough to do this to vindicate the constitution but that's not really why i'm doing awfully why i'm doing it. the constitutional allocation of power that was put into the constitution and has this expression the statute as well was put in my view for really important reason. it was this. don't ask service there was to risk their lives if there's not a political consensus that the mission is worth it. it's the most somber thing we do. look, when we initiate military

action, we are asking young men and women to risk their lives, and some will be killed and some will be injured and some will be captured and some will see those things happened to the comrades. and something of those things happened to because of what they do to others will come back with the challenges of mental health that may follow them for the rest of their lives. that's what we are asking these thousands of virginia's already involved, thousand several states, that's what we not ask, that's what we order them to do. when we initiate military action. what right do we have to ask that sacrifice of anyone if we are not willing to have that tough debate, contentious thought though it may be, and stand before public and vote yes or no? is that sacrifice having to be accountable and vote yes or no? is it 11 millionth of the

sacrifice we ask many women in uniform to make with no, it isn't. and we volunteered to do it. and it's not a sacrifice. so this is a congressional abdication of saying, you know, boy, mr. president, you go ahead and do this and if it works out well, of course we are going to say we were with you. if it doesn't work that well we will gripe and complain about a that's what members of congress like to do. it is the height of public him around in my view it commits people to risk their lives if we are not willing to do a simple and straightforward and clear thing that is on our shoulders to do. so that is what has driven me. i got deeply interested in this issue in the aftermath of the 2002 vote. i thought putting up the iraq mission for a vote, the timing was manufactured can we didn't go into iraq until march 2003 that required a vote in october 2000 is almost just a profane politicization of what most be the most somber decision

we make in american government. i started to get into this challenge by the executive and congressional allocation of responsibility and started reading about it. maybe it's because i'm in virginia and we are so connected to the military. i feel this issue of not asking people to sacrifice if we don't do our jobs. when the president went into libya and 2011 i thought the mission made since but i fault hithem publicly for not bringing it to congress. remember some of the the present with censored by the hous housek in 2011 for doing what he did without congress. it's about this value, the constitutional argument to the statutory argument, this president's legacy, congress' reputation. at all funnels down to this basic value of we can't ask people to sacrifice their lives if we will do the basic job that is entrusted to us to make a decision. if we make a decision this nation is worth it, that doesn't

mean it will all go well. that doesn't mean we won't make the mistake. the chances that it will go well or better if we debate it up front rather than wait and get in the middle of it and start sniping with each other, imagine how it feels to be in service and be in harm's way overseas and then suddenly see the sniping break out between the legislative and executive branch and then reach a consensus on the front end. i've had people stop me in the halls of the capitol this is one of two things where people have been stopping me and my people, i mean the security guards and the café workers and people who work on the ground crew and other staff saying thank you. the reason they're stopping is that we have a huge percentage of ex-military workers in the capital. they understand this point very, very well. let's do our job if we're going to ask others to do their job. so what is the job? i will say this and concluded i think there are three things we ought to be right now. the first as well to craft a

narrow authorization with respect to this nation against isil along the lines that the president has proposed. i drafted one last weekend and introduce to the there are two others have introduced in the senate. my proposal and those three will go into the foreign relations committee. chairman menendez has said we will take this up and we are going to vote down and authorization. my authorization basically supports the president pillars but with four caveats. first, a year sunset to require review and reauthorization. second, a limitation on ground troops, and depend on interest in the q&a i would into i think that is an actual strategically and military exactly what we should do. third, a drastic limitation on this notion of who is an associate force so that an authorization once drafted doesn't suddenly just grow into everything. and forth, a repeal of the 2002 iraq aumf we don't have a doing

a ums out there in the iraq space. that's the first thing, take this up as soon as we get back. we got between november 12 and the 11th of december when the syrian peace that was authorized last week exports. we have to vote on it and it's my hope we will support the president in the nation he described. the second thing we need to do is revise the 2001 aumf. that's a more complicated thing. because crafting a specific authorization against isil is one thing but revising an authorization that has been a broad legal framework for dealing with the perpetrators of 9/11 and their associated groups, i mean come as he was evidenced by some of the strikes yesterday were against an al-qaeda affiliate exodus publicly to take a little more time to get that right. here's something to the white house is engaged in bipartisan discussion with congress now about the way to refine that. so that's the second thing we

need to do in the white house is deeply engaged in a discussion with bipartisan efforts. the third thing we need to do i would suggest it for the long term. we've got to the process for making the most important decision that we make in congress, whether or not to initiate war to senator mccain and i've introduced a bill that looked at the infirmities that made the war powers resolution in 1973 kind of -- remember it was enacted after nixon, congress had approved if not passively approved ahead of the budget of the vietnam war but they didn't approve of nixon going to cambodia and laos which he did secretly. when they found out, hold on to so the war powers resolution was passed in the aftermath of that. it was vetoed by president nixon. the veto was overridden but no president can see the constitutionality of it for a series of reasons and are some problems with the bill that most scholars would say i would probably make some pieces of it unconstitutional to senator

mccain and i put forward a repeal and replace of that resolution that basically does three things. it tries to define and this is tough, what is war. these day, cyberattacks, kind of tax come what is war that would trigger the executive legislative interaction? second, tries to define and systematize consultation your i'm on the armed services and foreign relations, earlier this year i've been in the paper the president was consulting with congress about something. i note i'm on these two committees and i'm the chairman of the subcommittee and nobody has called me. ..

>> thanks for being here. you know, i wish it wasn't so topical. [applause] >> thanks very much, senator kaine. that was a remarkably cogent and, i think, right on mark. i'll give you an opportunity to have a drink. while i'm irish myself, i've been here with the center since 2003, and, you know, a lot of to our work on the national security -- a lot of our work on the national security team was on the iraq war, and it's, certainly, now that we're still talking about iraq and debating iraq and going back into iraq, it's something we have really

wrestled with for a long time. one of the things that has struck me over this debate is just a general war weariness of the american people combined with a sense that what's going on in iraq and syria now, we have to do something to combat the threat. but a low level of sense that what we can do is actually going to work. and, you know, here's where i think when we talk about the constitutional piece, when you talk about the value piece which you said so well, i think there's another role congress can plays which is helping to bring aa long the american people and have them understand the mission. >> absolutely. >> and do you think the lack of congressional debate has somehow made it more difficult to do that? >> certainly, you know, you've laid it out very well. when the president and congress debate about this, that is how the american public get into the discussion. we're living it 24/7 up here, but you've got to bring the american public in too, and that

process of debate is the way that it happens. and you're right, if we don't have this discussion -- and, obviously, we started to last week with voting on the syrian piece of the president's proposal -- but if we don't have the discussioning and vote, we run the risk of the american people, you know, don't understand maybe the magnitude of the challenge and may not be as supportive as we would want them to be. because what our servicemen and women deserve is not just a vote of congress, but they deserve the maximum degree of support that they can from the american public for the risks that they're undertaking. >> get into the details of your proposal. you mentioned about the ground troops. >> yeah. >> i think there's a lot of confusion about the phrase "boots on the ground" and what is it that we exactly mean. >> yeah. >> we know that there are american forces already in iraq, but we hear no ground troops. what does this mean, and what is your proposal? >> so my proposal is no ground troops with the exception of if

we need ground troops to rescue american personnel or save american life, then we can use ground troops for that capacity, and if we need ground troops for the counterterrorism mission, that would be acceptable as well. but those are the only two instances where we would use actual ground troops. and let me just say while i think that the -- why i think that the no ground troop rule is important to include in the authorization. first, it's important because that's what the president said when he laid out the mission. and that was kind of by way of a commitment to the american public. this is what the mission's going to be, and this is what it's not going to be. and i think it's important to put that limitation in so that we're good to his word. but general dempsey gave really good testimony about this last week. it was funny, i was at the hearing, and the nugget people told is general dempsey said he won't take off the table recommending ground troops to the president. no military commander will ever say i will take something off the table as a recommendation.

in fact, if he had said he will take something off the table as a recommendation, he shouldn't be commander in chief. but what he really said, he really laid out the rationale for why we don't want american ground troops in this battle, and here's the rationale: we cannot defeat isil if it's the west against isil. we can't. there is no amount of american ground troops, no amount of american plus european ground troops that can win this thing in iraq and syria. what we can do is battle isil if the region is willing to police itself and stand up against extremism and stand up against violence and stand up and say this is not islam. if the region is willing to do that, then we ought to be a partner with the region, and there's something healthy about some regional self-policing where often folks will decry behavior privately but not publicly. but if we have to put ground troops in, it's because the region itself is not fighting isil, and if region is not going

to fight isil, there's no amount of ground troops we can put into iraq and syria that will do the job. so i think the limitation not only matches the president's word, but what it means is, yeah, we'll provide and pull together this multi-national coalition to provide air support to able the ansf, to enable resistance fighters in syria, maybe to enable ground forces from regional nations. we'll pull together air support to enable you to defeat isil, but if you're not willing to stand up and do that, there's no amount of american ground troops that will do the job. and i really think that's what general dempsey said last week, and i believe strongly in that. >> talk about the sunset provision. certainly, as you laid out and as we certainly know, the 2001 aumf is 13 years old, longest continuously-used authorization of force. there's no way to wrap it up that we can really see unless the president simply declares

that it's over. that type of decision is, apparently, fraught with political risk. so i certainly applaud the intention of having a sunset provision. how would you respond, though, to a criticism or maybe a pushback from the military or others who would say one year is just simply not enough for many mission and -- for this mission and recognizing the challenges that you have described with your body, congress, going back to them every year to reauthorize it could be difficult. how would you respond to that? >> sure. i think that's a good critique of my proposal, and so this is a balancing. i really believe that the '01 aumf with no geographic limitation and no temporal limitation was a serious mistake. i can see why it was made. it was in the aftermath of this horrible attack, so i might have done exactly the same thing. or i might not have thought to put those limitations in. but we should have learned some lessons from the last 13 years, and i think a geographic and temporal limitation is one of the lessons we should learn.

some of the other aumfs have had sunsets, one with a three-year sunset, some on the house side too. and i fully expect when we get into foreign relations and we are comparing these aumfs and trying to put together the best version, that's going to be an area of significant debate. and i am not wedded to the one year, but i am wedded to the notion of a sunset. i think that's the way you avoid this open-ended authorization. you know, ted and i were talking about he voted against the iraq authorization in '02, voted for the authorization in '01, but you didn't think when you voted that it was going to be used in syria in 2014. that was beyond the contemplation of the members of congress casting that vote, and that's why a sunset so important. and the president should have to come back and make that case, and congress should have to engage in that dialogue in full view of the american public and decide, you know, how long the

next chapter will be. >> one more question before we open it up to the audience, and we kind of got into it a little bit there with your back and forth about the give and tack that's -- take that's going to have to go on here. you mentioned the other aumfs that had been introduced. some of your other colleagues who have been invested in this issue, particularly senator corker, have the opposite view than you do on the limitations and seem to want to expand the 2001 aumf. so where do we go from here? how are we going to find a cohesive congressional majority behind a particular proposal that we can get in the lame duck? >> yeah. let me talk about the isil aumf and then the broad broader issue. so on the isil aumf, if we could have just had this up for debate and a vote last week or this week, the hardest piece of it, the piece that i think is the most controversial in congress is the arming the syrian opposition because of questions about do we know who to arm, and will the arms come back to bite

us in another direction. as i listen to colleagues, some of my colleagues who voted against it, they're going to vote for the airstrike campaign. so i wish that we could have done it. i think we could have produced a margin of support for the president much like the margin you saw last week which was an interesting vote. it was divided, but it wasn't partisan. it's okay. it's a hard question, you know? it's a hard question, so it's divided. but it would have been bad if it were a partisan vote. and i think we could have gotten there, but, you know, for a variety of reasons -- elections, concern about it, but also maybe some legitimate ones. senator me 9/11 many december said -- menendez said, look, drafting an authorization that is well drafted is maybe not as easy as we would think, so let's take the time to get it right. some members, i think, their vote may be dependent on the success of the president in really pulling together a multi-national coalition. i could certainly see some

members, maybe even me, saying, well, i support these pillars if it's a coalition, i don't support if we're just alone. in that sense it was very salutary, the announcement of the president today about the involvement of these other nations in the region in the airstrike campaign yesterday and this morning. so there may be, you know, may be some nonpolitical, virtuous reasons for, okay, we didn't do it last week, we'll do it in november. but i detected around the table in both the armed services and foreign relations committees last week strong support. and i think the vote in both houses on the toughest part of it, the syrian piece of it, demonstrate that there's strong support. we have debates about the sunset and how long, sure we will. there'll be some other pieces we'll debate, but i think we'll get there on the isil one. on the '01 aumf, it is more challenging. as i said, there are some degrees to which the aumf may need to be broadened because right now it only applies to

al-qaeda and the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack. possibly there should be an aumf to groups that have a terrorists intent on the united states once the threat level reaches some degree of capacity and imminence. so it may have to broaden a little bit. but it should also probably narrow the definition of associated forces, which is way too broad. the absence of a sunset, of any limitation on geography or time, way too broad. you can see the drafting of that '01 aumf may think it needs to be broader, i may think it needs to be narrower, but the white house is engaged in those discussions with both democrats and republicans right now. >> great. so let's turn to audience questions. now, please wait for the microphone. we do have a microphone, and we're going to ask ask that you both identify yourself clearly and the organization that you're with. we're going to take three questions at a time and see if we can get through as many as we possibly can, and please try and be as respectful to your fellow

audience members as possible and keep them short and refrain from commentary. so billy has a question. we'll do one here in the front row, and then we'll go here in the front row and then back on the aisle. >> thank you. hello, senator. i'm molly hooper with the hill newspaper. i'm wondering, i how is president obama going to pay for these airstrikes? he hasn't asked for any money, and from what i understand, quite a few tomahawks were fired yesterday, and those things are not too cheap. i'm wondering where is president obama going to get the money to pay for this, these airstrikes. >> martin frost, former member of congress, and i'll be as brief as i can, senator. i was in congress in both '91 and in 2002 when congress authorized president bush 41 and bush 43 to act against iraq. so far -- and both of them maintain that they had the inherent authority as commander in chief, but then they embraced

congress acting. so far the president, president obama, has not embraced congress specifically passing an authorization. he sought a very limited action, this one with the training the syrian troops, but he did not seek a broader authorization last week. do you think the president ultimately will embrace and support a specific authorization by congress? >> on the aisle here. >> i'm old enough to remember back when the gulf of tonkin was razed, and there was the rush to war then. only two senators were willing to stand up, senator gunning and wayne morris and ask the question, is it really worth doing this? it doesn't seem that today we have any of our political leadership willing to raise that question. it's all about the tactics of war rather than should we go to war at all. >> um, well, let me tackle those three, and i'm going to take them in reverse order. why the rush?

sometimes there's a circumstance, you're under attack or an imminent attack where you ought to rush. but generally, you should avoid rushing if you can to do this the the right way. and, you know, what really -- i've been interested in this topic for a long time, but what really galvanized me recently was when the congressional leadership met with the president over the summer to talk about this issue and they exited the white house and went to the mic and said the president has all the authority he needs, and i'm like, you've got to be kidding me, you know? you're not speaking for me when you say that. and especially members saying that the president have -- you have all the authority, you need to act here at the same time you're suing the president for taking unilateral action? hold on a second. so i started to get really angry when that happened and have been trying to avoid the rush. by putting congress into the place that they should be. during the debates about the article i and article ii language, george mason -- another virginian -- said the

way we've drawn up this power is to make congress the clogger, not the facilitator of war. and hopefully the facilitator of peace. and that was how-originally -- how it was originally designed. so we don't need to rush, but we do need to ask the questions, and we need to have the debate. i couldn't agree with you more. so, congressman frost, martin, good friend, i think the president to your wording is why hasn't the president embraced and will he. the president will very much embrace congressional authorization, and i think they want it. the way he said it might have been the most parsed piece of the sentence in the speech two wednesdays ago. i need congressional authorization for this arm and equip mission in syria, and i would welcome congressional involvement in authorization on the remainder. i believe i have the power, but i would welcome it. and i think that i would welcome it is very sincere. listening to general dempsey,

secretary hagel last week, i think they welcome it. i don't have an intuition about why they didn't say we need it except, you know, executives usually have a pretty expansive definition of their own power. i have a hunch, i have a hunch that the white house felt when they went to congress last year on syria and congress was less than full-throated in support, it made them skittish about coming pack and saying we need -- coming back and saying we need you again on this. but let me offer the counter view on syria. i know there are some that feel the president not using force in syria hurt our credibility or stepped back from the red line. the president doing what the constitution requires in syria actually had a salutary outcome and should teach us something about the way this should be done. the president said use chemical weapons, there needs to be a consequence including a military consequence. bashar al assad used chemical weapons in a major way, and it

was proven. the president said, okay, i draw a red line. we need to use military force. britain wouldn't do it, the u.n. wouldn't do it. this was an enforcement of an international norm in place since 1925, others wouldn't do it. but this president said we need to do it, we voted 10-8 we'll use military force. you know that was going to be a tough vote in the house that probably would have lost. might have won in the senate, it would have been narrow. but the fact of the president saying we need to use military force and i'm coming to congress, and the fact of the senate foreign relations committee voting made syria and russia change their calculation. syria hadn't even admitted it had chemical weapons. it had one of the largest stocks in the world, but what they said was, okay, don't use military force. we will give, we will give up our chemical weapons. and so one of the -- it's been a huge diplomatic achievement of this administration that only happened because of a credible threat of the use of force that one of the largest chemical weapons stockpiles in the world

has now been destroyed. i was in israel in february talking to israeli leadership, they said you don't know what a game changer this is for us. bad guys without weapons of mass destruction we can deal with, bad guys with weapons of maas destruction, we accountability. the president did it according to the rulebook. this is what we ought to do, i'll come to congress. congress had a debate in front of the american people, and it was a tough vote. again, divided but not partisan. and we ended up getting something out of it that was very, very positive for the long term safety of people in that region. so up til now the president had dope can it two ways. libya, didn't go to congress. syria, went to congress. the syrian civil war's still going on. bashar al assad's still a brutal dictator, and there's no easy end in sight, but a destruction of chemical weapons has gone off the earth because the president did it right.

so the it is my hope, you know, as we are having this discussion, i know the president would welcome it. i would hope he and his team to the extent they're still backing and forthing on it, would realize it's not a matter of welcoming it, they should realize it's more likely to work out better if they do it with congress. the pay for, yeah, very tough question. my sense is, you know, we have a cr as well as the syrian authorization on the train and equip -- [inaudible] but we're going to have to grapple with longer-term appropriations or, hopefully, appropriations. not another cr. and i fully am expecting as part of that, you know, in the oco area for there to be funding requests. but that's another reason why congress should debate this up front because we ought to be asking the question what is this going to cost and how are we going to pay for it. iraq and afghanistan were the, you know, the first wars where the u.s. decided we could do it

all on the credit card. you know? even in vietnam, for as unpopular as this it was, we dix ourselves for some of it. we did ip cur debt too, but -- incur debt too, but iraq and afghanistan were where we said, wait a minute, you know? we can kind of do this. you know, members of congress e' kids won't get drafted now. we can put it all on the credit card. we can hire, you know, like blackwater, a third party, to do stuff that we don't want to ask troops to do. i worry that there's been not only a progressive executive overreach and a congressional abdication, but even a diffusion of responsibility. by putting it on the credit card, our kids don't have to serve, you know? we'll hire third party contractors to do it. we ought to have questions about cost up front, and that we will be able to do when we return and tackle the authorization. >> we're going to do one more round and we are, certainly, short on time so, please, keep them as brief as possible. i am going to try and reach into

the back to give them a chance too. so in the back, the woman with the hand up, and then back up here, the woman in blue and over here, also in blue. >> thank you, senator cain. i want -- senator kaine. i wanted to ask about your view of the consequences of having the vote, which i agree is constitutionally -- was constitutionally required -- not before the start of the or war, but after the war has already started. and in particular, whether or not if there were no congressional vote now, whether or not that lack of specific congressional authorization would, in fact, act to constrain this president from expanding the current military war without a vote in the future. >> okay. second row in the blue. >> hi -- [inaudible] with buzz feed. you seem very confident and,

obviously, senator menendez has said that he'll, you know, mark up an aumf. how confident are you, though, that in a lame duck an aumf will actually get a vote in both the senate and the house? >> side. >> hi. dipica -- [inaudible] with center for international policy. we've been discussing a lot about getting authorization through congress for actions in iraq and getting domestic approval, but how would you address the question of international approval for these strikes in syria? there have been concerns and statements that we've heard in the news that -- >> yeah, no, i'm very glad you asked that. so to tackle them in order, the consequences of no vote, i think it would be disastrous if it persists. i think the we get a vote even though the airstrike -- the airstrike campaign started, i'm convinced, in a defensive

posture. the president started it on the 8th of august. isil had momentum including toward mosul and baghdad. it started in a defensive posture. but about the time the president did airstrikes to protect the dam in mosul where there wasn't any real likelihood that -- i don't think there was necessarily a chance the dam was going to be blown up, but even the destruction of the dam wasn't going to cause harm to american life -- about the time that happened, it moved to an offensive mission. and the president even said we're going to go on offense against isil. so having an airstrike campaign occur without an authorization in a situation where the united states is not under imminent threat i do think creates a significant challenge. but i do think we can apply a little bit of the, you know, catholic absolution principle to pre-events if we can come in and have the debate and vote on it. and especially since some members' votes are depending upon the extent of the coalition, i could even see there may be some wisdom to it.

but if there is no vote, i think it's going to have a very negative consequence. and this was an article, i think it was charlie savage wrote an article in "the new york times" within the last couple of days about if there is no congressional vote, it really is, essentially, congress giving tacit acceptance to the notion that the president can do this. and i would -- he doesn't argue, but i would argue that accepting this is, essentially, accepting the cheney preemptive war doctrine that congress wouldn't accept even right after 2001. the notion that a president can say, well, this group means us harm. there's no imminent threat, they mean us harm, we should go after them. this is a group that does mean us harm. i support the limited mission, but i do not want to give the president the unilateral ability to make that decision. it violates all constitutional principles. so i think the absence of a vote will be a very, very dangerous thick. thing. how confident with respect to

the aumf? i'm pretty confident, but i'm still new here, right? so i i think a lot of things are going to happen, and they don't. but i up tell people things are going to happen, they say i've been here a long time and they happen, and i end up being right. frankly, when the leadership came out of the meeting with the president and said you've got all the authority you need, i was extremely worried we wouldn't geffen get a vote on -- even get a vote on this. when the president called us in august, i didn't think we'd get a vote. but beginning in the last -- after the president's speech on the two wednesdays ago, senator menendez, for example, who he had been asked does the president need authority, he would say, well, let me hear what has to say, then i'll till owe. when he head the president's speech, this is clearly an open-ended thing, he definitely needs authority. so with senator menendez, with senator durbin who has been public that we've got to have an

authorization vote in leadership, senator mcconnell has been saying we've got to have it. i've had other discussions with members of leadership, i'd rather not get into, you know, parsing those too carefully. but i really feel like now in both houses and in both parties there's a strong belief that we have to. and with the december 11 is kind of a termination piece, it kind of creates a window for that discussion. and while, you know, in one sense having it before the election would have been better because, you know, people can be accountable for it, nobody's going to be able to hide. nobody running for office is going to be able to hide. their electorate is going to ask them between now and election day, what are you going to do about isil? every member running for congress, every senator running for re-election is going to have to declare where they are on this. and so there is in this electoral process an opportunity, you know, for citizens to kind of understand where their candidates are. and that also can provide some

accountability as we get up to having the vote. the international -- i am not an international law guy, but i think it raises a really interesting question. for example, i've asserted that i don't think the president can count on article ii or either the aumf to justify the current actions in iraq domestically. but he's find on international law because the government of iraq has said come in and help us. so the international side on the iraq side of the question is, i think, pretty straightforward while the domestic one we have to make straightforward by the vote. to the flip on the other side, on syria, we just voted yes on syria at least for the piece of it, so that solves the domestic issue with respect to the train and equip mission, but the issue of international law, is it an incursion into sovereignty, and just look at what various actors in the war have said. iran says it's illegal. russia says it's an incursion into sovereignty. syria, apparently, isn't complaining about it. so russia and iran are making

the argument about syrian sovereignty, and syria's comments have been a little bit murky, but they obviously don't like isil either. so i think the international questions is, they're pretty straightforward in iraq. they're complicated in syria and not being an expert on that, i don't know exactly how that one will ultimately get answered. but my sense is if we can get the domestic side of it pinned down with a congressional authorization, as we go through that process and the process of working with allies -- and the president talking at theup about moral -- at the u.n. about more allies on board. because there are u.n. security council resolutions against some of the things that are going on with eye a sill. is that one -- isil. that one will probably sort itself out, but it's a thorny question. >> well, i'm sure we could go on talking about this forever, but that's all the time we have today. let me conclude here by thanking you very much for coming -- >> thanks a hot.

yeah. thanks, ken. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> a live picture now from washington convention center in washington, d.c. where the congressional black caucus foundation is hosting its annual legislative conference. we'll hear from the former president of the naacp legal defense and education fund, also two democratic congressmen, javier becerra and john lewis. they'll spoke about new voter id laws and their impact on the african-american vote. the congressional black caucus conference was scheduled to begin right now, at nine a.m. eastern, but it looks like they're running a few minutes late. while we wait, housing and urban development secretary julian castro on affordable housing.

>> i have your attention, please? can i have your attention? we need to get started. good morning and welcome. i'm ted turner, president of ginnie mae. it's our pleasure and honor to be with you today. thank you for being here at the second annual ginnie mae summit. we work a crowd, about 600 people, and we had to cut off registration because of the space constraints. some of you very special guests who have come all the way from japan to be with us today. if you could rise so we could acknowledge you? ms. . [applause] thank you. i think you all know, as we do,

it's a very important time in the mortgage finance industry. we're operating a market that is changing rapidly, and the stakes are very high. housing finance reform has stalled this congress, and banks are not lending like they used to. during the next couple days, you will hear a lot about how ginnie mae is adapting to make sure that our programs and our guarantees -- which is the heart of the ginnie mae program -- continues to be a successful story; turning a profit for the u.s. treasury every year. the themes you will hear next two days will revolve around transformation, partnership and opportunity. the first, transformation, is all around us. today we will release a white paper that outlines our views on the crucial issues we are facing today. partnership, that's why we're here. ginnie mae is a product, and we choose to use it. that makes us different than other government agencies. the third theme is opportunity. it's becoming a watch word for

our keynote speaker who is honored to introduce to you this morning. we can work together to create opportunity, but we need leaders to help us, champions who believe in the dreams of home ownership, of a decent, affordable home for everyone and who knows how to bring people together and create opportunity and accomplish goals that are within our reach. today i have the honor of introducing a proven leader, someone who -- [inaudible] someone who has the confidence and also the knowledge and leadership to make a difference. he is transforming hud and ginnie mae, urging leaders and staff to work together and reminding us of what's at stake. i believe he is someone who can and will create the private/public partnership that will finally, once and for all, lead housing out of the great recession. hiewl january castro was -- julian castro was sworn in on

the 28th of july this year. to insure that we, including jonny may, offer a transparently and effectively to champion the people we serve. he has charged us one goal: every person, regardless of their station in life, new opportunities to thrive. when i asked him to come here today to talk to you, he didn't each hesitate. he told me that he was excited to be here because he understands the importance of your role in ginnie mae's success. before coming to hud in july, he served as the mayor of san antonio where he quickly established a reputation as a national leader in urban development. his decade of downtown initiative in san antonio's center city and older neighborhoods has attracted $350 million in private sector investment and will produce more than 2,000 housing units by the end of 2014. power in the value of the public/private partnership like the ones between you and ginnie mae.

he was named the world economic forum's list of young global leaders, and "time" magazine placed him on its 40 under 40 list of rising stars in american politics. i could go on and on, but rather just introduce you to someone who knows how to make a difference and who is already proving it on a national stage. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming the secretary of housing and urban development can, julian castro. [applause] [laughter] >> hello. good morning, y'all. >> good morning. >> how are ya? well, i didn't want see the steps -- i didn't want see the steps on the way over here, so i figured i'd just jump on. [laughter] thank you very much for the introduction can, i appreciate it.

and to the entire ginnie mae team, i want to thank them for their great contributions over at hud and, more importantly, to our nation. and to all of you for taking part in the 2014 ginnie mae summit. thank you for being here. and particularly, i want to thank the representatives of the japanese housing finance agency who traveled across an ocean to be here. where are they at? [applause] good morning and welcome. thank you for being here. all right. i know we also have folks from across the united states. anybody here from california? all right. how about, how about new york? anybody here from new york? one person? [laughter] you've got to have more than that. new yorkers are traditionally a little bit more jazzed up than that. how about anybody here from illinois? [laughter] florida?

anybody here from idaho? [laughter] one person? all right. welsh how about the great -- welshes how about the great state of texas? [cheers and applause] all right. well, they gave me a little love there. as you all may know, this is the beginning of my second month at hud, and i have to say that i've enjoyed every minute of working with a great team over at the department. my wife and daughter moved up about four weeks ago, and we're adjusting well except for two things; trying to find good iced tea and trying to find good barbecue. [laughter] in fact, we were at a place a couple of weeks ago on a saturday, and they came and served us our barbecue, and everything was good, you know? they had a couple of different sauces including a texas sauce, and the iced tea wasn't bad. i told my wife, well, this is pretty good x. then i noticed that on the intercom instead of hearing willie nelson or garth

brooks, it was pearl jam. [laughter] and i said, you know, it's just not quite the same here. [laughter] but i'm having a great time working with a dedicated staff including the staff at ginnie mae. and i'm happy to be here this morning. we all gather at a moment when our economy is growing, at a time when american businesses have created ten million new jobs over the last four and a half years, the most since the late 1990s, when auto sales are at their highest since 2006, and the housing market has gotten stronger with home sales, starts and values all rising in recent years. in fact, our nation is in progress across the board, and hud is focused on insuring these opportunities reach every american. in fact, at hud we think of ourselves as the department of

opportunity. last week i gave my first major policy speech as secretary and started with a subject that some have shied away from in recent years, home ownership. in fact, i stated very clearly that it's time to remove the stigma associated with promoting home ownership. when done responsibly, home ownership strengthens communities and boosts our economy. it help families put down roots and secure their financial future. in short, home ownership is the cornerstone of the american dream. unfortunately, today this dream is out of reach for far too many americans. many say that credit was too easy to get a few years ago. today it's too hard. according to the urban institute, the average credit score for lopes sold to gses this year -- loans sold to

gses this year is roughly 750. currently there are 13 million people with credit scores ranging from 580-680, and in some ways the problem is getting worse because of the retreat of some of our important lending partners. so as today's theme indicates, solving this challenge requires the power of partnerships. i want to send a simple message to to lippedder ors -- lenders, including those in this room: let's work together. we share a common interest to see a robust, healthy housing market where those who are ready and responsible can buy a home. we can advance this interest and move our nation forward, but that takes partnership. so let's come together to secure the dream of homeownership not only for ourselves, but for generations to come. we've got to be creative and find few ways to -- new ways to

deliver for the american people, and that's exactly what swribny may is doing -- ginnie mae is doing. as you know, ginnie mae plays a unique role in the marketplace. it issues the only mortgage-backed securities to carry the full faith and credit guarantee of the u.s. government. it provides a platform that works for our private sector partners while providing the low cost financing that helps responsible folks buy their first home. and this past spring ginnie mae reached an incredible milestone of 1.5 trillion in outstanding mortgage-backed securities. we've almost doubled our issuer base in just the last five years. we're providing a stable and low-risk opportunity for capital which is enabling more americans to own a home, and we're not content to just stick with the status quo. ginnie mae is thinking of new

ways to help more americans realize their dreams. in fact, ginnie mae has stepped up its work with housing finance agencies, helping low and moderate income folks buy their first home. we're kicking off a pilot program to give small financial institutions more access to the secondary market in partnership with the federal home loan bank of chicago, the effort allows members that do fha, va and rural housing loans to access our full faith and credit guarantee and get the execution that provides for their lopes. for their loans. participating community lenders will get a better price in the marketplace and use that capital to make credit available for other loans. we're going to build on successful pilot program, and we'll soon launch a nationwide effort in the first quarter of next year so more lenders can benefit.

these are the types of partnerships we need to accelerate for progress. ted tozar and michael drape will speak later -- michael drain will speak later on programs that ginnie mae is undertaking. but the bottom line is this: ginnie mae will continue to innovate to best serve the american people. and the fha will do so as well. at fha we've launched a blue print for access that has two main parts. the first part is h.a.w.k., home owners armed with knowledge. it allowed homeowners who commit to counseling to -- [inaudible] increase the pool of responsible borrowers and save the average fha buyer nearly $10,000 over the life of a loan. it'll also strengthen fha's financial health so it can continue to assist underserved

communities for general races to come. the -- generations to come. the second part is reducing unsternty for lenders. we've seen a lot of frustration when it comes to their fha business. many have been reluctant to lend because they fear unanticipated consequences. they need to be able to manage their risk better, and so does the fha. so we're making it easier to partner with us by overhauling our single-family handbook. it brings together 900 mortgagee letters and other policy guidance into a single document. by clarifying the compliance process, we're giving lenders the confidence they need to lend. while also protecting our financial health. our nation and our economy have come a long way in recent years.

and although we still have a way to go, there is tremendous momentum. at hud, at ginnie mae, at fha we're committed to keeping up that momentum. hud is going to spend the next two and a half years working to give every american a chance to get ahead. we know that we can't do this alone. we need you. so i want to reiterate my message to lenders; let's work together. henry ford once said that coming together is a beginning, staying together is progress, and working together is success. i look forward to working with y'all to advance these programs and achieve success. together we can insure that every american who is ready and responsible can buy a home and achieve their american dream. thank you for inviting me here

today, and i hope you have a wonderful summit. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> any questions for the secretary? >> thank you all for coming. only questions from the conference attendees. >> somebody's got to be the brave first one. [laughter] anybody. there you go. >> all right. [inaudible] >> this is more of a comment, and i just want to applaud what you're saying about clarity with your manuals and binders. so many times we deal with different h.a.w.k. centers, and

they have different interpretations of the rules that are out there which really does add to confusion and hesitation, not the type of customer service that we want for our people. so thank you. >> sure, thank you. thank you for the comment. just know that we do hear the issue, and we want to do everything that we can to streamline the process as much as possible to insure quality and also to reduce uncertainty. that's our goal, and, you know, ted is working hard on that, cara and her folks at fha are working hard on that and all of us at hud are very much committed to it. so thank you. >> good morning, mr. secretary. thank you for coming. mark jones from amerifirst in kalamazoo, michigan. one of the concerns fha lenders have with the clarity, and we do appreciate it, it seems now more form over substance. in other words, if we write a very good reasoned, well-reasoned credit quality loan but we don't check the

right box, we're going to get penalized. can you give us some comfort that that's really not going to happen? i hear you say let's work together, let's work together. >> sure, certainly. thank you very much for that insight. we want this to be meaningful collaboration, so it's very helpful input. of course, there are always two things that we need to get right usually, it's form and substance. but you don't want the form to be so draconian that it really gets, it ip juries the substance. -- injures the substance. i would love to get more input and see as we revamp some of these things, we can get it right. >> perfect. thank you so much. >> thank you for the comment. >> thanks so much for being here also. i'm having a little bit of déjà vu with the home ownership comment which i love the idea, but how are we going to insure the credit quality once we go

back to those lower fico scores again? >> yeah, thank you for the question, and i think that's right at the heart of folks who wonder, well, why would we promote home ownership now, and they associate it with what happened before? the first thing i would say is that i believe controls have been put in place on both sides, on the lender side and on the public side, since then and that the pendulum has just swung too far in the other direction to credit overlays that are in place mean that even during normal times -- not in the leadup to the housing crisis, but let's go back 15 years or more -- that folks who would have, who are responsible and ready to own a home who would have been able to access credit back then under normal times are not able to do so now because the pendulum has swung so far. so i think you're right to raise the concern, and the issue is how do we achievement and a balance -- achieve a balance. like anything, how do we insure

that the lessons that we learned over the last few years are utilized so that people who get access to credit are responsible, they are ready, but also that folks who have demonstrated a decent track record and who in normal times would get a loan are able to do that. and there are millions and millions of americans who fall into that category who right now don't have access to credit. and we want to change that in responsible way, so thank you very much for the question. >> we have time for one more question. all right. oh, sorry. >> back there. >> this is going to take a second, sorry. [laughter] >> hi, i'm marie lockwood

from -- [inaudible] servicing. thank you for being here today. with the hud just announced the assignment of a new management company, do you see a lot of change upcoming with that? assignment? >> thank you very much for the question. no -- well, the answer is that i'll have to look into that. [laughter] i'm not specifically familiar with which one you're referring to, but we'll get back to you. if we can get your information, i'll get you that. all right, y'all. i hope that you have a wonderful summit, that it's productive and please know that we're here to listen and to work with you. and as i said, to do everything that we can to insure that opportunity is expanded out there in our country. thank you. [applause] >> a live picture from the

washington convention center in downtown d.c. where congressional black caucus foundation is hosting its annual legislative conference. we're going to hear from the former president of the naacp legal defense and education fund, also two democratic congressmen, javier becerra and john lewis. they'll speak about new voter id laws and their impact on the african-american vote. >> also chair of the congressional urban caucus, a bipartisan group of members representing america's metropolitan centers. these members collaborate with other stakeholders to address the unique challenges facing america's urban communities. and now, ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the chairman of the congressional black caucus foundation, representative shaq ca baca. [applause] >> well, good morning. >> good morning. >> let me welcome each and every

one of you and, please, have a seat. to the 44th annual legislative conference and on behalf of the staff, the board of directors of the congressional black caucus foundation, our interns, our volunteers, welcome to this year's national up to hall meeting -- town hall meeting. now, the foundation's work could not be possible without the support of our sponsors and supporters. we want to thank each and every one who have helped us as we have went about the work of the foundation in producing the next general ration of leaders -- generation of leaders, supporting interns and fellows working on the hill, gaining experience, also providing scholar hardships to young people to pursue a higher education and and prepare themselves for work both in the

governmental sector, but also in ore sectors in -- in other sectors in our society. i would be remiss if i did not recognize our democratic leader who's joined us, and you'll hear from her at a point in our program. but please give a welcome to the speaker of the house, the now democratic leader and future speaker of the house, nancy pelosi. [applause] let me say that we have put together an extraordinary panel, and you are going to be engaged in a discussion that really will be the shaping impulse of the work of the foundation going forward. i want to thank you for your attendance here. i want to thank the hard work of the staff, particularly our president, charnice washington, and the great work that's been done by the foundation. and then i want to introduce to you a brilliant, dynamic

congresswoman from the great state of ohio who is the leader of the congressional black caucus. she is fierce, she's independent, she has dope an extraordinary job -- she has done an extraordinary job at a historic time in our nation. welcome congresswoman marsha funneling. [applause] congresswoman marsha fudge. [applause] >> good morning. >> morning. >> good morning again. mary mcleod bethune said if we have the courage and the tenacity of our forebearers who stood firmly, like a rock, against the lash of slavery, we shall find a way to do for our day what they did for theirs. even in her day she clearly

understood what it took to move a nation of people forward, and she understood that we control our own destiny by being bold and proactive. let me start by saying thank you to my colleague, congressman fatah, for his leadership as chair of the congressional black caucus foundation and the cbc co-chairs, beatty and bishop, for setting the stage for this morning. our theme for this gathering could not be more timely; voting for change and equal opportunity, midterm elections and the state of black america. it says to us that when election time rolls around this november, we'll be voting not only for politicians, but also for policyings that will determine our -- policies that will determine our way of life for years to come. if we are to realize the changes we want to see in our leadership and education and quality of life issues, we must vote on november 4th.

this morning we will discuss many issues that impact our ability to participate in the electoral process. i know you will take this information home and put it to good use, and i thank you for that. again, i welcome you and invite you to take advantage of all of the important information that you will receive over the next few days. thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome a.chaunice washington, president and ceo of the congressional black caucus foundation incorporated. for more than 15 years, she has played a variety of important roles this the organization, serving on the foundation's board of direct canners and corporate advisory council and as a corporate funder. ms. washington was the board's chair from march 2012 to

february 2013 and as vice chair from 2010 to 2012. her most recent corporate position was as vice president, government affairs policy and outreach for altria corporate services. and now, ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the president and ceo of the congressional black caucus foundation, ms. a. chaw niece washington. [applause] >> well, thank you, chairman fatah and chairwoman fudge, not only for your presence here today, but also for the work you do can every single day to -- do every single day to improve the quality of lives in our community, and good morning, everyone. >> good morning. >> we appreciate your presence, and we want you to know that we do not take it for granted. it is my pleasure to welcome you to our 44th annual legislative conference, and i would like to join chairman fatah in thanking

the cbcf board of directors, staff, fellows, volunteers and interns who work very hard each year the make this conference a success. you know, education is one of the core pillars through which cbcf delivers against its mission, and we have joined the nation in emphasizing science, technology, engineering and math education within the african-american community. once again, we are proud to introduce our fellows who are already on their way to changing the world. the 2014 cbcf fellows are: a louis stokes urban health public policy fellow, okay key is a native of chicago, illinois, he holds a master's degree in public health from chicago state university where he served as the vice president of the mph student association. [applause]

rashad favors, congressional fellow; focus on courts and criminal justice from jacksonville, florida, and holds a juris doctorate from florida a&m college of law and a bachelor's degree in marketing from the university of central florida. [applause] >> congressional fellow, focus education. a graduate of southern university agricultural and mechanical college where she received a master's tree in public administration -- degree in public administration with an emphasis on public policy analysis and a bachelor of arts in political science. [applause] ernie jolly, congressional fellow. focus: finance. ernie is a graduate of american university's washington college of law and an alum of cornell university where he graduated cum laude from its american studies program. [applause] ..

>> stephanie owes become a congressional fellow focused energy, stephanistephani e as a native of los angeles and holds a master of science in environmental management with a

concentration in agriculture, energy and environmental policy from the university of san francisco. [applause] >> brittany, congressional fellow focus, energy, bringing is a graduate of the georgetown university law center and the university of southern california and is committed to creating positive change through law, government, and public policy. [applause] >> congressional fellow. focus, science and technology. he is a native of decatur, georgia, and a graduate of the university of richmond tc williams school of law. [applause] >> kinga, mandel washington fellowship for young african

leaders. kinga is one of 500 youth african leaders selected by the obama administration. she is from the country of chad with more than three years of experience in the public governance sector. [applause] >> please join in getting our fellows fellows another round of applause. [applause] >> thank you. our fellows will be instrumental in compiling a summary of today's national town hall meetings, for placement on a social media site. we also launched yesterday a new tool that is designed to engage and inform our community on public policy issues impacting the african-american community, the permanence project. the cbcf permits project is a virtual community where public policy issues impacting the black community are discussed

and dissected. the permanence logic is built on a cloud-based web platform offering real-time analyses and resources on public policy issues that are discussed, debated and voted into law on capitol hill and in legislative bodies around the nation. through this online community we will provide nonpartisan, unbiased, fact-based analyses, research and resources about public policy issues, explore the applications of current public policy on black securities, facilitate exchange of ideas and information to address critical, long-term challenges affecting the african-american and black, global black community. and also expand our ability to connect with its stakeholders. if you like to sign up to become a part of this community i would encourage you to visit our website at cbc.org/permanence

project. i invite you also do enjoy today for the opening this year's exhibit showcase. please be sure to visit all of our vendors. if you have a corporate representative package, please enjoy our hospitality in room 204, complement of shared and -- sheraton. before i take my seat i invite you to help us sustain the work that we do with cbcf. you can pull out your cell phones, everybody has a smart phone in your, i know you'd we made it easy for you. so helpless invest in the next generation of leaders like the nine you just met, but can you just met this morning and text cbcf to 20202 -- 20222, to make a $10 donation. you will need to reply just to the text message you received and started message and data rates may apply. thank you all so much for being here with us this morning.

i hope you enjoy the town hall and certainly the rest of the conference. thank you so much. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the 2014 annual legislative conference co-chairs, representative sanford bishop representing the second district of georgia, congressman bishop is co-chair and cofounder of the congressional military family caucus and the congressional chicken caucus. is also a member of the blue dog coalition, the congressional black caucus, the house army caucus, and the congressional u.s. own pockets. representative joyce beatty representing the third district of ohio. congresswoman beatty was appointed to the financial services committee and serves on the subcommittee's on housing and insurance and oversight and investigations. additionally, for her first term

she was selected to serve as the democratic caucus regional with a region 10 that includes ohio, pennsylvania, west virginia and kentucky. [applause] >> good morning. it's always a very special treat to spend time with people who place their trust in us and spend your hard earned dollars to come to this event. we can always depend on you to let us know what's really on your mind, what's really happening in your lives. it is my privilege to serve as co-chair of his 44th annual legislative conference along with my beautiful college, representative joyce beatty. we welcome you to this national discussion of voting for change and equal opportunity, midterm elections, and the state of black america.

>> thank you so much, representative bishopric under certain want to add my sincere appreciation to all of you for being here today. you are our act bone -- backbone. the people we turn to whom we really want to know the truth about what's happening in our communities. thank you for your constant, diligence and your sage advice. and now my colleague and my dear friend, representative bishop will introduce our sponsor for this national town hall meeting and our distinguished moderator for today. >> valerie long is the international executive vice president of the property services division of the service employees international union. are active leadership as an

activist and organizer has been a benefit to our workforce, opportunities and ultimately our nation. she is rest a rest stand on the courage of her convictions, often engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience. she serves on the steering committee of union network international, property service, a global union federation that represents more than 1 million workers united in 125 unions across 70 countries. now, ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming valerie long. [applause] >> good morning. i am so proud on behalf of the service employees international union to be cosponsoring this event with the leadership of the congressional like caucus arcus foundation. you know, i had a granddaughter

who was born last week, and i am so proud that your leadership and the leadership of the folks in on this stage, representative fudge, representative chaka fattah and shanice washington give my granddaughter a chance to have a decent life in the wake of shelby versus holder and voting rights being under attack. you are the only thing standing in the way up in justice being served. so thank you for your leadership. i really appreciate the fact that in the events that led to ferguson that we're having this forum. these discussions are timely. they are important, and our leadership both in the streets and in forums like this are important to make a change in this country. while some of the issues that we face 50 years ago still exist today, we have one thing now that we didn't have been. we have the opportunity and the

right to vote. we have the opportunity and the right to protest. we have the opportunity and the right to put our policies and our steps into purpose under god come and in this country that we fought so long and so many years to protect. and i expect that this room will join hands in the civil rights movement. it will join hands with the labor movement. it would join hands and altogether progressive movement to make this country something we can all be proud of that we have fought and bled for. so i want to take a whole lot more time because this panel is important and these discussions are important, and i hope that we leave this room more learned in the fights that we need to take on for this country and that we continue to vote, we continue to get our villages to vote and we continue to fight for my granddaughter, and for all the grandchildren this room represents. thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you so much, valerie long, for your message this morning, and for allowing us to live the american dream. let's give her another round of applause. [applause] and now i have a special honor, our moderator is no stranger to the congressional black caucus. because we often find him publicly addressing the very issues that consume much of our time in congress. television and radio commentator and motivational speaker. jeff johnson enters the homes of millions of americans each day. he is well respected by his peers, colleagues alike, which helps him to be one of the most thought after keynote speakers in america. please join me in welcoming to the stage today's national town

hall meeting moderator, my friend and a bad brother, mr. jeff johnson. [applause] >> good morning. you all can do better than that. good morning. >> good morning. >> it's an honor and privilege to be here and serve as moderator this morning. we have an unbelievable panel with a number of individuals that have the gravitas and experience to lead us not only integrate discussion but to lead us hopefully to having marching orders as we go back to our own places of residence is where pushing people to engage not just in the fight for social justice but to push toward the midterms of 2014. before he introduces the panel, however, it is my honor to to bring forward someone that most

of you i believe know, and if you don't you're in for a treat. for 27 years she has represented california's 12th district in the house of representatives. she is the democratic leader of the u.s. house for the 113th congress, and she's focus on jumpstarting the middle class by creating jobs here and at home and around the country, expanding affordable access to education and empowering america's women and families. anybody who has worked with her or worked around her understands the power that she brings to every situation. and in a time when we continue to need fighters not just in the house but around the country she continues to be one of those fighters that is not always on issue but is always in the face of those that sometimes need someone in the face. it is my honor and privilege to introduce congresswoman nancy pelosi.

[applause] >> good morning. it is an honor to be here with this distinguished panel, with the leadership of the foundation. it is an honor and a pleasure to be here with each and every one of you. we are about to hear a wonderful, wonderful presentation, and exchange of ideas about something so very fundamental, the right to vote. so i will be brief. dr. king said one of the most significant steps we can take is a short walk to the voting booth. and that is what we all have to do in the election. a few weeks ago we had the privilege of the stolen by congressional gold medal on

reverend martin luther king, jr. and coretta scott king. it was so remarkable, because it was so overdue, but also because at the very same time we were appealing to our colleagues to pass a bipartisan voting rights act to correct the shelby decision. that still hasn't happened. we must make it happen, but in no to make that happen we must all vote. as i said, it's a privilege to be here to accept the invitation of the congressional black caucus foundation. another privilege i had more than a year ago was standing on the steps with the congressional black caucus, that are very distinguished chair, congresswoman marcia fudge and members of the cbc, on the steps of the supreme court. we were there calling upon the court to make the right decision. that very day we were meeting in

the house of representatives to dedicate the statute of rosa parks but it just seemed so strange. we're dedicating the statue. people turn up in a bipartisan way to salute her and yet we have to appeal to the poor to do the right thing -- to the court. when they don't they come and sing the praises to martin luther king and coretta scott king but don't pass the voting rights act. so we have important work to do and we have important people doing it. the distinguished chair of the foundation, chaka fattah has been working for children, for children, for children, for cities for the american people. he's a great leader. marcia fudge, a very strong leader and fighter for opportunity for all in our country, and taking the lead on fighting for food stamps in a very, very tough battle, but who better than she to lead on that score, and so many others.

our assistant leader, mr. clyburn, a champion on the voting rights act. he along with john conyers working so hard for us to get that past. our chairman, mr. conyers being one of them. mr. cummings working very hard to make sure to set the record straight as some in congress would constantly be on the attack of president barack obama. bennie thompson, our chair of -- ranking member, hopefully soon to be chair of the homeland security committee, keep america safe. maxine waters, distinguished chair, financial services, looking out for consumers and our financial system so that it's fair to everyone. bernice johnson, all the talk we've heard about science technology and mat after she ise chair of the science and technology committee. the congressional black caucus has provided such tremendous

leadership to our country. we will have a new member, bobby scott will be the chairman of the education -- isa chairmen, optimistically, but he will be the top democrat on the education and labor committee followed up on his important work for young people and workers in our country. so this caucus is making a valuable contribution to our country. even some who are not chairs of the caucus or committees, emanuel cleaver and congresswoman clyde -- clay were there in ferguson and made us all so proud as they represented us in a way that was appropriate and respectful of the very serious nature of what happened there, and they along with john lewis, and you'll be hearing from the conscience of the congress they call the black caucus. he certainly is a much a part of

that. but so much needs to be done. ferguson, say the word, conjures up so much that needs to be done. voting rights act, have the right to vote with respect for who they are. so i thank you for your leadership, valerie long, so many people are making today possible. as i said it's an honor for me to be here to salute the members of the congressional black caucus led by marcia fudge come in the congress chaka fattah with the foundation. and how about those fellows that we met? how about the fact that some of the fellowships were named, named for donald payne, for donald payne, that beautiful, lovely man, and for congressman stokes, chairman stokes, the distinguished leader there and so the tradition goes on about

education, which is key to the fulfillment of these young people, which is also necessary for keeping american and when. i just leave you with one thought. one what we hope to turn out a big vote in all communities and the vote, the congressional black caucus leadership community is so important. is what jeff said, about jobs, jumpstart the middle-class, good paying jobs here in america, investing in education to keep america number one. and that means we have to invest heavily in historical black colleges as well as reduce the cost of loans. [applause] and the very important part of it to the community is when women succeed, america succeeds. that's how we think we're going to turn out a big vote. thank you for the honor of having a chance to say a few

words. good luck in your deliberations. we are all counting on you, and then of the success of this conference will be the success of our country. thank you all very much. [applause] >> thank you, congresswoman. and she said it right. the panel we're getting ready to go into is going to cover ambitiously three key areas. one is the state of the african-american vote moving in 2014, the necessity to look at both the voting and law enforcement reforms as relates to policy. and then also where we are going and how the black vote affects us socioeconomically. that's a lot to cover in a short about a time but we have a brilliant panel that is going to do that. and i'm going to be introducing folks better in the audience every now and again. you know how we are. we've got to give shout outs. but congresswoman beatty said

that i'm no stranger to the congressional black caucus. and if i could just take a point of personal privilege. i think it's important because it's not just been for me about supporting the jobs tour that the congressional black caucus did are getting on the road to be able to support different members in certain parts of the country. it's that before anybody knew me when it was a senior in high school in cleveland heights ohio there was a woman who was county prosecutor by the name of stephanie jones, and -- [applause] she came into my high school government class and blew me away. and i said to myself, i need to work for her. and asked my teacher if i could walk her to her car as she was leaving the classroom. and i said to her at the time, prosecutor tubbs jones, i said you're going to hire me. and anybody who knows her knows that look like what you talk about? i don't know you. she said, are you a lawyer?

i said, no. she said i only hire lawyers. come back to me after you go to law school. i said, well, lawyers have fouls, right? she said yes, but i said, you have a foul room -- a file room. she said yes. i said you need somebody to get files for lawyers in that file room. she said you're funny. come see me on monday. and she hired me in the final room of the county prosecutor's office in cleveland, ohio, and that set up a trajectory for me -- [applause] to be where i am. so i just felt it was necessary. we talked about honoring those who have come before. and congresswoman stephanie tubbs jones was one of the most powerful black women that we've seen in the halls of congress. and on days like today i just remember so much and want to lift her up. and so i it's my honor and ville to introduce those that will lead us in our discussion today.

please hold your applause until the end. wade henderson is president and ceo of the leadership operate on civil and human rights and the leadership conference education fund. tireless civil rights leader, is a member of the bar in the district of columbia and the united states supreme court. elaine jones was first in the president director of the naacp legal defense fund urges a legal powerhouse in the civil rights lawyer who was elected to the american bar association board of governors in 1989. the first african-american to do so. in december 2000, president clinton presented her with the eleanor roosevelt human rights award. representative john lewis elected to congress in 1986 and represents the fifth congressional district of georgia. the civil rights leader was a freedom rider, spoke of the 1963 march on washington. and 2011, and he also received the presidential medal of freedom. barber on wine is executrix of the lawyers' committee for civil

rights under law, a graduate of duke university. she continues to champion civil rights and racial justice issues, nationally and internationally. she specialized in areas of housing and lending, community develop it, employment, buddy rice education and environmental justice. representative -- representative xavier becerra is a former deputy attorney general with the california department of justice and thus was elected to the us house of representatives in 1992. is a member of the congressional hispanic caucus where he served as chair during the 105th congress. is also a member of the executive committee of the congressional asian pacific american caucus. and last but surely not least is a leader who i met while i was working in that file room in cleveland, ohio, -- [laughter] she was staff at that time but she has unbelievable public servant from my home state

representing the 11th congressional district in such an unbelievable way. she chairs the congressional black caucus and is continuing on every single level to be an unbelievable freedom fighter even as she is a powerful legislator. ladies and gentlemen, representative marcia fudge. [applause] >> you all please have a seat. now, i have to ask an unbelievable favor. as we are addressing the three major themes of the state of the black vote, of the necessity to look at reform of voting and law enforcement policy, and how the vote is affecting african-americans socioeconomically, i need you all to be mindful that this

panel ends today. [laughter] and so if you could think as master tweeters to do, to be sure and prolific in your responses, we will have a great panel. i would like to start with representative lewis if i can. congressman lewis, there's clearly an impact that recent legislation in particular, and civil rights, and supreme court cases have had on voting rights and voting rights for african-americans. what have the last two years in particular done for, to the african-american electorate? and more important, if there's one thing that all of us need to be doing moving into november, what is that one thing? >> well, more than anything else, the decision of the united states supreme court, local,

state officials all across america, not just in the southern states, have made a deliberate effort to take us back to another period. and we must stand up and fight and push by going to the polls and vote like we have never voted before. i've said in the past that the vote is precious. it's almost sacred. it controls everything that we do, everything. as a minority whether we be black, latino, asian american, native american, or whether we are white, we must understand that 50 years ago this year, three young men that i knew gave their lives trying to make it possible for all of our citizens to accomplish -- in the diplomatic process. we want to respond to ferguson.

we've got to vote. it is powerful. got to do it, and we must do it. if not we're going to go backwards. >> even as we begin that fight them amen in this room and around the country have consistently been engaged in ensuring that we are registered, ensuring that folks are educated and making sure that there's robust -- congresswoman fudge, there is i think an attack on the committee as we look at what happened with the supreme court decision. do we continue to fight for federal voter laws, or do we more focus on state laws that we are losing in many cases all over the country? ..