cyberstatic approach to fix a dynamic threat that exists out there today. i echo the comments of my colleagues appear on the panel. the right approach to this is a risk management approach. one of the ways that the acc deals with this from my is through our responsible care program. responsible care is a continuous improvement program. it's required of our entire membership. we require third-party audits on a regular basis and since 2001, we have a security code elements added to that in which address the cybersecurity as well. we are currently taking the framework in doing a mapping exercise. we are identifying gaps and so we can better bring our code up to current state of technology

you can fill in gaps and things of that nature. so the regulations address one i would consider a very small segment of the issue and through industry programs, like responsible care for instance, we are able to cast a much broader net to make sure there is at least a base level security product is out there that address not only cybersecurity in the hold on the physical security and environmental protection and safety as well. >> that again, because the financial services sector and the isac get collaboration with others, through your experience if you were advising a site or that is just coming along and tried to build up their infrastructure for information and collaboration, what lessons learned do you have that could be applied to other sectors quite >> for one thing, that is a great question because the isac

has assisted in actually helps run the isac which deals with large facilities in the country, large buildings. we have helped other stuff can as well rant. the lesson i have learned more than not is there needs to be within the sector in every sector has been, a set of individuals that have been one of voluntary commitment to the effort because there is an aspect to this which is really public service and there's also an aspect to this which might not be necessarily attuned to the day job, particularly when you were talking about my day job, which is based, but are members. our members are vital to this because they are the operators, the ones that are going to know how things work in within the

organization or what the threats are or not. but a lot of times what you hear sometimes is i need to focus internally for a while because of the fact that so much of the effort extra note from the organization might not necessarily be as appreciated internally as it should be. so what is having individuals with the level of commitment and building up a network which is a precursor to success because that builds trust between individuals as well as it provides the sweat equity because it's only to be extended to the individual sharing the information that you can have an effect of information sharing environment. the other piece of it is unique to ensure that you still are able to have been individual company providing the information maintained control of the dissemination of the information. they need to control whether the

information is attributed ,-com,-com ma who the information goes to in violations of that protocol need to be treated. we've kicked people out of the club because of that they violated an information sharing protocol because it seriously impacts the ability of us to be able to effectively share information. it starts with the individual's building up the network, creates the trust necessary to have been her mission sharing environment. the associations play an absolutely vital role in terms of individual members to the isac in providing information for those not involved. we don't pretend to know whether or not a particular individual member is joined to the isac or not joined to the isac. in this case redundancy is good here that is a measure of sector

success is versatile having the environment or the information is effectively shared in me to be actionable and pushed out to the entire industry. the >> chris from our communications sector standpoint, a lot of people may not know that one of the most long-standing public-private relationships is that the communications act are in terms of the national communications system worries that government and private sector working hand-in-hand together. how has the sector been able to leverage the experience over a decade in terms of cybersecurity and preparedness? >> i was going to start with that earlier. just by way of background, the communications sector is actually started in 1962 after the crisis. we've been harboring with government for over 50 years now. national security matters and there's three prongs to that. there's a policy proud that is

called the national security telecommunications advisory council and that is basic and organization that adds privacy pangolins and a variety of security issues. so that group is comprised of either ceos are cios from large communication companies that provide advice to the president that includes cybersecurity. they've done a wide variety reports on measures. one of the recommendations that were made with the formation a few years ago. it's also been report in 2000 or 10 b. there's something happening for quite some time now but has incorporated cybersecurity into the work. the second prong is the operations and planning prom. so that is where the council sits in and that is the group i serve on in a serve on an authority that thursday would work some planning functions. so they do a lot of work inflation of cleaning and how would participate in different exercises.

things like the cybersecurity framework or whatever other kind of functions are going on. at the operation level, the third from if the fbi, dcf in a wide variety of information sharing groups out there today. the operational side of information sharing. those are the three prongs of the national security commission and we provide this elements of the last five to 10 years and are continuing to do so. >> that's a great summary. in terms of information sharing, one of the challenges most of the sectors have is you are not always dealing with one government entity in terms of receiving information. you got the intel agency that dhs, in your case d.o.e., nerc, ferc, all kinds of agencies. and streamlining, what is

helpful in terms of getting information is timely, relevant and actionable from the cyberperspective? >> boy, you want to fix all that this afternoon. >> let's see, easy answer, and today directing from fort meade, right. independent of that, we will have to keep working on that. you know, there's not an easy answer for that. part of it is getting back to as we discussed paying attention on not just the data, the ones and zeros and technical information, but the actor in their motives. a lot of times we will get status in the signatures in the element, some of the details. we get it before we know what happened to somebody else, which is good. but the context, we have a model we go through to flesh out where we are with the tools and capabilities for remote at the

actor, their motivation, the action they will take, what asset they will go to achieve their objectives. once we try to understand that, then we go into our overall strategic intent to respond and recover. so when you get a technical bit of information and come it doesn't really hope you all the time to understand the actor or what the motivation is and it definitely doesn't help you through this sometimes what one of our cyberassets they are going to go after. there's how much time and effort we've and effort we've put in it if we don't have a way to anticipate or modeled the outcome of what the impact inconsequence would be. so we definitely need to figure out a way to get some of the really highly actionable intel data to prevail some other sector and some other highly exploitable that we need to update, patch, deploy, see what

assets may be not only vulnerable, but susceptible to that type of attack mechanism. but if you back up from that, i think adding a little bored you a little more understanding and that is the question we get asked all the time. we are lucky that was excellent, our board of directors, they get it. one of our sources at intel is our ceo another is to say i read this this morning on whatever fees they have. did you read this? so we get things all the time from our chief innovation officer. >> that's never happened. >> and so they get back. we has to come up with the risk management decision. cyberengine errors on my team, cyberarchitects are very professional, very good, but also very risk adverse. they would like to drive the

solution down to block it down and put exactly where it is and bring it up and put eggs into the aspect, the critical information to the organization and the potential outcome. >> what you're saying sounds and off saying sounds and off a lot like without rob rogers hussein of the type of information about the nsa did in terms of getting the information. if you want to be flooded with data, we can flood them with data. it comes down to whether those key elements. >> it's more than advisory. >> edison point you made and i talked about the technical things that look out on the network side, but we do comply an overlay. it's not just the bits and bytes, but actually the context and the only way you can make sense out of it. speed not our ceo will ask from a staples type of thing is can they do that to ask? can they do it? it is not what was the signature

and and a star system updated to stuff that and it's more detailed. >> before you had that kind of ceo interest in the issue. it is really our obligation to do what you guys just said and that is contextualize the information so it's digestible because they are going to ask the questions. we are glad they are asking the questions and the resources are now deployed to her degree in the underpass because of the greater recognition throughout the entire organization but this is an important matter. that is a real opportunity for us to take advantage of to protect the environment. >> let's continue along the line because the financial sector services has been off a lot of drills and exercises, does them regularly involved in leadership could you tell us a little more about how you conduct those

drills and who are the other players not within financial services involved in those exercises? >> sure, happy to. we tested out. i'm sure the other sectors do as well. zero boy, another exercise. a lot of different organizations. they are getting better in terms of individual exercises. one of the things we recognize this we need to expand it out to a greater degree was not associated with just financial sector participants. we have done it with the merchant environments as well. for instance, we have joint exercises with small business for the last four years at least, which has been very helpful to understand our mutual areas of concern. the other thing we are trying to do better that we've done in the past is also due a genuine after action analysis and actually

take action after. a lot of times exercises are just that. they're exercises. everybody wipes their brow after it goes home and you look at what the learnings were. do you really do anything associated with that? do you do the organization better as a result of the exercise and that is something we will do a better job on that is on the to-do list for 2015 in terms of best direction exercises. so those are the two elements we will spend a lot of time on in the next year is to ensure we have the appropriate players within the exercises, but also we actually apply the lessons associated with those exercises. and maybe do a better coordination as well because sometimes there's a dependency associated with international exercises as well. somewhere larger institutions and that essentially having a

hard time coordinating the various testing going on. that doesn't mean you don't do it. the other thing we have done recently with the assistance of the fdic is basically building an exercise in the box so community banks can essentially perform exercises that there will and that is going to be helpful as well because there is recognition that we need to be able to ensure that all different types of financial institutions regardless of their size and acquired these have the opportunity to be a part of these exercises as well. >> very much as mentioned earlier it's not the size of the company promised about the assets of the value of these assets. that's a great point. but somewhat turned to the framework. it's been a big topic of discussion here today. from a chemical start their perspective, you have senior members implement the framework.

what has been the reaction? how was it manifesting itself? >> yeah, and the general overall reaction is that is exactly what we need today. this framework is what it says it is. it is a framework. so it concepts the table for a dialogue that can happen across the yours, across large and small companies, can be adapted to fit unique needs. as i mentioned earlier, the chemical sector is very diverse, so they clearly understand there isn't a one-size-fits-all application. the other thing i say from an acc to is in this framework, maps well to a responsible care they're both frameworks per se. they are both management system type programs and they help

companies to do something and a quart native fashion across the organizations to assess risk and to address those risks in a way that fits their needs specifically. and the voluntary nature of the framework presented very openness to it. it invites people, companies and organizations in whereas the mandatory approach to this, particularly at this stage of the game i am afraid would actually put people away and push people off. the framework is really a capability and i see this already within my membership. it stimulates motivation within the industry. in fact the framework and now

companies are taking this are taking massive adapter unit and building it and pushing the envelope over. that is exactly what we need today to help thwart the threat of cybersecurity and cyberthreats. from a chemical sector perspective, if u.s. accompanies what is the greatest cyberthreat that they address today, virtually you would hear best of intellectual property. where that comes from an insider threat or an external threat. many of our members are involved in military contracts. they are developing unique applications for military applications. there are folks domestically and overseas that would like to get their hands on that information. so there's a lot of focus and attention.

the framework helps address those issues for the come to me. like i said, it helps them. it is a language, right? a standard language that the companies can use across the organization and at all levels within the organization. >> and in terms of partnership by openness to the groove. are you seeing the members of your sector asking folks within their supply chain, for example are key partners and stakeholders to adopt a framework as well? are you seeing that happening? >> definitely. we've since 99 as an industry or are required to hold our major supply-chain partners to the same information security standards that we as companies have to abide by. but how you monitor for that and how that gets accomplished is sometimes very difficult and regulators are actually requiring continuous monitoring

of our larger vendors now from the standpoint of information and data security and so i larger banks are wrestling with what that means and are community banks are really trying to understand how they have the leverage to be able to even accomplish that. but i do believe this bill is indicating that the common language is helpful in that regard because wi-fi service level agreement or otherwise, what you can do is try to essentially apply pieces at the framework to third parties. having said that, it is just a framework. so one of the criticisms of the framework is that it's not very metric straight in. sure it dry some standards, that you can't benchmarked against other companies very well with it. you're scoring associated with the framework might tend to be somewhat subject to the nature.

what i think the common language alone is very helpful because you have got in financial services space in any space in terms of the factors, always the various levels within the community. they can be a critical vendor that is fairly immature as a company. because there are technological companies that don't have a lot of maturity associated with that and they don't necessarily get the fact that the cybersecurity is kind of front and center to you as an industry player. so i think the short answer is yes. i think the larger institutions are increasingly use the net and community banks are looking at it as a way to talk security with their core processors particularly who are so critical to their operations. >> as i believe was said earlier

today, it is going to somewhat evolve. that would've seemed appropriate given the nature of the threat changes itself. so framework version 2.0 might be necessary somewhere down the road. >> i'll be talking about that in the next couple days. >> so we are now winding down. here we are at the third annual chamber cybersecurity summit. so let's imagine we are sitting up here conduct in the panel in october of 2015. if you could wave the magic wand in terms of collaboration and improving with the sector partners said that the government, what would you like to see a year from now? something that could actually be accomplished? more than a wish list? >> dennis, we will start with you. >> so i guess one of the things

brought out the night haven't had a chance to experience it for the energy sector, but i like to things that he said anything general alexander was saying before about defending the nation and is called upon the president and the secretary of defense to provide the capabilities to defend sectors of the critical infrastructure, i'm not sure how much that is an exercise to other types of aspects, but especially since the combination of bg&e, wise power to some of our critical customers in the area and supplying power to everyone here and obviously all across the u.s., the major hugs whether los angeles, new york, other places, go into the exercise and having some of these things in place that we would know who you call when you call them and they know the escalation of what they would do. do they parachute in to help the

one-sided? are they doing it all for now? to have that place at this not if but when a major attack against the great takes place in a major sector firm a wrote nationstate or a terrorist or whatever that if they came to the point that you can't expect a private company to fund and be prepared enough to basically counter and advanced to nationstate to make sure all those mechanisms are in place through whatever needs to be legislatively, so that we know exactly how to put that in place. i would sleep better at night knowing that. a lot of people in the energy sector would feel better if they knew that was lot down and you could rely on that to be there to back you up. >> so i would say more of the same. i will strike the optimistic

view. i would like to see legislation passed. at an offense going to happen or not. sounds like they're more optimistic today than yesterday. i think you need a bill to push that information sharing. as you mentioned earlier, a key part of the legislation not often discussed is the authorization part of the bill that would allow for network monitoring and countermeasures in cyberattacks. but i do see that move forward. that would change the paradigm on security will see if congress does anything. on that issue from our sector standpoint we will see the same things happen. i think they would do the workshop tomorrow more discussions about version 2.0 and the rfi just released, they talked about the establishment of a group that can work on some of the prosecutorial internet security issues. we would like to see some of the work underway to between i.t. and the others that issue dns security, there could be more

work done on that. some of the partnerships amongst the sectors we talk about earlier is going to grow. there's a lot of our understanding within the site is that the interdependencies of minis do things fair. especially between the four of us here would realize that and that will grow. it will be a similar conversation we been having, but your activity and things will continue down this path. i also think we will continue to see more and more cyberattacks. this is an inevitable state of affairs so what is really going to be what can we do to better protect ourselves in the same time dealing with these ongoing attacks. >> i think a lot of what will happen and it is based on existing statutory authority and the authority for tonight is one of the other cybersecurity bill floating around that we haven't

spoken about. i wouldn't be surprised if it might be the one that does pass. the dhs should be lauded frankly for doing what they've been able to do in terms of building without specific legislative authority, which has hampered their ability to bring sectors in. once that is cured, it will be easy to bring the other side are said and then i think what you will see is the level of maturity associated with information sharing across sectors, but also the public and private sector, which will be very well received and absolutely essential and we are looking at more sophisticated and different price than what we've seen this year. that's all you can take away the fact the environment will get tastier. >> of things are happening, it will make you watch tougher to

get an information sharing bill passed in that environment versus now and a lame-duck section where they can come back. >> it will be passed with such haste that it will have elements that will not be forgot it. >> bill coming up at the last one. >> verse things first i guess they need to throw out a little kudos sitting over here at the reserve number one table. not a curse with the chamber has to make a job in leading the coalition and said a group of individuals that have been pressing congress, particularly in the senate and educating them about the import and insecure cyberthreat information. we are all moving together here on this. thanks, matt. you owe me a. my vision of next year when i'm sitting here, we have a pastor

built that provides a protected environment for sharing information. as a result of that, we'll have more robust sharing happening. from the acc perspective, we will have a isac, complete the form isac stood up and operating under the protections that the bill will provide us. we will also have integrated the cybersecurity framework into a continuous management program, the responsible care program and i will begin to measure how effectively acc members are implementing that program. last but not least, there was a statistic thrown out earlier today about the game craze number of a cyberincident was reported non-brief 48% increase.

next year i want to see that either top or maybe even start to trickle down. i am a dreamer. >> one thing is clear. there is one thing about working. a lot of folks left the question what is the private sector doing a cybersecurity? are they really invested in this? from the session today come to you above clearly demonstrated that huge amounts of resources censored when he brought the knowledge of partnerships and point, you are investing in the relationship not only within your site tears come across a dirt and what the government. with that, we'll wrap up. thank you all. [applause] >> thank you, gentlemen. great panel as always. am i to say thank you two of the speakers today. everyone we invited to come accepted our invitation. thanks a lot. we have great numbers at the

chamber, too. ..

congress is back on capitol hill today both the house and the senate will be enough to eastern following the midterm elections. the house will take up ten bills including one to update the presidential records act and in the senate lawmakers expected to vote on judicial nominations in the block grant program. tomorrow though to hold elections for next year. to see the house on the companion network c-span and that senate of course right here on c-span2. recently we spoke with a reporter about the week ahead in congress. the 2014 midterms are over but we are just about over in most races anyway and we look ahead to the lame duck session and we are joined by rebecca covers

congress for the hill looking to the lame duck session and the funding will wait until december you right in that article the timing would give lawmakers a day or two to debate and vote. there is a deadline in december. what is and what is going that and what is going to be included in the omnibus bill submitted they had a day or two based on the committee to pass the omnibus spending bill that would fund the government through the rest of the fiscal year which would be to the end of next september. the problem is that the spending bill the lawmakers approved in september expired on december 11 which is that week and people will only have just a few days to debate and vote on the bill otherwise but could have been is lawmakers might choose to expend the continuing resolution currently in place for a short period of time.

>> they said we do levels tested this year and other surprises we may see in the spending bill. >> the level that will be in the bill is at a level set by the budget deal paul ryan and patty murray reached in december so it will be around a roundabout $1.014 trillion mark otherwise it's hard to tell what is going to be new in this bill. the white house has offered two separate funding requests that are pretty major. one is for the fight and bonus for more on the ice this into those are the administrations congress last week. lawmakers have to debate the requests and it's possible they could wind up in the omnibus spending bill.

that's what the administration is hoping for but of course there could be republicans that opposed the requests. >> host: use p8 about that that says democrats called for the war vote in the lame-duck so not only is there a consideration but whether the president has the authority to do this, correct? >> guest: right president obama said he does have the authority to carry out these operations in iraq and syria. however, he said in the last week that he will seek an authorization to carry out the evaporation's in the middle east. the problem is a lot of democrats that a lot of democrats want this authorization to happen in the lame-duck session since they do have control of the senate, however, republicans want it to be pushed until next year when they have the majority in the senate. i think that might be what winds up happening, the republicans might get their way because they

only have about 15 working days in session during the lame-duck session at the end of this year and i don't think they will be able to get much done beside the spending billions ap a few other things. i think something as large as an authorization would have to have more time for them to debate. >> host: denomination of loretta lynch to replace the attorney general making the announcement last week. interesting the hill and other organizations reporting about the possible delay in her nomination. the headline says democrats are unlikely to ram through the obama attorney general pick. why would senate democratic leaders delay the consideration of her nomination and wait until a republican majority takes control of the senate? >> guest: deck are not too concerned about her nomination. i think the white house put her forward and is somewhat of a bipartisan choice. she has been confirmed twice to

be u.s. attorney in new york so i don't think they will have two heart hard of a time getting her through. even john mccain said he thinks that she will get through the republican senate next year so i don't think democrats are too can turn into gang they don't have to many days to debate and vote on the sort this sort of thing in the session. >> host: senator mcconnell, the incoming majority leader of the senate, what are his efforts in terms of repealing obamacare? >> guest: he said he does want to reveal obamacare. i read a story a few days ago about a number of groups trying to push mcconnell to repeal obamacare. he suggested he could use a budget tool called bunch of tool called reconciliation to push it through which would only require 51 votes in the senate which he would have however there are a

number of legislative and procedural hurdles he might face getting the three repeal through. maybe president obama would be willing to sign the repeal of the medical device tax, maybe something on the employer mandate that might get bipartisan attraction. >> host: does the house and senate democrats hold of their leadership elections this week what are some of the races we should keep an eye out for? >> guest: it won't be too controversial. republicans are holding their elections on thursday as our democrats in the senate. i think what we are looking for is what's happening in the senate. of the two sides are going to flip and mcconnell is going to get the majority -- stomach watching on live stream or c-span. i'm the president and ceo of the wilson center and recovering

politician anti-serb nine terms in the united states congress. it's my pleasure to welcome you to a very important national conversation on congress and the presidency, the presidency and of military intervention. last week i was at harvard law school and i attended decades back and i was teaching a seminar on the authorization for the war. i didn't think that i could do this all by myself, but there was the man sitting in the front row, jeff smith, who is a partner in charge of the national security practice at a major law firm where he is a general counsel of the cia and senate armed services committee under senator sam nine and knows a boatload about the subject and the members of the panel. just, again my thanks for making

this look good and i hope you do the same. article one, section eight says congress shall have the power to declare war. but after this point congress has been awol. we are at war with isil but the administration is relying on a decade old authority. the president decided to seek a new authorization to use military force. his administration insist the old authorization supply, too. well i voted for that. i voted for the 2001 and i voted for the very controversial 2002 iraq aumf. this is in the fight, those of us have voted for aumf, intended to authorize. this is against a new enemy in a new country.

more than a year ago right here at the wilson center, senator bob corker, who has become the new chair of the senate foreign relations committee warned that the congress had no ownership whatsoever about foreign-policy. he was right then and he's right today and we are not the only people saying this. half a dozen new aumf have been introduced by both parties in both houses including by the keynote speaker today, senator tim kane of virginia. a very astute observers like jack goldsmith have said how president obama's approach is. an article in the republic about a month ago they called this president, not president bush 43, an actor of unilateral war. i'm sure he will speak on that today. with the midterm elections in three months of airstrikes

behind us, i think it's past time to address this issue. the president has realized that while coming congress to act isn't asking. last week he requested new authorization from congress. but if the president was right to ask and he was, then congress also needs to do. the blame game has to end. it's time to govern and that process ought to begin now. the bills raise important issues and i'm sure we will discuss them. should it be repealed and what is the new scope of any authority and how will we pay for the operations that have already cost nearly $1 billion. when we moved the dialogue forward to today, but that the american people deserve representation in this debate. they ought to get it now through

congress. with that, i would like to introduce the wonderful keynote speaker senator tim kaine. since he was elected to represent virginia, he's made his remarks on the committee on armed services, foreign relations committee, and in the war power debate. he worked with senator john mccain to bring the 73 war powers resolution up to date and he introduced and has been advocating for his proposal for a new aumf against isil. after history arcs which will be approximately ten minutes, senator kaine will join me and jack goldsmith will be introduced shortly a conversation with jim, the chief national security correspondent for cnn, and i think the only journalist who had been in 2003 in the iraq invasion --

>> with u.s. special forces. >> a former correspondent for abc in london and also has a book "against us the new face of america's enemies in the muslim world." we are happy to have been them with us today and on the first day of the lame-duck session. on the first day of the congress coming back into session is the right time not only to have this discussion, but to call for action in congress. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, good morning. if past history is any guide i'm hoping that the session will be followed by a zero doc so that's my hope for next two months. i want to thank jamie for the introduction and the opportunity to be here to talk about the issue but i'm very passionate about. it's hard to say everything i want to say in ten minutes but let me try to say three things. first, and i never do this, i'm

going to talk about why this matters to me so much. it's not relevant to what i propose is good or bad, but the ceremony at the memorial monday was a veterans day yesterday and i maybe want to talk for a minute about why this matters to me personally. second, i want to talk about what is at stake in the constitution and congress and also also an underlining in underlining value that seems to be the real issue we often don't talk about. third, i want to talk about what we need to do when i have an immediate and short term and long term. why does it matter to me? people come in with passions and interests and i have many but i only have one of session and this is it. my obsession with how the nation makes the decision to go to war it is an obsession and i want to be focused on this as long as i am blessed to be here.

it started when i was the lieutenant governor in virginia and watched the debate around debates around the authorization in october of 2002. i assumed everything that i heard was true but even assuming it was and is a method turned out not to be i was troubled in the fact a vote was being pushed before the midterm. remember we didn't go in until march of 2003, so what explains having a big debate and giving it an october 02 i concluded the most likely explanation was to make it work better and pushed the timing so what happens if it turns out politics in the midterm did work out better than it otherwise might have. i think it turned out to be very problematic and i would put that and cast votes i've taken back

that i would attend kansas and nebraska act as a low moment for congress. one of the jobs of governors being the commander-in-chief of the virginia guard and air guard. when you are in a war and you have thousands of people deployed multiple times as a governor you go to the scandals and the deployment and homecomings. one of my secretary's sons was badly injured and one of my church members had a son that was killed and another wasn't physically injured but came back suffering significant challenges as a result of his service. along the way i have a son and a nephew that joined valid -- joined the military. my thought about the policies

and the fact that it is so present to us and did my own family gets turned into an obsession of mine. first thing and we have one of the experts, jack is the allocation of power how should we go to war and the framers had such a view on this and it was smart. forgive me for leaning a little heavy but it is important when you look at the constitution and jane read the section about the power to declare war we are used to the constitution and forget how unusual it is. prior to the constitution it was for the executive. that's what the world history advance of the framers of the constitution tried to alter it in a different direction and put

the decision-making covers taking it away from an executive congress declares war and the president because the last thing you need is 535 commanders in chief but in describing the way it was done this way george mason is about ratification said this is ratifications that this is meant to be a facilitator of peace, not of war by handing the power to congress. drafter james madison ten years after the constitution's final was final wrote a letter to jefferson and said our constitution supposes that the history of government demonstrates that it's the most interested and it's for this reason we put the question in the legislative branch. one of the first presidents thomas jefferson was compounded with a war similar to now, cause

i took take her wrist organization in the mediterranean grappled with what congress said that the allocation covers. jefferson knew as president and commander-in-chief i can defend the nation immediately so as our ships were being attacked to tell them you've got to defend yourselves but at some point he decided defending every attack doesn't seem smart and we go on offense against the power and he said when i go beyond the line of defense i can do that without the sanction of congress. so a president could defend without congress although you should get them on board. congress had to declare war other than an end defense to the declaration. that was the understanding that we've gotten it wrong and it

doesn't matter whether it is republican or democrat or federalist we've gotten it wrong because madison was halfway right but he wasn't cynical enough. he described the provisions that i checked against executive power is the executive branch most prone to the court he saw more marks monarchs and executives overreach but he didn't see the legislatures abdicate. people will get killed. the people will get killed. my constituents may not like it and maybe if the president can initiate we can say we are with you all the time and if it works out poorly, i can't believe you did this without coming to congress. there has been a tendency in the i would argue that it is that's more than an explanatory of the

executives overreach that there was a pathology between executives overreach and congressional abdication that's put us in a situation where presidents like president obama can go back and start things unilaterally. when the value is we ought to get decision-making back. that was revolutionary when it was done and it still is that it should be for legislative. of the second thing is the underlining value and this is what really matters to me. if we don't do with the way the framers intended and allow the work to be done in the congress to stand that stands back we don't want to get involved and it might make people mad and we ask people to risk their lives. we had the first combat already against the marine corporal

supporting the campaign on the second of october. we are asking people to risk their lives or the stress of seeing this happen to civilians who are always kind of a part of the damage in the war. how can we ask people to do that if we are not willing to do our job and put a thumb print on a mission to say this is in the national interest but we are afraid of having we don't want to say that it's in the national interest but don't risk your life that seems to be the height what can you do that would be more publicly in moral than ordering people to risk their lives without having a discussion of whether the

mission is worth it or not. you're not you not only that violate the constitution by force people to risk their lives and finally what should we do very quickly i propose three things. first we have to have an authorization to cover this mission because in my view from mid-august until now there has not been legal authority sufficient to authorize the mission. when the president started air president started air strikes there was a credible claim that the momentum could jeopardize the personnel either in baghdad or iraq so he was defending the united states as the president can do without coming to congress but i thought we were engaged in airstrikes that posed no threat to the united states we were helping rescue refugees coming important there was no threat to american interests and

so from that time we have been engaged into the president said we are in a war against isil in a war that is not about in its and its defense of the united states with legal authority. the article as the commander-in-chief are as jefferson said defending against immense threat and i view the argument that either the old one or the other to authorization covers this mission as ridiculous. this mission is and covered by the wording of the authorizations or the content of the authorizations or the members of congress thought when they voted for the authorizations and maybe most important it isn't covered with president obama said about the authorizations. in 2013 he said he authorization should be narrowed and revealed,

not expanded and he sent witnesses to testify about the 2002 authorization and said it was obsolete in the time to repeal. so there is no authority to support the action against isil unless congress has a debate and votes and that's why i've introduced a resolution to deal with it right away. second we need to deal with the 2001 authorization because that continues to be out there and we could deal with it with the authorization or separately that the congress passed a brief authorization without a limitation and because of the definite that has been the authorization even the targets that were subject are now very broad and the multiple theaters were still under that 13 years later and officials have said

they think that the war authorized by the 2001 authorization will go on another 25 or 30 years. that is unacceptable and we should have a debate to narrow that observation since members like the congresswoman explicitly rejected the administration's attempt to have a broad authorization. they said give us the authorization to take action against terrorist groups before they hurt us and congress rejected that the 20 administrations have done is expand the authorization that was passed to the wood congress rejected in the 01. the last thing we should do and i introduced legislation to do this is codec into the war powers resolution and come up with a better process for the discussion that will take place between congress and the president and that respects both sides constitutional prerogatives.

there is a group at the university to study this under a panel led by jim baker and warren christopher and the conducted his never been a golden era that we've never gotten this right and we changed the process here and there and i'm under no illusion that not having a process takes consequential decisions and makes them even harder. so senator mccain and i have the war powers consultation act that tries to take the dialogue process and define what is the war that will trigger the consultation in cyber attacks, nonstate actors and a defense of the consultation is and third but the voting requirements with piece of the congress would have to be onboard and do their jobs. we do need to do this right now there is no reason to extend

this for five or six months. i'm excited we have the first meeting about it today and i look forward to working with my colleagues. thank you. [applause] stick it is an honor to be here next to senator kaine. senior fellow at the hoover institution and that means he is has two decent educational institutions covered and it's always great to see jane. we see each other in this cnn green room. i wonder if i can begin with you senator kaine. this sports both ways and you see the president now presenting that he wants to pursue a new

aumf knowing there are some in the gop that could be more forward leaning. i wonder if in the current environment we can get this issue where there is a potential for bipartisan agreement. to give some definition as you say during the lame-duck session. >> i look at the split in both parties into so many things are divided divided and partisan camps this isn't partisan. one of my hardest votes was whether to authorize the use of military forces. for the use of the chemical weapons but it was a nonpartisan vote because the question was hard but it was a nonpartisan vote because it did break on the partisan lines. there are republicans who don't like that the power must go by this president or other presidents who i think what a

mistake mistake made with this and there are democrats that i think theo while they may have different feelings about the mission itself and of the parameters they feel strongly they don't want to see the power to an executive. and senator corker who i worked closely with finance this has been a passion of his as well. i don't see it as a partisan issue and that creates opportunity for finding a path forward. there are some important specifics where do you want to authorize or prohibit ground troops and what should've the link to be. there are some details whether there will be differences but overall there are plenty that worry about the presidential power. >> there've been 3200 strike missions over iraq and syria.

the president is authorizing with the latest 1500 up to 2900 troops that sounds like a war to me. is this arguably too late and by doing this now is it about the president's legacy and does it set a precedent? how important is it to act even though the war is already underway and when you get into the new year we are talking six or 12 months before you have an actual vote on this. >> thank you for inviting me to be here today it is an honor. obviously it's not too late it can happen and it would be important for the president to go to congress and for the congress to give him the authorization not just to use force against the islamic state but also to update the 2001 authorization and give that a temporary approval and figure

out some of the complicated issues that have arisen. a >> do those come together that you get a new authorization and revise 2001 -- >> that is just a matter of how politics work. it might be easy one way or the other but it should be done in the islamic state authorization or the 2001 authorization and the president suggested that they would both be done and it would be important to do so for all the reasons both legal and political. for the presidency legacy it is very much in his interests to see that this happens for a long time until the rise of the islamic state one of the impression that they wanted to declare the war by the end of his administration so for a long

time the president also has kind of by accident to do developed the most extraordinary power force in humanitarian context and he's done things that have got have gutted the central provisions of the resolution and he expanded when he said he wanted to contract it. all of those will be on his record and can be cleaned up if we can work out these issues. he will leave on a high note on these issues. >> jane you know washington to say the least. senator kaine laid out an agenda when you speak about revising 2001 but also the possibility of the next step of giving clarity to the war powers act. for a moment handicap the chances and congress with a hard-fought election coming up

that you could get progress on this issue, resolution on the issue. >> this was an ugly election. no one has missed that. it didn't change hands because people decided the other team was great into the democratic team was bad. they decided everybody was bad and congress does nothing and i think this was a referendum on the incumbents in congress now we have a somewhat new congress and a new team in control but i think this congress is on trial. the terrorists are not going to check our party registrations before we get that. they are not going to interview you and figure out what had you are wearing. you are wearing a government had. that's why you are here and everyone on this panel. i hope that every board in the country starts writing about the

congress. this has to be either number one. people are donating dying there and there has not been a public debate. we've spent a billion dollars and i understand that is chump change these days that over the next month it's going to be more billions and there may be more deaths and turns and twists and it's not just i agree with you this is in the world i also think that it is cholos only unwise for both parties. >> they better but will they? >> sort of. it will depend on what the public says. the digital campaign, editorials this is the number one and here he is on day number one doing

the right thing: for action. >> do you see the partners on the other side of the aisle as we have a leadership change corker can do a leadership role and do you see -- they have very public views on this as well but do you see it in that leadership can they bring their own party to detail, do you think you have the partners to move forward? >> i do think we do. if the president pushed congress to have the debate and vote before recess, he would have gotten the authorization. what is my evidence on that? i sat around a table on the committee when we met with the secretary hagel and secretary kerry. the hardest piece of the mission that was proposed as the arming and training of the opposition.

that was the most controversial in any congress more so than the airstrike campaign. congress voted for that piece of it in connection and a continuing resolution it was two thirds in the house, three quarters in the senate and i watched my colleagues around of the foreign relations committee and based on the discussion who would vote yes on the authorization right now and it was a better margin didn't attend-8. we will see what folks think that i think if the president pushed the authorization of the point he would have gotten it but it's more complicated now. i do see partners on the immediate and long-term. >> on the blame congress and how they could have cautioned the authorization if you look back at every force since world war

ii there've been about ten or 12 they only came about because it's hard for congress to do this for all the reasons we've seen. a president obama has gone from saying i will work with congress but if he set up an authorization that says i want this in a month that would get the job done and the question is if he doesn't make that move whether congress can do it on their own. >> i completely agree this works so much better than the draft authorization because if he doesn't then you have six different authorizations. i put one man but there are five others floating around and the better thing to do is to set up a draft and for us to have hearings that's what we did a today said that one version and

got a different one but they started with the white house version. >> if the leadership asks the president to do this and this is a big deal. we are now after the midterm and if they wanted him to ask. now they ought to ask him to set up a bill and hopefully it will be prepared by standing lawyers like jeff goldsmith and others in that wall, for the consideration based on those that have already been introduced. >> and i would do that as senator menendez is taking them to the committee talking to the administration what do you think

i am sure they are trying to do a frankenstein job. >> it's not take this partisan in any way. >> so the war against isis is the biggest and the there are lots of troops on the ground. you have drones drawn strikes going on in pakistan, yemen and we have military forces deployed but when you have the missing girls there are a lot of places they are killing people. professor this would deal with the issue do you need authorizations for the other actions? >> those are all present on the

article powers and for all of the reasons we stated having that debate whether we should be doing those things and also ideally there are procedural requirements to tell the american people who are we at war with and where. it's remarkable i testified on the committee last year on this issue and it was remarkable how the committee knew where we were fighting and it was a remarkable thing. >> that there was at least one more group and if we are now authorizing the war in this area we can't just say it is the entire game and then they brought the others but i think people are looking for a

strategy not let's just left this group over here and over there but how are we going to win the argument deciding whether to snap on a suicide vest, how do we win that argument? no military commander thinks we can win kinetically. we have to have a narrative about what we stand for and what we are trying to achieve other than those involved in the groups and that empowers them otherwise the argument won't be one to step up. that strategy out to be part of the conversation with congress that the american people participate. >> and we are losing that battle

and that there is an argument to say that they will actually increase that as a recruiting tool and i do think the way that jane put it is winning the conflict into the argument there is a bigger picture that involves diplomacy and the aid and the only way that you are going to win. it's the sectarian model there is a philosophy of power in the world right now and we all have a huge stake in the argument to be the victor. >> this is being waged on the social media to take us back to the seventh century but we have to wage it back on social media.

>> when you see the propaganda videos produced and they know their audience. i want to get to audience questions but you brought up ways to we used to talk about how his days are numbered. biscuits to four-point taking down the regime do we deal with that now or is it down the road? >> i don't think that official policies in of the u.s. any longer will be a regime change should the nation. i don't think that should be part of our official policy. the president set a red line and

didn't honor it he did what he said he would do. i think the president did what he said he was going to do. i don't think that we should be in the business of saying others must go. we've been bad at it when we tried and we should step back so i don't think that he's a butcher, the chemical weapons violated many international protocols but we still don't set the timetable of the change for another. it should be part of this authorization. >> i would like to go to the audience now.

>> for the viewers of c-span thank you for organizing this is just terrific and a lot of great ideas have surfaced. it's an enormously complicated subject with two quick points. we need to decide what the strategy is and that is unclear and that is the presidents response ability. there is an additional audience and that is the enemies and allies. what we do in this legislation will be followed very closely. we will only win this war broadly against terrorism with allies and reform in the islamic world and if they know that the nation is not committed they are not going to participate. you go ahead and we will watch.

and i think it's important that we signal to the world as well as to our own people and the men and women that fight that this is a long-term commitment to the united states and we are going to pay for it. >> thank you for holding this. how detailed a show that the congressional authorization be, should you just support going to the conflict or are you going to suggest things like tactical questions though boots on the ground come out other conditions, use of buttons etc. and what about the tax increase to pay for it. >> your proposal has a time limit and a prohibition on the ground troops. i drafted an authorization.

i don't have ownership in the pieces i put everything in for a reason but let me tell you what i did. my authorization tracks the president's mission from the speech and we will continue to be the biggest providers. if counterterrorism operations against leadership and appointed three, the arming and training and equipping of the ground forces from the iraqi army into the kurdish area that i put for limitations. there are to be the report back in the reauthorization of the sunset and i put the limitation on the ground troops to the specified circumstances and i did that for the reason that was

mentioned they woven the war in iraq and syria if they are not going to stand up against the extremists. if they are in we should provide the support. but if they are not willing to i don't think that there is a successful mission and quickly the other two limitations or repeal the authorization so we don't have the dueling authorizations in the same state and narrowly described through the target is because it's basically evolved to begin taking military action to any group connected with al qaeda so long as they attend action against a coalition partner select treated the specific. they are controversial if we

have to hammer that out. >> there is a lot of parsing of words like that is the more, but are the combat ground troops and you know and the forward ground control in your view? like i did put in my authorization to the extent that they carry out the counterterrorism mission. >> it's a dangerous job though. overall, the general while he said we are not going to win in

needing to pick up what the region want to do to please the extremism in the region. >> anybody that flies an airplane or helicopter or isn't special forces are in the combat groups second if one of these things crashes there will be a rescue situation so it's not an option but the other part of the question was about to pay for. we are up to a billion and going higher during my 100 years in congress are doing that we should put the war in the budget they don't last for 13 years and we have to pay for this and not just with the lives of the .4%.

there has to be a debate about the cost of the war and we have to step up and budget. >> i want to ask you professor goldsmith is there a definition to a combat force into the reason i ask that is as the general dempsey has taken up a large force he has kept open a number of instances the idea of the ground controller the presidents plan announced on friday that u.s. advisers outside of baghdad not just an operation centers in the north of baghdad but they are closer to the combat in iraq that ended in iraq that could be a suicide truck bomber driving to the brigade headquarters so again i feel like i'm being snowed on the definition. >> there are various troops on

the ground now. you can borrow the language although although this frost from the war powers resolution. the troops are in the trip being attacked or engaging in the military operation and so you might be able to get at this but rather what types of activities can be gauged. there is no definition of this. >> if you are flying a helicopter or plane -- >> you certainly can. >> it is a flexible test. >> you said that the regime has

changed and will not be an official policy of the united states but at the same time you have a program of equipping the position. what are you helping them to do. >> we got into that in a pretty significant way. the question was put the provide arms to organizations that would fight and wouldn't also be focused on fighting the regime that we are talking about. i think we want to make sure the primary mission that we are providing assistance to his battle against isil but it would be unrealistic to expect they would've decided would decide they are not focused on the side. the part of the obligation as

complicated as it is, the theory in part is extremely rich more complicated. and i would actually suspect if there is an authorization, you would probably see this mission is old in the u.s. went into world war ii we didn't just invaded germany. then we came into france. you're going to see the focus on iraq and attempting to stabilize the situation and the border between iraq and syria and the order between syria and jordan, turkey, iraq and lebanon and at some point there will be an opening to figure out what is the right path forward in this area that can lead to the end of a civil war but the scenery scenery in spite of this is more complicated and i acknowledge the acknowledged the question it's not easy to separate the motives.

>> let's go in the back. i would like to ask about the precedent is being set with either the executives overreach into the war powers authority or congressional abdication. do you see this as a growing trend and if so what are the consequences and what you argue that the united states either the president or congress is acting unlawfully and if the two of you could answer. >> in terms of the precedence in a number of ways he's been using his own article to authorities

but when he is engaged whatever you think of those whether they are good or bad or whatever, the serious question of the locality they stretched beyond where it had been before and he stretched the precedence in terms of noncompliance in the resolution. not in this context as much as he did in libya so whether he's acting unlawfully especially in the self defense i wouldn't say that he's acting unlawfully. he's acting prudently and not with the constitutional values or what he said he wanted to do in the past and it's worse. >> i don't disagree.

>> i think the congressional abdication mentality on this and so many other issues is so massive right now that you have to congress is suing the president. we don't want you to use executive power but whatever you do, do not bring to us before the midterm elections that very few people that are suing and we are not going to challenge you. so i viw this as the article one branch not doing what it's supposed to do it do and will be do it on the abdication witney layout do and will be abdication with me lay out what the big picture problem is. here's how it has evolved in this country. you can start without congress come you can find on the credit

card and even in vietnam as unpopular as it was we pay for at least part of it but now iraq and afghanistan are all on the credit card. ..

>> >> we have to have this discussion. i think congress has to rein in the president's of the presidential action. >> i will add one more thing. which is sequestration. to impose a straitjacket. year on defense and nondefense spending. there is the budget that is

debated coming out of the general account and with that capability with a surge in this direction it is not good or bad but what if something else happens in the ukraine or russia or china? >> ebola. looked at the other things. >> how does it pay for that? is plain irresponsible. >> from the german marshall fund, i want to get back to the question of long-term strategy of terrorism in general not just isil i worry about calling it a war on terror. obviously isil but terrorism is the ongoing conflict a state of mind as a psychology. senior officials say it is a

game of whack-a-mole as you shoot a missile into a country people hate you and it is an ongoing e. fact. then we are incentivize because of the wars in iraq and afghanistan? i appreciate the narrative. can you talk about that and what is the effort to build? >> again that is what we need a public debate for. not in the next 10 minutes year but president upon the change that misnomer and called it the war on al qaeda. terry is a tactic. it is not a defined enemy but it is one that is in overuse at the moment but on

the drone strike issue to some extent it is the blurring effect however those strong strikes and they do know a lot about this are those advisory boards are highly targeted. i argue they have to be part of a tool kit but we have to explain it that our enemies and our friends out there and understand we are not building more enemies buttery taking elmore? it has to be debated. >> we have been doing this for 13 years and maybe what

we're doing now we don't know maybe that is the least bad. >> we will take a few questions together. >> since we have a little under 10 minutes we will have a speed round. then we can do a couple at once. >> there are two issues you raised initially to have an authorization for isil also 2001. i could imagine to go after isil it seems harder could

they speak to the implications? natalie for the president's legacy but for the future. >> then we will get a few of them. >> good morning. i quite agree with the senator about the ice this issue as the bigger picture of power. i come from indonesia. there is a sensitivity of political culture with the muslin issue. and i am very concerned of the bipartisan issue of isil

jeopardize his our attention and focus to handle the of politics against the united states and that is what i think the congress has to focus on with the bipartisan issue. so my question is, is there any discussion or investigative research who are the extra doctors with isis? with the complexion of muslim political culture the

extractors should be investigated. >> we only have five minutes. but who is behind 86? >> i have been waiting to ask this question. >> let's do one each if we have time we will come back. >> why not just and set? >> with the imf can use but kidding anyone for that

current military option to repeal the 2001 war may be related to that can you send said as well? >> it is important with the authorization or separately but to put it for congress to reaffirm it is important that congress do that plus congress passed to insist to capture the group's and congress has to insist to be informed by the executive branch if other people should be informed with unnecessarily a vague as asian.

that combination of two was included in the authorization they do a lot to bring rigor and discipline and accountability. >> you could not let that sunset as day pressure mechanism of version and 2.0 if only do continue that effort against al qaeda. >> but it does have to be defined in a way. >> what about the assessment of cost? it is a big part. >> has gotten to this strategy for some is there a

sufficient attention to the outside? >> no. it is a big question in lee have read about the allegations as some people and some countries in the region are trying to fund isil into the group's to are those people where are the funds coming from? and with those resources that have to be cut off and there are different from the others because they set up a state one is the failed state but obviously aligning with others is that big deal >> it is not just money but they are not mysterious factors but they turned up a

blind eye. >> i agree. >> because they were the most effective to say we will not support them any more. sova it stems from that idea of the support beyond extortion or others >> and also don't forget from shiia. >> we have time for one more >> i was wondering of the implications of the sunset provision given the history of the actions it is completely operable. what happens? >> that is a good debate.

>> i actually think it is possible for the reauthorization because of the deadlock but with the surveillance 2007 / 2008 the congress has updated authorities it is remarkable as the force of the mechanism to have congress come back. i have another reason to think that will have been here. because the stakes are so high. and we need authorization but it has lapsed somehow. what he is doing now in theory it is not a good idea but in self-defense could do it under article ii. if the authorization ran now then the argument would be

it is the main direct consequence right there. >> that is a fair question. i know about congressional agitation and advocate congress do things but the question is what is likely it will with the historical trend? but with forcing mechanisms are hopeful. that there is the precedent to drag congress back then and it will act. >> but i think the bottom line they have to make this decision not a member of the senate or the cnn correspondent. the way the american people speak is congress has to debate these things and i argue they have to vote. to make them accountable. >> a closing thought. it strikes me it is a true moment of reckoning for the

country as we talk about the nation decides to go to war. a decision the president and congress can make to decide how the nation will fund the wars that it has punted over the last 12 years on the credit card but also how it debates. because with the lead up to iraq we did not have the proper debate as we do now. with all political this function in washington summit is congress up to that? >> after 13 years of war if we have not learned enough to have the discussions seriously then god help us. a virginian died in september in afghanistan. we're still losing people in afghanistan. staff sergeant strunc. we have not learned anything

we should have at least learn to the question of how we start military action. so i think we have learned enough. >> also to say it is a shameless self-promotion but the wilson center can convene a discussion like this after congress is back from the election. and i am very proud to come here to talk about this. and others have come. this conversation needs to move miles up the road. >> thanks very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

>> virginia senator wrapping a final conversation he is in town as congress reconvenes this afternoon they will dabble at 2:00 p.m. eastern talking about the presidential records act also congress will hold leadership elections tomorrow. democrats has scheduled theirs on november 18th. in a procedural vote expected on to district court nominations for gold and on the floor tomorrow those two bills hold leadership election selecting them majority in minority leaders. we spoke of the capitol hill reporter for the upcoming schedule for the week ahead. >> the mid term server over or just about over and we look at the lame-duck session joint by representative back dash abide to covers congress.

it will wait until december but you write-in the article the timing just one day or two they have a deadline in december what is that in what will be included in the omnibus bill, rebecca shabad? >> guest: when i have been told with the house appropriations committee the omnibus spending bill with the rest of the fiscal year is through the end of next september. the problem is the spending bill that lawmakers approved in september expires that week so people only have just a few days to debate and vote on the bill or what could happen as lawmakers may choose to extend the continuing resolution for maybe a short period of time and tell day pass the omnibus spending bill. >> host: at extension sounds like they have done

that in the past. what is in the bill? is the -- is this the level agreed to from the budget passed earlier in the year? what surprises me we see in the omnibus spending bill? >> guest: correct. is the level set by the budget deal that all right and and patty murray reach us december it is near the $1 trillion mark but it is hard to tell exactly what will be new is that omnibus spending bill. the white house has asked for two separate new funding request that are pretty major. one is for ebola virus the other is the war:86. that is what the administration sent to congress in the last week and lawmakers will have to debate this request is possible that is what the administration is hoping for but there could be

republicans who oppose that request. >> host: you treated about the request by $.6 billion it says democrats call for the t6 votes with the lame-duck session. the with the president has the authority to do this? >> guest: president obama has said he does have the authority to carry out the military operations in iraq and syria. however he has said he doesn't need the operation to carry out operations in the middle east. but democrats do want the authorization to happen in the lame-duck session so they have control of the senate but republicans want it to be pushed until next year when they have the majority. i think that is what will happen in the republicans may get their way because they only have 15 working

working-- in the session and during that lame-duck session at the end of the year. i don't think they could get much done besides the spending bill. something as large as the authorization bill needs more time to debate the. >> host: moving to the senate winch to replace the attorney-general holder it is interesting the other organizations reporting about a possible delay of heromination the headline at the hill says said democrats will my ram through the attorney general dick. why would leaders to lay the consideration of her nomination and wait and tell the republican majority takes control? >> guest: democrats are not too concerned about her nomination. the white house put her for word as the bipartisan choice. she was confirmed twice before by the senate to be

u.s. attorney in new york. idle think they will have to part of the time even john mccain said earlier today he thinks she will get through the republican senate next year i don't think democrats are too concerned. but they don't have too many days to debate or vote during a the lame-duck session. >> host: senator mcconnell the incoming majority leader of the senate is likely. what about his efforts to repeal obamacare? >> guest: he has said repeatedly he does want to repeal obamacare i read the story a few days ago about conservative groups trying to push the next congress to repeal obamacare. he has suggested we can use the reconciliation budget to push it through that only requires 51 votes that he has put there are legislative and procedural hurdles he could face as far as getting that through.

what is much more likely maybe the president would be willing to sign a repeal of the medical device tax or the employer mandate to get a bipartisan attraction in. >> host: house and senate democrats will hold leadership elections this week where races should be keeping an eye on it? >> guest: obviously republicans are holding leadership elections on thursday as are democrats in the senate. what we are looking for is what is happening in the senate obviously as the two sides will flip and mcconnell will get the majority. some races are open and that are not too controversial. as far as john boehner i think he will have the speakership again maybe teapartier republicans may choose to put their name in

that hat. but i don't think he will have to part of a time it seems clear he will be speaker again. >> host: also looks like he is strengthened by the results of the election. rebecca shabad covering congress for the hill look for her on line and twitter. thank you for the update. >> both chambers will gavel in today at 2:00 p.m. eastern you can always watch wide coverage on c-span or the senate here on c-span2. current minority leader mitch mcconnell held of meeting with the new republicans this morning as part of the orientation. prior to that they posed for a group photo into questions from reporters. [inaudible conversations]

>> after the 2006 election of bob garber. [laughter] we are excited about that lee are hoping they will be joined by sullivan and cassidy shortly. we are here to make progress with the american people. >> does that mean you're planning to move forward? >> the problem is the president continues to send a signal he has no intention i was particularly distressed with the deal

with the chinese on his current trip which is not part of the agreement at all for the last 16 years for regulations or for other states around the country. i said before i hope we can do business on trade the first indications of not been good. >> looking at that china issue. >> we will discuss that with our colleagues over the next few days. [inaudible conversations]

>> head of hhs and homeland security department will testify this afternoon of the ongoing response to protect americans from the ebola virus is. j. johnson and secretary burwell will be headed by the national allergy and infectious diseases. that will be on the companion network c-span three and also share your thoughts on our facebook page and on twitter using #c-span tat -- chat

>> it is for everyone. it is a glorious service for the country. the call comes to every citizen it is the unending struggle to keep government representative. >> bob was probably the most important political figure in wisconsin history and one of the most important is the history of the 20th century of the united states. he was a reforming governor governor, he defined what progressivism is and was the first to use that to solve identify. he was the united states senator recognized by his peers in the 1950's