quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. burr: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burr: mr. president, i ask consent that if cloture is invoked on the burr-feinstein substitute amendment to s. 754,

the senate then vote in relation to the paul amendment number 2564 as modified with ten minutes divided in the usual form prior to the vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: thank you. i would ask unanimous consent to call up amendment 217, which is a 60 day extension of the land and water conservation fund. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. burr: mr. president, reserving the right to object, and i believe the number is 2717. mr. udall: 2717, the senator is correct. mr. burr: mr. president, i

thank senator udall. he's the cosponsor of the permanent reauthorization of the land and water conservation fund. and i came to the united states senate prior to the expiration of the land and water conservation fund in a hope that my colleagues would give it a 60-day extension. it has now expired. a 60-day extension on an expired act isn't even an offer that's on the table. and let me, for my colleagues, just remind you that the land and water conservation fund has been around a long time, 50 years. and there are some that say, well, they got $20 billion in the fund, why don't they just draw on it? it's because they receive about $900 million a year in royalties off of offshore exploration of energy. congress in their infinite wisdom said if we're going to

tap our natural resources, we're going to put some of the royalties into that back end of conservation. the unfortunate thing is they've never gotten $900 million a yeer. our appropriators in the congress of the united states has seen fit to give them on average over the life of this fund about $390 million a year. some of my colleague suggested well, there's a fund over, there the land and water conservation fund, you could just tap it. well, know there isn't. appropriators spent that money long ago. as a matter of fact this year it was just over $350 billion to the land and water conservation fund. so as delighted as i am that he's sponsored the permanent reauthorization, most members believe that we should reauthorize this permanently. so i would ask the senator to modify his unanimous consent request and to make the amendment read that we would take up the murkowski-cantwell permanent extension language.

the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. udall: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. udall: i would ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments and call up amendment number 2717, as modified, which is a one-year extension of the land and water conservation fund. mr. burr: mr. president? mr. president? mr. president, i would -- the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. burr: i would object to the last unanimous consent request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. burr: thank you. and on the current unanimous consent request, if i can address that, reserving the right to object. again, without being repetitive, this is a one-year extension. and the beauty of the effort by senator cantwell and senator murkowski, a bipartisan approach

to the land and water conservation fund, addresses exactly what senator lee asked for, a reform bill. this is a package that has been negotiated by republicans and democrats. the chairman of the energy committee and an individual that is extremely invested in the land and water conservation fund. so i would once again ask the senator unanimous consent to modify his amendment to reflect that amendment read that we would move to the murkowski-cantwell permanent extension language. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. lee: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. is there objection to the original request. mr. burr: i object, mr. president. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. udall: mr. president, i can't tell you how disappointed i am. the senator from north carolina objects to making an unrelated amendment to his bill but he

insists on one to ours. it seems we are at a standoff and a standoff with a bipartisan tsca reform that's ready to move through the senate. we've done incredible work on this piece of legislation. senator inhofe, senator vitter, 60 cosponsors. we're ready to roll with this with very short time line. and yet we have -- we have this objection. the land and water conservation fund reauthorization also has a strong majority of the senate in favor. 53 senators signed a letter, led by senator burr recently, and i'm confident there are over 60 supporters for this. i'm also confident that we will reauthorize and continue to fund the land and water conservation fund. as the ranking democrat on the interior subcommittee, that is an extremely high priority for me. but for some reason, tsca is being held up by demands for a vote on unrelated land and water

conservation fund legislation. i do not see how that helps matters. this kind of dysfunctional situation is what gives the senate a bad name. and again, i respect senator burr. i know that he does not seek a dysfunctional senate. on the contrary, i've watched him do his best to get the senate to function on this important cybersecurity legislation. but this situation calls out for leadership, cooperation, not ultimatums. i will keep doing what i can to continue the conversation and bring people together on a path forward. tsca reform is ready. we will be back one way or another. we will pass the united states senate with this bill. we will resolve our differences with the house and this critical reform will go to the president's desk. with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: mr. president, i thank senator udall.

for his work on tsca. and his description is pretty accurate. i am doing what the senate historically has always done -- allowing any member of the senate to exercise their authority as a member of this austere body to amend any piece of legislation. and the senate has functioned for a long time based upon that. it's just recently that we've not allowed that to be exercised in other words, one senator can't come to the floor and offer an amendment. he can't come to the floor and propound a unanimous consent request without objection. it's got to change. and i dare say that tsca has overwhelming support. so does the land and water

conservation fund. and for us to get functional, we have to return to where we expect members to come. i've got nine germane amendments on the cybersecurity -- nongermane amendments on the cybersecurity bill and they would all receive a vote if somebody hadn't objected and we would actually see the senate process exactly like it's supposed to, where if a nongermane amendment has 60 votes in favor of it, then it's added. i'm not scared to have nongermane amendments on my bill. i've got them. and because of somebody's fear, they'll get knocked off. and two members of the united states senate, a republican and a democrat, will not get their day to have a vote on their bill. i don't object to the land and water conservation fund being

part of it. as i just expressed. what i object to and what i'm disappointed on is that there would be an offer to do a 60-day extension or a one-year extension from a member that i know supports permanent reauthorization. because this whole deal on tsca is to make me look bad. well, you know what? so be it. i'm willing to accept it. i've had the hounds sicked on me. we're to a point now where there's no damage you can do. and what we saw was a nice orchestrated process that was supposed to make me back down. it's not going to happen. i believe in the land and water conservation fund. the senate will take it up, whether it's on this bill or another bill or as a stand-alone bill.

and let me just say to my good friend, what we -- what we're doing has not been a surprise. i shared with all the authors of this bill, i'm going to amend it i'm going to amend it with this. so i hope he agrees that i'm -- i'm not trying to pull a swift one. i've been straight-up on this since the beginning and i will continue to press for it. but here, mr. president, here's the obvious solution. allow us to have a debate on the land and water conservation fund permanent reauthorization on the floor of the united states senate, up-or-down vote. if we don't get 60 votes, it doesn't pass. that's the way the senate is. and if members that want this bill or any other bill passed, it's very simple, let's -- let's get the process back like it's supposed to. and with one assurance, that we

will get an opportunity to vote -- to debate the land and water conservation fund and have a vote. i'm a cosponsor of your bill. i will lift my objection, my attempt to try to amend it and we will pass it by unanimous consent. it's that simple. and there describes the history of how the united states senate has always worked. let's get back to it. i yield the floor. suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that at 1:45 p.m. tomorrow, thursday, october 22, the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: p calendar number 339, 340, 341 and 342, that the senate vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations, that following disposition of the nominations the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no

further motions be in order to the nominations, that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 291 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 291, h haddoning the -- honoring the lives of the 33 crew members aboard the el faro. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the help committee be

discharged from further consideration of s. res. 108 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 108 commemorating the discovery of the polio vaccine and supporting efforts to eradicate the disease. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be abreed for, the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i understand there's a bill at the desk and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 2193, a bill to amend the immigration and nationality act to increase penalties for individuals who illegally reenter the united states after being removed and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: i now ask for its second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will

be read for a second time on the next legislative day. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. thursday, october 22. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of s. 754 with the time until 11:00 a.m. equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. finally, that the filing deadline for all second-degree amendments to both the substitute amendment number 2716 and the underlying bill, s. 754, be at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

tomorrow former secretary of state hillary clinton will be on capitol hill. members of the committee have been looking into the events surrounding the 2012 terrorist attack which resulted in the death of ambassador christopher stephens and three others. you can watch her testimony live tomorrow starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern and you can also watch it online at c-span.org or listen on c-span.org radio. earlier today senate minority leader harry reid discussed the benghazi

hearing. here is a look. >> former 1st lady, united states sen. from the state of new york and secretary of state hillary clinton will testify before the so-called benghazi select committee tomorrow. in recent weeks it has become clear that this committee is nothing more than a political hit job on hillary clinton. i guess this is speaker for the day. republican majority leader of the house of representatives mccarthy, here is what he said. , everybody thought hillary clinton was unbeatable. we put together a benghazi special select committee. her numbers are dropping. well, that is one reason he

was speaker for the day, but there are other reasons, of course. mr. president, he told the truth. congressman mccarthy is not the only republican to speak the truth about this so-called committee. plastic republican congressman richard hanner of new york said, and i quote, sometimes the biggest sin you can commit in dc is to tell the truth. this may not be politically correct,correct, but there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after to people and an individual,, hillary clinton. it is difficult to accept at least a part. i think that is the way washington works. who would like to expect more from a committee that spend millions of dollars in terms of time. that is an understatement. $5 million command other

hearings have costs huge amounts of taxpayer dollars, but they will bring her in again tomorrow. and they said be ready for eight hours of interrogation. and that is what it is. these two quotes from two house republicans, and the message is clear aa benghazi committee is a political calculation meant to influence presidential elections, and there is more. now we find there are even republican staffers on the committee who claim that he was fired because he was used to unfairly target sec. clinton. what else did we

expect from a committee whose sole purpose is to drag a presidential hopeful through the mud? it is no secret, mr. president, for the last two years numerous republican directed organizations with huge amounts of money have been targeting hillary clinton for more than two years because they knew that she would likely run for president and wanted to soften her up, just like mccarthy said. look at the committee's record. three hearings, 17hearings, 17 months. tomorrow will be the 1st public hearing since january. october is winding down. republican chairman trey gaudi and his committee have focused millions of dollars in thousands of staff hours on hillary clinton and hillary clinton only. yet he has held only one hearing with an expert from the intelligence committee and not a single hearing with anyone from the department of defense.

and what have they learned? nothing. a recent report by the democrats confirmed that none of the witnesses they interviewed supported any of the wild conspiracy theories regarding these attacks. contrast the benghazi committee with the work of the legally required investigation of these attacks. an independent review overseen by respected leaders, thomas pickering, one of the great diplomats of our time, admiral michael and more completed their work in less than three months, not 17. they immediately put out a series of recommendations to make sure an attack like this does not happen someplace else. what was her reaction?

she took responsibility immediately and began to implement recommendations and accountability of the review board. in summary, spend at least $5 million, this one committee, this one select committee. the republicans have done little to investigate, and what little work republicans actually did only reconfirmed the basic findings of the previous investigations. house republicans sadly abused the tragic deaths of four innocent americans and turned into an appalling political farce. an official house committee was used as a political tool and is inexcusable. i suggest the chairman should be ashamed of himself. it is more disgraceful that $5 million were spent on this political hit job. senate democrats will continue to fight to get this committee disbanded. weeks ago we sent a letter

to speaker urging him to bring this disgraceful committee to an end, but we are plotting forward. today senate democrats sent a letter requesting that they reimburse the american people for the benghazi committee expenses. it is only fair. i would ask my remarks appear at aa separate place in the record. >> without objection. >> c-span this week's, coverage of former secretary of state hillary clinton. coverage tonight at 8:00 o'clock eastern on c-span2 with the secretary's appearance before the senate foreign relations committee. live coverage thursday morning with reporter interviews and early scenes from capitol hill. tune in at 10:00 a.m.

eastern live hearing coverage plus your phone calls after. c-span will re- air the benghazi hearing in its entirety. you canyou can also watch saturday and sunday at noon eastern on c-span. >> earlier today vice president joe biden announced he will not run for president. he gave his remarks at the white house with his wife jill and president obama and attendance. here is a portion of that now. >> as my family and i have worked through the grieving process, i said all along what i have said time and again to others, that it may very well be that that process, by the time we get through it, closes the window on mounting a realistic campaign for president, that in my close.

i have concluded that it has closed. i know from previous experience that there is no timetable for this process. the process does not respect or much care about things like filing deadlines were debates in primaries and caucuses. i also know that i can do this -- i could not do this of the family was not ready. the good news is that the family has reached that point. my family has suffered loss, and i hope they will come a time, anda time, and i've said this to many other families that sooner than later when you think of your loved one that brings a smile to your lips before it brings a tear to your eye. that is where they are today. below is our inspiration. unfortunately, i believe we

are out of time, the time necessary to mount a winning campaign for the nomination. but while i will not be a candidate, i will not be silent. i intend to speak out clearly and forcefully, to influence is much as i can where we stand as a party and where we need to go as a nation. and this is what i believe. i believe that president obama has lead this nation from crisis to recovery, and we are now on the cusp of resurgence. i am proud to have played a part in that. this party, our nation, will be making a tragic mistake if we walk away or attempts to undo the obama legacy. the american people have worked too hard and come too far for that. democrats should not only defend this record and

protect this record, they should run on the record. >> that was just part of what the vice president had to say earlier. you can see his entire remarks tonight on c-span after the house adjourns. >> this sunday night on q&a, new york times put ago reporter shares her experiences from hillary clinton's presidential campaign and compares what it is like now to back in 2008. >> i was a lot younger. i got to know. i got to no her pretty well. but at the same time i didn't have the same sort of sources at the campaign and high-level people that i have now and whether that is

a function of being at the times or aa function of just being in a more senior role. >> sunday night at eight eastern and pacific on c-span q&a. >> joining us now,now, cheryl atkinson, host of full measure, author of stonewalled, investigative reporter covering the story about benghazi call it happened september 11, 2012. on that day, walk us through what happened. >> guest: that day it started out fairly normally. of course, something like six hours in libya. word came down that we were under attack at one of our compounds in my nosy, that there was to deaths almost immediately, twoimmediately, two more six hours later, although we do not know the timeline then. this unfolded overnight. and what we were told is completely different than what we know now based upon documents and witnesses and evidence.

we were led to believe this was a spontaneous unpredictable attack that came out of the blue that no one knew was coming and was prompted by aa youtube video that was anti- muslim in nature. that is what we were told. >> walk us through the day of this attack and the day after. what did the secretary of state and the president no about what happened? >> guest: we now know that the state department, the obama administration, the people on the ground have said they all knew immediately this was aa preplanned terrorist attack. that is what was exchanged in e-mails. almost immediately and al qaeda connected group claimed responsibility. that came over early and was forwarded to the white house, pentagon. everyone knew and operated on that internally, and yet

externally we were told something different. the 1st statement evokes theevoked the idea that maybe there was a video that had motivated the protest that was spontaneous and out of the blue which is kind of where the controversy begins and then it was followed by weeks of what happened because behind closed doors congress is getting hearings from the cia, and you can put together a timeline that is very clear, the uso libya , they claimed responsibility. please help us go after them , but at the same time they are telling the public we don't have enough evidence to say. again, forwarding that narrative. >> what the president had to say in the rose garden the next day september 12th, 2012. >> as americans, let us never ever forget that our freedom is only sustained

because of people who are willing to fight for it, to it, to stand up for it, and in some cases lay down their life for it. our country is only as strong as the character of our people in the service of those, both civilian and military, who represent us on the globe. no acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values we stand for. today we mourn for more americans who represent the very best of the united states of america. we will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done and make no mistake, justice will be done. we also know the lives these americans lead stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. these four americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. they should give every american great pride in the country they served and the

hope that our flight represents to people around the globe who also young to live in freedom and dignity. >> host: sharyl attkisson, the president make new line between september 11, 2001 and september 12, 2012. >> guest: that was a subject of much dispute. you look at the whole statement,, which he did not carry the whole statement. earlier he did evoke the idea of a spontaneous. then he segued, by the way, this is nine/11. there was a great debate later as to whether he had really called it an act of terror or were skirting the line and not saying so. there is a great back story at cbs. the president was interviewed on 60 minutes that they, and his take was

much like the critics take of what obama had said. he started his interview by saying, you did not call the meeting as he attacks an act of terror, and the president in this interview said, that's right. he agreed. he asked why command the president said, we just don't have enough information to know. it became a great cause of controversy. they have the answer to the question and even the president agreed he did not call it an act of terror and yet cbs sat on that for quite a while. >> host: what is going on behind the scenes that the administration claims they still don't know? >> guest: if you are talking about what they knew about the attacks, now they admit they knew what the documents of shown. the storythe story has changed to be a lot of conflicting things, i think.

hillary clinton wrote that there was a fog of war. however, the explanations given to the public gave no hint of that. they were pretty clear on aiming and scaringsteering the public toward the one narrative that was not demonstrated and documents. >> host: i want to show our viewers were then secretary of state had to say at andrews air force base receiving the remains of the four ms 254 americans who were killed. >> we have seen the heavy assault on our post in benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. we have seen rage and violence directed at american embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with. it is hard for the american people to make sense of that because it is senseless, and

it is totally unacceptable. the people of egypt, libya, yemen, and tunisia did not trade the tyranny of a dictator for the tyranny of a mob. reasonable people and responsible leaders in these countries need to do everything that they can to restore security and hold accountable those behind these violent acts. >> host: sharyl attkisson, this is three days after the attacks. they well knew it was a terrorist attack. she is still pointing toward the video. family members of the victims say that mrs. clinton told them personally, we will find the

maker of that awful video. she was staring them tour the idea which they thought in retrospect was strange. what were you going to arrest the maker of the youtube video for who had made a perfectly legal -- this is a place with free speech -- what are you going to arrest him for an yourin your mind when you say you are going to get that guy? clearly there was this anger and attention. now we know there was a well orchestrated effort to not let the public think this is a failure and policy, to want people to think more this was some kind of spontaneous response they could not have predicted. >> it leads to the sunday news shows where susan rice goes on and repeats

repeatedly the same line of argument, we don't know and points to the video. >> guest: and we know now, there were talking points circulated as to what she should and should not say and how many times they were changed in a change them. the white house falsely stated they made no substantive changes, but we found out last year that they did. changes were made by a white house national security adviser at the time. the policy line was discussed by ben rhodes, about living not policy but the youtube video. it is false to say no substantive changes were made by the white house, and at the time there was panic in the ranks of the obama administration before the election. they did not want people to think they had fiddled with

the intelligence in public narrative. >> host: what happened after the sunday talk shows and leading up to where we are today? >> guest: i would say, there is a full force effort to try to stop the media from being as aggressive on the coverage. we went from being very aggressive to having some people in my view as cbs in new york begin to block the story. while washington was pushing in advancing, there were people who did not want the story published. and that happened across other outlets as well, not just cbs. at the time we did not know as much as we know now, but congress continued its investigation. we were able to get a huge body of evidence that trickled out slowly. now there has been a strategy to paint this as a republican conspiracy theory , and people have gotten him to hearing about

it. what has happened has been an incredible body of evidence that has been released. >> host: did any of that come from the previous investigation command how many were there before the select committee? >> guest: i think seven committees have looked at it, but despite the claims from the investigation and the hillary clinton camp that she has been exonerated , that is not the case. they have each looked at their slice of the pie. if you know how committees work in washington these days, the constituents of the people who serve on the committees are not really the american public in my view anymore but the interests they oversee. the armed services committee is serving the defense contractor and military interest and come out with a

finding that says in benghazi the military did nothing wrong and the intelligence committee who serves the interest of the contractors who work in the world come out and say the intelligence community did not do anything wrong. it exonerated pieces of responsibility, but if you look at what they were gathering behind-the-scenes there was interesting and damaging testimony that came from generals who despite the public line that there was no rescue that could have been mounted or assets available that a knowledge of the questioning, we just decided not to send an aircraft. who knows if it would have worked. then they were asked, why not try. there were a lot of contradictions behind closed doors. they put out a big report at the end that made it seem that aretheir corner of the investigation clear that branch of the government.

>> what will -- >> host: what will we learn at thursday's hearing that is different? >> guest: i don't know. there are list of questions, but mrs. clinton has thought this while out. i am sure she has prepared. i always say, if you're going to investigate something the best chance you have is close to the event. three years later when the stories have changed and people have compared notes and e-mails have disappeared it is harder to think that you can get at the solid truth. but i am sure they will be asking things i would ask. i want to know her movements, what she knew about the president's movements. the white house will tell us. questions before and afterwards. >> host: sharyl attkisson,

investigative reporter and author. i guess to take your questions and comments. marianne morrisville pennsylvania. thank you for hanging on the line. are you with us? >> caller: yes. all right. what i have to say is, i think hillary clinton is a liar just like all the rest of them. everything revolves around money. and she has got more money than god. and she charges for every speech. and the only ones they get screwed are the american people, once again. >> host: okay. what would be the motivation of the administration not wanting the american people to see this is a failed policy? >> guest: let's look at

what we know now. i don't claim to be a global political expert, but at the time intelligence officials were telling me, as the us was cheering on the arab spring, the intelligence folks saw that the islamic extremist movement was using the democratic movements in these countries as a mask to come in, take over in the chaos and make headway, and they have done that and that we may seem in retrospect naïve or that we did not have a good plan. .. program this past sunday, an interview with the head of the house intelligence committee at the time, he said libya's dictator, as bad as he was, was so afraid of islamic extremist terrorists in a sun country, he had turned around 2003 and was cooperating with the u.s. in the war on terror him of providing evidence about al qaeda, turned over nuclear weapons program, had really become an ally for us.

yet we supported the ouster, the , hillaryinistration clinton and her position, we supported those trying to oust muma yet we supported the obama administration. we supported those trying to ask qaddafi, i think there were concerns that the policy would implode and the public would see it as a policy failure. andy, qaddafi was knocked out of power, the rebels then want us out. the controversy is the same people we supported with qaddafi and they ended up turning on us. they made us the very ones who attacked us in benghazi that night. >> that brings us to the headline this morning, according to a benghazi memo that was found in the burned-out compound in benghazi, state department approved and then they took that approval back.

what does that tell you? >> to be a was being used as a place to transfer weapons to syria where things were starting to bubble up. my question, i was never able to get to the bottom of was it the u.s. arms transfer directly. sources could not confirm back but we knew there were going on. we are also aiming, arming and training rebels ourselves. some of whom we knew that were with al qaeda elsewhere. they were on the side of islamic extremists. i'm sure it's very difficult to find out who is your friends, who is your enemies. the problem is, it it is hard to see the outcome and when the guns are turned on you that is very controversial.

they never release the administration. they promise to release video that night. they won't answer why. i've also wondered from my that some of the people we are in on were attacking the united states. that was a theory considering what has come out sense. >> we are talking with cheryl atkinson who is emanated for an emmy, author of the book stonewalled,. she is now host a full measure. there's a democrat on the line go ahead. >> caller: i would like to apologize. i want to say this situation a few years ago we do not have the

facts of what all happen. to have her on the show and not have anyone to counter her accusations, there is nobody to speak for the other side. on the onset of her statement she said hillary clinton and the government knew. do you think any reasonable person would think and believe that the united states government would let this happen without doing anything about it? we don't know what the attackers were thinking. so their various statements from people trying to make reasons for why people did what they did. it doesn't make any difference. the attack took place, people

were killed. you want to put hillary clinton in jail for something that happened? >> okay let's get a response. >> okay i'm not sure what you hear heard. i did not say she knew the attacks were coming that night. i did not say she should be put in jail. i am investigating the facts. as a reporter, i did not a reporter, i did not care one way or the other when i was asked to look at benghazi if i was going to find a story or not. when you start getting controversy stories and documents from the inside, these witnesses were given me good information, lifelong democrats who supported obama and hillary and when they tell you about disasters they think occurred, you listen. i am not here to attack on someone i am just trying to uncover facts, especially one

that people don't want to cover. i always go to where the contradictions are. there are so many contradictions in the story, yes you may not be able to guess what's in the mind of the attacker but we know behind the scenes administration did not think it was a spontaneous protest motivated by youtube video. we know they are telling the public that. we also know they were telling the libyans the opposite. those are the kind of contradictions you dig into. >> what questions are unanswered in your mind? >> quest questions we may never know, i'm curious as a journalist looking at that night, where the president was that night, minute by minute. there should should be a record of this and it should be under the freedom of information laws in my view but it is not. i would like to know when he was not in the white house who was calling the shots? we are left with this image in some testimony one military official told congress, the

reason we didn't deploy help as we were waiting for the state department to ask and they never asked. to me, that does not make sense that they would be minding one another without calling the shots. so i wonder who was calling the shots of the president was absent. there are questions about contradictions, when i spoke to the white house shortly after i began investigating this and asked about the movement of troops, or why help to not come, answers they gave initially don't jive with answers that came out later. i i want to know more about that. hillary clinton has given conflicting stories, the administration has said things like they told me personally we are caught by surprise on 9/11, we never had another attack on 9/11 and and that is why we did not have military in place.

yet, hillary clinton says in her book that we were prepared for 9/11. so either you were prepared or you are not. if you were if you were prepared where was the military help? so i want to sort out some of those conflicting stories. >> will hear from hillary clinton at 10:00 a.m. eastern time tomorrow before that committee. we'll have that live. so she is expected to be sitting in that chair for several hours, up to to eight hours of testimony from her. the questions for those from sitting on the committee. libya has failed to agree on that unity government plan, they know this that the latest turn of turn of the post resolution pact comes four years after qaddafi was killed on 2011. it marked a blood he and -- here we are today talking about what

happened in benghazi in 2012. >> i think you look at the big picture, i think the administration is concerned that in her time as secretary date as well that we are seeing a dissolution of the organized chaos as we knew it in the committee. it it has now involved in something much worse. it seems to be out of our group. >> tony, an independent you are next. go ahead. >> caller: while i have been waiting for a while. i haven't heard the lady mentioned it. she mentioned it quite frequently when i first tuned in and that is the two words islamic extremists. you love to say that. you and certain other people. let me tell you something, i wouldn't care what you call me if another country came into this country and overthrew our government.

you can call me al qaeda, you can call me a christian extremist, a jewish extremists, we have those two. but you guys love to say islamic extremists. we had no business being in libya just like we have no business being in iraq. unless we're there to make money or do israel's business for them. host: okay so i think we follow your point here. when he says it you guys he is making an unfair stereotype i would point out. i don't love using a name one way or another i'm just presenting the facts. guest: some people want to avoid that name but i'm just telling it like it is. i think sometime propaganda campaigns are out there to try to steer narratives one way or the other. the word islamic extremist, terrace, the administration said that behind closed doors but did not say those words publicly. i think that is the beginning of the administration does not want to say that the phrase.

pres. obama has avoided using those word but maybe this is the first time we understood our saw they wanted to carve out that phrase and carve it out of the talking points for example. carve it out of the public discussion and may be rightly so. that is definitely part of the contributions the. host: we are showing all of our listeners and republic leadership that they hold their elections on october 28. diane is on the phone, republican. >> caller: good morning. i'd want to say thank you cheryl, i hope, wish and pray there are more people like you. i would like to apologize for the last two callers. please continue to report some truth. we all are waiting to hear the truth. thank you again.

>> thank you. guest: the other calls don't bother me. people have have a wide variety of views. i tried to bring back what people don't want to hear. in the end you decide what to do with him. i am not here to convince you to think a certain way. it doesn't bother me that people disagree what they think i presented or choose not to believe the facts. >> what his full measure. >> it is a half-hour program all about that. our mission mission is to bring faxon stories that would be controversial a few years ago but i think that media instructs the public to take a certain side on things. we want to explore those, we will not be popular with special interests in certain occasions. we looked at benghazi, we looked

at whistle blowers, anything they have to say from the inside. >> full measure, who is behind it. >> sinclair broadcasting which is a conservative ownership. it is really key that if we are going to be doing a half-hour program we brought people with cbs with me, we wanted to be free of the feathers we felt faced in cbs the last few years. more like the old days when we were allowed to explore story and go wherever it led versus having somebody, somewhere up the line tell you how it had to come out. i think that is how the public wants. host: let's get a few calls in. joe, you know orland. guest: good morning. i have several questions. please don't cut me off because you have a trigger finger.

please, i have my question. i think the guest has really answered some of mike question, what is she bringing new to the table that we don't already know? and, she mentioned the president. i think this is what all of it is at about trying to finally develop some type of scandal on the president. which you have not been able to do in seven years. my other thing is, why isn't this investigation and the original 911? i can't remember condoleezza rice saying if we had known, and that struck me when i heard her say that on tv. if we had known they were going to fly planes into the building.

so investigate who, wet, and when. host: okay joe let me move on. iris is it an independent. >> caller: well hello cheryl we are so proud of you back here. you are doing good stuff. it takes a lot of bravery to do what you are doing because i know the pressure that is put on you. so, darlin' take care of yourself, we love we love you back here. don't ever forget it. >> are you from michigan. >> no. guest: the benghazi select committee has said they have testimony and from witnesses and they have seen documents that other committees have not seen. they have discovered the existence of the e-mail server that mrs. clinton used which was

the first clue i had that my freedom of information request had not been properly filled after i file them after benghazi. nor had document requests in court cases. so that is a problem. some of these documents we may never see. who knows what will come up, maybe nothing, may be something maybe something that is what we all be watching. host: trying to make a scandal over this out of the next seven years. guest: i'm not trying to make a scandal out of this. if he goes and then as to why no bush 9/11 investigation? i think there were a lot of those. we're the commission that looked into the 9/11 attacks. i have seen a lot of reporting on it. it is never too late to revisit if someone wants to go back and continue to look at that. i think valid questions were asked about all of that as well. rhonda,lifornia,

republican. caller: i thank god for trump who is bringing us the original 9/11. now this here is nothing but ladyg -- the democratic and i don't know where she was, but this is a bunch of bull s. there.s no there i mean, to find out what our president was doing moment by moment at night? are you serious? host: let's find out why. sharyl attkisson, why do you think that is important? guest: if people don't come i'm not here to convince you you should, that is just part of putting together the puzzle when you're bigger news detective and trying to figure things out. partly because they won't tell us. that is a matter wentitd ksno when you're be in a news detective and trying to figure things out. probably because they won't tell

us. it is a matter we are entitled to know. the fact that she things we should not want to know, to me me that is the mindset that is topsy-turvy. because he is commander in chief, because we we are under attack on foreign soil that night. because then benghazi compound was attacked and according to officials they expected the committee would go on fire that night. yes i would like to know what the pres. was doing and if he was absent for much of the night, who is responsible for making the decision that did not result in saving lives? maybe they could have maybe they could not have saved lives but we certainly deserve to know. this country operates by the people, for the people. we need to know who is accountable and who is calling the shots. >> reports noted that the president called the secretary of state that evening to find out the latest from the state.

does that matter? >> i did not know that was the description of the call that was given. to find out the latest. i know there is a call,. >> what did you know about the call. >> i know that there was a call in the white house and state department so it makes you want to poke around to see if the call took place before or after mrs. clinton issued her first statement evoking the idea of the youtube video. they want to know it was a discussion she had with the united states or not. they said things that was the bag and they couldn't remember. she said she couldn't remember when she was on fox news about a year ago. she said she thinks it took place after her public statement and she cannot remember they talked about the video. these are things that i was thinking of sharp diplomat official would know. i don't think you.

>> will go on to joel in texas. >> caller: hello how are you. what is the responsibility of the ambassador? we did not know some of these things in the beginning but he knew there is a cia outpost there. he knows there are tears there. he got two people with them, drove out there, what was his response? then when he gets there the thing breaks loose, what do they do with them? throw him in a safe room. he just burns up in there. they couldn't get the doors open. how long did they spend their trying to get him out of that room. in the meantime when they're trying to get them out these guys are trying, instead of getting him, that is their job to get him out of that embassy. that was the cia of their people jobs, to help them not put them in a room where they could get out of.

guest: the cia, the officials said from nearby that they were stopped from responding quickly. they were delayed by one of their superiors unfortunately they feel it could have made a difference. someone who had worked on the ground in libya prior to this attack tell me people who were there that night, they were less experienced and according to testimony did not have weapons with them. people who had been there before helping guard the ambassador, people who are pulled out said they slept with their weapons. why during this dangerous time would you not have your weapons with you is a mystery to some people. ambassador stevens did, his responsibility was making sure he communicated everything he knew to the state department. we got memos early on which i broke out that he wanted more security, it was a dangerous situation. al qaeda specifically threatened

to attacked u.s. and benghazi. they went down that list, i got the red cross, they got the british, then we were next. that could be predicted one would say, maybe not the day and time but the fact that the attacked and there we were. after them benghazi attacks happen there is a whisper campaign by some state department people who spoke to the press and applied this is ambassador stevens fall. what is he doing them benghazi they say? i'm not sure we even knew they were he was there they said. this material is sick he related according to the state department. they try to put the blame on him and also said, refer to him if he wants to go who are we to say no? then that makes you wonder why

they pulled out security when they said things were getting very dangerous. >> john writes this. mrs. clinton protest that she was still fully connected from home that night. she reportedly spoke once at ten pm with the president when he called her to discuss the state department news release that first floated the fantasy -- apparently she never spoke at all to the deputy according to the congressional district. guest: he is right from what i know there was a phone call around the types release that statement. one could assume it was about that statement. >> a few minutes left here. joe and new york, an independent >> caller: hi cheryl, thank you for all your good work. let's review what you said almost. the islamic terrorist attack occurred at 3:40 p.m., washington time. mid afternoon.

the state deputy from libya immediately notified washington of a terrorist attack occurring. it wasn't until 10:00 p.m. that obama spoke with hillary. our president spoke with our secretary of state. it was shortly after that, that hillary, our secretary of state, came out with a statement that the demonstration was caused by a video. ms. atkinson, would you just comment on that as a key question tomorrow to hillary clinton. guest: i think they will try to get behind what motivated her what the conversation was about to point to something when the documents behind the scenes told a much different story. one more thing, we now know the administration said there's no standdown order, that has been

the story of top officials in the military and so on. although they they play with the word, standdown a little bit, when some people inside say there is a standdown they don't necessarily mean those two words were used. there's denial in the administration send those words were not use. but we know and at least a few different countries people were told not to go and not to respond quickly. according to the cia folks at the annex, they were delayed from going, there is a small team in tripoli that was tried to go to benghazi that were told not to go on the plane to go to benghazi. there is a terrorist response team in the u.s. not knowing how long this would go on that immediately fired up, assuming they would be sent to go when they told they were not going. there is an fbi special team that my information says the state department had stood up and stood down through the course tonight. with that together there was

theorize that there was somebody at a senior level that's a key people in place do not move people. i don't have any evidence of that but based on the evidence of different countries it would seem like too much of a coincidence that everybody individually decided to hold in place. >> mary and new mexico,. >> caller: good morning. this is hard for me but this question has been bothering me. it was a beautiful day in new mexico, i don't usually watch news programs but my husband was ill and called me in the house. anderson cooper had the diary, according to cnn, of the ambassador. now how he got it, i don't know. >> the house is about to gavilan so please get your point. >> caller: the ambassador and it

said they had asked for help and refused was scare. >> caller: we know that she is correct that. guest: that they had asked for help. host: thank you very much for your time. >> every week and the c-span network features program on politics, nonfiction books in american history. friday night at 8:30 pm eastern on p.m. eastern on c-span where life from council bluffs iowa for a town hall meeting from ted cruz. on saturday night at nine eastern it is the jefferson jackson dinner lie from des moines, iowa. speakers include bernie sanders, martin o'malley, hillary clinton, and lincoln chafee. sunday evening at 6:30 p.m. republican carly the arena will hold a hometown meeting.

the wisconsin book festival from madison featuring interviews with nonfiction authors including mary norton and her book on the english language. david on the city of detroit and evan thomas on being the. sunday night at nine on afterwards, john danforth on how he thinks a sense of religion can lead to out of politics. on c-span three cia historian on espionage and intelligence gathering tactics during the civil war and why so few historical documents exist. sunday morning at ten am, on oral histories civil rights leader julian barnes who passed away in august in a 2002 interview on civil-rights career growing up in a segregated south and his work on student nonviolent courting committee. get our complete schedule on c-span.org.

>> this is quite unusual for me but i want to thank all of you for your friendship, your loyal support for the planning of this wonderful evening for me. i shall remember it always. thanks for the the young people for this great welcome [applause]. >> pet next and was the first republican first lady to address the national convention. she traveled more widely than any first lady before her. made volunteerism her issue, was chief supporter of her husband, richard nixon and behind the scenes political advisor. pat next. patrick said, this sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern. on c-span's original original series, first ladies, influence and image, examining the public and private lives of the women

who filled the position of first lady and their influence on the presidency. from martha washington to michelle obama. on american history to be on c-span three. >> c-span presents landmark cases, the book, a guide to landmark cases series which explores 12 districts the court decisions including marbury versus madison, brown versus board of education, miranda versus arizona and roe versus wade. landmark cases, the book features introductions, background, highlights and the impact of each case. written by veteran supreme court justice and published by c-span in cooperation with cq press, landmark cases it is available

is available for $8.95 plus shipping. get and 95 cents plus shipping. get your copy today at c-span.org/landmark cases. >> former secretary of state hillary clinton is set to testify before the house select committee on benghazi, a committee that was created in may of 2014 to investigate the attack that left four americans dead including u.s. amb. chris stevens. we'll have live coverage starting thursday at ten am eastern time on c-span three, c-span three, c-span radio, and c-span.org. of course will carry the hearing in its entirety without interruption. also thursday will be taking your calls on benghazi on taking your calls on benghazi on "washington journal" beginning at 915 eastern time. coming up is a look at events leading up to thursday's hearing. we begin begin with secretary clinton's january 2013 appearance before the senate foreign relations committee where she