easy to read g.m.o. label on their foods or an easy symbol that signifies it? there's a one word answer -- money. here's an example. in 2012, california's proposition 37, which would have required g.m.o. labeling, opponents of that labeling bill spent $45 million to defeat that proposition. supporters of that labeling bill spent about $7 million. monsanto alone spent $8 million. they outspent supporters alone. that was in 2012. in 2013 washington state had an initiative called 522 which required g.m.o. labeling. more than 20 million was spent in opposition. $600 of that came from washington residents, by the way. about $7 million was spent in support of campaign. $1.6 million came from washington residents. these campaigns and lobbying organizations spent nearly $500

million to prevent commonsense labeling standards, and we have caved to that. these countries are proud of g.m.o. products. they should label them, make it a marketing tool. instead they're spending hundreds of millions of dollars to defeat commonsense measures that 90% of the public of this country supports. because they're afraid that the word g.m.o. would hurt their billion-dollar profits. i'm not asking for cross spoons on the package. it is about transparency. it's about the public's right to know. it's about putting families ha*ed corporations. -- ahead of corporations, about valuing consumers' right to know over lobbyists and -- in their slick suits and their influence here. they're denying consumers an easy-to-read national g.m.o. label standard. why? they're denying folks the transparency they need to make the best decisions for their

family. it makes no sense to me. the second issue that i have with this bill is the way it changes the definition of g.m.o.'s in a way that will not be good for consumers. to me, it is pretty simple. if a crop is found to develop in nature, then god had his hand in making it. products that have been genetically modified or engineered in a lab, well, those products are made by man. they're genetically engineered. but in this bill, the definition of g.m.o. is very different. and this definition is very dangerous and it will be a major mistake if it becomes a new national standard. as the bill currently reads, the term bioengineering requires food to contain genetic material that has been modified through

d.n.a. techniques and for which the modification could not otherwise happen through conventional breeding or found in nature. there are huge problems with this definition. our d.n.a. techniques are not the only way we modify planters or animals. scientists can use cell fusion, macro injection, gene editing. and that's what's been invented today. tomorrow there will be other things they can do to manipulate the genes. the next problem is the definition requires food products to contain genetic material that has been modified by our d.n.a. that's it. there are a handful of products that are so refined that the final product would not be listed as g.m.o., even when the original plant was g.m.o. soybean oil, high fructose corn syrup to give you an example. not to give in the weeds too

far, but organics are certified a process. they certify the process that a plant goes through. and if you don't have water soluble fertilizerrers and if you don't spray it with herbicides and you have a soy building program and good crop location, you can get it certified as organic. that would mean, the way i read this -- and i'm not a lawyer, but i'll bet you will find out in the courts that a lot of lawyers will smile if they get this passed. that would mean you can take g.m.o. corn for example, raise it under organic standards, because the soil does not show it is modified r-d.n.a., could be organic. that means round-up ready, soy beans, corn could ultimately be excluded from labeling of the g.m.o. q.r. code.

folks purchasing products they think would be g.m.o. free which would be nothing further from the truth. i'm talking about common ingreed kwrerpbts. this is a huge -- ingredients. this is a huge loophole created on purpose. and why? because i will tell you. if you control the food supply, you control the people. in this country right now we have very limited competition in the marketplace. when you sell your grain, your cattle, it doesn't matter, there's not much competition out there because there is just a few national multibusiness companies. you buy inputs for your crop -- fertilizers, sprays, just a few companies, no competition in that. well, they haven't had control of the seed until recently, and now they're getting control of it in a big, big way. farmers always had control of his own seed, always been able

to keep his own seed and use it the next year. not anymore. this bill will promote that going into the future. and we ask why people are leaving rural america. we ask why towns are drying up. we ask why farms are going away. all we do is look at this body and you'll answer those questions. the g.m.o. labeling bill, this g.m.o. labeling bill will exclude some of the most prevalent g.m.o. products in our marketplace. you think that was done by accident? i think not. the second part of the definition refers to modifications that can be found in nature. extremely vague, also threatens transparency. but you know what? there are some natural gene modifications that in bacteria. not plants, not animals. in bacteria. under this definition, that provides another unnecessary loophole that will impact

consumers because it says it's okay if it's found in nature. so we've got a q.r. code. we've got a really bad definition, by the way, and they could have used the other definition, the one that's a standard around the world. they chose not to. they chose this definition and said the good thing about this is it only applies to this bill, so it's okay. don't worry about it. the third problem i have with this bill is it gives the usda incredible rule-making power. it allows them to determine what percentage of g.m.o. ingredients would be on the label. it gives the department the power to establish a national standard with that information. if that isn't enough, the usda then will design all forms of food disclosure whether text, whether symbol or electronic digital link. the department also must provide alternative labeling options for small packages. finally the agency must consider establishing consistency between the labeling standard in this bill and the organic food

productions act of 1990. why the heck would that be in there? for the very same reason i talked about earlier. you could literally have a g.m.o. plant be raised under organic conditions, and i believe because of this bill, it could be certified organic. but all of this power that i just talked about would be given to unelected bureaucrats in an office building here in washington, d.c. -- quite a large office building -- and they're going to make the decisions, and we in production agriculture are going to have to live with them. the last point i want to make is how this bill is going to negatively impact the organic industry, and i know there's been folks come to the floor and talk about how it's going to be great for organics. the truth is the organic industry is one of the bright spots in production agriculture, quite frankly. for the last 30 years it's grown between 10% and 30% a year. it grew 1 # 1% last year.

$43 billion in sales which isn't muchment overall food -- isn't much in the overall food system, but to organics it's moved quite impressively along. i would ask what good does this bill do for organics? it states products that are not require to label g.m.o.'s don't automatically qualify for non-g.m.o. status. which why not? that's kind of a given. it also states that organic certification is a means of verifying non-g.m.o. claims in the marketplace. look, i've been through organic certifications now for 30 years next year. and i can tell you one of the first questions the inspector asks when he comes on the farm is where did you get your seed. and is it g.m.o.? because g.m.o.'s are flatly, flatly forbidden in the organic

system. so what they're saying is, is they're saying what we already have, the organic certifications is a means of verifying nontkpwopl claims. the fact is if i use non-g.m.o. plants it would not be organic. so that's a big one. if gives us what we already have. it clarifies that the narrow definition of g.m.o.'s in biotechnology in this bill -- remember that definition we had up a minute ago -- only applicable to labeling, only applicable to this bill and not other relevant regulations like the organic rule, which is what we already have. this bill falls drastically short, and i know there are trade organizations like the organic trade association, and i know there are big companies out there that have said that this is perfect. go ahead and move forward. i'm telling you they haven't

read the bill. they haven't looked at the requirements. they haven't looked at hiding behind a q.r. code. they haven't looked at the definition and what it's real impact could be. they haven't looked at giving united states department of agriculture credible latitude. -p then when it's all done we've got to live with it. in the end, the result that -- the result would be that this country will have a different, a different production system, i believe. i hope this has positive impacts on production agriculture. as i look at legislation that we pass around here, i ask myself, is this going to help revitalize rural america or is this going to continue the relocation of people in small town america going away? i've said many, many times on

this floor, this is a great country and one of the reasons it's great is because we've had a great public education system and we've had family farm agriculture. and i believe if we lose either one of those, this country will change and will change for the worse. i think this piece of legislation is not a step in the right direction for family farm agriculture. look, this is a picture of my farm. you know my grandfather came to this area from the red river valley in 1910. when he came out, the place didn't look like this. there was grass. in fact, this really wasn't his homestead. he traded my great-uncle a team of horses for this place. there wasn't anything there. it used to be an old house that sat here. it was the homestead shack that sat right there. pretty nice little house. that's what he built first. after he tagged it in 1950, he built this farm in 1916.

you've got to remember back then they had nails and hammers. that's it. didn't have pneumatics. didn't have hydraulics. him and his neighbors got together and built that barn in 1916. colder than all billy out. but they had to have that barn because that barn was where they had their animals. it was a farm with horses then. two years after he built it, a tornado came through, a cyclone flattened it. he built it again in 1919. rebuilt the doggone thing. just got out there, didn't have nothing. a bunch of grass. and puts all this money -- and that's a pretty good sized barn, by the way. blew it down, he rebuilt it. in 1920 they had a drought and he had to move back to north dakota because they were starving to death. my mom was born in north dakota that year in 1920 and they moved back a couple years later and

survived the dirty 1930's. my folks took over in the early 1940's. they built that butcher shop. that's where this happened. we put up the shop here, which is this equivalent to this. this is where we take care of our equipment. this farm today is 1,800 acres. it was 1,200 acres for a good many years. we were able to add 600 acres to it 20 years ago. this farm that's about a third of the size of the average farm in eastern montana, by the way, has supported two families for its entire life with the exception of the first 20 years and with the exception of when my mom passed in 2009. my dad passed five years earlier. it's a great place. it's part of who i am. it's bills like this, not the

dirty 1930's, not the great depression, not the attack on pearl harbor, not the mass exodus in the 1980's -- bills like this that will remove my family from this farm. after over 100 years. so when we take up pieces of legislation -- and they're not good pieces of legislation. this is a great country. this is a great country. we just celebrated our 240th anniversary. when we take up pieces of legislation that says it will be all right, things will get better. guess what? things don't get better and things aren't getting better in rural america, and the reason is because we're getting swallowed up by agribusiness. we don't make a move anymore without agribusiness. and let me give you an example. take your product to the marketplace. you've got a couple of people

that will bid on it. go buy your inputs. you've -- implements. you've got a couple of people that can buy them. it won't be long, folks, but we'll be taig taxes on the land and we'll be providing the labor and the profits will go to the big guys, the guys who can never get enough. this bill will help facilitate that happening. i fully anticipate come monday or whenever we vote on this that there's going to be enough votes to pass this because a lot of the folks have read -- they have read the propaganda put out that you've got to have this kind of stuff to feed the world. that may be true. i have never bought that, but it may be true. but the truth is shouldn't the consumer at least know what's on the food they're eating? shouldn't they at least have a clue? shouldn't they at least be given the right in the greatest country in the world, shouldn't we have more transparency than russia, not less?

we'll see what happens on monday or whenever we vote on the g.m.o. bill. i do appreciate senator stabenow's work on this bill. unfortunately, it falls woefully short of what we need in this country as far as transparency in our food. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: thank you, madam president. i'm here to talk about the sanctuary cities legislation and the g.m.o. labeling issue which

senator tester was so eloquent about, and if ever there should be a leader on this senate floor telling us the truth about the g.m.o. label bill, it's him because he deals with this. he, as he explained, has worked the family farm for a long time in his family for generations, but unfortunately at this point it's big agribusiness that is influencing this, but i am more hopeful than he is that we can stop the bill. but let me talk about the fact that we have an immigration crisis in this nation. part of it is because we turned away from a very important bill, a bipartisan bill in 2013 that was comprehensive immigration reform, bipartisan, passed by a huge number of senators, and it died in the republican house. that's number one. number two, we have a supreme court that is deadlocked on the

immigration issue, and senators on the other side of the aisle won't even bring up president obama's supreme court nominee for a hearing, for a hearing. they won't do their job. so the house republicans killed immigration reform that was comprehensive back in 2013, and the senate republicans are deadlocking the supreme court for partisan purposes. it's a nightmare that can only be rectified in this election that's coming up. but today we're going to be facing a vote on sanctuary cities legislation instead of taking another vote on the comprehensive immigration bill which would have added 20,000 more birth control -- border patrol agents, increased surveillance, hired prosecutors and judges to produce

prosecutions of illegal border crossings, and the measure would have made it clear that serious or violent felons will never, ever get a pathway to citizenship or even legal status. and that bill would have brought families out of the shadows, taken away the fear of deportation, separating loved ones, parents being sent back with kids who were born here alone and sanctuary cities is important because it leads to cooperation with the local police and it leads to reporting crimes in the communities. the fact is the sanctuary cities bill before us will increase crime, increase crime and make our communities less safe. it would undermine the trust that has been developed between police and immigrant communities, setting back efforts to protect victims and put criminals behind bars.

and let us be clear. it will cut the sanctuary cities bill of senator toomey's for some crazy reason, he cuts community development block grant funding, which can be used by the police to buy equipment, rehab a police station, fund special anticrime initiatives. why would anyone ever get rid of funding for our law enforcement when they are under siege? the bill also cuts economic development administration grants which foster job creation and attract private investment. now, i know that this sanctuary cities bill is another piece of political garbage. i want to be clear here because at the end of the day, it will increase crime in our communities. i was a county supervisor. i served proudly, and i know how important local grants are to the local economy. so to punish communities by taking these funds away because

they don't decide that uncle sam has the right to tell them what to do is the dumbest idea ever. let's make communities safer by passing real immigration reform, comprehensive reform and defeat these misguided bills that are coming before us. and speaking of misguided bills, i want to talk about another one, and that is the roberts bill on labeling genetically modified organisms, or should i say not labeling genetically modified organism's because the definition of g.m.o. is so narrow that most of the products that really are engineered will not have to have the label. now, if ever there was a bill that proves that leaders are out of touch, that leaders are elitist, it is this bill. people want information.

information that is given in 64 nations. simple information. you go to the grocery store, you see on the label whether the product you are buying is genetically modified. pretty extraordinary. don't create some definition that essentially exempts most of the products. what a shuck and a jive. what a scam on the american people. and what a scam to say if, by the way, even some of the products that will still be labeled, you may have to use your smartphone or web site to find out what's in the product. i believe -- call me old-fashioned -- that if two-thirds of the world's population, 64 countries have

this information, i want my constituents to have the information. why should a russian have this information and an american not? why should a chinese person have this information and an american not? why should someone in new zealand have this information and an american not? why should a japanese person have this information and an american not? why should 64 nations give their people that simple information, and we can't do it here? why are we punishing our people, giving them less information? do we feel we're so smart and smug that we can keep this information from our people? i don't understand it. and this bill should be rejected now, is this an issue people

care about? yes. 90% of americans want to know if the food they buy has been genetically engineered. what this bill gives them is confusing at best. and no information at worst. let me be specific because i don't want someone to say oh, senator boxer is upset but she hasn't given us the details, so bear with me. here are the details. first, the bill's definition of genetically engineered or g.e. food, as it is known, genetically engineered, is extremely narrow. the food and drug administration, the f.d.a. says that many common foods made with genetically engineered corn syrup, sugar and soybean oil would not be labeled under this bill. for example, products that many

of us have right now in our kitchens such as yogurt, salad dressings, cereal, catsup, ice cream, pink lemonade and even cough syrups would not be required to have a label even though they are derived from genetically modified organisms. it's important to know if your food is made with g.m.o.'s. i'll tell you why. many of us don't know yet if g.m.o.'s are fine. let's say we think they're fine. we still need to know if they're in our food, number one because it's our right to know, but secondly because g.m.o. crops are heavily sprayed with pesticide. let me repeat that. you may think g.m.o.'s are fine, and they may be fine. the jury's out. but we know g.m.o. crops are

heavily sprayed with pesticide. so if i have a little baby and i don't want to expose my baby to pesticides, if it's a g.m.o. product, you know it's been sprayed heavily. according to usgs -- that's the u.s. geological survey -- growers spray 280 million pounds of roundup in 2012, a pound of herbicide for every single person in our country. a pound of pesticide is sprayed for every single person in our country. those foods are heavily sprayed. i want to know when i go to the store -- because sometimes i do for my -- shop for my grandkids -- i would like to know if it's a g.m.o. product, because guess what? then i know it's been sprayed by pesticide. now, i want to take you into the labeling. let's set aside the narrow

definition. let's look at what somebody has to go through under the roberts bill to find out if there's g.m.o.'s. here's a picture. this is a dad in a supermarket with his kids. one is in the basket with the products and one is walking alongside, a toddler. a pretty common sight. what would it be like for this dad with his two kids to get the information he wants under this bill? he is searching the shelves for items on his grocery list. we know what that's like. you have got the two kids here, one is in the basket, one is over here. you've got your list in front of you. he picks up a product. he looks for a label to learn whether the food has been genetically engineered. under this bill, under this bill, the chances are overwhelming that there won't be

a simple label on it. but there may be a phone number, a web site or a q.r. code, and it's not clearly defined in this bill, but what it means is that this dad would have to stop shopping for every item on his list, he would have to pull out his phone or make a call or type in a long web site or scan a q.r. code just to find out if the product he wants to buy is genetically engineered. so let's say he has 50 products in his basket, 50. 50. does he have to make 50 phone calls? can you imagine looking up 50 web sites, scanning 50 different q.r. codes with a confusing cell phone app? you can't imagine it because it

isn't going to happen, because by that time these kids have melted down and so has dad, and he says i can't -- i give up. i give up. he has not going to make 50 phone calls. and even if he owns a smartphon, many americans still do not -- he may not really know exactly how to work it. according to pew research, only 30% of americans over 65 own a smartphone. just half of the people living in a rural area own one. and just because someone owns a smartphone doesn't mean, again, they know how to use it. why are we putting americans through hoops like this just to find out what they're feeding their families? why? i'll tell you why. big agriculture, special interests, campaign donations, and we'll be able to prove it.

now 70 groups are against this horrible legislation. center for food safety, empire state consumer project, family farm defenders, farm aid, food alliance, label g.m.o.'s, maine organic farmers. midwest organic and sustainable education service, northeast organic farming, our family farms, advancement foundation narcotic, rural advancement foundation international, sierra club, slow food u.s.a., sunny side c.s.a., public interest research group. it goes on and on. and believe me, my colleagues, you're going to hear from these people over the next several days until we vote on this. why are my friends in this body

so afraid of letting consumers know what's in their food? because they are doing the bidding of the big agricultural companies, and that's what i believe. it is my opinion. because why on earth would we stop people from, in this country from getting the same information that the people of russia get, the people of japan get, the people in the e.u. get, the people in australia get, the people in new zealand get? why would you do that? don't you believe in the consumer right to know? this bill should be titled the consumers right not to know. not to know. that's what this bill is. now, we know that the people of this nation are smart. they will use this information

if we only give it to them in the best way they can. some will decide they don't want g.m.o.'s. some will decide they do. if the price is better and they don't have a problem, it's fine. let the people decide. it was like the dolphin-safe label that i created way back in the 1990's. the tuna fishermen were killing tens of thousands of dolphin a year because they were using purse seine nets. the dolphins were swimming over the tuna and tens of thousands of dolphins a year were dying. and the people wrote to me and say, senator, is there a way you can help? i said, yeah, let's put a label on, say which tuna companies are fishing dolphin-safe and let the consumer decide. we have saved hundreds of thousands of dolphin over the years. but some people still will buy the other kind of tuna.

that's their choice. all i'm saying is treat people with respect. don't be an elitist. don't keep information from them. don't make them jump through hoops. i'll tell you the truth, this is the biggest issue in this election. government elite telling people what they can nope -- can know and what they can't know and making them go through hoops and making them use a smartphone and defining g.m.o. in such a way that many products aren't covered. what a sick bill that is. if you don't want to have this done by the states, why don't you come to the table and negotiate in good faith? the f.d.a. currently labels more than 3,000 ingredients. they require the labeling of more than 3,000 ingredients, additives and processes. and millions of americans have filed comments with f.d.a.

urging the agency to label g.e. foods so they can have this information at their finger tips. 90% of the people want a simple label. what you are giving them in this so-called compromise is the narrowest definition of what is a genetically moved food so that most of that food is never going to be labeled. by the way, it could even be labeled organic, which is a travesty, a travesty. you've got 70 organizations and counting against it. 90% of the people want a simple deal. but oh no, oh no, the elitists in this chamber, they know better. oh, they're going -- oh, they know better. they took a simple concept, labeling, just like we did on the tuna can, and they turned it into a nightmare for the consumer. the consumer will never find out

, this dad will never know because while he's got his kids there and he's got his grocery list, he's got to be looking at every single thing that's in his cart, every single product. most of them will not have a simple label. a lot of them are g.m.o. and they're not labeled. and it seems to me an embarrassment that we would even bring this bill up. and i will do everything in my power to stofp -- stop this bill. i'd rather do nothing than this sham of a bill that does the bidding of the special, powerful interests and says to the american people, you know what, sorry folks, we don't really trust you with this information because we don't really know what you're going to do with it. too bad you don't know what they're going to do with it. you have no right as a senator

to determine what the american people will do with information. if it's a national security issue, of course, that's different. we know about that. but if it's a consumer right to know what's in your food, don't talk about how great this bill is, because it is the opposite. it is completely the opposite of what it says. it is not truly a labeling bill. it's a phony sham, and i hope we defeat it whenever we get to it. thank you. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. is. mr. sasse: i ask unanimous consent to speak for as much as time as i may consume. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. sasse: mr. president, yesterday james comey, the f.b.i. director, aaron nounsed

that his agency will not recommend that the department of justice bring criminal federal charges against former secretary of state hillary clinton regarding her use of a set of off the books, undisclosed, unsecured e-mail servers not only for her own personal correspondence, but also for her official duties, including highly sensitive material related to foreign intelligence and related to terrorist targeting. director comey's rationale for systematically and devastatingly recounting secretary clinton's many violations of the law and yet recommending against a prosecution is being hotly debated both outside and inside the f.b.i. as it should be. i rise in this body today as a matter of oversight to speak to a slightly different matter than the prosecutorial discretion and decision. the debate about why the crimes are not being prosecuted in this case should not blind us to a broader debasing problem in our

civic life today. simply put, lying matters. public trust matters. integrity matters. and woe to us as a nation if we decide to pretend that this isn't so. mr. president, this issue is not about political points or about presidential politics. it is about whether the people can trust their representatives, those of us who are supposed to be serving them in government for a limited time. i'm going to read today a series of direct quotes from secretary clinton regarding this investigation, and then i will also read a series of direct quotes from director comey's statement yesterday as well as from the state department's official inspector general report on this issue. i will not provide a running commentary. i will instead simply recount the words and the assertions of secretary clinton, and i will hold them up to the light of

what the f.b.i. and the state department investigations have found. sadly, this will be damning enough. when the story broke about the secretary's use of a personal e-mail account and set of undisclosed servers, she called a press conference at the united nations on march 10 last year, and she emphatically and without qualification declared this -- quote -- "i did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail. there is no classified material." close quote. period, full stop. yesterday director comey: that is not true. "110 e-mails and 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agencies to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. eight of those chains contained information that was top secret at the time they were sent.

36 more chains contain secret information." close quote. later secretary clinton adjusted her defense to say -- quote -- "i did not send nor receive information that was marked classified at the time it was sent or received." close quote. yesterday director comey directly addressed and directly dismissed this defense, noting that while only a small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore the markings indicating the presence of classified information -- quote -- "even if the information is not marked classified in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still legally obligated to protect it." close quote. throughout this controversy, secretary clinton has maintained -- quote -- "i have fully complied with every rule i was governed." she said i have fully complied

with every rule i was governed by. the inspector general of her own state department has concluded exactly the opposite. "sending males from a personal account to other employees at their department accounts is not an appropriate method of preserving any such e-mails that constitute a federal record. therefore, secretary clinton should have preserved any federal record she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the office of the secretary. at a minimum, secretary clinton should have surrendered all e-mails dealing with department business before leaving government service. and because she did not do so, she did not comply with the department's policies that were complemented in accord -- implemented in accordance with the federal records statute the. mrs. clinton has said after i left office, the state department asked former secretaries of state for our assistance in providing copies of work-related e-mails from our

personal accounts. i responderred right -- responded right away and i provided -- quote -- "all my e-mails that could possibly been work related." yesterday director comey explicitly rejected this claim noting not only that several thousand e-mails were missing, but also that some of the e-mails she withheld were in fact classified. director comey -- quote -- "the f.b.i. has also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were initially returned by secretary clinton to the state department in 2014. and with respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to the state department, agencies have concluded that three of those were also classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the secret level." mr. president, lest we be confused here is director comey's summary of the situation -- quote -- "any reasonable person in scraper clinton's position -- secretary clinton

should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation." close quote. mr. president, we could go on. there is more about the foreign adversaries that all of us in this body who get our classified briefs know were and know are today trying to hack sensitive u.s. government classified material. what i've presented here is not an opinion. this is not political talking point or spin. all that we've done here is to recount some of the specific defenses, claims and excuses secretary clinton has offered regarding her use of a set of unsecured, undisclosed off-the-books e-mail servers and then contrasted those claims with how both the f.b.i. and the state department's inspector general have proved those claims to be clearly and knowingly false. if any of secretary clinton's defenders in this body would like to come to the floor to dispute any of the f.b.i.'s

assertions, i would welcome that conversation. mr. president, these are serious matters, and they deserve our serious attention. as elected officials, we have been entrusted for a time with the security of the nation and with the trust of the people. mr. president, quite apart from the specific questions and debates about whether secretary clinton is going to be convicted for her crimes, we must grapple with the reality that the public trust, the rule of law and the security of our nation have been badly injured by her actions. in the coming months, the next time that a career military or intelligence officer leaks an important secret that is illegally -- that is a legally defined classified matter that relates to the security of our nation and to the security of our nation's spies who are today putting their lives at risk to defend our freedoms, the next time there is such a leak, one of two things is going to happen

now. either that individual will not be held accountable because yesterday the decision was made to set a new lower standard about our nation's security secrets. we will therefore become weaker. or in the alternative the decision will be made to hold that person accountable either by prosecution or by firing. in that moment, that individual and his or her peers and his or her family will rightly ask this question. they will say why is the standard different for me than for the politically powerful? why is the standard different for me, a career intelligence officer or a career soldier than for the former secretary of state? this question is about the rise of a two-tiered system of justice, one for the common man and one for the ruling political elites. if we in this body allow such a

two-tiered system to solidify, we will fail in our duties both to safeguard the nation and to enable the people to believe in representative government and in equality before the law. this stuff matters. lying matters. the dumbing down and the debasing of expectations about public trust matter. honor matters. and woe to us as a nation if we decide to forget this obvious truth of republican government. thank you, mr. president. i have two requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of both the majority and the minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent to approve this request. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 2:15.

>> the senate is in break to allow members to attend the weekly party meetings. ttoday they've been working on a bill that would block federal funding from sanctuary cities and counties that bar the local law enforcement officials from walking with federal immigration authorities. before that a vote on the nomination for district judge for new jersey. live coverage when members return here at 2:15 p.m. eastern on c-span2. we have news from capitol hill. political reporting fbi director james comey has been called to testify thursday before the house oversight and government reform committee in regards to his investigation of hillary clinton's female practices. congress and the american people have a right to understand the depth and breadth of the fbi's investigation, committee chair said in a statement announcing drug to calm had agreed to his

request. live coverage of his testimony on c-span3 tomorrow at 10 eastern. you can read more about the story at politico.com. we expect to hear more about investigation into the e-mails in today's white house briefing with josh earnest. he is likely to come of president obama's announcement early today that he will be leaving about 8400 euros troops in afghanistan when he finishes out his term. here's a look at the president's announcement from earlier this morning. >> good morning, everybody. more than 14 years ago, after al qaida attacked our nation on 9/11, the united states went to war in afghanistan against these terrorists and the taliban that harbored them. over the years, and thanks to heroic efforts by our military, our intelligence community, our

diplomats and our development professionals, we pushed al qaida out of its camps, helped the afghan people topple the taliban and helped them establish a democratic government. we dealt crippling blows to the al qaida leadership. we delivered justice to osama bin laden. and we trained afghan forces to take responsibility for their own security. and given that progress, a year and a half ago, in december 2014, america's combat mission in afghanistan came to a responsible end. compared to the 100,000 troops we once had there, today, fewer than 10,000 remain. and compared to their previous mission, helping to lead the fight, our forces are now focused on two narrow missions, training and advising afghan forces, and supporting counterterrorist operations against the remnants of al qaida

as well as other terrorist groups, including isil. in short, even as we've maintained a relentless case against those who are threatening us, we are no longer engaged in a major ground war in afghanistan. but even these narrow missions continue to be dangerous. over the past year and a half, 38 americans, military and civilian, have lost their lives in afghanistan on behalf of our security. and we honor their sacrifice. we stand with their families in their grief and in their pride. and we resolve to carry on the mission for which they gave their last full measure of devotion. this is also not america's mission alone. in afghanistan, we're joined by 41 allies and partners, a

coalition that contributes more than 6,000 troops of their own. we have a partner in the afghan government and the afghan people, who support a long-term strategic partnership with the united states. and, in fact, afghans continue to step up. for the second year now, afghan forces are fully responsible for their own security. every day, nearly 320,000 afghan soldiers and police are serving and fighting, and many are giving their lives to defend their country. to their credit, and in the face of a continued taliban insurgency and terrorist networks, afghan forces remain in control of all the major population centers, provincial capitals, major transit routes and most district centers. afghan forces have beaten back attacks and they've pushed the taliban out of some areas. meanwhile, in another milestone, we recently removed the leader of the taliban, akhtar mohammad

mansur. nevertheless, the security situation in afghanistan remains precarious. even as they improve, afghan security forces are still not as strong as they need to be. with our help, they're still working to improve critical capabilities such as intelligence, logistics, aviation and command and control. at the same time, the taliban remains a threat. they have gained ground in some cases. they've continued attacks and suicide bombings, including in kabul. because the taliban deliberately target innocent civilians, more afghan men, women and children are dying. and often overlooked in the global refugee crisis, millions of afghans have fled their homes and many have been fleeing their country. now, as president and commander-in-chief, i've made it

clear that i will not allow afghanistan to be used as safe haven for terrorists to attack our nation again. that's why i constantly review our strategy with my national security team, including our commanders in afghanistan. in all these reviews, we're guided by the facts, what's happening on the ground, to determine what's working and what needs to be changed. and that's why, at times, i've made adjustments, for example, by slowing the drawdown of our forces and, more recently, by giving u.s. forces more flexibility to support afghan forces on the ground and in the air. and i strongly believe that it is in our national security interest, especially after all the blood and treasure we've invested in afghanistan over the years, that we give our afghan partners the very best opportunity to succeed. upon taking command of coalition forces this spring, general nicholson conducted a review of the security situation in

afghanistan and our military posture. it was good to get a fresh set of eyes. and based on the recommendation of general nicholson, as well as secretary carter and chairman dunford, and following extensive consultations with my national security team, as well as congress and the afghan government and our international partners, i'm announcing an additional adjustment to our posture. instead of going down to 5,500 troops by the end of this year, the united states will maintain approximately 8,400 troops in afghanistan into next year, through the end of my administration. the narrow missions assigned to our forces will not change. they remain focused on supporting afghan forces and going after terrorists. but maintaining our forces at this specific level, based on our assessment of the security conditions and the strength of afghan forces, will allow us to continue to provide tailored

support to help afghan forces continue to improve. from coalition bases in jalalabad and kandahar, we'll be able to continue supporting afghan forces on the ground and in the air. and we continue supporting critical counterterrorism operations. and in reaffirming the enduring commitment of the united states to afghanistan and its people, the decision i'm making today can help our allies and partners align their own commitments. as you know, tomorrow, i depart for the nato summit in warsaw, where i'll meet with our coalition partners and afghan president ghani and chief executive abdullah. many of our allies and partners have already stepped forward with commitments of troops and funding so we can keep strengthening afghan forces through the end of this decade. the nato summit will be an opportunity for more allies and partners to affirm their contributions, and i'm confident they will, because all of us have a vital interest in the security and stability of afghanistan.

my decision today also sends a message to the taliban and all those who have opposed afghanistan's progress. you have now been waging war against the afghan people for many years. you've been unable to prevail. afghan security forces continue to grow stronger. and the commitment of the international community, including the united states, to afghanistan and its people will endure. i will say it again, the only way to end this conflict and to achieve a full drawdown of foreign forces from afghanistan is through a lasting political settlement between the afghan government and the taliban. that's the only way. and that is why the united states will continue to strongly support an afghan-led reconciliation process, and why we call on all countries in the region to end safe havens for militants and terrorists.

finally, today's decision best positions my successor to make future decisions about our presence in afghanistan. in january, the next u.s. president will assume the most solemn responsibility of the commander-in-chief, the security of the united states and the safety of the american people. the decision i'm making today ensures that my successor has a solid foundation for continued progress in afghanistan as well as the flexibility to address the threat of terrorism as it evolves. so, in closing, i want to address directly what i know is on the minds of many americans, especially our troops and their families who've borne a heavy burden for our security. when we first sent our forces into afghanistan 14 years ago, few americans imagined we'd be there, in any capacity, this long. as president, i focused our strategy on training and building up afghan forces.

it has been continually my belief that it is up to afghans to defend their country. because we have emphasized training and their capabilities, we've been able to end our major ground war there and bring 90% of our troops back home. but even as we work for peace, we have to deal with the realities of the world as it is. and we can't forget what's at stake in afghanistan. this is where al qaida is trying to regroup. this is where isil continues to try to expand its presence. if these terrorists succeed in regaining areas and camps where they can train and plot, they will attempt more attacks against us. we cannot allow that to happen. i will not allow that to happen. this september will mark 15 years since the attacks of 9/11. and once more, we'll pause to remember the lives we lost,

americans and peoples from around the world. we'll stand with their families, who still grieve. we'll stand with survivors, who still bear the scars of that day. we'll thank the first responders who rushed to save others. and perhaps, most importantly, we'll salute our men and women in uniform, our 9/11 generation who have served in afghanistan and beyond for our security. we'll honor the memory of all those who've made the ultimate sacrifice, including more than 2,200 american patriots who have given their lives in afghanistan. as we do, let's never forget the progress their service has made possible. afghanistan is not a perfect place. it remains one of the poorest countries in the world. it is going to continue to take time for them to build up

military capacity that we sometimes take for granted. and given the enormous challenges they face, the afghan people will need the partnership of the world, led by the united states, for many years to come. but with our support, afghanistan is a better place than it once was. millions of afghan children, boys and girls, are in school. dramatic improvements in public health have saved the lives of mothers and children. afghans have cast their ballots in democratic elections and seen the first democratic transfer of power in their country's history. the current national unity government continues to pursue reforms, including record revenues last year, to strengthen their country and, over time, help decrease the need for international support. that government is a strong partner with us in combatting terrorism.

that's the progress we've helped make possible. that's the progress that our troops have helped make possible, and our diplomats, and our development personnel. that's the progress we can help sustain, in partnership with the afghan people and our coalition partners. and so i firmly believe the decision i'm announcing today is the right thing to do, for afghanistan, for the united states, and for the world. may god bless our troops and all who serve to protect us. may god bless the united states of america. >> a reminder we are planning live coverage of today's white house briefing. spokesman josh earnest answering

reporters questions in just a couple of moments. we will have to apply for your c-span2. while we wait, remark somehow speaker paul ryan. he says looks like hillary clinton got special treatment from the fbi's investigation over the use of or private e-mail server, speaking at a a press conference comes as fbi director james comey's comments yesterday raise more questions than answers. director comey is expected testified at a house oversight hearing to bar on the clinton e-mail investigation. >> good morning, my name is lee zeldin. congress is most important role is to keep americans safe, secure and free your we are too often reminded that while whitford will hear and read about terrorist attacks abroad, we have a very real ongoing homeland security threat that's in our own borders. in the wake of the orlando terrorist attack, and the rise of terrorism across the world -- [inaudible conversations]

>> this week the house will take action on the counterterrorism package to help protect our country and citizens. included in this package is my language for my proposal to protect h.r. 4237 which would prevent terrorists from purchasing firearms or explosives while protecting their due process rights of americans. i have not met one member of congress in favor of terrorists being able to purchase firearms. the real debate is whether and how to ensure due process for americans. my proposal with senator cornyn in no way, shape, or form infringes upon the rights of law-abiding gun owners. what it does is ensure that terrorists do not have the ability to legally purchase firearms. isn't that really the goal here are asked to mexico house democrats waged a disruptive and destructive sit in to shut down congress because they supposedly

wanted to pass legislation that prevents terrorists from be able to purchase firearms. now they can but this proposal coming to the house for but democrats are opposing it for no good reason. it's because they only want the political fight and because they don't want to confront the inconvenient truths i'm about to address. regardless of whether you're a liberal democrat only conservative republican, my proposal with senator cornyn should be supported by all. it would require only the most partisan bad intentions of my democratic colleagues not to be praising and supporting this legislation. just think about it. it would be the height of the progress the and irony not to push this measure with their energy. this bill wasn't written by the nra. this proposal was drafted by members of congress who understand how to prevent terrorists from purchasing firearms are protecting their due process rights of americans. there are three very important

truths that my democratic colleagues should not find so inconvenient. first, the orlando shooter was an islamic terrorist with allegiance to a isis. and number two, the rightful handgun used in the orlando shooting didn't just march itself into the nightclub the night and discharged itself. i'll get to the third truth in a moment. but first i want to point out that in reality there's a whole lot more going on here beyond a gun control debate. in a chance by members of congress do not this issue so glaringly in any the rest of our country who understand the bigger picture. we also must unite to id the threat of radical islam. because you cannot eliminate a threat you're not willing to identify. so what makes matters worse is that it is good even if the president id the threat, he has no idea how to eliminate it. that unfortunate is the third inconvenient truth. congress has a duty to prioritize national security

over party politics. which is why democrats should join house republicans in passing this important proposal to prevent terrorists from purchasing firearms and to keep americans safe. it is their duty. >> on from the beginning i have been saying that we need to be clear eyed about who the enemy is. we need to stay focused on the threat of homegrown terrorism. but right now we have an administration that simply refuses to step up its game. last month as part of our better way agenda we put out 67 recommendations to keep america safe. last week leader mccarthy while working with our terrorism task force proposed common sense legislation to address the threat to our homeland including this legislation. it is comments is because required our government to prioritize its efforts to counter violent extremism. that includes defining the enemy as radical islamic terrorism.

believe it or not we do not do this already. this legislation is also come with it because it takes is to make sure that guns don't fall into the hands of terrorists. this is something we have to get right. law enforcement has been telling us over and over we have to get this right because if we get this wrong with it undermine their own investigations. there isn't a person in congress to once a terrorist to get a gun. we also want to we do not undermine those ongoing terrorist investigations that law enforcement is conducting and as i've said can we are not going to come to of the constitution. we are not going to infringe on anyone's rights without due process. this is very important. the constitution is a beautiful document. it is so efficient you can fit it in your pocket. we are not going to actually pass legislation that infringes upon a person's constitutconstitut ional rights. so we have to get this right. we don't want to infringe upon the second amendment or french up on the fifth a minute.

we don't want to infringe on anyone's basic constitutional rights. we can get this right while honoring the constitution. this is what we all swear to serve. we would take the oath of office we swear to support and defend the constitution. that is our duty. now, we need to define the enemy. when you to defeat this enemy. i also want to take a moment to note that they've house will take up landmark legislation through -- this is what congressman tim murphy has poured his life into. he has spent years working on mental health reform. this is bipartisan reform. it came unanimous from the commerce committee. that is also some tweaking needs to be addressed to jus address e gun violence that is occurring in america which is dealing with the issue of mental illness. that is coming to the floor today. i want to thank congressman murphy for that. because of this bill people would get the treatment that they need when they need. it's a great breakthrough and look forward to today's vote.

>> terrorism has come to america's shores. we've seen time and time again just in the last seven years more than a dozen terrorist attacks on american soil. and every time it happens all you see as the president trying to shift the debate to gun control. why shouldn't the president be working with us here in congress to confront the real threat of radical islamic terrorism instead of trying to take with the gun rights of law-abiding citizens? so here in the house will continue to protect the law for the rights of law-abiding citizen to stand up for the bill of rights, all of those 10 rights are critically important to america the second amendment will not be infringed, none of those bill of rights will be infringed. the president ought to be working with us to confront these real serious threat. if he doesn't will continue to take action to do with the problem of terrorism in the united states, radicalization of americans. in addition to the we also see a growing crisis in this country but whether mental health

system. i want to congratulate tim murphy. i'm proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation. this bill is three years in the making and has taken a lot of hard work to go and identify all the problems in her mental health system and come up with solutions to allow parents to get more involved, if their children have mental health issues, to close loopholes within the mental health system and to increase the coordination so we can confront a real problem that's led to not only murders but suicides in so many cases across this country. it's touched families amongst all of us. so i'm glad we'll bring you that legislate for an for to a really strong but later today on the. finally, when it comes to the announcement that we saw by the fbi director yesterday, it's a big disappointment that charges were not brought forward but at the same time the fbi director pointed out that hillary clinton broke the law. if you look at what he said in his docket, in his conversation yesterday, hostile actors gained access to secretary clinton's personal e-mail accounts.

secretary clinton and our colleagues were extremely careless in handling a very sensitive highly classified information. the fbi director's comments didn't close this case. it raised a lot more serious questions and he to be answered by secretary clinton by what her intentions were when she broke the law and what happened and who got access to the highly classified sensitive information including hostile actors all around the world who want to do is harm. >> major terrorist attacks on innocent lives are becoming way too common. people shouldn't live in fear as they go about their daily lives. my heart breaks every time i see continued attacks around the world on people that are doing, just going about their daily lives. sadly, terrorists under paris,

brussels, san bernardino, orlando, syria, iraq, turkey are to some of the place is directly impacted by the rise of islamic terrorism. we have a global terrorism epidemic. but when the world look to us for leadership president obama chose to walk away. we should have stepped up. he chose instead to step aside and focus on narrow political whims over global security. a power vacuum was created and destructive forces have filled it. isis remains a serious terror force ballot to join in exposing gratitude to lee zeldin who is here with us today. he's been working on this issue and jumping into our legislation strikes an important balance. amiamid the chaos and the hearte of these attacks, america and its allies must be resolved to combat islamic terrorism here, in turkey, in iraq, where ever it is.

>> for the past 20 years i've been an advocate for improving our mental health system here in this country. so i cannot be more pleased that the house plans to vote this week on the helping families and mental health crisis act, which is designed to aid millions of individuals dealing with mental illness. last week i visited a behavioral health care center in my district. this is a silly that deals with the exact issues that this legislation seeks to improve. the rv families in america that have escaped the challenge of addiction or depression or other mental illness. this legislation will drive innovation and fight the ongoing crisis regarding the shortage of mental health beds in rural populations and provide a much-needed resources for those who don't have access to the care that they need. melanoma under a national

problem, a problem to which with solutions. this legislation puts us on the right path to a more comprehensive and effective when dealing with our mental health system here in america. >> questions? >> speaker ryan, are you confident the fbi's investigation of secretary clinton, do of secretary clinton, dick yoshida preferential treatment? >> i'll let everybody be the judge of that.

is there anything congress can do -- >> i don't have to do question

whether something congress can do. from my own experience, you get access to keep classified material once you leave the convention as the nominee. on a regular basis. it's part of a transition government. with no indictment occurring but a discussion for a call for editors to action i think it is the least we can do given that she was so reckless in handling classified material and cindy classified information on unsecured servers. i think that's something the administration should do on its own but we were looking to see if that something we can do as well. spent special prosecutor come is that -- >> we are not going to foreclose any option. automatic. >> i don't and when people shout out questions. >> speaker ryan, the house freedom caucus has come out again, against the antiterrorism package which contained mr. zeldin's bill. do you believe this bill is in real jeopardy at this point oh

do you think they're still it affords because a path forward, ongoing conversation. we just released this bill on friday. we have members of both sides of the want to make improvements, make changes. changes. we would eventually get it right. the last thing we're going to do is rush something to the for that we don't have right. and again this matters to us. the constitution. this means we get this right. we do not want to violate their citizens due process rights so that is why what to make sure we get it right and what they're doing is making sure every i's dotted and every keep us cause we preserve and protect the constitution which is what we swear to do when we are sworn into office. we want to get or buy. we are missing from all of our suggestions for my colleagues. colleagues want to make changes to the terrorism, some other parts of the bill so we are gathering that information so we can make a good decision. >> are you confident you will be able to bring the gun bill up for a vote at some point next week this week? >> yes, we are because we think result administration needs to step up its game.

they are not doing what is necessary to combat radical islamic terrorism was overseas or here at home. number two, we want to make sure we codified the practice of making sure terrorists don't get guns while preserving citizens rights. citizens rights is very important. we can have security and stick to the constitution of the same time. we will do it when we are ready and when we believe we can do it in a good amount of time. thank you. >> shortly we'll bring you live coverage of today's white house briefing with spokesman josh earnest set to begin momentarily. a live picture from the briefing room. we are likely to questions about the president announcement today that there will be a troop buildup in afghanistan as the president leaves office. also the fbi's decision to essentially exonerate hillary clinton over her use of her private e-mail server and we are just getting is also tennessee

republican senator bob corker republican senator bob corker has taken the sting out of consideration to be donald trump's running mate. why does briefing coming up in just a few moments. we will have it for you at c-span2. no, from a member of congress on the clinton e-mail investigation and the war on terrorism from today's "washington journal." >> congressmen louie gohmert g joins us that after fbi director james comey outlined hillary clinton quote extremely careless handling classified information while she was a state. first your reaction to that press conference yesterday just back well, i was amazed. as so many have said, he spent about 13 of his 15 minutes outlining a powerful case against hillary clinton and whyn she should be indicted, and then at the end, he ain't the string and pulled all back and said no good prosecutor would pursue that case. and he said there was no direct

evidence of intent. i mean, i've been a prosecutor, judge, i know most of the time there's no direct evidence of intent. it's very rare that you have an e-mail or an overt statement i intend to do this. now, hillary may have had e-mails that stated that intent and that's why those were destroyed. we will never know. >> host: wanting to avoid disclosure rule? >> guest: absolutely. it doesn't have to be intent under a couple of different statutes because the requirement for intent to betray the united states. and, in fact, gross negligence is a basis for prosecution and gross negligence is extreme carelessness which he said they found. but a vocabulary word for perhaps the viewers, spoliation, it's a legal doctrine as applied

in some form in most every state and it is under federal 35, that if someone, if a party has possession of evidence and that evidence is destroyed want in their sole possession, then then judge may instruct the jury, you may consider as a direct evidene evidence that they had come this party come in this case hillary clinton, having evidence, it was destroyed in her possession and, therefore, you may take that into evidence of guilt or guilty knowledge of what the judge has -- of the so the intent issue again trip to exactly. you can prove intent just by the fact she destroyed some massive amounts of e-mail when she knew at least part of before the destroyed they were being sought. >> host: you a former prosecutor, former judge, what sort of precedent does this decision set for future cases on

classified e-mails traffic i don't think it's any more than the prosecution of general petraeus, which by the way, director comey, this is from his words, you don't prosecute unless it's cleared in digital of willfulness in of classified information. task force of materials exposed, intentional misconduct, indication of disloyalty to the united states our efforts toto obstruct justice. you didn't have any of those in petraeus but the one he didn't mention is if you have information as a trace did about benghazi that would've put the administration in severe jeopardy of being reelected, that it's important to prosecute that person. that's what they did with petraeus. he knew what they were saying about benghazi was a lie, it was not about the video.ri a didn't say it was. and that they had to destroy him before he could destroy them. and, of course, they got in on a rope right now because obviously

there were things he did that were inappropriate. >> host: we know the speaker wants to more from director comey. do you think director comey should step down was one of our callers on their publicly says he doesn't trust them anymore thank you he is given us good reason not to trust them after yesterday. post that was every reason before the traffic i didn't have any reason to not trust him before that. he has been an honorable man. but one of your callers were saying something people don't allow works here in washington she works for the government, it's true, the saying in washington, you've probably heard many times, but no matter how cynical you get, it's never enough to catch up. up. it's just, just when you think it can't get much worse, are you kidding me? you laid out the case.n. this is basically a lay down case against hillary clinton. you establish gross negligence.

you don't need direct evidence of intent. you've got gross negligence and then he walks away from it host the louie gohmert is with us this morning. phone lines are open if you want to call them. -- call in your we are talking about the fbi directors recommendation yesterday. we'll also get into gun legislation making its way to the floor of the congress, of the house this week. we will start with emily, alexander virginia, a republican. >> caller: good morning. i want to start to make a quick, and i have a question. my comment is a husband and i both live in the beltway in d.c. and every day we are entrusted with a certain amount of information that we are required under law to maintain and keep. if by any chance we were to make any gross negligence on behalf of any data we had, we would

only not have a job and not have clearance, we might go to jail.h we have two little kids everyday we think we need to stay above board not only for our country but also for our children. so that's my comment.il second, my question is, knowing that that's against the law anda that anybody from gs nine to gs 13, 14, 15, would be required to come under law, give up their clearance for something like hillary clinton did, how can the democratic party or the republican party side with somebody that they know that while themselves and uphold somebody was running for congress that also has been put under oath and has to do the same federal training we allh, have to do, and yet the above

the law? >> guest: well, thank you. i really appreciate your work and your husband work. is a dangerous time to be working in the federal government, in this modern era of when it's so easy to make mistakes and with the internet, boy, it normally is institutionalized unless you'reu sophisticated enough or has this get enough friends to destroy the evidence before it can come to light. but you raise a good question, how do you trust people like that. since benghazi, i've talked to most of the immediate family members of people that were killed in benghazi. they were particularly offended to have hillary clinton sheikhy their hand with their loved ones body just arriving there, and

you say we are going to get the guy who did the video. because the ones that told me said, we didn't care about a guy who did the video. even if it was about the video, which it turns out it was not an hillary clinton e-mail a couple people, including her daughter, to say it wasn't your this was an attack. but they couldn't believe hillary clinton would look themy in the eye and say that with tho remains of their loved one right there. there were issues of credibility that are always at stake but i just thank god there are peoplep willing to serve our government like you and your husband that are concerned about not violating the law. i know it's a slap to people like you who worked so hard to be honest and forthright, but please don't give. we need you. we need people like you that are going to be honest no matter what's happening around. idea with some of the same problems myself. >> host: we are talking with

congressman louie gohmert, member of the judiciary committee and chairman of the national resources investigated subcommittee here with us for about the next half-hour. john is in pennsylvania, republican. good morning. >> caller: i'm not a republican. i called on the independent line. i'm an independent. >> host: go ahead, john. >> caller: i was surprised, too. i listen to the whole thing yesterday when director comey made a statement and i thought he was building up to the fact that she should be indicted. so given that come into being on the judiciary committee, are you going to now open a warat criminals case against bush, cheney, wolfowitz, rumsfeld and rice for lying continually for years about the war in iraq and the war in afghanistan? >> guest: well, obviously you have fallen victim to things that were said about bush and cheney and rumsfeld.

everybody, including hillary clinton, believed that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction.m he had killed thousands and thousands of people with poisonous gas, with weapons of mass destruction.en most when most of the countries in the u.n. supported resolutions requiring saddam to come forward, he didn't. the biggest mistake that karl rove made during those years was used to advise bush, don't worry about it, don't respond. and they didn't respond and now we have people who think that lies were institutionalized, when they work. everybody believed saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction except for a handful of people.of donald trump says now that he didn't, but anyway, at the time this is what people believed that saddam hussein gave everyhi indication of that.

bush's mistake was not in notmi responding. he followed the advice of his, father who, tony still, the late tony snow told me that in 1992 when clinton kept making allegation after allegation of charges against him that were ridiculous, george h. w. bush, classy man, said we will not dignify this with respond. we will not respond to he went from about 90% approval down to losing the election. but tony said he told them, trying to get them to respond at one point, mr. president, when someone keeps attacking your honor and you don't respond, eventually people assume you don't have any honor. w. george w. bush refused to defend his honor and a people, like john, believed he didn't have any honor and it's really unfortunate because he is much more honorable than people givet credit post that i want to bring it to what's happening today

this week in the house ofoday, s representatives, republican leas leaders expected to have some sort of gun legislation on the floor. the bill likely the one that wah written by senator john corner of texas to remind our viewers, that would grant the attorney general power to delay gun sales for up to three days for anyone suspected of terrorist connections. authorities would then have to go to court to prove their case orioles the sale would go through. democrats are rallying around a much stronger restriction and measure pushed by republican susan collins of me. this all happened in the wake of that sit in by democrats on the floor of the house for a couple. the question for you is should this not be happening on the phone this weekend? >> guest: it absolutely should not. to be sago we had a conference. i thought it was outrageous that as the majority party we allowed the city and in violation of

massive numbers of rules -- sit in -- to go on unimpeded. and i was ready, i was challenging the sergeant at arms.t so you only enforce the rules against republicans, is that the deal now? and he said, when we tell republicans to stop violating the rules, you guys do. we told them repeatedly and they are not stopping there violations. >> host: we show the viewers that media of you going down to the house floor and confronting. democrats. you were one of the few republicans who went down to the floor during that time just make yeah, but this was after we had a conference and we've been told don't worry, we were told they will be severe consequences for these violations. fine. there have been no severe consequences. had i not the only severese consequences was that they would be a gun restriction vote, as

they were demanding against the rules. and by the way, they wanted to debate. i came down to the well to give them a debate. they were saying it was all of about a gun to look at the shiny object in the same. don't look at the killer. i felt like an associate like they were dishonoring those victims in orlando by refusingto to recognize what it was that killed in the yes, he had a gun as i told them if you go after guns, the next thing to be honest you have to go after pressure cookers because that's what was used in boston and then you have to go after box cutters because that was used on 9/11. you've got to go after the people that are holding the weapon, not the weapon. and so i said it was -- >> we believe this to go live to today's white house briefing. is josh earnest. >> another day at the office.

i do not have any announcements so google right to questions. there's a variety of topics will discuss today. >> i wanted to see if you could tell us how the president feels that this troop announcement reflects on his legacy as a president who came in wanting to disentangle the u.s. in afghanistan and iraq, now living complex in both those places as well as in syria and libya. does the president wish that he would've been able to finish his presidency without some americans still overseas in afghanistan? >> it's important for people understand the context in which the decision is taking place. first of all it takes the context, takes place in the context of a dramatic change in the nature and scale of the u.s. presence in afghanistan. when president obama took office

to about 38,000 euros troops in afghanistan. the president spent much of his first year in office waiting how to fulfill the promise he made in the context of the campaign which is to ensure that our national security resources were focused on the real and significant enduring threat that existed in the form of core al-qaeda in the afghanistan-pakistan region. in the context of making the decision the president made a choice based on recommendations from the department of defense and other members of his national security team to increase our troop presence above 100,000 troops in afghanistan. that was -- that peak was reached around 2011-2012. that surge of resources, that surge of troops on the ground had a material impact on the city situation in afghanistan, such that we have succeeded in decimating core al-qaeda and afghanistan-pakistan region.

we have succeeded in building up the capacity of afghan security forces to provide for the security of their own country. were also formed a strong and enduring relationship with the afghan central government such as the afghan government now is an effective partner of the united states and the rest of the international community that is focused on the situation in afghanistan. the president announced that today indicated that the troop level added into next year will be 8400. that represents a substantial commitment on the part of the united states to the future of afghanistan. it also represents a significant reduction in the number of men and women that the united states has in harm's way in afghanistan. and it is also a validation of the approach that is focused on

training, advising, and occasionally assisting, afghan security forces so that they can fight for their country. this doesn't just reduce the exposure of our men and women in uniform. it also enhances the longer-term outlook for the security situation in afghanistan. we've already tried the approach, the previous administration tried the approach with a trade would try to impose a military solution on a country like afghanistan. that's not a long-term solution. so the president's approach is one that ensures a positive long-term outlook for afghanistan but there's also no denying the next president will also have to make some substantial, weighty decisions with regard to our ongoing relationship with afghanistan,

with regard to our ongoing strategy for countering extremist that continue to try to threaten u.s. interests that are based in afghanistan. there will be substantial questions to the answer and decisions to be made about our ongoing relationship with the afghan government. there's no denying the progress we've made and to change the relationship between a united states and afghanistan that we have seen as the result of the decisions made by president obama in the last eight years. >> automatic -- the administration's contention to engage with congress on find a way to pay for additional troops. can you be more specific? are you plan to submit a supplemental budget request on what i should the cost is with the additional troops? and are you willing to ask congress to decrease military spending to pay for these troops without also increasing domestic

spending? >> josh, let me say a couple things about our expectations. the first is, given the positive reaction that we've seen from democrats and republicans on capitol hill to this announcement, i would expect that we would see constructive engagement on the part of congress to fulfill their responsibility to pay for this policy decision. that's their responsibility we would expect them to the philip particularly would you consider that this is the policy they say they support. so this shouldn't be a situation where the needs be a lot of arm twisting or partisan wrangling. this is the commander-in-chief making a national security decision that is supported i senior leaders in both parties. so what's also true is that republicans spent a lot of time over the last six years or so

talking about how the united states of america would benefit from a republican majorities serving in the house of representatives in the united states today. those majorities come with certain responsibilities. one of those responsibility among the most important offices possibility is making sure that our national secret efforts are properly funded. what's also true, josh, is that our department of defense has indicated that this strategy for afghanistan is a priority for them. at our men and women in uniform and our commanders in afghanistan have said that this enhanced troop presence is a genuine priority for the department of defense. we would expect, and what is true right now, and many of you, news organizations are covering this, is that congress right now is interested in funding a variety of projects that the department of defense does not

at all describe those priorities. automatic. >> that's true, but you were raising a question about how the congress or a portion, limited resources of the u.s. taxpayers to focus on our national security priorities. there are a number of things that get the attention of congress right now. that military commanders say are not priorities but it is they are afghanistan present is a priority. and so we do expect that members of congress will listen to our commanders on the ground in afghanistan and at the department of defense at the pentagon about what our priorities are, and find them accordingly. let me say to other things -- fund. it was a budget agreement that was reached last year, we do expect members of congress, democrats and republicans, to keep that commitment, to keep their word.

there were many people who are advocating the passage of that agreement last year who are touting the benefits of a two-year agreement. so they kept their commitment in year one. we expect them to keep their commitment in year two. but i would acknowledge that substance of the question, which is that this is a priority, and it's public and requires the substantial commitment on behalf of u.s. taxpayers. so it will require the administration working with democrats and republicans on capitol hill to make sure that the needs of our men and women in uniform are properly met spirit that budget agreement you discuss, predicated on previous assumptions about troop levels that was different from the one that was out today. i guess when trying to say is when you're talking about to wog with congress are you going to go back and ask for more money to fund these troops specifically? >> well, our expectation right

now is that given the strong support on capitol hill from democrats and republicans in congress for this policy proposal, we anticipate that we should be able to come all collectively, as political leaders, fulfill our responsibility to make sure that our men and women in uniform have the resources they need to do their job and to keep us safe. and that will require republicans doing something that they were truly find to be quite challenging, which is putting the country's priority ahead of their own personal political considerations. but in this case the stakes are high enough that that's what they want to do. given their support for this policy it shouldn't be that hard for them to do it. ..

.. >> president obama has been for the entirety of his presidency. future presidents will have to do the same. the fact that i haven't read the report doesn't mean this isn't an inquiry worthy of careful consideration. and it is important that, certainly, the united states -- speak for our own country here -- learn the lessons of those past mistakes.

but what is also true is that the united states and the united kingdom have a special relationship. and the ability of the leaders of our countries to work together to focus on our common interests and to pursue them jointly has made our countries more prosperous and more safe. and i would expect that that relationship will endure regardless of who is leading the united states and the u.k. obviously, both countries are facing some leadership transitions in the months ahead. but even in the, even as both our countries go through those transitions, i would expect that that relationship will remain special and strong. okay? julia, nice to see you. >> thanks. yesterday fbi director comey said that while the fbi was not recommend aring charges against hillary clinton -- recommendationing charges

against hillary clinton, he did say it shouldn't be ruled out that people who repeat in the future wouldn't be subject to security can sanctions or administrative sanctions. what is the white house's view, what's the obama administration's view on what punishment should be be not for these folks -- if not for these folks, but for future people, future staff members who don't follow the rules surrounding keeping classified e-mails secure? >> look, as we've discussed from here many times and across the administration, everybody who works in this administration understands how important it is to protect national security secrets and to handle sensitive information appropriately. and that is, that is certainly a priority. and even as there are a number of agencies that have had to deal with situations like cyber intrusions, we have worked to update our technology and to

insure that our work force understands the appropriate steps to take to protect that information. and our expectation is that's what the professionals who work at our national security agencies will continue to do. >> what about some members of hillary clinton's staff who were or part of these e-mails who, as director comey said, they would know they were classified? should they, should their security clearances be reviewed if, for example, they were about to come in and service the next administration? >> listen, i'm not going to render any judgment on that primarily because it is the -- these are the findings and recommendations of the fbi based on their investigation that they've been conducting. the findings and recommendations of that investigation are still being considered by prosecutors at the department of justice, and we've gone to great lengths

to prevent any undue white house influence on that situation. so it's just going to be hard for me to react to the specific findings and recommendations of the fbi at this point. >> okay. on afghanistan, some critics have already come out since this morning's announcement of keeping 8400 troops saying that the white house really should be examining strategy, not troop levels in order to achieve more success in afghanistan. in the review that came before the president when he made his decision, was will any type of changing any part of the strategy going forward, or is he -- [inaudible] this level of troops instead? >> well, julia, i think you heard the president reference in his statement to the fact that -- you heard the president in his statement reference the fact that the president meets with his team on a regular basis to get an update on the situation in afghanistan. in the context of those meetings, the president and his national security team -- including commanders on the

ground -- review the strategy. and they evaluate which aspects of that strategy are working effectively, they evaluate those aspects of the strategy that aren't working as effectively as intended, and they consider what changes need to be made. and there's always an ongoing effort to insure that we are moving in the right direction and that we have a policy that is oriented to supporting the efforts of those who are bravely serving this country on the ground. and that's why the president listens so carefully to the advice that he receives from our commanders in afghanistan and from the department of defense. i think today's announcement, in fact, reflects the recommendation that they put forward to the commander in chief. but i guess to answer your question as directly as possible, there's an ongoing evaluation of the strategy because the president's determined to make sure that in order to do right by those who

are putting their life on the line to protect the country, that the commander in chief owes it to them to make sure that we've got the right strategy in place and that there are aspects of our strategy that aren't working as well as intended, then we need to figure out why. if that means we need to make changes to the strategy, the president won't hesitate to do so. if we need to ask for greater contributions from our partners or allies, the president won't hesitate to do so. but the truth is this situation in afghanistan has improved because of the strategy that we do have in place. we did succeed in decimating core al-qaeda and in the afghanistan/pakistan region. we do have a much more effective partner in the afghan central government because of the diplomatic efforts of officials at the state department and other agencies. there is a much more effective afghan security force both in terms of law enforcement and military that are doing a better job of securing the country.

but afghanistan remains a dangerous place, and there's still significant work that needs to be done. but there's no denying the progress that afghanistan has made, and there's no denying the degree to which the safety of the united states has been enhanced because of the strategy that's been successfully implemented by president obama and his national security team. okay? tobin. >> thanks, josh. back on the idea of security sanctions for secretary clinton, yesterday paul ryan said that he believes that secretary clinton should not be given classified briefings because she was extremely careless with classified information. he said that that should be the security penalty that she should receive. what's your reaction to that? >> well, my reaction is that i was specifically asked earlier this year about the wisdom of providing national security briefings to the republican presidential nominee for president. many people had raised questions

about whether or not that was, whether it was appropriate for the republican nominee to receive those briefings. what i said at the time is that those kinds of decisions should be made by intelligence professionals who have a responsibility to set aside their open political considerations -- their own political considerations and focus on the best interests of the country. the fact is there's a longstanding tradition of providing briefings to the major party nominees to make a smooth transition much more likely in the event that either of them is elected president of the united states. there is a long tradition of those briefings being presented without political influence. and what the office of the director of national intelligence has indicated is that they expect those briefings to move forward after the party conventions, after the parties have chosen a nominee, and the expectation that the dni has is that they'll provide the same information to both candidates. so that is the most effective

way to handle this situation. when we're talking about the safety and security of classified information, we should leave those decisions in the hands of our intelligence professionals and not risk them being sullied by the political debate. >> [inaudible] political debate, director comey and the attorney general have been sort of caught up -- called up to the hill to testify about this case. do you think that's a good idea? you mentioned it's an ongoing case, and you don't want to talk too much about it, but they've agreed to talk about this case on the hill in public. >> well, a couple things about that. the first is that the administration has, i think by any impartial measure, gone to great lengths to cooperate with even the most be unfair of congressional -- most unfair of congressional inquiries.

that is just, that's the principle that we have lived by. what is also true is that director comey and attorney general lynch are going to make decisions based on their own expertise and their own judgment about the best way to cooperate with that congressional oversight. they understand the importance of protecting the inagainst of their investigations -- the independence of their investigations. director comey said as much yesterday in his statement. that certainly is a consequence of the lengths that we have gone to here at the white house to prevent any undue, outside influence from the white house on this ongoing matter. but as it relates to congressional influence and whether it is undue or inappropriate, i've got confidence in the ability of the attorney general and the director of the fbi to protect the begty and independence of -- integrity and independence of

those investigations. they've been doing that for quite some time now, and i'm confident that they can do so as this process continues. >> more on the e-mail situation. one of the things that director comey mentioned was that there were several work-represented e-mails -- work-related e-mails that were deleted by secretary clinton's e-mails as person. we know -- as personal. do you believe that those work-related e-mails that were deleted should be released as well to the public in the same way that the previous e-mails were released? >> well, the information that you have provided or that you're asking about is information that's come to light as a result of the ongoing fbi investigation. and because the results of that investigation and the recommendations that arise from that investigation be are still being considered by prosecutors at the department of justice, i'm just not going to be in a position to react to those details at this point. >> [inaudible] more broadly, when this

investigation is over you'll be able to discuss these types of questions and answer these questions sort of when the investigation is over, kind of discuss this in a more robust way than you are now? >> well, i -- look, whenever i walk out here, i always endeavor to answer your questions to best of my ability. in this case there are going to be obvious limitations to that in part because i haven't seen any of the e-mails, in part because i wasn't privy to any of the decisions that were made about secretary clinton's e-mail system, in part because what we're focused on when i'm standing behind this podium is the official work of the united states government, not the presidential campaign. and, certainly, many of the questions that have arisen have been the result of political charges that have been traded back and forth in the context of the campaign. i'm not saying that's inappropriate. i think i would expect a spirited debate on the campaign trail. but the focus of our time and attention in this room is on the

official conduct of u.s. government business. okay? mark. >> josh, if the situation in afghanistan is as precarious as president obama says, why make any reductions in troop levels at all? why not leave it at 9800? >> well, mark, this is actually based on the recommendation from our commanders on the ground about what resources are necessary to conduct the missions that the commander in chief has given them. those missions are to provide training and assistance to the afghan security forces and to maintain the kind of counterterrorism platform that's necessary to counter those extremists that may be plotting in afghanistan against western interests around the world. so the president's been very clear about what that mission is. the department of defense came forward with a specific recommendation about the number of resources, and the number of military service members that

would be required to carry out that mission. that number was a little over 8400, and that's what the president's authorized. >> i ask about yesterday? the campaign event, what is the policy of the white house about the use and display of the presidential seal at political events? >> yeah. at the white house, frankly, we have tried -- we have treated the presidential seal consistent with the way that previous presidents have, which is that it is certainly used at official events and sometimes used at political events. that's been case, you know, throughout the last seven years and, again, that's, that is a precedent that dates back at least to president truman. the commitment that we made before and that i would expect that we would continue to uphold

is to not put the seal on the podium when the president is speaking at a fundraiser, when he's soliciting donations for political causes, and i think that's a line that we've kept to over the last seven years. but that's the -- it may aggrandizing it to describe that as a policy, but that is a description of how we handle this matter. >> well, why did you decide to use the seal yesterday? do you know if the clinton campaign asked for the seal? a candidate could be seen speaking behind it? >> i'm not aware of any such request from the clinton campaign. >> okay. [inaudible] the vice president and his seal when he campaigns for the candidate on friday? >> yeah. i have not asked the vice president's team about what policies they expect to have in place, but we can certainly check with them, or you can check with them and get an answer, or we can just tune in