district a tier one target a insurance company was targeted about a decade ago for an attack. if you go to jersey city in my district where i went on september 12th and saw the smoldering building from across the river, we cannot play games with the funding for this department because of a policy that you don't agree with in the executive branch. it makes no sense. with that -- oh and let me say, mr. chairman i have come down from my district on the train on monday night and in the train station there were dhs police officers and i went over and spoke to them and thanked them for their service and the things they are doing for this country and they asked me to send a

message back to congress and it was -- please give us the resources and the funding we need to do this job. do not cut our legs from under us. so we can't continue to say we appreciate your service and work, but yet we will not give them the resources that they need to do the job. so undersecretary taylor, you mentioned that not fully funding the department of homeland security would have a crippling effect on homeland security, could you explain how if the department of homeland security is not provided with the full-year funding, efforts to prevent foreign fighters and their travel would be affected, since that seems to be a great concern on the other side, how not funding the department will impact that ability. >> sir, i think the secretary has made and i have tried to

make here today is working under the c.r. flexibility and investing the threats as they evolve over time and the grant funding and our ability to respond to add money to the secret service for additional protection and those sorts of issues so i can't speak specifically to a specific foreign fighter aspect but in the day and age that we work and live for -- from a security perspective, the secretary believes very strongly that in order to protect the homeland we need the flexibility to invest in the new threats as they are evolving and under the current system he doesn't have that flexibility to direct his forces to execute in that manner. >> new funding for new programs? >> new funding for programs, funding for continuing grants. >> $2.6 billion in grant funding from what i'm reading here? >> yes. >> it just baffles me how we can

almost talk out of both sides of our mouths and say that we want to make sure the homeland is safe but with an issue with the executive branch we say maybe we won't fund the department of homeland security. i yield back. >> thank you gentlemen. the gentleman from new york mr. cato is recognized. >> there mr. chairman. mr. stein back, earlier you testified that the fbi did not have a program for conducting background syracuseecurities. what needs to be in place? >> i didn't say we didn't have a

program. but we learned our lesson with the refugee background. we put into place a background and vetting process that we found to be effective. but in iraq, we were there on the ground collecting so we had data bases to use. the concern is in syria, the lack of our footprint on our ground in syria, that the data bases won't have the information we need. it is not the lack of process, it is the lack of information. >> and is there ways that you could suggest we go about trying to get this information? >> i just don't think you can go and get it. you are talking about a country that is a failed state. it does not have any infrastructure so to speak so all of the data sets the police the intel services that you would go and seek that exist don't exist. >> and that raises grave concern as being able to do proper background checks of the individuals coming into the country. >> yes. >> all right. now, mr. taylor thank you for

your testimony as well. and as a member -- as chairman of the subcommittee on transportation and i look forward to working together for the mutual benefit of everybody. and looking at your written transmission and so i can better understand the foreign fighter issue. one of the things that you mentioned was that the secretary johnson has ordered or is conducting an immediate short-term review to determine if additional security measures are needed at domestic and foreign departures and what is the status of that and when can we get information on that. >> the brief is this week by tsa. and the idea behind this -- the thing secretary johnson has charged us all with is thinking outside of the box. >> i like that.

>> we apply secretary directors and see the affect of those secretary directors every week when we have our counterterrorism meeting. and his last question is are we thinking out of the box and what else could we be doing to be more affective and that is what he has charged tsa to give him some ideas back that he will decide in terms of how those things might be better implemented to -- across both domestic and internationally. >> so that is a short-term. and then of course you'll report to us at the appropriate time. >> absolutely. >> and we appreciate that. and in the long-term you are exploring the possibility of expanding to pre-clearance operations. could you explain in more detail why that would be beneficial. >> simply put in the football an al ji. we would rather play defense on

our one yard line and not their one yard line. and we would like for it to happen at their one yard line and not over here. so we can put homeland security personnel in those airports and conduct the screening using the data base at their one yard line and be more effective from people getting on airplanes and coming to our country and rather than finding them here and having to send them back. >> thank you for that. and lastly with respect to tracking the foreign fighters, there was a reference in your written report to enhancing oren abling of cbp to conduct security vetting of suspected vwp travelers to determine if they have low -- law enforcement security risk. when you say enabling cvp. what do you mean by that. >> we mean expanding of theesta

and the dating requirements and we've expanded that by six. we are looking at whether we should expand it even further so we have better data upon which to vet against our daisa base aa -- data bases. >> maybe i'm being my former prosecutor too much. to conduct the vetting. does that mean it is optional for them to do that? >> no. it expands to your capacity to do it with the more data elements. >> it is part of the mix when they screen someone? >> yes. >> okay. >> and i would add that every person that comes to the united states on an aircraft or ship is vetted against our holdings. there is no -- no one that comes here that doesn't get that kind of screening. whether it is a visa screening or an esta screening determining whether there is an interview conducted but everyone gets

screened according to the data bases of our country. >> thank you very much. >> from new jersey, mrs. watson coleman is recognized. >> thank you gentlemen. i'm sorry i wasn't here the beginning of your testimony and i spent last night reading it and i found it fascinating and i'm very appreciative of what your agencies are doing and identifying to keep us safe here and how you have expanded your interaction and your information sharing and methodology and creativity and including foreign countries so we can all be safe. that is very important to me. particularly struck by homeland security and i want to associate myself with mr. keating and mr. paine's remarks about our responsibility to ensure that as you are the protector of the homeland that you have the resources necessary to be flexible to be responsive and proactive to do what you need to do to keep me safe without

engaging in the political wranglings of whether or not we should hold the president's foot to the fire because congress couldn't see fit to do. but nonetheless, my question is more narrowed and similar to mr. lauder milk's question. i'm concerning about terrorists here. taking who we think are everyday young people having them exposed to the way these radical organizations use the social media and the other recruitment resources and how -- what is it that we can do to sort of cut it off at the pass. what should we be doing in terms of accessing young students vulnerable college students? are there resources that we should be putting in educating and counter-acting some of this

negative propaganda this ideology-spewing that is taking place with -- how do we help our communities and families see signs? are there any commonalities or characteristics that seem to be most vulnerable that are home-grown, that seem most vulnerable to this radicalization and can you share with me where you think our greatest threat is in terms of the security? is it on the southern border of the united states and mexico? is it some other borders that we're talking about? for someone like me, i consider myself spongebob. i want to soak up as much understanding as i can get. and whoever is able to answer it i would appreciate it. >> i will start and anyone can add pieces to this ma'am.

you are absolutely right. the focus of one -- one of the focuses of our effort at the federal level is for communities to develop their own intervention strategies because that is what it takes. there is not a federally led intervention in a family or community or social setting that will be the tipper that turns someone off from radicalization. but it is the local community, the families, schools churches mosques, they are the ones that recognize behavioral changes at a point when behavior can be still addressed and potentially not end up at the worst case scenario of someone having to traveled overseas. so the precise information you are asking for is what we are trying to share in a series of community briefings that give kids parents, schools, teachers to say this is what is happening and now i have to do something about it. now the do something about it part has to be very much a

community decision or a local decision. but the other frustrating piece and it gets to the last part of your question is that there isn't a single place that you say we need to be worried about it here and not here. like our other previous foreign fighting episodes like during the period when a large number of americans were going to somalia to engage in the fighting in africa there we had great concern because of the somali-american population and their vulnerability to recruitment there. and here i'm sure mike would echo this we do not have a pattern that says yes in this community yes, but in this community we are okay. we cannot step up the efforts because the isil propaganda is having a reach far beyond ethnicity, it is not iraqi americans or syrian americans and that is a challenge and frustrating to us. >> and ma'am, i would add and

certainly associate myself with all of the comments that have been made we believe that one of the empowering organizations is our fusion centers and training of our state and local police officers who are the first responders who are going to be the first level of defense, if you will and in spotting some of this behavior in addition to what happens in the community awareness area. so it is a combination of empowering the community in terms of what to look for and having our police officers better understand this phenomenon and what they may see on the street on a day to day basis and their encounters with citizens community policing officers who are involved in day-to-day activities within communities across our country. also they need to have that kind of understanding. and i think as director

steinback mentioning it it is like the d.a.r.e. program of where everybody understanding what the issue is and filling the knowledge base so people when they see it that is where you see something and say something can make a difference and in identifying these sorts of issues before they become bigger problems. >> thank you. >> the gentlemen from georgia is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman thank you gentlemen, thank you for what you do to protect our homeland. let me ask you, this is the kind of report that you read through and you are concerned about everything. and not one thing more so than the other. but one of the things that struck me was about the foreign fighter travel. and i just want to know what we can do to better control that? from what i understand, we're not using all of our resources. i don't know that the administration is even identifying a lead agency to combat this, is that true?

>> no, i would say that is not true. so foreign fighter travel travel to a conflict zone in support of terrorist organization is against the law. so the fbi has the lead on that. and when you look at the broken travel as mr. herb brought up and when you look at the way legitimate citizens travel abroad is not something we choose to curtail. so if you take travel to destinations like europe, where you can then take -- from down to turkey, it is identifying the multitude of ways that these individuals in the u.s. are committed to travel using a good investigative process, are they going to canada or down to mexico, how are they getting and using lawful process or ways to get to these locations. it is not the function of not having the tools, they have just as many creativity as we do and

they have support. so they read it on social media and platforms and talk to people who have done it and made it and follow the travel routes so we have to stay on top of that and use trip wires and the intelligence community and the tribal and law enforcement agencies so develop an understanding of what the landscape is. >> so the message i'm getting here today is we feel we have that under control or doing the best we can. >> we don't have it under control. we are doing the best we can. if we had it under control, i could say we know every person traveling and i don't know every person there or coming back. it is not even close to being under control. it continues to be a challenge. we have to be as creatively -- as frank said -- to think outside of the box and figure out how to combat this and we spend a lot of time figuring this out and try to develop processes and daisa bases to --

data bases for this problem. >> and let's talk about the visa waiver programs and there are certain people that are eligible for this and it is good for 90 days and it expires in 90 days? >> actually sir, the period of esta approval can be upwards of three years depending in the country. so once an esta is submitted, the period that it is valid is between 1-3 years. >> but the countries that are most concerned with is up to 90 days generally? >> in terms of -- >> in terms of the waiver? >> right now we have a visa waiver with 28 countries across the world. and in each of those cases, we have bilateral relationship with those countries about how we exchange data and for what purposes. more broadly other countries have to get visas through the state department for the

purposes of traveling. >> let me ask you this. what happens when it expires? do we have someone who checks up on these people to make sure they are not still here? >> absolutely. that is the job of our immigration and customs enforcement. and part of being in the visa waiver program is the requirement that your visa overstays be somewhere in the less than 1% level. so we're pretty confident in the countries that we have visa waiver programs with that the level of this type of activity by their citizens in our country is minimal compared to the level of activity that may be evident in other countries where visa overstays are a bigger issue. >> as i can imagine, you have a tickler file set up and somebody exceeds that 90 days and they haven't left then you go looking for them? >> we have processes to try to make sure those people in this country for longer then their

visa period are tracked down and escorted away. >> okay. mr. chairman i yield remaining time. >> thank you gentlemen. chair recognizes the gentleman from texas mr. jackson wade. >> let me thank the chair and the ranking member for this very important hearing and let me state to the witnesses i was delayed because we were holding a crime subcommittee in judiciary in which i'm a ranking member. this is an extremely important hearing and it is issued in the back drop of several worthy comments. the president has now released his aumf, which is a singular notice to the congress of the importance of addressing the question of isis and the potential of the united states engaging in some form of military action to be able to secure this nation. i indicated in remarks earlier

today on the floor that the department of homeland security provides a domestic armor, national armor of security and that is the responsibility of that. for many of us on this committee, we've had the privilege of serving since the horrendous act of 9/11. often i make the comment certainly not proudly that i was on or at ground zero during the moments of the extended time of looking for remains. it will always be a potent and striking moment in my life. and i take seriously the responsibilities of this committee. for that reason, i believe it is crucial that we do not hold hostage this department. we have seven days to make amends on the funding of the department of the homeland security and i remind my colleagues that the issue of

unaccompanied children or the president's executive actions do not pose the kind of heinous threat we are talking about today. i frankly think this is an important discussion and many front-line dhs employees will be in essence hindered from their work without the full funding of this committee. i ask you mr. taylor just a simple question, that in the midst of your jurisdiction and employees under your jurisdiction, without funding for this department, will some of them not be paid or some of them have to be furloughed or some issue may come up regarding their service? >> ma'am we are in the process of reviewing the procedures for an orderly shutdown of the department. i can't say specifically the number of people since -- people who work for me are primarily in the national security arena and are exempt from this, but there

will be an impact in terms of people who are not directly involved in national security. and also i would reinforce a comment i made earlier there are going to be people working but not paid. >> that is the point that i made. you didn't hear me say that. >> there is a challenge in a department that is morale challenges going forward. >> but the main point is you are in the process of having that as a responsibility which is surveying your department and determining what will happen without the funding? >> absolutely. >> and that is taking your attention away from important security issues of securing the nation which i assume, that is a statement that i believe is accurate. is that not accurate? >> i'm not personally involved but our departmental management folks are working? >> but that is staff persons dealing with those issues that would not ordinarily being dealing with them at this time? >> absolutely. >> and let me offer and pursue my questioning to make this point.

i do want to offer sympathy. we've come to -- it has come to our attention that three members of a muslim family were murdered in chapel hill. these were students at the university of north carolina in chapel hill. we understand the culprit was arrested and charged with first murder and had some issues dealing with religious questions. one of the individuals was, in fact speaking against the murder of people meaning one of the muslim students was speaking against that. let me go straight to the gentleman from the fbi and ask the question regarding cyber and the internet and soliciting and counter, in terms of ideology can be best used to fight this? we can fight with arms andin intelligence but there are other ways of stop organize getting in

the -- stopping or getting in the way of solicitation of our young people? >> absolutely, ma'am. i think there are a variety of ways that we can talk about in open session or information behind closed doors in a classified setting. i think it starts to go back -- we have to understand that the path to radicalization and mobilization it starts with intellectual curiosity and there can be community based efforts to turn people away. once an individual gets to the point where he or she has an intent to conduct an attack and it turns into an enforcement peace, there can be efforts from a counter radicalization narrative from a disruptive and intervention perspective and it is a multi-pronged approach that involves the state department and the counter messaging piece and it involves a counter radicalization piece and the use of trip wires and disruption to

prevent acts of terrorism. so it is a widespread approach that we have to utilize all of those. >> well let me just say that i hope that this committee that we have overlapping jurisdiction will ramp up the dollars that will intervene in that radical heinous ideology. i consider isis barbaric. and i want to offer my deepest sympathy to the family of kayla mueller who was a true mesh and want -- american and wanted to do nothing but help people in need and wanted to do nothing than help people. and there are people in this nation that warranted and brought about the death of three muslim students or individuals in north carolina, none of this should be tolerated and however we can disrupt and interrupt this, i think it requires ault of our resources working together in bipartisan funding the dhs to be able to make a

difference and i, for one would like to be engaged in the writing of legislation and/or to find out more in an instructive matter how do we stop our young people from something as heinous as what isis represents and i would like to thank king abdullah and jordan for their committed work along with our allies on this effort and my sympathy to them for the losses they have experienced throughout the mideast and throughout europe. with that i yield back my time. >> your time is experienced. and from arizona, mrs. mcsally is recognized. >> thank you gentlemen for your testimony to you. to look at you while i'm talking to you with my colleague on my right. i appreciate the work you've been doing. i was 26 years in the military and worked especially dr. rasmussen with your organization and my last assignment at u.s. africa command running current operations there to include our counterterrorism operations. and i'm aware of y'all dealing

with the foreign fighting issue before people paying attention to it but we were watching it even back then, 2007-2010 where we had foreign fighters flowing from many places but into areas for al shabab training camps and aqap and north africa and ungoverned spaces as you know. and someone in the military, it caused great frustration as much as what we've been talking about today on the defense as you've been talking. but it needs to be a come comprehensive government approach but i would prefer to be on the offense primarily and that includes going after to these people that have decided to become combatants in a struggle against us like going after the core ideology. and you know this, we watched thousands of foreign fighters

graduate from the training camps because we didn't have the political will to do anything about it on the offense at the time not thinking it was within our interest or wasn't a threat to our country and god knows where those thousands of jihadists who graduated from the training camps all over africa where they are now. who knows where they are today. we watched them and let them go and did nothing about it where we had tremendous opportunity to do some things and we just didn't do it. so we've been focusing on the foreign fighter problem with isis but i do want you to comment on your perspective of the foreign fighter problem in other ungoverned areas that we can't forget about to include many of them in africa just like your perspectives on what we're seeing through there. >> thank you. and as i talked about in my testimony, the thing that is an order of magnitude different about the foreign fighters phenomenon in this conflict is the scale. but you are right. this is not a phenomenon started

yesterday. those flowing to conflict zones to participate in conflict there is something we've been watching through a series of conflicts in the middle east and north africa. and they have a unifying theme in this area is a lack of governance and so we are trying to intervene using all of the tools available but no one tool being adequate to the task of reaching into a north africa whether that is a mally, or libya or somalia and reaching in to effect to what those fighters are reaching into. we are particularly challenged because of an intelligence deficit and that gives us a really good picture of who the individuals of greatest concern are. as you know, that is where we try to spend most of our effort is trying to determine who most of the individuals are that are engaged in plotting against our

interests. because there is obviously a huge population of individuals who are there to participate in localized conflict so we can't devote all of our resources to that picture. and the last thing i would say that particularly concerning about the isil phenomenon is that isil has decided it needs to move beyond syria and iraq and so you have extremist organizations in africa, algeria, egypt and in libya who have raised the flag of isil and claimed affiliate status. and again that creates a sense of momentum and competition among extremist jihad groups that has added to our threat concerns and doesn't subtract. you like to see your enemies fighting amongst each other and it creates competition against each other as they try to one-up each other in efforts to go after us. >> and the next question i have

just a little bit of time here left. and you talked about community engagement, but this is an islamic extremist problem so what particular is the engagement with the muslim community in america and their leaders and where is there an obstacles to admitting them in acknowledging this is a problem of their religion and where do you see them getting on board to stop it. >> the muslim communities around our country, they are concerned as are all americans about this kind of behavior among people within their community and they want to address it, they want to understand it better and to have the tools to address it. and i've noted i've been out with the secretary on a couple of these. there are concerns about discrimination on the part of those communities and how they are treated and certain other ways but there is no lack of commitment in those communities

to get at extremism among their children among people in those communities because they see that as inconsistent with their responsibilities of being americans and living the american dream in our country. so i've noted i don't think we've noted a major lack of effort among those communities to recognize this phenomenon and how it impacts those communities and not wanting the tools to help them address them proactively. >> great, thanks. my time is expired. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we recognize mrs. torres from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i apologize for giving you my back but for the unfortunate circumstances of seating arrangements. and i would like to go back to the questions of secretary thompson, without a full year of funding bill, the department of

homeland security cannot award, it is my understanding $2.6 million, is that correct? billion dollars? >> billion. >> much of which goes to state and local departments. having served both at the local level as a council member, mayor and served as a state senator in the state of california these agencies are just beginning to recover from this great recession that we have had. they certainly do not have the funding to back-bill what we do not send to them and they are dependent on this funding in order to help protect our communities. so what -- what do you think is the risk assessment as it relates to these agencies not being able to pick up the phone and have someone on the other side answer to get feedback on a

potential threat risk? >> ma'am, i can't speak to the specific risk. what i can speak to is the fact that grant funding and our investment in state and local community engagement efforts is a linchpin for how we have structured our country to do homeland security. we have believe everyone needs to be in the game. everyone needs to be in power to information what the risk is what the tactics techniques and procedures are to be looking for and share that information with the fbi, with the i.c. so we can engage before the act happens. so the extent to which these grants make those agencies less effective and in meeting that responsibility, presents a risk for us. >> would you consider that a low risk a high risk and as it relates to not just the agencies, but -- i'm sorry, not

just as it relates to the local agencies, but the inability of the fbi or the inability of other departments to be able to coordinate and communicate with these agencies? >> as i said ma'am we had built our homeland security enterprise based on a state local, federal model and any capability that is taken away from that and in some way, diminishes our capacity to face the risks we are concerned with in our country. >> thank you, i yield my time back. >> the chair recognized the gentleman from texas mr. radcliff. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, i have very much enjoyed and appreciated your testimony today. as a former terrorism prosecutor and as a former united states attorney i've had the good fortune to work with each of your agencies on a number of occasions and i very much look forward to the opportunity to do so again as a member of this

kmiet -- committee. mr. steinbach i would like to work with you the director of the fbi jim comby expressed concern about technology companies using encorruption meth -- encryption methods on mobile devices with apple saying it would no longer be able to unlock phones and directing toward child kidnappers like opening a closet that could never be opening and even if it involved a court order to me that does not make any sense. as a former terrorism prosecutor, i share the directors concern and can certainly see how the inability to access encrypted devices so my question is what is the fbi's plan to deal with this and have

you engaged the technology industry to address these concerns? >> first of all sir, i'm not going to argue with director comby, so he is of course right. and it is a concern. and quite frankly it is irresponsible for companies to build products and have software updates that allow for no lawful capability to unlock their devices. and so to make the argument it is on the cloud and you don't need to have access to the device itself is disingenuous because not all of the information is on the cloud. we have to have the ability whether we are talking about gangster or authorized crime or terrorists, with lawful ability, court orders to look into and take contact, store communications whether it is a child pedophile somebody involved in narcotics trade or trying to conduct a terrorist act, we have to have that ability. so we have put this message out. i know that the director and his staff have gone out and relayed

this message on numerous occasions. we've pushed it out. we've had interaction with the state, local and federal levels of law enforcement as well as had direct contact with those companies and tried to explain through use of examples this is a dangerous precedent to go down, to not have the ability at any means whether it is an ongoing kidnapping or some other event, not to have the ability to get in there and look at that content or stored communication. >> terrific. thank you very much. i'll throw this out to anyone on the pam that wants to take it. there are numerous reports out there that ask.fm is one of the common recruitment channels through which a number of american foreign fighters have formed relations with recruiters and we talked about the teenage girls from colorado. since they are operating out of

lap via, i want to know if there is any interaction between the state department or law enforcement with the government regarding this? >> so i can't speak to specific interaction between the state department and the lappian government. i would tell you that ask.fm.com is one of the companies that we have seen in our intelligence collection efforts that is being used. that is just one. there are many platforms that reside overseas like i said earlier, that have shown an unwillingness to work with our government or the host governments. >> terrific. last question. and i apologize if this has been covered earlier. i've been in and out of other hearings today. but when isis specific material is posted on facebook twitter tumblr, you tube what are the existing line of communication

between law enforcement and those entities to provide notice or to facilitate the removal of that material? >> so the companies themselves have service agreements that in many cases violence criminal acts, if they violate the terms of service, once they are violated they can take that down. we are looking at it from a different threat. so when we see the radical pieces being used we look to exploit that and do that through a lawful means whether it is collecting the information to see what they are communicating about or to look at ongoing communication. so we have an overlapping, i guess, mission, when compared to some of the companies, but at the end of the day, the result is the same, we want to stop the communication through social media platforms. >> my time is expired. again, i appreciate you being

here. mr. chairman i yield back. >> we thank the witnesses for being here today. this is a very important topic to our national security. and i want to thank all three of you for your service to the american people to keep americans safe. and i want to thank also the rank and file within the department of homeland security and ctc and the fbi for the job they do day in and day out without much recognition but they are truly the patriots of this country and on behalf of this committee we want to say thank you. the hearing will be open for ten days for additional questioning and with without -- without objection, the committee stands adjourned.

if you missed any of today's homeland security hearing it will be on our website at cspan.org. president obama today sent congress draft legislation authorizing the use of military force against isis. the authorization i propose would provide the flexibility to conduct ground combat operations and other more limited circumstances such as rescue operations involving u.s. or coalition personnel or the use of special operations forces. obama said in a letter transmitted to congress along with the legislative proposal. the white house bill limits the use of military force against isis to three years unless congress reauthorizes the resolution. and the legislation would repeal the 2002 legislation authorizing the use of military force against iraq although not the broader 2001 legislation enabling the use of force against al qaeda and its affiliates. the president is expected to

deliver a statement about the draft legislation at 3:30 this afternoon at the white house. that is from the hill this morning. and house speaker john bane ser out with a statement on the authorization request. any authorization for the use of military force must give our military commanders the flexibility and authorities they need to succeed and protect our people. while i believe an aumf against isil is important, i have concerns that the president's request does not meet this standard. meanwhile house democratic leader nancy pelosi also with a statement. congress should act judiciously and promptly to craft and pass an aumf narrowly tailored to the war against isis. i look forward to the construction of debate in this matter. you can read this authorization for military action against isis on our website at cspan.org. the house has begun the

legislative day and is taking up the senate passed version of the keystone xl pipeline today. a final vote is expected this afternoon and the president has said he will veto that bill. live coverage of the house on our companion network cspan. >> here is our featured programs for this presidents' day weekend. on cspan 2 book tv on saturday morning at 9:00, live coverage of the savannah book festival with topics like the disappearance of michael rockefeller, a british company of elephants and four women spies during the civil war. and sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on afterwards, former senior adviser for president obama david axelrod. and on saturday morning at 8:30, the 100th anniversary of the release of the film, the birth of the nation. the showing of the entire 1915

film followed by a live call-in program with harry jones and author dick lair. and sunday at 8:00, george washington washington portraits focusing on the spirit of the president and what we can learn about him through the paintings. find our schedule at cspan.org. and call us at 202-626-34 one or e-mail us at comments at cspan.org or like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. at about 1 con 20 this afternoon eastern time at the white house, the president will have remarks on ebola and the progress made to date and next steps in the u.s. response to the outbreak in west africa. until then we have a discussion on the president's new request for military force against the

use of isis. >> joining us is martha mcsally a republican from arizonaand home of the homeland security committee and a freshman republican. good morning and welcome. >> good morning. thanks for having me on. >> we bring you on as events yesterday took place concerning the death of kayla mueller being from arizona. >> exactly. >> could you talk about or give your reaction of what is going on and what it means for the large issues at stake with regards to isis. >> my family and prayers are with her loved ones. i can't imagine what they are going through. she is an amazing young woman to make a difference in the world and help suffering people and that is why she was where she was, trying to help the people of syria. the fact that this barbarian organization took her captive and now it appears it is confirmed that she's died shows the dynamics related to this isis and how it impacts people at home.

we think it is something that is far, far away but this is my home state and arizona, we have people grieving in arizona because their daughter has been killed. and so this is a horrible threat and a terrorist organization that needs to be destroyed and not just contained. >> what do you think about the current activity of the united states toward isis. >> i think it has been inadequate. it took a long time for the administration to even describe what they were trying to do when they started to take military action. we saw this threat coming. based on our withdrawal from iraq after all of the blood and treasure we spent there as someone who spent 26 years in the military, it was just disgusting, honestly to see that we had made the gains that we made and we withdrew and watched this threat met aft size and grow and taking on territory and hostages and the flow of weapons and resources in order to take the territory they have

and be as strong as they are right now. and so when the administration finally decided to act militarily it was this pinprick strikes and not allowing the military to use the capabilities oftentimes we understood the white house was picking targets, reminds me of what we saw in vietnam. and so we need to use all elements of our national power for sure, financial, economic diplomatic, and military but when we're using the military we shouldn't be having it be so restrained and not allowed to use force in order to destroy the capability and command and control of isis. >> 26 years as a fighter pilot if i understand it. >> yes the a-10 warthog which is deployed over in that fight. >> are those the ones being used for the bombings that we hear about? >> they are. some portion of them. they didn't deploy over there until november and according to the air force it has been 14% of the strikes. we have f-16s and some other bomber capabilities that are

involved. >> as far as the use of these airplanes, talk about their capabilities. are they adequate to the job. when you say you wanted to -- as far as the mission to isis, should there be more bombings or airplanes or combination of a lot of things including ground troops. >> air power can do incredible stuff. if it is allowed to be used in full force, and we don't necessarily need to bring in a full ground force, but we need to use asymmetrical capabilities we have, with intelligence assets and then the air strikes especially early on when isis is out in the open with conventional military capabilities, we could have gone after and cut off their command and control and their heavy firepower that they had before they started blending more into communities. the a-10 warthog, the airplane i flew right here it has a 30 millimeter gun on it, we have a titanium bathtub we sit in as pilots so it can take small arms fire. can carry a variety of other

laser guided gps and air to ground missiles air to air missiles and rockets and cluster munitions. really depending what the mission is, it has long loiter time, very lethal, can go down low and slow and try and identify, you know what is going on the battlefield. when we're talking about non noninterdiction sorties that's easy to be able to do from the air. if we're then trying to identify moving targets or where civilians are involved, and they're blending in with the enemy, then it does help to bring joint terminal attack controllers, guys on the ground to be maybe embedded with indigenous force and they're the ones we talk to and they provide the final control the target coordinates, the current situation on the ground. those are things we could use to be force multipliers for the air assets in order to be able to use them more strongly.

>> representative martha mcsally former fighter pilot, former fighter commander and freshman member of congress here to take your calls on strategies against isis and other topics. you can send e-mail at c-span.org. the president expected to send official war authorization, reports on the papers say it specifically lays out things when it comes to ground troops and that's causing some concerns as far as how it is used. what are your thoughts about how you might react to when is going to come down. >> we'll wait to see what is in it. i think it is appropriate for there to be an authorization right now. we're using the authorization that was post 9/11 and then the iraq authorization. this really is a different fight. having been in the military, and also i ran counterterrorism operations in africa at u.s. africa command i'll tell you that we want to make sure now

that i'm on the other side of it and providing oversight from the congress, that we allow the military commanders and the chain of command to use the capabilities they have in order to get the job done and get the objective done and we're not eliminating them. when i was running counterterrorism in africa, the current -- the way it was interpreted and the process we had to go through was limiting to us as we were trying to address terrorist targets in africa because of the way it was written. i've seen it on the other end where we're in the military trying to get the job done, trying to deal with the terrorist threat, but we're getting bogged down in legal analysis as to whether this guy who is you know an approved on the terrorist list, but part of an organization that has not been identified as an affiliate to al qaeda really meets the criteria. i've seen it on the other end. now we want to make sure that as frustrated as i am with this president and his foreign and defense policy, he is still the commander in chief and we want

to make sure he has the tools available to get the job done whether we think he's credible or not. >> this concept of enduring offensive ground forces and limiting those engagements to three years that have been noted, could you provide some insight on what that means. >> yeah, sure. again, we'll wait to see what the wording is. this is all just what we think the wording might be right? and we do have different perspectives i think in this seems to have become a political thing which is strange to me. as somebody who wore the uniform for 26 years, it should be pretty cut and dry, what we're trying to do to make sure that the commander in chief has the tools that they need and the military has the tools they need to meet the objectives to address a threat to america. so, you know, putting limits on it and sunset clauses and things like that, as we discussed, we have to think that through. how are we going to make sure we're not interrupting an ability to meet a military objective? on the other hand, i don't think it is appropriate for this

administration or any to say what they're not going to do to the enemy. as soon as you take certain things off the table the enemy is allowed to then take advantage of that using their asymmetrical capabilities knowing that we already declared we don't have the political will to do this or that. i don't think that's the way we should be addressing these threats to our national security and threats to our national interests. so we need to be careful that we don't have such restrictions that a commander in chief in the military cannot do what they need to do. i get it we have been at war for over 13 years now and the last thing we want is some significant commitment of ground troops, men and women in uniform, like myself, who raised their right hand to go over there to another you know, another conflict or another hot zone and putting their lives on the line. i don't take that lightly, authorizing that capability of anyone to go into a combat zone. but we have seen isis as a very tremendous terrorist threat to us, and again we have seen it closer to home here in arizona

with our own being lost. so we have got to make sure the president and the military have the tools that they need so i'll wait to see what the wording is and i look forward to being part of that discussion. >> we have viewers lined up to talk to you. representative martha mcsally, john from louisiana republican line, you're on. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. colonel mcsally, i'm a retired old air force pilot quite a bit older than you, i retired in 1994. >> okay. >> caller: it has been fascinating over the years, well, i didn't go to congress, i went to fly for delta airlines but my career stretched from a tour in vietnam flying caribous to the desert storm which was kind of like the last scrap i got into, i was a tanker pilot. and i think there were lessons to be learned. desert storm was the way the military is supposed to be used when used as a portion of

national policy. in other words they established the job, they went in, they did it and when it was done, they left. and for some reason, and i think it -- it harkens back to -- i remember vietnam lyndon johnson made the boast that nobody could bomb an out house without his permission, yes, the commander in chief is the president of the united states i understand that, i support the constitution, i still have my commission, i still believe in it, but it seems like the politics or the ideology of politics is getting too much into the operational constraints. i was a -- >> caller, we have to leave it there but thank you, i appreciate it. >> thanks for your service, first of all. thanks for you know, serving as a pilot and serving in uniform, i really appreciate that. and, again, i think i hear from your sentiment that what we don't want is the president picking targets or approving targets, we need to make sure that the commander in chief has the tools that they need, but it

doesn't make sense for the white house to be directing tactical military operations. so i agree with that. we need to give them the tools they need in the executive branch, but they should be setting the conditions the objective and strategy and then letting the military commanders do what they need to do in order to get the job done. >> from crystal river, florida, mike, you're next. good morning. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. my question is, you know i don't know what's going on over there, it is atrocious. i agree with the last caller that we should -- if we go in we should go in hard. and it shouldn't be a political thing. my question is this you know, how are we you know, the american people, we're already in debt to the tune of i guess about $55,000 each, how are we expected to pay for that? how do you intend to pay for are this war? and i'll take my answer off air. thank you. >> thanks, mike. like you i agree.

i'm very concerned about our increasing debt. this is about whether the next generations are going to be able to sustain this as well, right? we're handing over to our kids and our grandkids an unsustainable debt. i believe that we have to get our fiscal house in order. but we have got to make sure the most important job of the federal government is to protect america, american citizens, and our vital interests. we cannot afford to not address these growing threats. so we need to be good stewards of taxpayer resources for sure. there is ways to get savings certainly in our budget i'll be working with my colleagues to make sure we are good stewards of taxpayers resources. we can't ignore growing threats around the world that are threats to our country. so we have got to make sure we resource and equip the military for what they need to do to deter aggression, to get it -- to get into places where we don't have access to deal with the breadth and depth of the types of threats we're facing

now, to include the one from islamist extremists, like isis. isis isn't the only one. we have got elements of al qaeda all over the world right now, aqap, aqim and other islamic extremist organizations like boko haram, we can't address all of these in a military way nor am i advocating for that. but with we need to include diplomatic, work with our allies and other means like financial and economic but using the military where we need to. >> and finding the savings and being a pilot, would you look at acquisitions like what happens with the a-10, the f-35. would you start with those? >> look, we need acquisition reform for sure. i think everybody agrees with that. i know that's a focus of chairman thornbury on the house armed services committee. there is too much waste going on and too much time, by the way. not just money. when it takes us 10 to 15 years to develop a new capability, while our adversaries are taking things off the shelf and being much more innovative, that's not helping us from a fiscal point

of view or from making sure we have the best capabilities. so when we're looking at the pentagon budget, we need to gain savings. even with sequestration which i don't agree with. it is a salami slice approach which doesn't allow strategic choices and decision-making. it is across the board cuts. and we're having a hearing on that today in the house armed services committee and different strategic choices that might need to be made. but even with that, at the end of this last fiscal year, i have friends still in the military. at the end of september, there is usually a bit of a spending spree that goes on. use it or lose it is the way that the fiscal -- the rules are. so even with all that, there is still some waste that needs to be addressed within the pentagon for sure. little bit too heavy on the overhead and other areas where we could cut. when it comes to weapons systems, i do disagree with the administration in trying to mothball the capability of the a-10, not just because i flew it but because if men and women are on the ground under fire in

harms way, the a-10 bringses a capability to them that no other airplane has now in the inventory, forward air control, and one thing i think should be highlighted with people thinking about the situation with the jordanian pilot is combat search and rescue. the a-10 brings capabilities that no other airplane brings to run combat search and rescue missions, to make sure if we have a downed pilot or personnel personnel, we're able to go in communicate, locate them protect them and then actually get them out of there safely. the a-10 brings that capability as well. >> does phoenix or arizona manufacture any parts of the a-10? >> my district actually kind of has the home of the a-10. i came to southern arizona to fly the a-10. if you're going through a-10 training, you come to davis monthan air force base in tucson, arizona, there is two training squadrons and one operational squadron. i commanded the one operational

squadron. we have 80 a-10s in my district but that's not the reason why i'm advocating for it. not the only reason i'm not advocating for it. we got to make sure we have a strong military and we -- when we send america's sons and daughters somewhere, and they're on the ground and they need help from overhead and in a very complex circumstances often where friendlies and enemies and civilians are very close the a-10 is the best capability to put over their head to make sure that they live to fight another day and get home to their families. >> south carolina, don, good morning. go ahead. >> caller: good morning pedro. hello, congressman mcsally. >> how are you don? >> caller: retired nasa sergeant u.s., i served in the 44th composite wing in khobar. and how i see this is it is more a problem of rule of law now in iraq. there is none. and isis is like a roaming band of like, a motorcycle gang the

breed. and i'm not real sure that military solution, total military solution is the way to go. if it were me, i would set up a sort of national guard. i would let, like city elders determine how many slots they need and pay the villagers to become national guardsmen. let the elders choose who gets those slots pay them a thousand dollars a month, give them some hope. >> thanks, don. >> thanks don, for your perspective. i appreciate it. as i did mention before, i agree the military is only one element of our national power that we need to be using in order to address this threat. but there are military capabilities conventional weapon systems command and control, that we need to use firepower in order to destroy and stop their ability to do what they're doing. so we got to cut off their finances. we need to make sure that they're not continuing to fund themselves. but you're right they're

roaming around in ungoverned spaces in both iraq and syria. so one of the challenges we're having on that front is to find the right partner and make sure that there is others, not us, who can actually secure those areas and especially where there is communities and civilians living to provide the, you know wharb the , what the government is supposed to be doing for people. these are the political challenges we're having in iraq and syria, because the assad regime is not doing that. we could be emboldening the regime by striking isis but not, you know, not addressing the regime that assad has and how he's taken advantage of this. and in iraq we have been propping up a government for way too long that is not being inclusive. and we have got a partner in the kurds, but got to do what we can to provide a wedge between the sunni tribes and isis so they can provide governance of their territories again as well. >> james from columbus ohio democrat line. >> caller: good morning,

representative mcsally. >> good morning. >> caller: i'm not going to question your credibility. you said the president may or may not be credible. this is a problem with your foresight in the iraq/isis situation. i don't care how many isis, al qaeda or whoever we knock off there, there is going to be another one that comes up. we can keep fighting this battle over and over and over. i mean we went in there, removed all these strong arm dictators and now these people are running wild. we knew what we were dealing with. that's why reagan got out of there. we need to leave these people alone, let them fight get it over with, whoever become the next winner, they're the winner and then they got a nation state and that's the type of a war we're equipped to fight. we can't go into cities and determine who is the enemy and who is not and say the president shouldn't have his finger on the button is crazy. if we drop a bomb on the school

who is responsible for that? the president. >> thanks, james. >> thanks james. i appreciate your perspective. i think you said something like let's just leave them alone leave them over there alone. the problem is they're not wanting to just set up white picket fences and raise their families. this is a islamist extremist organization that is a generational conflict with us that wants to destroy us and our way of life. they want to build capabilities so that they can come and hurt us over here and i prefer america to play away games instead of home games in order to protect america, america's citizens. so i agree again, the military is not the only answer but it certainly is one element of how we need to be engaging this very serious threat. not going to be fixed overnight but we need to use all elements of national power in a way that actually achieves those objectives. they're not -- we can't just let them, you know, continue to grow, to continue to gain capabilities.

there is tens of thousands of foreign fighters that are flow flowing into that region now that have western and u.s. passports. this is a threat we can't set up our isolationist mind set and deal with it later. it was a nonconventional threat. not what we have been used to. but it is a threat we're dealing with right now and a very serious threat to america. we have to address it from my perspective. >> from wood bridge, virginia, this is charles. charles, go ahead. >> caller: i agree with you as far as the president and what we have done over there. it has been frustrating disappointing and embarrassing to a degree. there is two points i want to make. they literally contribute practically nothing compared to our effort. so does the rest of the world while meanwhile we're -- the

second thing and i think is really important is why we went in there to offer air power help to iraq without getting that forces agreement done, we could have forced them into that one. thank you. >> thank you for your perspective. i think we could have had a status of forces agreement years back when it was sort of given up on which put us in this situation that we're in right now, where we had gained capabilities and at least allowed the west and northern areas of iraq to be somewhat stabilized. and then we walked away. so i agree that we should have had a status of forces agreement and we lost that opportunity for sure. and on your -- what was the first point. i just drew a blank there. >> i didn't keep track of it all because i was looking at some other things, but while we got a pause, a little bit about this debate going on you being a member of the homeland security committee, the future of funding for the homeland security

department. do you think there will be a partial shutdown come the end of february? >> i hope not. i live on the border, one of nine districts on the border. we cannot be messing around with our funding of homeland security, especially at a time with the threats we're talking about like we are today. so we need to find a solution we need to deal with the president's overreach, but we need to be funding the department of homeland security while we're doing that. and from my perspective, i think one way to address these challenges that have come up related to immigration is we need to solve the problem ourselves. this is congress' job. the president overreached for sure. i agree with that. i think it was totally inappropriate. he said 22 times he couldn't do what he did and he did it. the way we solve the problem is by doing our job revamping and modernizing our legal immigration system securing our border and solving the problems ourselves. >> what will happen at homeland security come february 27th, no resolve. will people go home?

people will still show up but won't be paid? >> because they're key and essential, 85% or so is estimated would still have to come to work. these are also my constituents. these are people working every day, putting on the uniform and border security in ice, in other organizations, tsa so we would be asking them to continue to go to work, but not get paid. and i've already heard from many of them. this is not watt ithe way for us to be doing business in washington, d.c. we should not be doing it where we're putting our homeland security at risk or the men and women that are out there in charge of doing the job that some of them are living paycheck to paycheck and making sure their families are cared for, we tell them, continue to put the uniform on and come to work, but we're not going to pay you because of our bickering going on here in washington, d.c. that's just not the kind of solution oriented approach that i plan to bring as a veteran of someone who is trying to solve problems here. >> because you're on the armed services committee, the president introduced a budget that would remove the

sequestration caps on the defense department with taxation issues as well. are you supportive of the president's plan when it comes to lifting those caps? >> not support of the president's plan and how he goes about it. but i do believe that sequestration is not the way to do business right now. we need to address as we mentioned earlier gaining savings in the defense department, where we can, but right now we have a budget based strategy instead of a strategy-based budget. the hearing this morning, if people want to tune into it, it would be useful because we had think tanks take a look at difficult strategic choices that they were just see as alternative options. even the way sequestration is cuts are earlier than later ion in their drill that they're going to talk about today, they had to significantly slash manpower taking very significant short-term risk. but then they could get to add manpower later on in the cycle because of things being relieved

a little bit. that's not the way to go. we need to make sure the military has equipment and the training and the readiness to get the job done, that they're deployed to do right now and we're investing in the future for any future threats that are coming along with a near peer cyberspace and all the things we need to address to keep our country safe and secure. i believe we do need to be lifting those caps. but we need to think through how we're going to gain savings and equip our military to keep us safe. >> that hearing by the way, 10:00 on c-span3, watch it, it deals with the topic of home grown terrorists and foreign fighters. >> that's homeland security committee hearing and there is another one later on. >> our guest a member of both committees that's representative martha mcsally republican of arizona. gary, you're next. thanks for holding on from nevada, republican line. go ahead. >> caller: yes sir. i'd like for our congress to speak up and speak out against our president and quit standing

there and acting like everything is fine. it is not fine. i want boehner to speak up and speak out against this president. this president is the leader of isis. in case the american people don't know it he's for isis. he wants isis to win. and he's going to let them win until we get a real american to stand up for our country, we are doomed, people. >> well, i appreciate your perspective. as someone just elected about 36 days ago, my intent is to provide a voice for southern arizona, and provide a check and balance on this administration as well and i'll continue to do that. >> we have a viewer off of twitter, back to the homeland security bill saying representative mcsally if our security is so important, why not pass a clean dhs bill and work on immigration after that? >> i'm one voice of many and doing the best i can to be the voice of reason and one that wants to make sure we keep our country safe and secure. and we actually address the immigration issue by revamping and modernizing our immigration

systems. so that's my perspective that i'm providing to the leadership and i would appreciate if others called in to their congressmen and as we move forward again, we have to secure our border, revamp our immigration system, but the president should not be overreaching. i want to be clear. he should not be addressing the issues that he did with executive overreach. but we have got to solve the problem ourselves. >> from shaker height ohio, democrats line, this is david. go ahead. >> good morning, c-span, and the wonderful c-span audience. representative mcsally, i would hope when you're sitting in the committee room that someone or yourself brings up a statistical analysis. and by that, i mean this, to the best of my knowledge and it is not always the get, since 9/11, we have had 68 murdered terrorist attacks of civilians or army personnel killed in the

united states. now, to the best of my knowledge, over in the area that you're talking about, the death count has been 500,000 to a million based on bombings, combat, and sanctions on the people where they don't get their medicine and supplies they need. probably the great bulk is civilian. what really i hope that someone brings this up in your committee hearings, number one, and number two, you have to remember this. our great leader george washington, on his farewell address, do not involve ourselves in foreign affairs. >> thanks for your perspective. i do appreciate it. as i mentioned before, we have tens of thousands of foreign fighters that are flowing into the area right now where isis is including many westerners and the witnesses today in their

testimony from the homeland security committee said they think it is about 3400 western passports and 150 americans, but that's just the number that we know about. we're also going to be addressing the issue of home grown extremists, those inspired by isis, using social media and then acting on their own. this is a very complex situation and the threat could be in our communities, the threat could be somebody who is from our community who is traveling over to train and then come back, or somebody who is just inspired and learns on the internet how to take some sort of terrorist action here at home. additionally, we have these capabilities, this organization isis, aqap, aqim that is training foreign fighters and including to terrorize individuals in their communities over there and a threat to america, our way of life international interests. this is a very complex issue. but we cannot do one or the

other. it has to be an all of the above strategy from my perspective in order to address this growing threat. while we're also taking effort ares to counter violent extremist ideology abroad and at home. >> have members of your committee reached out to you for input and background, especially on military affairs? >> absolutely. we had some great conversations so far. we had a couple of classified briefings last week as well. but, yeah, absolutely. i really look forward to continuing those discussions. i'm bringing unique perspective. there is only about 20% veterans i think in congress right now. and the breadth of the experience i've had in the military, i think, is something that is very useful for us when making these types of decisions and providing oversight to the administration. >> what prompted you to become a fighter pilot? >> they told me i couldn't. honestly. i was at the air force academy and women were not allowed to be fighter pilots. against the law back then. and even though we would go through the same training as the men, it made no sense to me and i just decided that i was going

to prove them wrong and i was in the right place at the right time when the law changed and the policy changed. so i got to transition into fighters. >> from virginia, rory, independent line, go ahead. >> caller: good morning, pedro. good morning representative mcsally. >> good morning. >> caller: i'll ask a question and i'll just take it off the air. the answer. my question is i'm assuming that the authorization for use in military forces, at least the congress giving that authorization to the president is like foregone conclusion. so my only question is are we going to put this on plastic or do we plan to pay for it? i'll take my answer off the air. thank you very much. >> okay, great. again, we're going to wait to see what the white house sends to us. i think it is an important part of our democratic process. congress can take a look at what the president is asking for, and we provide authorization when we're using military force for specific reasons. so i think that's a good thing.

and a previous caller talked about the cost. i agree with you. i mean, i'm concerned about the cost. but, again we can't afford not to address these threats. so we need to be good stewards of our resources but can you imagine? if we had another terrorist attack, large scale, or several small scale ones, the impact that would even have on our economy and our way of life, among other things, right? never mind those whose lives would be lost or hurt in that. and so we have got to protect america and our way of life and have to make sure we're good stewards of those resources so we're not wasting money. but defending our freedoms is something that is one of our fundamental responsibilities. >> neva is next for our guests. go ahead. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. my question to you is -- military -- can can't do -- more of this -- >> i'll put you on -- okay. neva, i think we got that.

talked about the proposal to bring back the draft. >> what proposal? >> i guess asking what your thoughts are on bringing back the draft would be? >> again, i appreciate your perspectives on that. we're in an all volunteer force. we have been an all volunteer force since 1973. we have amazing men and women now raising their right hands to put on the uniform, to defend us. and it is about 1% of our country. so i agree that there is a bit of -- sometimes can be a disconnect between the rest of the population and those that are serving on multiple deployments over and over and over again to places like the middle east and really all over the world. but i don't think it is really pragmatic or realistic at this point for us to be bringing back the draft. there is a debate that can happen in our society but right now we have a tremendous all volunteer force that is getting the job done. >> let's hear from carl in clearwater, florida republican line. >> caller: hello. >> you're on go ahead.

>> i'm concerned with the situation. we're putting our military in countries who are some of the richest countries in the world. are they sharing in the expense of this war? >> that's a great question. this is a -- not just a u.s. fight for sure. and the caller earlier asked about the european allies stepping up. look, i agree that this is something that many countries need to be involved in on many levels to include financially those that are contributing militarily, you know certainly in their best interest to do so. and their way of life is at stake as well. so i agree that we should be sharing the responsibilities. we should have more participation. some countries some of our allies like turkey need to be stepping up to do more, to stop the flow of foreign fighters. and the flow of black market oil. i agree our allies should be helping to pay the bill. >> there is a profile of you in

national journal. it talks about the number of times you ran for the seat. how many times is that? >> it is three. the first was a special election proom primary which was really short, 68 days long. and 2012 election the regular election where i went to bed election night ahead freshman orientation, they counted more votes and i had to concede. and i was the last race in the country to be called in 2014, won by 167 votes after an extended count, and a recount and my race wasn't actually called until december 17th. so closest race in the country. >> when you found out that figure, what went through your mind? >> well, it reminded me that every vote matters and i thought about all the things we did, all the tireless days the long days, walking neighborhoods, making phone calls raising the resources, doing everything that we did in order to win this election, and i hope everybody realizes that their vote matters when there is such a small margin like that. everybody who hosted a meet and greet, everybody who volunteered, everybody who

participated can really claim the victory and so it makes it very personal for people and reminds people that their vote makes a big difference. >> this was the seat held by gabby giffords. >> yes. >> did you hear from her or any other republican representatives once you've won? >> i've had a lot of advice. i've not heard from her directly. i've seen her in the community. i've gotten more advice than you can ever imagine. >> the nature of congress as you come in you have to run again, is that already in your plans as far as running for the seat once -- >> the best thing i can do now is to do a good job. 50% of the people in the community didn't vote for me. we have been reaching out, making sure they realize i'm representing everybody. i'm focusing on the things that unite us and not the things that divide us. my district represents america. and there is a bell curve and a tremendous diversity of opinions and perspectives. there is also a diversity of what people do rural versus

urban. i look for the things that matter to us all, the economy and security. those are my two focus areas. everybody wants an economic opportunity for them and their kids. and we want to make sure our families are safe and secure. i'll be focusing on that. we have one guy who says he's going to run against me. we have to be aware of that. that's not my focus right now. i've been here 37 days or so. >> gary, democrats line, you're next. >> caller: thank you for letting me talk. ma'am, i understand there is 30,000 or 40,000 terrorists. and around these countries, you're trying to tell me we can't -- they can't defeat 30,000 or 40,000 terrorists and they can't do it unless the united states goes to war? i just don't get that. i will never believe that. it don't make no sense to me. so can you help me understand that? thank you for letting me talk. >> sure, absolutely. again, this is not as simple as 30,000 guys lined up in an army battalion and then we just need somebody to go, you know, hit

the target. it is not that simple. this is a very asymmetric force. they're fighting what we would call hybrid warfare. they're taking hostages, blending in to civilian populations, they're using some conventional military capabilities, they're barbaric in the way they are terrorizing people. if you look at how they're using social media and showing the beheadings and the burning alive of a jordanian pilot. this is -- this is not what maybe you grew up thinking about, what a military to military conflict might look like. so we have got to be able to use the asymmetric capabilities we have because this fight is not just against the people in iraq and syria. this is a generational conflict against islamist extremists and we are their main target. they want nothing more than to be able to attack america and our way of life and our freedoms and what we believe in. this is an ideological struggle and they have military capabilities, and they don't

want to just stay where they are. so we have got to address this very complicated threat by being the leader of the free world, which is who we are. i agree with the callers who said our allyies need to be involved those that are sunni countries need to be stepping up more to be addressing the threats in the middle eastern region as well. but it is our role to lead it is our responsibility and our role and i think we can do that and we continue to do it better than we are right now. >> we'll take one more call. this is dale in indiana independent line. dale, good morning. >> caller: good morning. yes. i'm a vietnam veteran. and rules of engagement, we had some rules of engagement in vietnam. these guys have not even worse rules of engagement. it is like you want to tie their hands. and, you know, don't shoot until you're shot at.

you talk to some of the active duty guys the fourth battalion combat team around ft. campbell, it is -- you have suicides from veterans and it is like the -- like the goat herder, look how many lives was lost knowing he was an enemy but they were afraid to be court-martials if they disposed of him. it doesn't make any sense. you're either going in there to win, and not drag it out like it has so many years you got 4,000, 5,000 dead now, young americans, and when are you going to go in there to win? >> thanks, dale. >> yeah thanks dale. thanks for your service. again, our vietnam vets i just want to say thank you to you and all the vietnam vets for your service. you did not get the welcome home

that we get every time we come back from a deployment and our country owes you a debt of gratitude for your service and your sacrifice. i agree with you that sometimes we provide rules of engagement that tie the hands of those tactically on the ground and in the air. i've seen this myself firsthand. but we got to keep in mind also this is a very complex circumstance where we have the enemy blending in with civilians. we're not just going to go take out entire villages because, first of all we don't kill civilians, we don't target civilians, and this strategic implications of going that direction actually could enflame the insurgency against us for the long run. again this is a complex situation. but i agree with you. when we have clear military objectives and tell our chain of command, you know down to the foot soldier on the ground or the airman in the air this is what you need to do this is how you take it out and there is no confusion there, you shouldn't be putting them into political circumstances that they can't

get their job done or putting their lives in danger because you're having to wait until a certain circumstances before they're allowed to use lethal force. i agree with generally what you're saying, we should make sure that our troops have the rules of engagement so they can get the job done but keep in mind this say complex circumstance as well. >> representative martha mcsally, current freshman republican representative from arizona, former air force commander, thanks for your time. >> thank you. >> president obama will be giving an assessment of the progress made in the west africa ebola outbreak shortly. he'll outline the next steps in fighting and getting the outbreak under control. that's coming up shortly. we'll have it for you live here on c-span3. until then more on the president's request for the use of military force against isis. from today's "washington journal." >> and as we continue on our discussion this morning, you just heard from representative martha mcsally of arizona another representative joining us marcy captor democrat of

ohio. not only member of the appropriations committee, but also member of the congressional ukrainian caucus, she's their founder and co-chair. good morning. >> good morning, pedro. and to your listeners. >> ukraine in the papers this morning on several fronts. the washington times has a headline story taking a look at requests for members of the house to beef up military in ukraine. why is that? >> it is a very difficult situation. but ukraine is asking for defensive weapons to meet the onslaught of the russians on their eastern border. there is no question that russia's capabilities are much greater than ukraine's. to leave ukraine defenseless is not in the interest of ukraine either. and so i think they're walking a very narrow line trying to defend against the rockets and the tanks that are coming in. and trying to defend the eastern

edge. >> why escalation now when things have been quiet over the last few weeks and months? >> well, they actually haven't been quiet. russia has been creep inging on to the eastern territories of ukraine, working her way down to the black sea, through crimea for example. because of their reliance on russia for energy has been very reluctant. you saw the angela merkel from germany met with the president came to the united states this week very very transfixed, very torn. it is a country that has supported nato, though ukraine right now is not asking for nato status. i think if you were to look back a decade and say what went

wrong, i think what went wrong was the free world did not find a landing pad for ukraine. on the military side. there could have been another aggregation of nations perhaps with georgia poland and giving her a stepping stone to europe. and to the security umbrella of europe, but not direct nato status, which threatens russia. russia was invaded by the nazi germany. and lost 22 million people. so russia is not comfortable with europe completely either. one has to take this progressively. i think that ukraine having no security umbrella is terribly dangerous. >> i'm sorry what has been the white house reaction to this call from house members and others to arm the ukrainians. >> they're listening but very cautious obviously. and complicated by russia/u.s.

interests in other parts of the world. i think that president obama and vice president biden have not been trigger happy, thank god. we had presidents who are. and haven't fully thought through the consequences. i think they're listening now and working very hard to walk in tandem with our european allies. ukraine could be the greatest nation in europe. her landmass, her resources her agricultural bounty, looking forward, extraordinary. but right now she is at this critical moment, it feels like 1789 in ukraine when our nation was founded. and their young leaders are coming forward. i brought you a picture of some of those leaders that was on the front page of role call last week. these are young parliamentians. i said are you thomas jefferson are you george washington? i'm patrick henry. so they're just at the very beginning of this tender stage

in building their nation state. >> these are parliament leaders, and religious leaders coming and asking for military assistance? >> yes. in fact the leader, patriarch's last trip to the united states, very brave and faith-filled man when asked by the press are you supporting defensive aid to ukraine, he said i am here for that reason. that's an extraordinary statement by a christian leader. and understanding that his citizenry, they're being killed by the russians with no ability to defend themselves. >> efforts on ukraine by the united states, taking a look at the issue there. marcy owe hio. if you have questions about this, you can call and ask her questions. if you want to send us an

e-mail do so at journal@c-span.org. you talked about the weapons aspect, but talked about the effective sanctions going on. i want you to listen to what he had to say and get your reaction to it. >> what we have said is that the international community, working together, can ratchet up the costs for the violation of the core principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity. that's exactly what we have done. and russia has paid a significant cost for its actions, first in crimea and now in eastern ukraine. it has not yet dissuaded mr. putin from following the course that he is on. but it has created a measurable negative impact on the russian

economy. and that will continue. my hope is that through these diplomatic efforts, those costs have become high enough that mr. putin's preferred option is for a diplomatic resolution. >> representative captor, do you agree with the president on that? >> i think that -- remember the cold war took over four decades until the soviet union collapsed. we're at the very beginning of this tug of war are for ukraine. and i think that because russia's a nuclear power she can overwhelm ukraine. we have to use means that yield the end result we want which is an independent sovereign ukraine. in a way that limits carnage. and i think that the president is on the right track, russia is paying a price already with these sanctions the ukraine

freedom act we passed back in december in the house and senate, which the president has signed has additional sanctions we can place on russia. i personally do favor the united states through our european allies providing additional defensive equipment to ukraine so she can defend herself because over 5,000 people, they lost as many people in ukraine as the united states lost in the war on iraq over a decade. they have lost that in less than a year. so the carnage there has been significant. and in many ways, i mean, if the american people saw how undefended youundefend ed ukraine is and they have to make the decisions as to how to defend themselves. >> our first -- our call for you this morning bob from california, independent line. bob, you're on. go ahead. >> caller: good morning congresswoman. i have a question. i have a comment that partially probably answers my question. how do we stomach going hat and

hand for the 19th time for a peace agreement with mr. putin and absorbing the humiliation of this with a man with no intention and my comment partially answers that, mr. putin has a high approval rating, but they don't have any approval for any military actions by him against ukraine. and i'm wondering if multiple times going hat and hand, it becomes hard for his press-owned country now, c-span has been kicked out all of the independent media has been kicked out, but coming hat and hand with all of the other countries in europe, it becomes hard for them to block that information. and then if military action does break out if might be hard for them to block -- coming hat and hand and then reports somehow

filtering through of strong military action, it makes a cost to him that may filter through, that may really be the damaging factor. that's a partial answer to a question. >> okay, bob. we'll let our guest respond. >> well, first of all, i think that we have to limit the damage to ukraine. and if we think about the period when the soviet union collapsed though it took us four decades, she collapsed economically, and with sanctions, yes, they do take time, but over time they have an enormous impact. now, meanwhile, we have to do whatever we can diplomatically and from a military standpoint provide ukraine with a greater ability to defend herself. but also recognize that some things on the globe have shifted. one of the reasons europe has been very slow to act is because she is energy dependent on

exports of natural gas from russia. and it reminds us how important it is for us to position ourselves to be a provider of energy, to places like europe with new natural gas discoveries in our country, we can become energy independent ourselves. but also to aid europe. we can't do that in two months. we have to reposition this economy. we have to reposition europe. we have to -- that won't be done in a few days or few months. but we are on target to do that and the importance of giving europa freedom again from an energy standpoint is the highest strategic priority we have with europe. >> here is gary from georgia, democrats line. >> caller: good morning, representative. one thing i really want to know i have a comment about is how easy america is always letting -- let's go fight a war how easy it comes off our mouth

because only 1% of americans is fighting a war. we need to bring back the draft so all americans can fight in the war. i guarantee you if you bring back the draft, you'll see the rats go for the hills. i mean, the wealthy. the wealthy don't fight wars. poor people fight wars. so unless you got skin in the game, it is easy to say let's go fight a war. >> we got you, gary, thanks. >> thank you, gary. nobody is talking about u.s. troops in ukraine. no one is saying that as far as that situation goes. i listened to the prior segment regarding the middle east, syria, iraq. what surprised me about the entire segment was that not one person called in, there wasn't one comment made about the tribal conflict inside of syria and iraq. >> we leave this recorded portion of "washington journal" to take you live to the white house where the president will

be giving an assessment of the progress made in the west africa ebola outbreak. live coverage. >> our first team of officers entered into training in monrovia with our partners. as i entered the hot zone the first four patients i encountered with the ebola virus were all under the age of 8. their parents had already passed on, succumbing to the virus days earlier. with over 120 patients in this clinic no one could imagine the impact it would have on us. it gave us the resolve needed to build the monrovia medical unit 25 bed hospital built by american troops to care for health care workers with the ebola virus and boost international confidence to respond. a surreal experience, on a tragic stage. since october, over 200 commission core officers of the u.s. public health commission core have deployed to staff the hospital. over 200 additional core

hospitals from the cdc analyzed the zeiddisease and epidemiology. these public health warriors are part of 10,000 u.s. backed responderers on the ground in west africa. we are thankful for all of the members that have deployed and responded from every nation. our commission core march says in a silent war against disease, no truce is ever seen. poignant words at a time when a truce is unacceptable. we will continue to be resilient, and fight this war on ebola and win. while i was in liberia -- -- while i was in liberia an important person called me and said it is pretty rare when you have the opportunity to save tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of lives.

and at that the response was a testament to our professionalism, expertise and dedication. that leader, when others were spreading doubt and fear, was my commander in chief and our president. at this time it is my privilege to introduce the president of the united states. >> thank you. thank you so much. thank you. thank you. please, everybody, have a seat. thank you. well, thank you rear admiral gyverson for the introduction and your extraordinary leadership and your service. last summer, as ebola spread in west africa, overwhelming public health systems threatening to cross more borders, i said that fighting this disease had to be more than a national security

priority, but an example of american leadership. after all whenever and wherever a disaster or a disease strikes, the world looks to us to lead. because of extraordinary people like the ones standing behind me and many who are in the audience we have risen to the challenge. now, remember, there was no small amount of skepticism about our chances. people were understandably afraid, and if we're honest some stoked those fears. but we believe that if we made policy based not on fear, but on sound science and good judgment, america could lead an effective global response while keeping the american people safe. and we could turn the tide of the epidemic.

we believe this because of people like rear admiral gyverson. we believe this because of outstanding leaders like tom frieden at cdc. we believed it because of the men and women behind me and many others here at home and who are still overseas who responded to challenges like this one not only with skill and professionalism, but with courage and with dedication. and because of your extraordinary work we have made enormous progress in just a few months. so the main reason we're actually here today is for me to say thank you. thank you to the troops and public health workers who left their loved ones to head into the heart of the ebola epidemic in west africa. and many of them did so over the

holidays. thank you to the health care professionals here at home who treated our returning heroes, like dr. ken brantley and dr. craig spencer. thank you to dr. tony fauci and nancy sullivan and the incredible scientists at nih who work long days and late nights to develop a vaccine. all of you represent what is best about america. and what's possible when we lead. we're also here to mark a transition in our fight against this disease. not to declare mission accomplished, but to mark a transition. thanks to the hard work of our nearly 3,000 troops who deployed to west africa logistics have been set up ebola treatment units have been built, over 1500 african health workers have been trained, and volunteers around the world have gained the

confidence to join the fight. we were a force multiplier, it wasn't just what we put in, it is the fact that when we put it in, people looked around and said, all right, america's got so we'll come too. and as a result more than 1,500 of our troops have been able to return. today i'm announcing that by april 30th, all but 100 who will remain to support the ongoing response, all but those 100 will also be able to come home. not because the job is done but because they were so effective in setting up the infrastructure that we are now equipped to deal with the job that needs to be done in west africa. not only with a broader international coalition but also with folks who have been trained, who are from the

countries that were most at risk. so i want to be very clear here. while our troops are coming home, america's work is not done. our mission is not complete. today we move into the next phase of the fight, winding down our military response while expanding our civilian response. that starts here at home where we're more prepared to protect americans from infectious disease, but still have more work to do. for as long as ebola simmers anywhere in the world we will have some ebola fighting heroes who are coming back home with the disease from time to time, and that's why we're screening and monitoring all arrivals from infected countries. we've see equipped more hospitals with new protective gear and protocols. we've developed partnerships with states and cities, thanks to public servants like mayor mike rollings and judge clay

jenkins of dallas, texas, who were on the front lines when the first case appeared here on our shores. few months ago, only 13 states had the capability to even test for ebola. today we have more than 54 labs in 44 states. only three facility in the country were qualified to treat an ebola patient. today we have 51 ebola treatment centers. we've successfully treated eight ebola patients here in the united states and we are grateful to be joined by six of these brave survivors today, including dr. richard sakra, who received world class care at nebraska medical center and a plasma donation from dr. kent brantly. he returned to liberia not treat patients, that's the kind of

ebola people we're dealing with here. [ applause ] meanwhile in west africa it's true we led a massive effort to combat this epidemic. we mobilized other countries to join us in making concrete significant commitments to fight this disease and to strengthen global health systems for the long-term. in addition to the work of our troops, our u.s. aid dark teams have corrected response and cdc traced contacts, our team is providing support for 10,000 sufficientlyian responders on the ground. that's what brett sedgwick did. where is wret? there there he is. brett went to an ngo that partnered with us to respond to

ebola. brett supported safe burial teams that traveled to far-flung corners of liberia to ensure those who lost their lives to ebola were carefully, safely and respectfully buried so they could not transmit the disease to anyone else. and brett reflects the spirit of so many volunteers when he said "if you need me just say the word." that's a simple but profound statement. that's who we are. big-hearted and omt mick, reflecting the can-do spirit of the american people. that's our willingness to help those in need. they're the values of enoughy lieutenant andrea mccoy and her team. andrea raise your hand so i don't look -- >> thank you. >> andrea and her team deployed some seven tons of equipment processed over 1,800 blood samples. they're the values that drive

commander billy pimental. raise your hand. >> yes, sir. >> i like that enoughy can-do attitude. led a team of naval microbiologists to set up mobile laboratories that can diagnose ebola within four hours and he said "it's been an honor for to us use our skills to make a difference." these values american values matter to the world. at the monrovia medical uninit liberia, built by american troops staffed by rear admiral guyverson and the u.s. service corps, rachel walker went in for treatment and left ebola free and listen to what rachel's sister said about all of you. "we were worried at first" she said, "but when we found out rachel was being transferred to

the american ebola treatment unit we thanked god first and we thad america second for caring about us." and the americans who she was speaking of aren't just doctors or nurses or soldiers or scientists. hear what one lieutenant commander from the u.s. public health service corps called the hope multipliers, and you've multiplied a lot of hope. last fall we saw between 800 and 1,000 new cases a week. today we're seeing between 100 and 150 cases a week. drop of more than 80%. liberia's seen the best progress sierra leone is moving in the right direction. guinea has the longest way left to go. our focus now is getting to zero, because as long as there's even one case of ebola that's active out there, risks still exist. every case is an ember that if not contained can light a new

fire. so we're shifting our focus from fighting the epidemic to now extinguishing it. the reason we can do that is because of a bipartisan majority in congress, including some of the members who are here today who approved funding to power this next phase of our response and i want to thank those members of congress who are here for the outstanding work that they do. one of them, chris coons recently traveled the reamon and saw firsthand that we had to continue this fight in africa. so while our troops are coming home, plenty of american heroes remain on the ground, with even more on the way. doctors and nurses are still treating patients. cdc experts are tracking cases, nih teams are testing van vaccines opinion usaid worker, on the field and countless of

maeshz on the front lines. while i take great pride in the fact that our government organized this effort, and i it can larry want to thank secretary burwell and her team at health and human services for the outstanding work that they did, we weren't working alone. i just had a chance to meet with some leading philanthropists who did so much and are now committed to continuing the work and finding new ways in which we can build platforms not only to finish the job with respect to ebola, but also to be able to do a more effective surveillance prevention and quick response for diseases in the future. other nations have joined the fight and we're going to keep working together because our common security depends on all of us. that's why we launched the global health security agenda last year, to bring more nations together to better prevent and detect and respond to future outbreaks before they become

epidemics. this was a wake-up call. and why it's going to be so important for us to learn lessons from what we've done and sustain it into the future. and in the 21st century, we cannot build moats around our countries. there are no drawbridges to be pulled up. we shouldn't try. what we should do is, instead, make sure everybody has basic health systems, from hospitals to disease detectives to better laboratory networks. all of which allows us to get early warnings against outbreaks of diseases. this is not charity. the investments we make overseas are in our self-interest. this is not charity. we do this because the world is interconnected. in the same way that the investments we make in nih are

not a nice to do, they are a must do. we don't appreciate basic science and all these folks in lab coats until there's a real problem, and we say, well do we have a cure for that? or can we fix it? and if we haven't made those investments, if we've neglected them, then they won't be there when we need them. so as we transition into a new phase in this fight make no mistake, america is as committed as ever. i am as committed as ever to getting to zero, and i know we can, and i know this because of the people who stand behind me and the people out in the audience. i know this because of people like dr. william alters. william, you here? >> sir. >> thank you. dr. walters is the director of operational medicine at the state department.