range of students, including folders to its very many of the job training programs are very much focused on older students who may have been laid off or had their careers stagnated. host: let's go back to the phone, florida, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you guys this morning? i have attended both community colleges. i got my doctorate at a university. i still go back to the community college. they offer so many different programs that i was able to get involved in that i would not be able to in a larger college. when i started at the community college, and a lot of my andents had cheaper tuition take their classes there for the summer at the community college and then go back during the year to finish it up. i think it is great, what the

community colleges do, because they offer a lot of other things and other opportunities that a lot of universities are not able to offer everybody. thank you so much. host: a lot of attention from the obama administration. what about the history here? fareid timidity colleges under previous administrations? a top they were not priority. a lot of the debate has been about how do we help students in college afford it? obama has emphasized how do we it students who are not in college into college? while he is a big fan into community colleges, he has criticized them, said they need to work on the completion rates, that some of their job-training programs are not as good as they should be, that he is a top-love person with community colleges,

pushing for more money and accountability. host: staff from the department of labor on percentage of students seeking a degree at a two-year granting institution. these colleges who completed within 104% of the normal time, from the department of education. .1% total talk about these graduation rates. guest: graduation rates are low for community colleges, and most colleges would be the first to say that. community colleges serve a lot of low-income students, part- time students, and a lot of students who might only desire to take a course or two. community colleges make those

students look better. for a lot of reasons the rates are low. i would say most committed ecology readers would say that their rates should be higher even if you compare them to a four-year college in terms of potential students. if you want to check out the work of a program known as a trade adjustment assistance committee college and career training program, we can off your you some examples of programs that money went for. here's a release from honolulu community college from august 9 of this year, talking about an intense training in hybrid and electric vehicle maintenance program that was begun their with help from a grant awarded to the university of hawaii community colleges to that same

program. scott, talk about the ties between the kinds of businesses in a community and the programs being started at those community colleges. guest: that would be an example where they are helping people in a crew that would be called blue collar and people might not have thought in the past as requiring a training outside high school. the reality is these days for most jobs you require training outside of high school, and they are trying to bolster it, aching sure that students have access to the best faculty, appropriate equipment, that the programs are linked to jobs. this relates to a comment from the lady from florida, community colleges are teaching focused. all faculty there are okasan teachings do this, and that is why you hear fans from our callers.

let's go to connecticut on our independent from eastern and central time zone line. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is two parts. first of all, i am a mature, late 30's. ageve two school children. i have stayed for a few years with my children. i have had a difficult time. looking back to go back to community colleges. i have a pet programs available, and they just seem to be available for people who are below poverty line. what can i do as a middle-class woman to help me financially to go back to college, to get these job-training programs that will in turn allow me to go out and seek employment to better my family pot's welfare --

family's welfare? guest: most community college tuition rates are lower than people think. when they hear the very high- priced tags at some private institutions -- i would see if you are eligible for aid. there are a lot of aid programs, and check out and rolling part- time, which can minimize your costs, if that fits for you. there are a lot of options that would work, and most community colleges are not that expensive. host: talk about your organization. guest: we are a website with news in higher education. , lot about paying for college getting into college, federal programs, new initiatives from the administration and congress about higher education. host: where did you work before? guest: i am one of the founders.

i have been there since we started in 2004. previously with the chronicle of higher education. host: talk about the recent pushes by the obama administration for community colleges in particular. guest: in addition to what he's doing now with this to billion dollar program, president obama is proposing a new reading system for all colleges. communityompare colleges to community colleges. what he wants to do is rate colleges on a series of measures -- affordability, graduation rates, time to completion, salaries of graduates, and so then favor the institutions that rate well with more favorable help grants, more favorable rates on student loans. the idea is on the one hand publicize this information that

would make it possible for student consumers to make informed choices, and to reward with more aid the students who choose to go to better-rated colleges. host: harriet, good morning. you are on. caller: good morning. is i am at a two- thatcommunity college branches off to a four-year university. it was out of state. i really enjoyed the goals, but

had to -- the schools, but had to withdraw. my question is that leaves me with a balance at the school that i was previously at. loans, iwith student am wondering if that is going to part of that billion-dollar grant -- how it is going to benefit me, because i am trying to go back to a two- year community college, so it eventually at a later date, i can transfer if that is something that will work for me, because i have a teenager that is in transition and in two years she will be graduating high school. i am trying to get established and acclimated so that she can -- i will be worrying about college for her. guest: so the issues you raise

are very important. what they show is the worst situation to be in as a student is to drop out of a program after you have borrowed money. the best thing you can do is make choices to be sure that you can finish the programs you start, finish the courses that you start, and then transfer credit. you might even ask for continuing online at the institution you are originally started with. this does not relate direct lead to the program we have been talking about, but relates to a big problem facing many students, which is many are concerned about high debt levels, for very understandable reasons, and one of the best ways to minimize debt is to get in and out of the program in the recommended amount of time and not to leave programs amid semester. sometimes life happens, as was the case for this caller. but i would urge people to try

to start programs they can finish, especially if you are borrowing. host: minnesota, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i was calling to let you know i graduated from a community allege in 2009 as nontraditional student that went to school. i was on a dislocated worker program. i got laid off. i now have the job of my dreams. it was worth every day, every led sweat and tears that i had. it was a great program, and i hope it never stopped.

host: what are the standards that have been set? guest: what are graduation ares, times to completion they employed in jobs for which they are trained to do. long term, you would see the success of these programs, you would see employers filling the open positions they have. you would see dudes coming in, leaving employment, or going to better jobs. one of the ironies of the current economy is while we are in a time of high unemployment, where in a time when people feel there are not enough qualified workers for openings that exist. you talk about what we should do, the obama administration electing statistics for this money that they have put out there? guest: they are looking for

statistics on all the sorts of things to try to engage the effectiveness of the program. we are in a time where people are still very sensitive about all federal spending, where there is a lot of scrutiny, so they want to be able to say there is success. thanksoulder, colorado, for calling in. morning, gentlemen. thank you for having me on. i would like to take this opportunity to give a shout out to all the adjunct faculty that take up the bulk of the teaching load at almost all community colleges. [indiscernible] or $3000 about $2000 class. they are at-will employees. they receive no benefit. i would like to give a shout out to that and hope that your

people that do not have offices that have most of their papers and go from college to college trying to get three or four together to try to make people ande great teaching at their best. guest: the caller is right. immunity colleges depend heavily on non--tenured track faculty members and are not paid what other faculty are paid or they worked very hard. we have something on our website today about new research suggesting that non-tenured track accurately members might be more effective teachers than tenure-track faculty members. looking at the faculty, a majority you are talking about non-tenured. host: talking about the $2

billion going toward this program that is ongoing. it was originally hoped to be about $12 billion. are there other efforts by the obama administration to move money to this community college career-type program? guest: repeatedly, they have proposed more money for community colleges. it is also important to note community colleges may be the most dependent not on programs specifically for community colleges, but student aid programs. programs like the pell grant, which is affected by the latest proposal, which is the main student program for low-income students. help grads have a huge impact on community colleges because they serve so many low-income students. community colleges are affected by spending on programs that do not have community college in the name. host: we are talking about specific programs at specific

community colleges that received this money. this is a few more. your story on this issue. you talk about pennsylvania consortium of community colleges, $20 million for the state, 20 community colleges wiotth a focus on renewable energy. another grant to the national information security and geospatial technology consortium , $20 million for seven community colleges in six states with a focus on advanced i.t. fields. and $19 million for the illinois green economy network career pathways program. some of the programs receiving part of this $2 billion that is being put out and has been put out for about the past three years.

from hyattsville, maryland. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to give a perspective based on my experience. i am a university professor at the diversity, which is open enrollment, and i have my doctoral degree. so i have gone through this educational system and now i am seeing this dudes coming in. -- the students coming in. being that i work with the university, we see a lot of crossover between community colleges in the area and at our university. i think the problem is twofold. we have everybody being encouraged to go to college, which is wonderful. the only thing is i believe we are seeing a lot of students who are not prepared for universities at any level.

we address the issue before they get to the university, we will see greater enrollment with dudes who will actually stay through and graduate and retention will increase. if students are prepared for that and encouraged to follow where their skills actually beat and encourage also to increases skills if they demonstrate them, but we see so many unprepared students and students who should be looking at trade colleges rather than university settings. i wanted to talk from that perspective and toss it back to the guest. guest: the issue of remedial education is huge. the caller is right that many dudes arrive not just at universities but at community colleges as well lacking the basic skills they need at colleges, and taken remedial education. what the caller described,

everyone would prefer people arrive at college already well- prepared to do college-level work. the reality is that does not always happen. that bye efforts to fix doing a better job of informing students in high school and junior high, you are on this track, you're not well-prepared in math, for example, and here is what you do to fix it. for the foreseeable future, the reality is college students will be arriving you're not prepared. and so it is very hard for immunity colleges -- community colleges to ignore that population. host: let's go back to the requirements for the initiative. one of them is requiring community colleges have online and technology-based learning. can you talk about the role of online learning, specifically, at it has changed community

colleges. community colleges have long time been leaders in providing courses at hours that are convenient for adults. online education adds to that because students can't do it at any time. then you throw in issues like uses of technology to better teach students. adaptive learning where the exercise the students get, you can't tell if the students are succeeding or the next program is based on what the stewed demonstrates knowledge of or not. embracing ideas that are out there for community colleges. host: talk about some of the reform ideas, specifically the one the obama administration has

put out there. a rating system is nonsense if a college or a junior college gets a low rating. they will come down the education, take away their funding they will go away. what is the purpose of the rating system? guest: not everyone is happy of this idea. an important thing is they have not revealed how it will work, and this is a classic case of where the devil is in the details. this theory is it will prompt improvement. some people fear it will create the wrong incentives, that colleges may feel a disincentive to and role at-risk students because they will bring their scores down. chester e-mail from county. it concerns me companies'budgets for replacing equipment, but have nothing set aside for employees they could feel could benefit from more education. is the government nicking it too

easy for companies to shirk their duty? guest: a lot of companies have pulled out of the traditional for improvements for education for their own employees. listener'sstand the concern. at the same time, from the perspective of students looking for jobs, many of whom do not have an employer, somebody needs to step up. is from miami calling into talk about the subject of community colleges. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you guys doing? there are so since many community colleges, how about vocational and technical schools, because those schools have high success rates in the community. there's a lot of comment from the public schools department. i was wondering if the government is putting money into

those programs that would make them better because a lot of people are not going to be able to go to a community college because of the requirements of the testing and so forth. guest: are you meeting the high school locational -- vocational? caller: no, adult based vocational schools. guest: the funds go to community colleges broadly. there used to be a much more of a dissertation between vocational and committeunity colleges. most committee colleges have a vocational track. all these are talking about apply to all. host: talk about vocational education in high school and what has happened to that. guest: the concert is it has fallen behind the times, that it was viewed as a program for those who were not college found

, they were not as well designed for what they need to be. the economy has gone through a genetic change through a factory era when a lot of people coming out of high school could know they could work for a local company and work for a lifetime had a good career. that is wrong. retooling.lot of one of the issues faced by community colleges is it can be hard for them and for high schools to abandon vocational programs that may relate to the business that is no longer growing in town, but that people still have an attachment for. t.st: a few minutes lef insidehighered.com. mark is up next from california, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you?

i recently received a masters degree in turn are and technical education from cal state san bernardino in palm desert, and part of the curriculum was basically studying how community colleges the liver -- the liver additional content -- deliver vocational and current content to communities as well as studying what is going on with the growth of local academies to replace the type of vocational education you have in discussing, that has been degraded and to some degree (. destroyingools in their programs. there is no reason for kids to be all pushed to just college

level programs and academia when in three/four of them end up with a job anyway with the field they study in college. tot are your thoughts on how grow the type of career programs on the secondary level that are current and are useful in their communities and also give kids the opportunity to grow in their careers? what are your thoughts? guest: the same things we are talking about unity college are also important in high school, but what is important in high school is that students graduate with a sick understanding of math, with basic writing and reading skills. the reality is for about every kind of job you need those skills. too many are graduating without them and that is why community colleges are starting off by providing remediation instead of

diving into the career issues. host: talk about one of this that's mark brought up. -- the stats mark brock up. students to not get a job in the field they are beginning studying in college. is that what you have heard? guest: there are a lot of statistics like that, but an issue that this program is try to address is to make sure that more students to enter programs for which there are jobs. some colleges are spending the money to enhance their career guidance. it is not just a matter of taste and nearing the end of his or her program and trying to find a guiding thisead if student into a program that matches interest and employment potential. host: one of the issues you brought up in your publication on your website, some of the money that is used for this

to billion dollar program is used for career services, that guidance you are talking about? guest: all kinds of academic advising is successful -- is important to the success of community college students. they need help picking courses, and succeeding in the courses in finding a job. it's the economic downturn of 2008, a lot of colleges have cut back in academic advising and student services. at has had a very negative effect on completion rates and on people completing the programs that are best suited for them. host: mike is up next from illinois, calling in this morning. you are speaking with scott. caller: good morning, c-span. i have two kids in community college, one senior in high school.

up with a 3.5me grade point average and go to community college for free. 3.5 gradety college, point average go to college for free. guest: it is true those kinds of programs would he an incentive. at the same time, from the perspective of a state or community, a want to reach the students who did not get a 3.5. they want those students to get a good education and get a job. it is tricky for community colleges which are focused on access and serving a broad community to focus on the best students. host: let's go to bette from california. good morning. caller: good morning. josé calling to agree with who called.

there is a great need for just awayrograms, from the college, set up shop and have professionals to train carpenters, wielders, etc., everybody ised -- not going to and role in a community college, but there are some that can do trades, and there are those were willing to take the training, maybe six, eight months, to get those level carpentry, welding, something like that. there's a need for that in college i also want to say that i joined the community college here and i wast 14 days in icu and i

terminated from the college on my sick bed. i think there should be more compassion at the community college level where people come in and can complete their course i thinkatter what -- the administration or whoever allocated to $2 billion for the training program and i do hope they goes in the right direction so that people walking the street who were never enrolled into a community college may have a desire to go to a trade program. i would say it's important to remember that immunity colleges do provide training for people to want to be welders. a lot of people hear the word college and they assume it is four years of reading great books.

these programs we are talking about our very much oriented around what would have been -- wouldades great have been called trades. we are talking about this to billion dollar program that has been in place for the past three years. a question on the specific program on twitter -- guest: that's very much one of the criteria used in evaluating them. there are some fields like the health professions that you will see turning up in proposals for community colleges all over the country because there are issues all over the country. many others are unique to particular areas and the community college is strongly encouraged to think locally. from let's go to a call gail from east montpelier. thank you for taking my

call. i wanted to comment that i have two children in university -- actually three -- but i have to freshman this september. one in tulane university and one in burlington. those are four-year colleges. vermontlly moved to because its school system and its exceptional ability to prepare children for higher education. so they went into a situation for which they are very well prepared and both received excellent scholarships. i'm not sure about community colleges. nephews ines and milwaukee attending community a four-, but i believe year education and possibly a masters degree is very valuable to our children and our society.

i have a daughter in nursing at another university. i do believe there are options to community colleges and air valuable for some people but we cannot disregard higher education at the university level. it is not an either or situation. increasingly, four-year college graduates are starting their careers at community colleges. many students who feel they cannot afford a four-year institution or haven't quite figured out what they want to do yet start at community colleges. community colleges would never say that should be the end of higher education. for many, it's a step on the way toward a bachelors or masters or another degree area -- another degree. [indiscernible] thank -- thank you so much for

joining us great >> here we are at the new america foundation, just a couple of minutes away from susan rice making remarks on the serious situation -- on -- theious situation situation. the syrian foreign says they welcome the russian proposal to place chemical weapons under international control and dismantle them quickly to overt u.s. strikes. the statement came a few hours after u.s. secretary of state john kerry said the syrian president, bashar al-assad could resolve the crisis surrounding the alleged use of chemical weapons by his forces by surrendering control of every single bit of his arsenal to the international community by the end of the week. hours after that statement, the russian foreign minister said moscow would urge. to quickly put its chemical

weapons under international control and dismantle them. the syrianks with ambassador in moscow earlier in the day and said he a quick and positive answer from damascus. that again from the associated rest. we are waiting for susan rice -- you can see the room is full with reporters and camera people. as we wait, let's show a couple of capitol hill reporters from this morning's "washington journal" with a look ahead at the week in congress. >> congress is back in session today after its five-week august recess with plenty of issues on its plate, including a major budgetary deadline. joining us to talk about this and make sense of all of these issues are two veteran congressional reporters, anduding susan for riccio money raju. issue.ackle the syrian

what is the timeline for congressional action on this resolution the president is pushing it when will we see the final decisive vote? very quickly, to sentence the one that is to act, harry reid will begin the procedural motion to have a vote by midweek. probably ang at wednesday and a cloture vote which would require 60 votes to move forward to a final vote. that is a critical, critical vote and it's uncertain whether he can get to 60. unclear house does is at this point. the house may vote but they made push it into next week. but if the senate passes a measure, the house will act by next week. this is moving very quickly and that is what the administration is launching a full-court press. host: on the issue of the full-

court press, is it gaining traction on capitol hill? has not gained traction yet. i've heard lawmakers say they feel like support has dwindled -- despite flooding the zone with people coming in to get classified reefing's and the release of this video showing what appears to be the aftermath of a chemical attack. thereupport is not despite that evidence. so you will see a more intensified flooding of the zone. the president is expected to talk privately with democrats because he needs to push this vote over to victory. he will also be addressing the nation on tuesday night, trying to convince the public. talking tont will be most of the television networks. the dual approach is to try to convince the public and get congress along with them. the problem is people think it may be too late and the momentum has

shifted away from the idea of supporting a strike. cans right on the edge but he move things along this week while the numbers are back? a lot of them were not here for the briefings. i don't think anyone is 100% sure, but right now if there were a vote, it probably would not pass. where does the president find those numbers? needs to lookly for certain people who are likely to support him. ibo like john mccain and lindsey graham. people who will vote along with mccain and lindsey graham. then he will look at faithful democrats. he will seek support from the congressional black caucus. support them do not idea of this military strike and

they will get their own classified briefing today. casenk he will make the for the sake of loyalty to get support. there are 43 members and it could be a sizable group to push this over in the house. host: what has the syrian debate then to the budgetary calendar? >> it has delayed it and there is not a lot of time to act. adopt a if they don't continuing resolution, the government will shut down. there are only nine or so legislative days the house is in session this month. how that issue is resolved is unclear. eric cantor signaled late last week that they will move forward with a short term measure of defending the government, but it is uncertain what that would look like, whether the funding levels would be acceptable to democrats, and there's a big

push among conservatives to defund obamacare through the continuing resolutions. that's something republicans don't support and democrats don't support. it's a big fight that has fallen off the map because the syrian issue has taken up all the oxygen in the room. but once that issue is passed in congress, they're going to have to deal with this right away. how there is a resolution to that is unclear. resolutions those might be a government shutdown. those rutsppened to of shutting down the government? guest: there is a letter circulating among the tea party faction who believe we should not put any more money into funding the government unless there is a delay in the obamacare law -- the affordable care act. perhaps stripping the funding from it entirely from any funding resolution moving forward. int is the unknown factor

funding the government. i think there is less concern about the time element. congress doesn't have a hard time passing short-term measures. sometimes they operate better when they don't have time to sit around and argue and get political about these things. the unknown quantity here is this group and will they try to block a short-term bill over this? toward no. if this is a short-term bill and just a few months, they may supported. there may be a fight over how to over the yearget and you may see a bigger fight over funding the affordable care act. the short-term measure, i think you may see them go along and supported. i feel confident there will be anything close to a big threat of a government shutdown. host: we're talking to the chief congressional correspondent from ma "washington examiner" and

nu raju. we are talking budgetary issues and serious. now is your chance to call in and ask the experts on those issues. our phonelines are open if you want to start doing that. immigration -- an issue that was at the top of the congressional agenda heading into the congressional recess. where is it as we had out? guest: its prospects are unclear. it passed the senate and large bipartisan majority. it was a big divide over how to move toward. bill rather than forvery contentious issue the 11 million or so undocumented evil who are here this is theost:

breaking of the senate bill into pieces? guest: that's right. it could lead to an area where passing a narrow measure were piecemeal bill, it still could go to conference and try to negotiate some sort of package deal with the senate, but that is very complicated, a contentious the bait. nowheree and senate are near each other. republicans are divided on how to move forward and how this syrian issue is resolved, whether we have the big fiscal thets in the fall over government spending resolution as well as raising the debt ceiling by mid-october could further delay and jeopardize immigration, particularly as it moves closer and closer to the midterm elections. your callse taking this morning. nick is up first from clarksville, tennessee on the independent line. caller: good morning, good

people. off, if is -- first was in congress, i would let it policen, if not publicly privately to the administration that there's no way i can even consider supporting you on syria until you come completely clean on benghazi and start the process on these other scandals to come clean. trust is a major factor in government and this president cannot be trusted. i call him the butcher of benghazi. using children as an excuse for this movement -- when he was senator in illinois, at least two times he voted against the born again live act, which means children born surviving abortion should be let to die. he's increased funding to planned parenthood, which is a genocide organization.

the administration is in no position to moralize about this. host: i'm going to cut you off there. the color talked about benghazi. what happens to the issue of benghazi in congress? are we going to see it back on the calendar? >> i think it's not an issue that will completely go away. republicans are adamant a want the investigation to continue. that there is a lot that is unresolved. we are nearing the one-year anniversary of the attack that happened on september 11, 2012 and no one has been arrested yet. one of the interesting questions on the sunday talk shows yesterday was one by a talkshow host asking why there haven't been of obvious culprits when the news media have been able to track these people down in libya? are many unanswered questions and i suspect you will see congress bring it up and talk about it in the coming months. i don't think we have seen the end of it at all. here's a tweet about the

affordable care act and some of the issues that have come up -- i want to know who the navigators are and how they got their contract. talk about where the affordable care act is on congress' agenda . >> republicans have made it clear they are going to do what they can to defund, dismantle or delay the affordable care act. that is what eric cantor said last week, laying out the fall agenda. continueublicans will to take votes to try to repeal the affordable care act. something i have done 40 times or so. of course that is a fruitless endeavor that has no chance of passing the senate and will never be signed into law by the president great but the fight now is internally within the republican party. whether they try to do anything to delay or defund elements of the affordable care act through

the continuing resolution, that's a big push among tea party conservatives to do that, that's something the leadership is not right ready to go for. herbie is up next for mississippi on our democratic line. i would like to know when we are going to pick up some of the black issues, like trayvon martin and stuff. i don't quite understand. it's always about helping someone else. but the issue is the black people here, high unemployment and stand your ground. if you want someone to stand their ground, i think lack people have a reason to stand their ground. the we have definitely been step on as lack people. the issues that might come up as the voting

rights act. talk about that. guest: if the voting rights act does end up on the floor, i think it's more likely to be in the senate than the house because the republican-led house knows that's a tough political issue and they may not want to put their members up for a vote like that, particularly as they are heading into an election year. you may see it happen in the senate and that would put pressure on house. it's a tough lyrical issue. the court ruled on it in a way that's unsatisfactory to the congressional black caucus and a lot of members of congress in general. they should be more targeted and i think it is a possibility to see that. as we head into an election year, it's a tough political issue and a combination of those two things often equates to an action. a real important issue, but it's one that may be tough to really move through congress. guest: it is an issue that

energizes the left in particular. is a revolution is highly unlikely in this environment. host: are there other issues that may be put off since we are coming up on the election that will have to wait until 2015 because of the politics of an election year? we mentioned immigration. that would be the biggest one to punt given how many years it has been. they have not passed anything since 1986. they could fail to do it again as we it closer to the election. and the farm bill is a big bill that has divided both houses and both parties during the senate theed a bill that included issue of food stamps and nutritional programs for lower income folks. the house stripped that out and kept it more narrowly focused. that is a big fight between the

two chambers. deal with have to some stopgap measures, but getting a bigger deal on the farm bill could be hard as well. we're talking to the chief congressional correspondent of the "washington examiner" and a reporter from ago. congress is officially back in session after a five-week recess. linda is from texas on our democratic line. caller: i have two things i would like to ask. do you know of anything in -- coming up in congress that deals with how they treat people who are attending pain clinics who are being made to take urine tests because they are taking certain medications? also who has to turn over controlled medications to the

state police now if you are taking those substances? that is my first question. i find it highly insulting and very disturbing that texas, of course, would be the first a to jump on that wagon. we have a whole segment coming up about the affordable care act on an upcoming series about different parts of that act and its implementation. that might be something to pick up in that segment, and it is something one of you have heard about. i have not heard about that specifically. let's go to fred on the independent line. moderators do a great job. i couldn't last a day. they would have to take me off in a straitjacket because some of these people who call in get on my nerves. the president's agenda.

andink they should go ahead -- >> hello, everybody. i am the very new president of the new america foundation. i have been here a week and i have already come to appreciate the enormous work that goes into setting up an event like this one. thanks to all of our teams. since all of you are here to see ambassador rice, since she has kindly help us gather you, i cannot go without a love for the weekly long, our new digital magazine. sign up for that on your way out. it's a great pleasure to be will to introduce susan rice, the national security advisor. she became national security advisor in july, the first woman to her deposition in a democratic administration. she moved back to the white house after four very successful years as u.s. ambassador.

-- u.n. ambassador. she was on the frontline of what seemed like a steady series of national security and global security crises in north korea, iran, libya, sudan, molly, and syria. this is her second tour in government. during the clinton administration, she was the for peacekeeping and international organizations of the national security council official forsenior afghan affairs and the assistant secretary of state for african affairs. i have written a lot about the arc of successful careers. there is not a lot of art to ambassador rice's career treat it is a straight upward. she did take a break between her true tors of service to be in the brookings administration and she is a mother who took her infants into her senate hearings. a mentor, friend, and strong supporter of lots of foreign

policy people in this town. --m personally very grad very glad that ambassador rice is sitting next to the president at this particular moment to read she has deep experience of many different types of conflict. she has been part of the complicated dance between force , andhomas e, -- diplomacy she's a tough negotiator and forceful advocate great she ensures all sides are heard and also understands the law of unintended consequences. of has first hand experience assuming the responsibilities of leadership both at home and abroad. in many ways, i think ambassador rice represents the very best of a new america. she is going to speak to us today on why the united states

must act in syria. ambassador susan rice. [applause] >> good afternoon, everyone. that may begin by thanking annemarie for your kind words and your invitation to be here today. and apologize to all of you for the late start. if i've learned anything in my new job it's that i'm not the master of my own schedule anymore. i want to thank you for your principled leadership both in government where we work together so closely and now at the new america foundation. and i want to commend you and your colleagues for the many contributions you make to our national security discourse, including on the challenge that brings us together today. assad'sonse to bashar al- barbaric use of chemical weapons off against the syrian people,

president obama, after careful consideration, has decided it's in the national security interest of the united states to strikeslimited military against the syrian regime. president obama has asked congress for its support in this democracy,use in a our policies are stronger, more effective, and more sustainable when they have the support of the american people and their elected leaders. tomorrow evening, the president will address the nation and make his case for taking action. this, i want to take opportunity to explain why syria's use of chemical weapons is a serious threat to our national security and why it is in our national interest to

undertake limited military action to deter future use. there is no denying what happened on august 21. around 2:30 in the morning, while most of damascus was still assad's forces loaded warheads filled with deadly chemicals onto rockets and launch them into suburbs controlled or contested by opposition forces. they unleashed hellish chaos and terror on a massive scale. innocent civilians were jolted awake, choking on poison. some never woke up at all. in the end, more than 1400 were dead. more than 400 of them, children. in recent days, we have been shocked by the videos from neighborhoods near damascus.

as a parent, i cannot look at those pictures. those little children lying on glassy,nd, their eyes , and noties twisting think of my own two kids. i can only imagine the agony of those parents in damascus. sarin is odorless and colorless. so victims may not even know they have it exposed until it is too late. rin targets the body's central nervous system, making every breath a struggle and causing foaming at the nose and mouth, intense nausea, and uncontrollable convulsions. in death of any innocent

syria or around the world is a tragedy, whether by bullet or landmine or poisonous gas. but chemical weapons are different. they are wholly indiscriminate. gas plumes shift and spread without warning. it affectsof people our amends. the chemical weapons, like other weapons of mass destruction, kill on a scope and a scale that is entirely different from conventional weapons. opening the door to their use the unitedreatens states and our personnel everywhere.

there is no doubt about who is responsible for this attack. the regime possesses one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons and the world. struggling to clear these neighborhoods in damascus and to drive out the , but his conventional arsenal was not working well enough or fast enough. only the syrian regime has the capacity to deliver chemical weapons on a scale to cause the devastation we saw in damascus. the opposition does not. rockets were fired from territory controlled by the regime. rockets landed in territory controlled or contested by the opposition. we gatheredlligence reveals that senior officials and planning the attack

planning to cover the evidence by destroying the area with shelley. -- shelling. we assessed that he has used them on a small scale multiple times since march. but august 21 was very different. whereas previous attacks killed relatively few people, this one murdered well over 1000 in one fell swoop. assad is lowering his threshold for use while increasing exponentially his attacks. his escalating use of chemical weapons threatens the national andrity of united states the likelihood that left unchecked, a sod it will

continue to use these weapons again and again. it takes the syrian conflict to an entirely different level by terrorizing civilians, creating even greater refugee flows, and that deadlyrisk chemicals would spill across borders into neighboring turkey, jordan, lebanon, and iraq. obviously, the use of chemical weapons also threatens our closest allies in the region, israel. where people once again have readied gas masks. every time chemical weapons are moved, unloaded, and used on the battlefield, it raises the likelihood that these weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists active in syria, ally,ing assad's hezbollah and al qaeda

affiliates. for puts americans at risk chemical attacks targeted at our and evenin the region potentially our citizens at home. attack served to unravel the long established commitment of nations to renounce chemical weapons use. 180 nine countries, representing 98% of the world's population are aware of the convention ,hich prohibits the development acquisition, or use of these weapons. the united states senate approved that convention by an overwhelming bipartisan majority. it combined did america to the global consensus and affirm that we do not tolerate the use or possession of chemical weapons. is notad regimes attack

only an affront to that norm, and also a threat to global security, including the security of the united states. failing to respond to this outrage also threatens our national security. failing to respond means more and more syrians will die from the poisonous stockpile. it makes our allies and partners in the region tempting targets of assad's future attacks. failing to respond increases the risk of violent instability and citizens across the middle east and north africa continue to struggle for their universal rights. failing to respond rings us closer to the day when terrorists might gain and used tet -- chemical weapons against americans, a broad, and at home.

damages theespond international principle reflected in to multilateral -- in two multilateral treaties. it must never again be used anywhere in the world. failing to respond to the use of chemical weapons risks opening the door to other weapons of and emboldening the madmen who would use them. terrorists bent on destruction or a nuclear north korea or an aspiring nuclear iran to believe for one minute that we are shying away from our determination to back up our long-standing warnings. erode the moral

outrage of gassing children in upir beds, we open ourselves to even more fearsome consequences. moreover, failing to respond to this attack could indicate that the united states is not prepared to use the full range of tools necessary to keep our nation secure. any president, republican or democrat must have recourse to all elements of american power to design and implement our ,ational security policy whether diplomatic, economic, or military. rejecting the limited military action, that president obama strongly supports would raise questions around the world as to whether the united states is truly prepared to employ the

full range of its power to defend our national interests. america's ability to rally coalitions and delete internationally could be undermined. other global hotspots might flare up if belligerents believe that the united states cannot be counted on to enforce the most basic and widely accepted international norms. disturbingly, it would send a perverse message to those who seek to use the world's worst weapons that you can use these weapons latently and just get away with it. americans that many are horrified by the images from aboutus and are concerned the devastating, broader consequences. the world believe should act, they are not sure that military action is the right tool at this time.

let me address this important argument. obamaason president decided to pursue limited strikes is that we and others have already exhausted a host of other measures aimed at changing assad's calculus and his willingness to use chemical weapons. as the august 21 mass casualty attack makes clear, these efforts have not succeeded. beginning of the regime's brutal violence against than 2.5eople, more years ago, we have consistently backed the united nations diplomatic prospects and urged the parties to the negotiating table, fully cognizant that a political solution is the best way to and the civil conflict and the syrian regime's torment

of its own people. we collaborate with our european allies to impose a robust sanctions to pressure the assad regime. we supported the inquiry to the document atrocities. assad started using chemical weapons on a small scale multiple times, we publicized compelling evidence of the regimes use, sharing it with congress, the united nations, and the american public. urging over months, russia and iran repeatedly reinforced our warnings to a assad. year, we admonished syria are rectally. we all sent the same message again and again -- do not do it. but they did it. apart on a small scale,

for the world to discern. in response, we augmented our non-lethal assistance to the opposition and expanded the nature and scope of our support to the supreme military council. we pressed for more than six months to gain united nations investigation team's unfettered access. or if not, at a minimum, it could establish a shared base that might finally compel russia of iran, itself a victim saddam hussein's chemical weapon attacks, to pull the plug on a regime that gases its own people. when you and investigators finally entered the country, the regime launched

the largest chemical weapons attack in a quarter-century while the inspectors staged on the other side of town. for five days thereafter, the regime stalled the effective areas to destroy critical evidence. pursuing a wide range of nonmilitary measures to prevent and hauled chemical weapons use did president obama conclude that a limited military strike is the right way to deter assad from continuing to employ chemical weapons like any conventional weapon of war. the fact is that president obama has consistently demonstrated his commitment to multilateral diplomacy. the backing

of united nations security council to uphold the international ban against the use of chemical weapons, whether in the form of sanctions, accountability, or authorizing the use of force. but let's be realistic. happen.st not going to believe me. i know. those youe for all of and debates and negotiations on syria. i lived it. it was shameful. times the security council took up resolutions to condemn lesser violence by the syrian regime. fore times we negotiated weeks over the most watered-down language imaginable. and three times, russia and china double vetoed almost a meaningless resolutions. similarly, in the past two months, russia has blocked two

resolutions condemning the use of chemical weapons that does not even a scribe blame to any party. russia opposed to mere press statements expressing concerns about their use. 21 gask after the august attack, united kingdom presented a resolution that included a referral of war crimes in syria to the international court. again, the russians opposed it as they have every form of accountability in syria. -- for of these regions all of these reasons, the president has concluded it is in our national security interest to conduct limited strikes against the assad regime. i want to take this opportunity to address concerns now that even limited strikes could lead to even greater risks to the united states.

many described as plainly as i be what this action would and just as importantly, what it would not be. the president has been clear about our purpose. these would be limited strikes to deter the syrian regime from using chemical weapons and to degrade their ability to do so again. what do we mean by limited? this would not be the united war.s launching another as the president has said repeatedly, this would not be iraq or afghanistan. there will be no american boots on the ground, period. nor would it resemble coso vote or libya, which were sustained air campaigns.

this will not be an open ended effort as the president has said again repeatedly, this action would be limited in both time and scope. .or would this be new the united states has engaged in limited strikes multiple times before. recall that president reagan conducted airstrikes measured in hours against libya in 1986. president clinton conducted days against iraq in 1998. no to military actions are identical. each has its own cost and but these previous engagements are proof that the united states is fully capable of conducting limited, defined, and proportional military action without not -- without getting

in a drawnout conflict. we mean by deterring and degrading the chemical weapons capabilities? ofikes could target a range capacities to manage, deliver, or develop chemical weapons. a sought would discover that henceforth, chemical weapons offered no battle field advantage relative to their cost to use. and if a sod this so brazen as to use chemical weapons again, that we possess the ability to further degrade his capabilities. short, this would not be an open ended intervention in the syrian-civil war. doing so would require a much larger and sustained military campaign, putting american

forces in the center of the civil conflict. as president obama has made clear, it is neither wise nor necessary to do so. like many, i understand the public's skepticism over using military force, particularly in this part of the world. the wars in iraq and afghanistan have left many americans wary of further military action, however limited. what the president is proposing is fundamentally different. unlike iraq, we are not adding on the existence of weapons of mass destruction. in syria, we have the undeniable proof that chemical weapons have already in unleashed with horrific results. the entire world can see the bodies. risksthere are always

that accompany the use of military force. that is why we are taking a range of responsible measures to safeguard personnel and interests in the region, as well as those of our allies and partners. in this event, we do not assess that millet -- limited military strikes will unleash a spiral of unintended pescatore reaction in the region. assad and his allies would be to take on thesh forces of the united states. that president obama, hasughout his presidency, amply demonstrated he will not hesitate to defend our nation, our citizens, and our allies against direct threats to our security. the limited strikes that the president plans are necessary is whyropriate, which

they have garnered support on both sides of the political aisle. house and senate leaders have declared their support. foreign policy efforts from the left, right, and center have strongly endorsed such action. if there are not many partisan issues left in washington. this is one, or at least it should be. president obama has asked asgress for their support the elected representatives of the american people. because he knows that in besting the legislative branch in our policy choices helps ensure the maximum potency and sustainability of u.s. policy. this decision reflects the president's profound respect for democracy and his

belief that the american people care to defend our most basic values. and he knows, like all americans, that we are strongest in the world when we speak clearly and stand together. at the same time, the international community increasingly recognizes that to this chemical weapons attack cannot be ignored. the arab league foreign ministers have called for the turn of unnecessary measures. the organization of islamic cooperation have said that the regimes attack requires a decisive action. the nato council has met twice and the secretary-general has affirmed that the allies agree on the need for a firm, international response to avoid chemical weapons attacks in the

future. last friday, there was unanimous agreement that chemical weapons had been used and that the international norm against their use must be upheld. supportd unequivocal for anticipated u.s. military action from partners in europe, asia, and the middle east. australia, canada, france, italy, japan, south korea, saudi , thea, spain, turkey united kingdom, and the united aates joined together in strong statement, declaring that the assad regime is responsible for the attack and that those who perpetrated these crimes must be held accountable. , in germany, days lithuania, hungary, croatia, ononia, denmark, have signed

to that same statement and we expect more countries to add their support. over the weekend, the european union hired representatives issued a statement labeling the august 21 attack a blatant violation of international law, a war crime, and a crime against humanity. they called for a response to ensure there is no impunity. every day, more and more nations are coming to the same conclusion. with all the attention given to the prospects of a limited strike against syrian regime targets, i want to underscore that such action is by no means the sum total of our policy towards syria. on the contrary, any such

strikes would complement and syriarce our broader strategy which we continue to pursue with allies and partners. andoverarching goal is to the underlying conflict through a negotiated political transition in which a sought leaves power. -- best way to achieve this in which assad leaves power. the best way to achieve this involves both parties being willing to negotiate. it puts pressure on the regime by isolating them and denying them researchers -- resources. secures diplomatic agreement with other key countries on the principle of transition while assisting those who need immediate relief.

thanks to the generosity of the theican people, we lead humanitarian effort to save lives, having provided the syrian people more than $1 billion worth of food, shelter, medical assistants, clean water, and relief supply. in fact, some of the medical supplies used to treat the victims came from the united states. we continue to upgrade and increase our support for inerate, vetted elements coordination with our international partners. we are building the capacity of local councils and helping civilian leaders to deliver essential services to those in need. oppositionng the better serve the needs of the syrian people and we are expanding our assistance to the supreme military council to strengthen its cohesion and its ability to defend against a

repressive regime that killed civilians. limited strikes that degrade a sought's capacity to use chemical weapons and thus to kill on a horrific scale with impunity can also shake his confidence in the viability of his relentless pursuit of a military solution, but ultimately the only sustainable way to end the suffering in syria is through a negotiated political solution starting with the creation of a representative transitional authority that organizes collections and meets the needs of the syrian people. a political and solution are also, as a practical matter, the only way to eliminate completely the syrian chemical weapons threat.

that is why we continue to increase pressure on the a sought regime to come to the table and negotiate. during our discussions in st. petersburg, we sent more urgency -- cents more urgency among key players to bring the parties to the table to jumpstart a political transition sharese united states that sense of urgency and our intention is to renew our push for the u.n.-sponsored geneva process following any limited strikes. just as limited strikes would koppelman our broader syrian policy, so, too, would they enforce our strategy. the united states will not take sides in secretary and struggles. we cannot and will not impose our will on the democratic development of other nations.

but, as president obama has made will standan and we up for certain intervals in this pivotal region. we seek a middle east where citizens can enjoy their universal rights, live in dignity, freedom, and prosperity. choose their own leaders, and term in their own future free from fear, of violence, and intimidation. regimeg up to the syrian 's barbarian use of chemical weapons will a firm the most basic of principles. that nations cannot unleash the most horrific weapons against innocent civilians, especially children. could takestand up the arab spring to a darker, more ominous term.

we seek a middle east where violent extremism, terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction threaten our allies, partners, and americans. we seek the stability of a region that is vital to the energy that helps fuel our global economy. countering syria's use of chemical weapons shows that the united states will act to prevent some of the world's worst weapons in human history from becoming the new norm. it will demonstrate that america means what we say. a soughtake clear to andhis allies -- to assad his allies that they should not test the united states of america. our has implications for

efforts to prevent a nuclear- armed iran. the policy of the united states is clear. iran tonot allow acquire a nuclear weapon. with allies and partners, we continue to pursue a comprehensive strategy to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, including diplomacy, pressure, and increasing sanctions. as the president has said, all options remain on the table. for our efforts to succeed, however, the leaders in tehran must know that the united states means what we say. respond when i uses weapons of mass destruction, what message does that send to iran? suggesting that the international community cannot muster the will to act when

necessary. it risks suggesting that serious threats to regional and global stability will be left to fester. it risks suggesting that egregious violations of international norms do not have consequences. make no mistake. the decision our nation makes in the coming days is being watched in capitals around the world, especially in tehran. they are watching to see whether the united states will stand up for the world we are trying to build for our children and future generations. act, they willto be emboldened to push harder for a world that only they want, a future where more of the world's most dangerous weapons fall into

the most dangerous hands. east ornot the middle the world that we seek. contrary, we seek a middle east where israelis and palestinians live in two states side-by-side, in peace and security. 's chemical weapons increase the possibility that they could be used against israel and palestinians. this only heightens the sense of vulnerability that many in israel feel about the turmoil that engulfs their nation. it might make it even harder for israelis and palestinians to take the risk for peace. the bottom line is that standing up to syrian's use of chemical weapons it advances our broader goals in the middle east.

by allowing a sought to act with impunity, everything else becomes even harder, from countering terrorism to defending human rights, from promoting peace to ensuring our energy security and preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. closing, allow me to speak not just as the president's national security advisor, but also as a parent. a mother. time and again, we have seen when the world fails to respond to horrific abuses on the scale we saw in damascus. greaterseen the even barbarism that can follow whether it is rwanda or darfur.

of warbeen to my share zones. each is horrible and uniquely tragic. is this most recent atrocity particularly got-wrenching. and unlike those tragedies of earlier decades, we have the technology on our computers and our smartphones to see the full horrors unfold in real time. children lined up. their voices forever silenced. devastated mothers and fathers kissing their children goodbye. some polling the sheet up tight against their beautiful faces as it is talking them in for the last time. there are no words of condemnation strong enough to ,apture such infinite cruelty

but to where words may fail us, action must not. american, every member of congress should watch those videos for themselves. see that suffering. look at the eyes of those men and women, those babies and their to turn away and forsaken them. watch those videos and imagine the months and years ahead where and emboldened the assad and those who follow his example carry out more attacks, forcing us to witness more and more such the privately. i believe you will come to the same conclusion as the president

and so many countries around the .orld that this cannot stand not in the 21st century. not given the values and principles that we as americans hold dear. as the one indispensable leader in the world, to united states of america can and must take responsibly,lly, purposefully, to reduce the chances of such an outrage happening again. tank you very much. [applause] >> let me thank ambassador rice for putting the case for action international, national, and

human contexts. she is answered lots of questions that have been on the table nationally. she does not have time to answer your questions here, but i promise you we will debate every aspect of what she said. frankly applaud the president for inviting us to have this debate openly and in the way that we have to have it as a nation. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> we saw susan rice just now.

we will take you live to the white house has briefing underway. >> they wanted their voices heard and the votes counted. that is the reason the president went to congress, because he believes we are stronger when we act together. we heard clearly from them, including a letter signed by nearly 200 members of congress that they wanted to be in on this debate. not going to jump ahead of the process. i did not speak very artfully. it is clearly the president's desire and intent to secure the support of congress for this action, but i do not want to get into any hypotheticals about what will or will not happen. >> eye and saying there is no point in jumping ahead of where we are now. >> as you gather more evidence, past a highed

degree of confidence to 100% certitude? >> the intelligence community has different levels of confidence that it expresses in any given assessment. high is as high as they can go. they will not tell you with 100% guarantee of anything that has happened in terms of the theysment they have made. put together the facts and we have certitude of the facts and you put that together and make an assessment and evaluated. great is high confidence. that is well beyond a reasonable doubt which is a standard that many americans are familiar with . decision.e >> to disco to a sought himself? >> we believe and we have the intelligence and evidence to ofk this up, is in control the chemical weapons program.

he would have, let me put it this way, any standing orders to use these weapons would have been issued by assad. our colleagues in the intelligence community show in great detail individuals in the chain of command who are engaged . >> and a charlie rose interview, assad said several things. one of the things he said is that there will be repercussions if there is a united states military strike and that the united states should be fearful of that. secondly, today, the syrians and the russians have announced this concept of international do you have a reaction to that? or is that something that is a favorable move or not? lastly, you have lost ground in the senate. there are more senate democrats

saying they do not want to support this. >> with regard to assad's we take, first of all, every possible precaution to make sure that we can prevent and defend against anything that might arise from the use of military action. we have done that and we will continue to do that. that aur judgment president assad would have very little interest in picking a fight with united states of america. i do not think that is likely at all. todayegard to the reports about this initiative, we have seen the reports. we want to take a hard look at the proposal. we will obviously discussed the idea with the russians. of course, we would welcome a decision and action by syria to give up its chemical weapons. the whole point is to stop syria

and using these weapons again. it is important to keep a few things in mind. the international community has tried for 20 years to get syria to sign onto the chemical weapons convention, joining 109 countries. last week president assad it would not even say if he had time ago weapons, despite overwhelming evidence that he has used them. also tried to work with the russians at the united nations repeatedly on syria and chemical weapons. until now, they have blocked all of our initiatives, including simple press statements. that is the background. to noteso important that syria has one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons around the world. it would certainly take time, researches -- resources to deal with. all that said, we will take a hard look at this. to noteit is important

that it is clear that this proposal comes in the context with the threat of u.s. action and the pressure that the president is exerting. it is more important that we do not take the pressure off and that congress give the president the authority he has requested. terms of where we are with congress, from all of these briefings, my sense is that when members of congress have a chance to see the intelligence, to read it, to get the briefings, to ask questions, they come away convinced of two things. andical weapons were used the assad regime is the one that used them. have yet to get this classified brief. now as they are coming back today and this week, they will have the opportunity to do that. we have senior officials going out to provide the same briefing we gave last week. i believe when they see the evidence it is compelling and overwhelming. a basics comes down to

question. are we or are we not going to do anything about the fact that assad poisoned his own people with gas, including children. that is the question. when they have the evidence and see the facts, i think they will come to the right conclusion. ishe said the administration taking a harder look at what the russians have offered. does that mean it was a proposal coming from this administration? >> no. we literally just heard about this as you did some hours ago so we have not had a chance to look at it yet or talk to the russians about it. we will. >> the secretary said a sought to turn the dough over without delay. i believe he was answering a question and speaking hypothetically about what if assad would do that. of course, we would welcome assad giving up his chemical weapons in a verifiable manner

so that we can account for them and destroy them. that is the whole purpose of what we are trying to achieve. that would be terrific. unfortunately, the track record to date, including recent records does not give you a lot of confidence. to look hard want at what the russians have proposed. >> is this an ultimatum? at what, we will look the russians have proposed, talk about and see. >> if i can, just within the last hour susan rice said that failing to respond would increase instability in that .egion for a lot of americans the concern is the opposite would take place. if we did respond, that would create further instability. how can you sure americans and congress members that is not what would take place? i think the case is very compelling that a failure to take action would produce all sorts of very negative consequences in terms of

interests of the countries in the region and in terms of the united states. we know withemost, some degree of certitude that failure to take action would say to a sought that you can use these weapons again and again and do it with impunity. the more you have chemical weapons used in syria, the chances of it spilling over are higher and higher. as you know, we have a real concern that countries that aspire to get these kinds of weapons and if we don't take actions, they will conclude they can 62 acquire them and use them with impunity. seek tohat -- they can acquire them and use them with impunity. this is important to understand. it is limited, focused, but we believe effective. going to war with syria. it is not iraq. it is not afghanistan.

it is not boots on the ground. the chances leading to greater instability are very small. days,er the first few 6?t happens on day, 4, 5, >> i cannot get into the details of the plan. alternately, they have to make a judgment. i wish we could go into more detail with everyone. that is why you have elected representatives. that is their responsibility to make that judgment as well. this idea of international control of chemical weapons stockpiling. >> i was not in st. petersburg. i was back home. i differ that. >> thank you. your question, we have

been having conversations with the russians for a long time about chemical weapons in syria, the threat they pose to the region. has been an ongoing conversation. -- i not have a specific do not have any more of a readout and has been provided so far except to say that syria was, as it has been for quite some time, a subject of conversation between the two leaders. >> can you explain why the american people should believe, absence of classified information you will not give them, that you can effectively or suede bashar al-assad not to use chemical weapons without targeting the chemical weapons stockpiling? is that in an say

effective and limited way we can degrade a sought abilities, specifically his capabilities to deploy chemical weapons and make clear to a sought the significant consequences of using those weapons. it is important within the context of some of the questions that tony just answered, that the only reason why we have a dynamic today where there has been some response with regards to stockpiles of chemical weapons that they have hereto for never even exalt -- acknowledged they have, it's because of the intense pressure being placed on a sought by the united states engaging in military force. that is why it is so important to continue to put that pressure on assad and make clear to him that a prohibition that has been in place in many ways for 100 years should not be violated

without consequence. let me talk about not putting forth ossified information. there is some information we cannot put. there has been an enormous amount put forward to members of congress and the public that is continue to this day. it demonstrates that chemical weapons were used to horrifying effect. i really think it is something that everyone should do, certainly every adult who has a concern about this, to view that were shown over the weekend and i believe are available now that terrificte the consequences of that attack on civilians and children. then ask themselves if they agree, as every member of congress who has had this briefing agrees, that chemical weapons were used and that the assad regime is responsible and that that is in violation of a long-standing prohibition.

should we do something about it? should there be consequences for it? of if not, what the result that inaction would be? youf i could follow that, say the proposal the russians to put it under international supervision, is the result of a determination and in light of that, how do you respond? >> it has been stated -- >> if i can finish. lawmakers who say the president got to this too lake. >> the use of chemical weapons on a widescale basis occurred on august 21 a few weeks ago. the president decided it was entirely appropriate in a circumstance like this to seek authorization from congress because we are stronger and more effective when we act in a unified manner. i do not think this has been a

question of responding too slowly. the demands and suggestions of congress that their voices be heard and their votes be counted, the president agreed. we have engaged in an effort to present facts so they can make their own assessment. international prohibition should be backed up and if a violation should have consequences. as he said to peter, the alternative is greater instability. if there are no consequences, assad gets the message he is free to use these weapons going or word. what you have is an unraveling of that international prohibition with potentially more devastating consequences in the world.

>> it has been explicitly stated that this is an effort to of her action meeting taken by the united states with the support of many nations and hopefully with the support of congress. i think it is explicitly in reaction to the threat of retaliation for this use of chemical weapons against civilians. has been john mccain one of your real allies on this. exceptionly, he took to secretary kerry's remarks that the strike would be unbelievably small. meantyou explain what he by saying it would be unbelievably small? >> i think that secretary kerry was referring to that in the of what the united

states and american people have experienced over the past 10 to includes large- scale, long-term, and as it seemed prior to president obama coming in, open ended military engagement with boots on the ground in iraq. contrast that secretary kerry was making. i do not think that the phrasing .eflects some error it is a factor by comparison. it is certainly much more of smaller duration and size. we said very clearly, if implemented that the action would important -- in important ways degrade a sought's capabilities and deter him from further use of chemical weapons.

>> i think we all get this chemical weapons security proposal from the russians may be an effort on their part to deter military action, it is it -- is it also a u.s. effort? did john kerry nervously raised this as a way for a different option to a strike? accept thatou can it is our position and has been that the syrian regime not only should not use, but should not possess stockpiles of chemical weapons. would result in the international control of and destruction of syrian's chemical weapon stockpiles. with the threat of military

action, syria and russia, which has clearly been an ally of syria, coming up with potential proposals that might, if implemented, avert military action. now, i think it is important to say that we will study this and work with the russians to speak with them, but it is also important to note that we would have some skepticism about the credibility.s assad has refused to even acknowledge that he possesses chemical weapons, which of course the whole world knows that he does. the whole world knows that he uses them. >> is this a coordinated thing today? only say is that there are ongoing conversations on this manner at the highest level. obviously, that includes conversations with the russians. proposal and the

see if there are action that can be taken upon it, but we have to be mindful of the failure of the assad regime for so long now, 20 years, to sign the chemical weapons convention. for the last several years, to allow -- or at least the last year to allow for you and inspectors until the last moment and only then after they stalled inspectors for days while they bombarded the neighborhood. this is not a history of .romises being kept having said that, we will look at this and discuss it with the russians. it is important to note that we would not be having this -- any positive would never have been forthcoming if it were not for the fact that there is a credible threat of u.s. military action.

up, would the administration be willing to delay military action while taking a hard look at this proposal. >> we will have discussions with the russians and with others. someecretary-general made statements that are related in the broader sense. meanwhile, we are engaged in an effort to discuss and provide to lawmakers here in congress as many more of them make their way back to washington. in our effort to secure authorization from congress, this effort is ongoing and i'm sure on a parallel track conversations will take place with russians and others. rex was that a yes?

would the administration delay military action while taking a hard look at this proposal? you're not going to start bombing syria while negotiating with the russians. >> you are going forward here. we just had a proposal articulated by the russians with a response of sorts as reported anyway. terms of military action, we are obviously engaged with congress at this point. while we have these discussions with the russians and others, we will continue with the effort and congress. thisotion that there is an unbelievably small effort was the words of the secretary of state. does the white house stand by that? >> before jay carney answers that question, we will break away because the u.s. house is about to gavel in. winter stand it will go into recess rather shortly.

it to bills on the calendar today. one deals with foreign investment in the u.s. and the other deals with sec reporting requirements. enough, we will try to get you back live to the white house. let's go live to the floor of the u.s. house. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., september 9, 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable virginia foxx to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the

prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. haplain conroy: let us pray. loving god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. lengths ions of vy continue to mount, we look to you, o god, of help and slvation. critical help of any life and any nation, as well as undertakings, o lord, bring us to our knees before you. we humbly seek your guidance and rely on your faithfulness. be with us in the days ahead. bless the members of the people's house, all who work here and our guests. listen to our heart-felt prayers. we seem to be entering a passageway of darkness which may feel us of fear and

anxiety. bring us safely to the light at the end of the tunnel. help all members of this assembly attend to the voices of wisdom and of the american people as matters of great import and danger are considered in these coming days. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory. men. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined of the last's day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> madam speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor, please say aye. those opposed, please say no. the ayes have it.

the journal stands approved. mr. holding: mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding. mr. holding: i ask people in the gallery to join us in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized -- for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one minute.

mr. wilson: madam speaker, over the past month, i have traveled by bus and car across all five counties i represent in the second district of south carolina where i found my constituents agree with charles kratt hiemer and his column in south carolina. he's identified the president's policy as, quote, stunning zig-zag following months of contradiction and studied delay. the president having done yet nothing but hesitate, threaten, restrict and wander, claiming not his own red line but the world's. a transparent attempt at offloading responsibility. there's no strategy, no purpose here other than helping obama escape self-inflicted humiliation. this is deeply unserious. end of quote. the white house announced april 25, syria had chemical weapons. but only after four months of

syria scandals, obamacare destroying jobs and the upcoming debt debate vote that it seek action. on my tour i was inspired at the north augusta rotary club by the four-way test, is it the truth? in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 1, 2001, 11, 2012, benghazi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to direction and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. holding: mr. speaker, before i returned to washington last week, i was skeptical about the president going to syria. after listening to secretary kerry and hagel i'm more skeptical than ever. madam speaker, this administration has done nothing to convince me and the american people that they have a focused, effective plan for military action in syria or really any true plan at all.

these strikes, like the administration's middle east policy of the last 4 1/2 years, lack coherence and fail to support a long-term strategy. additionally, they have not adequately considered the risk of retaliation from assad's allies russia and hezbollah. madam speaker, a successful foreign policy, the test of our friends trust us. a military strike will fail to benefit the united states' broader strategy or international interests. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: madam speaker, i rise to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. burgess: madam speaker, how do yucca mountain, iran-contra and the vietnam war relate to the affordable care act? all of those represent legislative limitation to

funding by counterdecisions made by the executive branch. in each instance, congress used its authority provided under the constitution to place limits on presidential decisions. we need to use those constitutional powers again. the caroline masson is lurching towards an un-- the affordable care act is lurching towards an -- the class act, the 1099 business activity tax, what about the federal pre-existing program, hasn't accepted a new patient since february of this year. how unfair is it that the large corporations this country received an 11th hour presidential exemption, members of congress receive a subsidy, none of this is available to the average american. i look at all of this and i ask, what tools are available to prevent this disaster? and when previous congresses used the one trump card they have available, all that is required is the courage and the clarity of vision to alter history. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recollection anything? >> madam speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to promote the first amendment to the united states constitution, specifically the right of all citizens to freely express their religion. this november, the supreme court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case of town galloway. s. the town of greece is accused of violating the first amendment because the volunteers that open town meetings, they open them with a prayer using christian references. mr. collins: legislative and communal prayer has a rich tradition in this country and hould not be curtails by illegitimate fears of religious overreach in the united states. we must remain a nation that does to the force a religion on

any person, but is accepting of those who wish to profess their faith. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to speak to the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. mr. fleming: madam speaker, the constitutional right to religious liberty is with increasing frequency being denied to the men and women in our military who swore to support and defend the constitution when they are enlisted. within the past month, we've seen a new case of an air force veteran who says he was relieved of duty by his commander because he would not champion same-sex marriages. this senior massive sergeant with 19 years service to his country has been entangled in the military justice system, not for anything he's done or said, but for refusing a

commander's order to make a statement that would violate his deeply held religious beliefs. what's happening in this case violates current statutes, not to mention the first amendment. that's why it's so crucial that congress protect military religious freedom and its exfregs. my amendment to do that was passed in this house and we need the senate to act and the president to stop his threat to veto. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise in defense of the first amendment right to free exercise of religion. thomas jefferson once asked, can a liberty of a nation be cured when we remove their own firm basis, a conviction in the mind of people that they are a gift from god? the clear answer is no. if freedom of religion is not

protected in the very place where law is crafted, how can we respect each individual's freedom of religion? mr. collins: i believe that freedom of religion isn't some mere be a tract concept to be debated in the halls of congress or before supreme court. religious freedom gave me the ability to preach god's word in georgia and religious freedom gave me to fight alongside soldiers in iraq. i will not allow freedom and free combrr of religious liberties to be undermined here or anywhere. and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise to support the first amendment as well. mr. walberg: as a patriot, as a pastor and as a member of congress. josef stalin said america's like a healthy body and its

resistance is three-fold. it's patriotism, morality and spiritual life. if we can undermine these three areas, america will collapse from within. a patriot said it this way. president eisenhower in october of 1954. this leads to domination and dictatorship. we must jealously guard our foundation and faith. for it rests in the ability of the american individual to live and thrive in this blessed land and to be able to help less unfortunate people to achieve freedom and individual opportunity. these we take for granted but to others they are often only a wistful dream. in god we trust, often we've heard the words of this wonderful american motto. let us make sure that familiarity has not made them meaningless for us. freedom the torch of as a sacred trust for all

mankind. we do not believe that god intended the light that he created to be put out by men. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. pursuant to clause 4 of rule 1, the following enrolled bills were signed by the speaker on riday, august 2, 2013. >> the clerk: h.r. 2576, h.r. 1171, h.r. 678 and h.r. 267. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 4 of rule 1, the following enrolled bill was signed by speaker pro tempore thornberry on august 26, 2013. the clerk: h.r. 1344, a bill to amend 49, united states code, to direct the assistant secretary of homeland security, transportation and security administration, to provide expedited air passenger screening to severely injured or disabled members of the armed forces and severely injured or disabled veterans nd for other purposes.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 4:00 p.m. today. let's show you a little bit of that. among unlike afghanistan, is not some landlocked backwater, but is in the heart of the arab world. it is of tremendous religious importance to al qaeda,

mentioned in the koran. it also has a significance in the world before treaties, which bin laden on many occasions in the ill-fated against. western powers after world war i. serious was part of the territory where islam' holiest shrines are. islam hasies, sunni struggled, and today we know they are out whites -- alouites. as a battleeen used call for contemporary jihad eai. the is an connection to

struggle today. assad is almost a perfect villain or groups like al qaeda. and this is another worrisome have seen in al qaeda. it used to be in the old days, al qaeda was about killing, and killing muslims. seey especially in syria we arms of al qaeda engaging in the social welfare act to these that are designed to win friends, providing food, running bakeries, all the kinds of things that the main core al qaeda could do, yet they are doing, and also not incidentally, running an effective information and propaganda campaigns in syria, al that is troubling because qaeda seems to have learned the

lessons of its failure in iraq and that means they are rather dangerous. >> the associated press reporting syria's foreign minister saying his country welcomes a russian proposal to place its chemical weapons under international control and then dismantle them quickly to avert u.s. strikes. the story goes on to say that the statement from the minister came a few hours after secretary of state john kerry said syrian president assad could resolve the process -- the crisis by his forces by surrendering control of every single bit of his arsenal to the international community by the end of this week. the russian foreign minister would urge syria to quickly put its chemical weapons under international control and then dismantle them. the russian foreign minister talks with the syrian foreign and said hemoscow

expects a quick, positive answer from damascus. the syrian minister would not give further details in his statement and did not take any questions. the ap reports the white house says it is taking a hard look at syria's statement. this after president assad said there would be a harsh response to any military attack against syria, and in news from the senate a few minutes ago, harry movement tothe begin the debate on that resolution. our live coverage of the senate on c-span2. earlier today, ban ki-moon held a news conference. here is what he had to say.

>> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. i have come from the st. petersburg g-20 meeting, and it is important to brief you as soon as i could. syria dominated the summit meeting. [indiscernible] it also dominated all the bilateral meetings i had with world leaders. the main focus was on the allegation of chemical weapons use and the forthcoming report from my investigation team. i have not yet received the report from them, nor do i know what it contains, but i do know there has been significant

speculation regarding a major use of chemical agents on august 21, leading to the deaths of hundreds of civilian people. should this be confirmed by the report by the doctor and his investigation team, then this will be an abominable crime, and the international community would certainly have to do something about it. 2 1/2 years of conflict in syria have produced only embarrassing consequences in the council. should the use of chemical weapons be confirmed, then this will surely be something around which the security council could unite in response and indeed something that should merit universal condemnation. i am already considering certain proposals that i could make to

the security council when presenting the investigation team's report. there would be a need for accountability to bring those to justice those who used them, should their use be confirmed. and to deter anyone else from using these methods of warfare. there would be a need for greater security regarding any chemical weapons stocks, and there remains an urgent need for a cessation of hostilities. the syrian people need peace. ladies and gentlemen, let me say just a few words about their regular work of the g-20 discussions, where there was a focus on growth, further

security, trade, and investment. i urged the g-20 leaders to put sustainable development at the core of their work. in particular, i called for increased commitments on achieving the minimum development goals, defining a global development agenda beyond 2015, and addressing climate change. i was encouraged by the response from the g-20 leaders, and i look forward to building on those discussions during the general debate later this month when leaders come to the united nations. i plan to brief you next week about my priorities for that period. and i thank you very much for your attention, and i am ready to answer your questions. >> thanks very much. >> good morning, secretary- general.

pamela from cbs news. as president of the u.n. correspondence association, i want to the welcome you from st. petersburg on behalf of the association. my question is, there was an announcement this morning by the russian foreign minister that russia will press syria to put the chemical weapons under u.n. control, and assad told charlie rose that he could not even acknowledge that there were chemical weapons in syria. how do you think an agreement by russia would come about? do you know anything about it, and would it lead to security council action? thank you.

>> i have taken in the foreign minister's remarks in russia a few moments ago, and i also spoke to john kerry earlier today in london. i acknowledge these ideas. as i said earlier, i have already been considering certain proposals that i could make to the security council when i present the investigation team's report. for a number of days already, i for a number of days already, i have been our considering proposals.i am urging these stocks to be placed inside syria where they can be safely stored and destroyed . and i urge again that syria should become the party to -- [indiscernible] >> thank you.

with the situation right now, the war drums in the region, do you know if there are also diplomats considering evacuating the u.n. staff in lebanon? would you consider that in case of war? thank you. >> we have quite a number of u.n. staff working in syria, including international staff and domestic national staff. for u.n. staff, we have more than 3000 there, including staff there, 4,500. we have been taking very careful necessary preparations and consideration how we should ensure the safety and security

of u.n. staff there. we will continue to carefully monitor the evolving situation. i can assure you that the security and safety of the u.n. staff is paramount, but there are large amounts of humanitarian works that we have to do delivering humanitarian assistance daily to those who need our support. therefore -- i can assure you we are making necessary preparations concerning safety and security of our staff. >> if syria says yes to transferring its chemical stocks to international control, how quickly could the u.n. take over those stocks? what is the timeframe?

>> that is the proper way for syria to do. then i am sure that the international community will have a very swift action to make sure that these stocks, chemical weapons stocks, will be stored safely and will be destroyed. i do not have any worry about that. first and foremost, syria must agree positively to this. >> thank you, mr. secretary- general. the foreign minister of russia has said that if the united states goes ahead with military action against syria, that will

be the end of the possibility of peace talks in geneva. do you believe this is the case, and what would you urge the u.s. congress to do? >> as you know, i was there in st. petersburg with joint special envoy brahimi. we discussed all that matters concerning the current situation and how the current debate on the possible international response could affect the geneva ii peace conference. at this time, of course, we can easily think this may affect negatively the convening of the geneva conference, but it is important, it is important that we continue to pursue, to

convene that geneva conference as soon as possible. a political solution is the only viable option at this time. there were a lot of discussions and debate among the world leaders on many possible issues, but at this time, i do not have any clear answer to this. but what i can assure you, i and brahimi will continue to work closely together with the united states and russia for the original initiators of this. >> mr. secretary-general, should you be successful at getting the chemical weapons under control and out of the hands of people who can use them, how do you expect to be -- or what suggestion do you have to make sure that those who are responsible for using them are

indeed punished, because your u.n. team is not going to place blame on any party? they are just going to confirm whether they were used or not. >> i believe this is a separate issue. accountability process is another one, and making sure that nobody commits such a horrendous use of chemical weapons and also makes sure that the current syrian chemical weapons stocks should be safely stored and destroyed. so there will be no such possibility. i believe even with this accountability should be perceived with what has happened, accountability with the investigative team's report.

thank you very much. hill" have been following how the house will vote on military strikes into syria. several hundred yet not announcing their positions. 217 votes needed to pass there. in the senate -- 51 votes needed in the senate. leader reidrity

has called up the joint resolution. that means they will debate the motion to proceed. that is a procedural matter. senator reid said there could be a vote on the procedural vote sometime on wednesday. that cloture vote would need 60 votes. if they get that, then they would proceed to the resolution. we will keep you updated as to what is going on in the senate. trying to maintain family time, edith roosevelt purchased a retreat. >> edith wanted a place close enough to d.c. where he could get out here as often as needed, but far enough away that there was wilderness. this was a family place. in that sense it was unique because sagamore hill had become a place where the president had politicians and press and constantly a hubbub of activity.

with this was the one place where it was private emily time, and the roosevelts made it clear they did not want anyone but family here. >> meet edith roosevelt as we begin the season two of our original series "first ladies. "first ladies." issues before the fcc, we have a lot of them. issues are diverse because in many ways the fcc oversees the digital economy, the informational economy, which may account for as much as 1/6 of the economy. wireless communications. you can look around at the proliferation of phones and that is no surprise that this is an area of real interest. you also have to consider the numbers.

we now have more wireless phones in this country then we have people. one in three american adults has a tablet computer. all of those devices are using more of our airwaves than ever before. we are just getting started because worldwide mobile data demand is going to grow 13 times in the next five years. on its plate lot when it comes to our airwaves and how we use them. >> the newest fcc commissioner on issues facing the fcc tonight span 8:00 eastern on c- 2. >> with congress back today we thought we would take time this morning and talked to a couple of capitol hill reporters on what is ahead for congress. host: congress is back in recess.after its august

are -- joining us are two reporters. issuetackle the syrian first. what is the timeline for congressional action on this resolution the president is pushing, and when are we going to see the final vote here. it is going to happen this week. the senate will be the first to act. harry reid will begin the procedural motion to have a vote by midweek. the vote would require 60 votes to move forward to a final vote. a critical vote. it will be very close. uncertain whether they can get to 60. what the house does is not clear. the house may vote this week,

and they may pushes into next week. if the senate passes a measure, the house will act next week. this is moving quickly. is it gaining traction this week? guest: not yet. lawmakers say that support has dwindled. the administration has been flooding everyone with bringing classified ratings. the support is not there. despite that evidence. so what you're going to see this week is even more intensified sort of flooding of the zone. the president is expected on capitol hill to talk privately with democrats.

we really need to push this vote over to victory. and he's also going to be addressing the nation, as everybody knows, on tuesday night, trying to convince the public there will be more classified briefings. the president will also be talking to most of the television networks, too. his dual approach here is to convince the public and, thus, get congress along with him on if he gets with them both at the same time. the problem is that people think this may be a little bit too late, that momentum has just shifted away from the idea of supporting a strike, so the question here, he's right on the edge, can he move things along this week while all the members are back? a lot of them weren't here last week during the briefings. i don't think anyone is 100% sure where it's going, although right now, if there were to be a vote, it probably wouldn't pass. host: where does the president look for to find those numbers? we've seen whip counts this morning that the numbers aren't looking great as of today, the latest numbers we have. guest: well, that's right. and i think he really needs to look for certain people who are more likely to support him he's got people on the republican side, john mccain, lindsey graham, perhaps kelly ayotte,

who will vote along with mccain on security issues and armed forces issues. and then he'll look for his very faithful democrats. one of the key, key groups where he will seek support is the congressional black caucus. a lot of them do not support the idea of this military strike. they will get their own special classified briefing today. i think he will really make the case, just to try to get, at least for the sake of loyalty, to get this passed. they're 43 members, so they could be a sizable group to push it over. host: and what has the syrian debate done to the budgetary calendar that congress was preparing to tackle before this issue came up? guest: it's delayed it, and there's really not a whole lot of time to act. as we know, if the congress does not adopt a continuing resolution by the end of the month, the government will shut down, and there's only nine or

so legislative days the house is actually in session this morning. so how that issue is resolved is unclear. cantor said they were going to move forward with a short-term measure, probably funding the government through mid-december, but it's uncertain what it would look like, whether or not the funding levels would be acceptable to democrats. and there's the big push among conservatives to defund obamacare through the continuing resolution. that's something that a lot of republicans don't support, and it's certainly something the democrats don't support. so this is a big major fight that's sort of fallen off the map because the syrian issue is taking up all the oxygen in the room. but once that issue is passed in congress, they're going to have to deal with this right away and how that's a resolution to that is unclear. host: and one of those resolutions might be a government shutdown, or at least some folks have threatened that. what has happened to those threats of shutting down the government? guest: well, there's a letter circulating that we believe she shouldn't put any more money in

funding the government unless there's a delay in the aca, or also perhaps just stripping the founding from it entirely from any funding resolution moving forward. that really is the unknown factor in funding the government. i think there's less concern about the time element. congress doesn't have a hard time quickly passing short-term measures. sometimes they operate a little bit better when they don't have a lot of time to sit around and argue and get real political about these things. the unknown quantity here is this group, and will they really try to block a short-term bill over this? i'm leaning no. i think if this is a short-term bill, and it's just a few months, they may support that. there will be a longer fight on how to fund this fiscal 2014 budget until the end of the year, and i think there you may see a bigger fight over funding the affordable care act. the short-term measure, you may see them go along and support it.

i feel pretty confident that there won't be anything close it a big threat. host: we're talking with washington reporters. we want to hear your comments and questions on congress' agenda, budgetary issues, syria. now is your chance to call in and ask two of the experts on those issues. our phone lines are open if you want to start doing that. as folks are dialing, manu raju, talk about immigration, an issue that was at the top of the congressional agenda heading into the congressional recess. where is it as we head now outside of the congressional recess? guest: its prospects are also unclear. right now, in the past, the senate by a large bipartisan majority early this year, but what's happening in the house is a divide over how to move forward. one of the things republicans are they go they do at some time

enhance, a bill that would move on the issue of enforcement rather than the much very, very contentive issue about a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million or so here illegally. host: this is thing. senate bill into pieces? guest: yeah. that could still lead to an air, with weather they pass a small bill, they could presumably go to senate and negotiate a deal with the senate. but that is a very, very complicated, contentious debate. the house and the senate are nowhere near each other at the moment. they're divided on how to move forward. and how this syrian issue is resolved, whether or not we have the big fiscal fights in the fall over the government spending resolution, as well as

raising the debt ceiling by mid october, that could further delay, even jeopardize immigration, particularly if it moves closer and closer to the midterm elections next year. host: taking your calls this morning. nick is up next from clarksville, tennessee, on our independent line. nick, good morning to you. caller: good morning, good people. host: go ahead. caller: ok. look, two things. first off, if i was in congress, i would let it be known, if not publicly, at least private to the administration, there's no way i can even consider supporting on syria until you come completely clean on benghazi and stop the process on these other scandals. i mean, trust is a major factor in government, and this president cannot be trusted. i consider him the butcher of benghazi. on another matter, he says the administration is using children as a crux, an excuse for this movement. well, when he was senatoring illinois, at least two times he voted against the born again

live act, which means that children born, survive an abortion, should just lie there to die. and then he increased the funding to planned parenthood, which is a genocide organization. so the administration is in no position to moralize about this, and -- host: nick, i'm going to cut you off there. he talked about benghazi -- what happened to the issue of benghazi in congress in recent months? are we going to see it back on the calendar here? guest: i think it's not an issue that will completely go away. republicans are adamant that they want the investigation to continue, that there's a lot that is unresolved. i think yesterday it came up worry nearing the one-year anniversary of the attack. it happened on september 11, 2012. no one has been arrested yet. one of the interesting questions on the sunday talk shows yesterday was one by a talk show there are many unanswered

questions. i expect congress to talk about it in the coming months. a tweet about the affordable care act and some of the issues that have come up. i want to know who the navigators are and how they got their contracts. talk about the affordable care act and where it is on congress ?genda guest: republicans will continue to do what they can do to delay or defund the affordable care act. the house will continue to take votes to repeal the affordable care act. they have done this 40 times or

so. this is a fruitless endeavor that has no chance of passing the senate. fight now is internally within the republican party, about whether or not they try to do anything to delay or defund elements of the affordable care act through the continuing resolution. this is a big push and they want tea party conservatives to do that. mississippi on our democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to know when they are going to pick up some of the black issues, stopping arrests -- and trayvon martin-type it is always about someone else and not what has been done to black people here. stand your ground if you want somebody to stand there grant, i

think black people have a reason to use dance their ground. one of the issues that might come act is the voting rights act. talk about what is going on with that. it is possible to happen in the senate. the republican led house knows this is a tough political issue and they may not want with their members up for a vote. they felt it should be more targeted. as we are heading into an election year, it is a tough political issue, and the

combination of those things equates to in action. an important issue. it is one that may be tough to ever really move through congress. energizer -- an issue that and energizes the left. this is going to be an issue that democrats take off. whether there's the revolution is highly, highly doubtful in this environment. host: are there any issues that you believe might need to be put off coming on the 2014 election? guest: we mentioned immigration. that could certainly be one of them. that would be the biggest one to punt, given so many years it's been since congress has had -- they haven't passed a sprawling immigration law since 1986. they failed to do it in 2007. they could very well fail to do it again and be it closer to the election.

and the farm bill, too. i mean, that's a big bill that divided both parties, both houses the senate passed a bill that included the issue of food stamps in there and nutritional program for lower income folks. the house stripped that and kept it more narrowly focused. that's a big divide between the two chambers. maybe they have to deal with some short-term stopgap measures but getting a bigger deal on the farm bill could be hard as well. host: we're taking your calls and questions on congress' agenda now that they are officially back in session after a five-week recess. linda is from texas on our democratic line. linda, good morning. caller: good morning. i have two things i would like to ask. one is do you know of anything in the obama act or coming up in congress that deals with how they treat people who are attending pain clinics, who are

being made to take urine tests because they're taking certain medications? and also, who has to turn over and also, who has to turn over control of the medications to the state police now, if you are taking those substances. that's my first question. i find it highly insulting and very disturbing that texas of course, would be the first state to jump on that wagon. host: we have a whole segment coming up in our next 45 minutes talking about the affordable care act and ongoing series that we're running on the "washington journal" about different parts of that act and its implementation might be something to pick up in that segment unless it's something one or two of you have heard about it. guest: i have not heard about it. host: we will go to our independent line. fred, good morning. caller: good morning, "washington journal" and its guests.

you moderators do a really good job. i wouldn't last a day. some of these people who call in get on my nerves. host: what is your comment or question? guest: the president's agenda -- caller: they should resolve this thing first. and then they need to attack the debt limit, then go to revisit the voter's right act. you see what i'm saying? there's so much on their plate. i just don't know how much they can get done. but right now, the main focus should be syria and being a retired veteran, i think the plan that they have is stupid. you probably ask any of those generals if you were to get them off to the side privately and they would tell you that this is one dumb plan and no military person would ever, ever think of doing something this -- you know, myopic. thank you.

host: talk about some of the criticism that the white house has faced in delaying this vote and what that does on the military side of this. guest: you mean delaying the syria vote? host: yes. guest: they really faced a lot of -- you know, the president faced criticism by sort of looking indecisive on this issue. at one soint, it appeared that they were -- point, it appeared they were moving rapidly to a military strike and that they were really going to move forward with something and members of congress were saying they expected something to happen imminently. but as the president went on saturday and said he was going to seek congressional approval, that stunned so many folks. now that has delayed things for weeks, and it looks like they may be making some adjustments and anticipating these military

strikes may happen, and that element of surprise may be lost. it's something that people like john mccain have raised. and that's something that the administration will have to, you know, it's very difficult because he tries to sell this war, the president tries to sell this war. the criticism coming from members of congress whether or not this will be effective, this military intervention. and the reason why is because the president has sort of indicated which direction he was going to head before losing any of that element of surprise. host: an e-mail from c.j. on this issue. c.j. notes that obama already said he didn't need the congress. now like somebody hiding behind his mother's skirt, he wants to say he has bashed and trashed since day one. how ironic. susan, talk about what happened to the president's position with

congress, his ability to move measures through congress if he move this push for action in syria. guest: there's some consensus that he would lose leverage with congress and this would be a blow to him, as someone who has sway over how congress acts. one of the interesting things i'm hearing throughout this debate is the members of congress are saying his ability to help sway congress and his relationships with members of congress have been so weak in general that that's one of the reasons he's had such a hard time moving a tough bill like syria. on all of the talk shows and all the interviews, lawmakers are saying that the president has really never reached out to them. there's a lawmaker, a republican on yesterday, who said that he called the president and said i'm here to help. i how help you get over the finish line, and the white house didn't return his calls, so

there's already a real troubled relationship so when people say this is going to make things a lot worse. i would say the president already has real difficult time trying to get congress to do what he wants. i mean, we can see evidence of that. it's a split congress. it's a democrat-republican. this will make him look more incompetent if he tries to put this forward and it failed. host: if we ever needed a do- nothing congress, now is the time for one. one more e-mail from paul h. on the subject of syria. i don't expect the house republicans will stand up for the president when national security is at stake and it is. if the syrian situation isn't dealt with now, we'll pay for it later. it will be messy either way. and we want to ask you about -- this is from gary on twitter. do your gusts expect congress to increase the debt limit without strings?

i am sure republicans will want something in return and obama has said no. guest: the thing that the house republicans are demanding are cuts equal to the amount of the debt ceiling would be raised and in addition to budget reforms and other issues that they believe should be tied to the debt ceiling increase. the difference between right now and when the republican demanded this in 2011, there was a time in 2011 the white house said that they would be willing to negotiate. of course, that led to hourbrink man ship. looked like the country was going to default. the white house is saying we're not going negotiate at all and we just need to raise the debt ceiling. the white house doesn't know.

host: susan, do you agree with that? guest: right. it's a battle of whether or not the president really sticks to what he which is no negotiating. that's a tough line to draw. there will probably some negotiating. you already have some democrats who don't want the sequester already in place. so one wonders how they're going to -- i'm wondering how they're going to move it this time, and get that debt ceiling raised by mid october. i suspect it will push beyond that, but i do think there will be a compromise that's going to have to involve perhaps dealing with entitlements. that's a way out where there is some common values and views between both the democrats and republicans that we need to do something about medicare. that could be sort of the way out on the debt ceiling fight but that is a real big issue trying to tackle something like medicare. guest: once you add the

entitlements, the democrats and white house would say we will give you something if we raise revenue. guest: that will be one of the biggest accomplishments of congress of all time if they manage to pull that off, but it will come up in the debt ceiling debate. host: we're taking your comments and questions this morning as we talk about congress' very full agenda as they return to work today. darwin is up next from little elm, texas, on our republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. well, first of all, i would like to say our president is doing what he can, but what i don't understand this syria, ok, now, we're supposed to have the support from our allies and they

said they would help us, but when you think about that, they are all muslims and they feel like each one of their countries is their brothers and i think they're using us to take care of their battles. they really don't look at us as allies. and that's hurting our people. and another thing. on the farm bill, on the issue that the man talked about from alabama as far as black people and also the republican and the democrats, susan said like, well, i don't believe this will come up before the senate and so on.

we the people -- americans -- when they came up here and they set up our government, they was from england. well, they used that part of their government that they knew and used to build ours. and i know we went through a lot it is time for us to get stood up and go for america. jeff is up next from cheshire, massachusetts. yes, good morning. caller: hello c-span. as is one of my favorite shows. i want to back up a little bit, one of your tweeters ask a question about the navigators and how they got a contract. could one of your guests a elaborate on that? what they do, and how they got their jobs? obama is pulling out all the stops here on syria.

i'm wondering, what do your guests speculate on why he would do this in light of the jobs bill he's been working on? guest: we will have a segment just after this on the affordable care act and the navigators issue is something that is going to come up there. for time purposes, let's go to the second part of his question about the president's all out push on syria. is this something that we did not see on some of the other legislation that the president has championed, is saying that he is jamming? championing? this is all on jobs. things that will help and energy is -- help energize, but will

not lead to bipartisan consensus. the difference here in syria is that he needs divided congress to come together. this is an enormous gamble and his presidency. this will be one of the most defining moments of the obama legacy. it could be a huge victory, or it could be a huge embarrassment. really, the whole world is watching. the presidenting -- you are seeing the president go to extreme lengths to sell this, and do a primetime interview. you equate the president sticking his neck out on this issue to any other issue that he is pushed over the past five years? guest: certainly, health-care reform was a huge push. but a lot of the weight on that was carried by the then minority leader who is the speaker now, nancy pelosi. she really got that passed.

isin, and the situation she trying to help the president, but she is walking a very fine line. andis from san francisco, very much an antiwar member of congress. she's helping him, but would not -- with not a trend his amount of enthusiasm. i think the thing that saturates the news media and the congress the way he does right now, i have never seen anything like that from him. he is out there every day throughout the recess. he is not ascending his lower aids, he is sending the secretary of defense repeatedly after meetings with people. this is not typical. the fact that it is for syria, and not for something here on the domestic agenda, or not an immediatet has impact on america, shows that people do not get the connection. it shows real political desperation on the part of the

president. he has put himself into a really bad political corner here, and you try to find a way out. guest: when you have that much push happen, and you really ask the members of congress to make a vote on syria, it is much harder for them to get them to make it very tough vote on immigration and the debt ceiling. it gets harder and harder to get them to work closer to the election. viewers askedur on twitter if there's any chance of congress were -- repealing the sequester? guest: it does not look that way. they are doing with their resolution. one of the things that the white --se had been negotiation negotiating with the senate republicans was a smaller deal. it would place the sequester --

replace the sequester. there was nearly no spending to cut. what do use -- what do you replace it with? the republicans said they want to do cuts more out of entitlements, and the democrats said we need to increase taxes in order to do that. what that led to was an impasse. senatet month both republicans were negotiated with the white house, and the white house ignored that. is answer to that question looks like there will be no resolution for the sequester. >> there's one slight little wrinkle in that, which is that some of the republicans in the house on the syrian debate have suggested that they could negotiate reinstatement of funding for defense and exchange for the their support of the syrian resolution. i do not know how far that will get obama, or if that is even a

possibility. but it came up yesterday, one of the chairman of the house suggested that on a talkshow that maybe they would be willing to negotiate because a lot of the republicans want to find a way to restore funding to the military. they say it is crippling the armed forces. --the views on the kuester sequester and defense spending are raising a lot of concern about that. host: there is a picture of him here in today's washington times on this very issue. ending defense cuts could help the syrian vote, the headline of that piece. we have a caller on our democratic line, donna, good morning. caller: i have a question about the affordable care act. the enrollment -- once the enrollment starts october 1 of effectar, and going into

and being implemented by january 1 of 2014. i was wondering, if the republicans would try to repeal that law and close down the government, to try to get rid of obamacare altogether. i was wondering if the republicans have the power to de-fund or close down the government while trying to repeal the affordable care act to try to get rid of it. is a subject we can dive into our in our next segment of washington journal. whole series on the affordable care act and the implementation. but i will let susan job in to give an opinion on some of the

funding of a formal care act. the president delayed some of the law for a year, but the individual mandate is in place. i think there are some who would like to delay it or stop it. we talk about it all the time, but it is not likely because we have a divided congress. as long as democrats are running wide side -- one side, which is right now the senate, you cannot do that. it is likely the president would veto it. --hink it is very likely very unlikely there would be a repeal of the formal care act besides what the president has done to delay it. host: we have talked about the threat of a government shutdown this morning. who would be most effective if the government actually does shut down? -- effective if the government actually shuts down? guest: a lot of people would. essential employees, nonindustrial employees,

essential services, nonessential services. workerss of federal would have to accept furloughs, would not be allowed to report to work i. national parks, the national postal service, this could have really far-reaching or affects more than we saw in the clinton era. host: andrea, good morning, you're on with manu raju and susan ferrechio. caller: good morning. --as just wondering what the with the congress returning to town to work this week about and with the president pushing for our involvement in syria, we have sequestration, we do not have an appropriation for 2014

which actually starts october 1, when are we going to see some discussion about the important issues that affect americans directly here domestically? not that serious not important, not directlyes affect our position. i want to see the things that impact american strictly, and we have not heard a thing about that. i wanted to get your lot about when these discussions about the debt ceiling, sequestration, and 2014 would occur? host: as we talk about the issue, how many days are left in this fiscal year before the 2013 budget actually does run out? out december 30runs two in terms of working days. gone on fridays and

tuesdays, and they have a schedule recess at the end of the month. there's a possibility they may tensile that recesses stay in session, if they do not have this important work done on the a spending bill. i think this week you will hold -- you're both the house and the senate talking about and taking up important matters outside of syria. worry that the congress will say we are out of time about we are leaving town, and see you in october. they will either stay here and get the job done, or they will get it done in time to the can have their recess. they happen to work very quickly when there is a deadline pressing. host: talk about some of the options that are available here with the idea of the continuing resolution that could be put in place. guest: what they could do, what congress should do is pass the

annual appropriation bills, the dozen or so that funds different programs and agencies for the new fiscal year and go through the normal budget order. what we have seen is that process completely break down. what we are left with is congress continuing to pass stopgap resolutions. it may take a little bit longer, that isng that -- doing a way to keep the government operating, or kick the can down the road as congress does very well. host: we have another caller from westfield, massachusetts on our independent line. my question is about the syria case. we're trying to get everything situation in syria. position from others

around the world, and parliament , whatever those relation roup groups are -- regulation groups are, to help steer you make the decision there sells and said it was going in and under the rubble than power. we do not really know who they are. that is my question. host: you think an election can be held in syria amid rigging that is going on? it is something where they can put a transition to bring the rubble groups and the government -- rubble groups and the government to see if they can bring them to a procedure where they can lead them to an election. and perhaps he could stay in power if that is the case. about the possible

transitions that the caller asks about. guest: the interesting thing about what he is saying is so representative about what a lot of people say about syria. cnn poll were 80% were responding who believed that bashar al-assad is behind the chemical attacks. themnly per 30 -- 30% of think that the united states doing military strikes would have any effect on the problem in syria right now. i think as the caller was explaining, there are the thoughts that in syria at the military strike is not going to accomplish the coals that the president is setting out to publish. there are a lot of lawmakers who support ousting the best -- the al-assad regime. but the fact is that we do not

know who the rebels are. the idea of the transition is another big question. there are military strikes, then what? how long will we be in syria moving forward? the big question is whether we should be involved, and members of congress are saying we are not the policeman of the world here. we should take care of what is happening here in the united states first. host: the whole that you bring up by cnn is out today were more it is not in 10 say in the national interest of the united states to get involved in serious two-year long civil war. we'll set people posting on our facebook page. poll we have 840 people who oppose intervention in

syria. all of theck out topics, the documents, and the statements that have come out on our c-span webpage on the congress debate on the use of force in syria. at www.c-eck that out span.org. that is all the time we have for this segment with susan ferrechio and manu raju who is senior reporter. >> the house is taking a little break now. recorded votesld at 6:30 p.m. this evening. oneoth on the calendar, deals with foreign investments in the u.s. and the other deals with sec reporting requirements. we may see some action on both the syrian resolution as well as

legislation funding the federal government. we have a facebook poll asking you favor not in syria -- intervention in syria. 119 against military action, several undecided, and we have received a 700, and on the situation. we want your views on the matter. facebook.com/cspan. >> trying to maintain family time and protect their privacy, edith roosevelt purchased a family retreat called pine not. >> close enough to d.c. that he could get out here is how can he -- as often as he needed, but far enough away that this was a family place. it was unique for the roosevelt because it had become a place politicians and

press and have above activity. this was the one place where was private family time. the roosevelt made it very clear they did not want anyone but family here. roosevelt as we begin season two of our original influence and image, first ladies. c-ight live on c-span and span three, c-span radio, and c- span.org. issues are diverse because the sec oversees the digital economy. by some measures that accounts for more -- as much as 1/6 of the economy itself. there are few things that are going on a particular interest rate one of those is our wireless communications. you can look around the proliferation of phones and that is no surprise and a area of

real interest. you also to consider some of the numbers. we now have more wireless phones and country than we have people. one in three american adults now have a tablet computer. all of those devices are using more of their -- our airways than ever before. the change has started goes has grownmobile data more than one third. the fcc has a lot on its plate when it comes to our what our airways. on thenew sec emotional communicators tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. serious was a of large part of today's white house briefing. we'll will show you as much as we can do for the house returns at 4:00 p.m.

>> good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being here. for thed to wait remarks starting the briefing. breeding wef this have that national security visor tony blank and who many of you know. donnie is here today because while many of us were traveling, tony and the other senior ministers you officials were engaged in the effort to provide detailed information to members septembers about the -- the chemical weapons attacks 21.yria on october

he is engaged in the overall outreach efforts that so much of the demonstration is persuading them now. what i would like is for tony to provide to you a summation of the presentation that he made together with other officials, then he will take a few questions and then i will be continuing to take cautions on syria and other matters. >> think very much, good afternoon. the use of chemical weapons by the syrian government against its own people, members of congress were scattered across the country, and got their they entered.

human -- unanimity that congress wanted to it together and its voice heard. so, the president went out and made the announcement about his attempt to take the action, but also to seek congress is authorization to do so. susan cole we have been engaged in a very dilbert and detailed process of trying to provide congress all of the information we have so that they can make the best informed decision possible. as jay said, we conducted over the past 10 days a series of briefings. some of them classified, some unclassified, some with individual members. along with senior officials with intelligence committee, the defense department about the state department, and the joint chiefs, we had about 100 85 members, republicans, democrats, both houses take part.

we had individual conversations coming out of those as well. as we're doing that, we were looking to build a strong international support for the president at the g 20. working on a statement against the prohibition of chemical weapons. we now have additional 15 who joined. ,ecretary kerry was in new york and working every day at the united nations. in terms of what we provided congress, let me just describe the top lines of the briefings. the bottom line, as we told congress in these briefings, is that we concluded with high confidence that the syrian regime used chemical weapons on august the first against his own civilians. a concluded that well over thousand people had been killed, including hundreds of children. we ran through, in detail, the intelligence that we had. intelligence that shows operation for the attack,

intelligence shows that the attack itself, post- observations vice key civilians, and the physiological samples of blood, saying,, and soil that was showing it was used. askedtraordinary body of -- extraneous information that has come out of this, videos, i would his account, reports from doctors and hospitals, all of this taken together, we told congress, let us to the conclusion, beyond reasonable doubt, that assad had a poisoned his own people. we made the case that it was very important to stand up for the international role of vision against the use of chemical weapons. at prohibition that has been in place a sickly since the end of world war i. we saw the terrible effects of poison gas being used on soldiers in world war i's, the geneva convention said they can you not -- they cannot do this

again. part of thattive was sent world war i not a single u.s. soldier has been exposed to u.s. -- poison gas on the battlefield. they overwhelmingly passed the chemical weapons convention in 1997. both sides of congress passed the bill in 1993. that was motivated in part by concern that syria had chemical weapons by now syria has used them. we want to it enforce this rubbish and. first and foremost, to deter assad for musings weapons again, and make it more difficult for him to do so. to prevent the threshold against against their use from dropping lower. inmake a political coup syria less likely.

finally, we made the case, because others are watching. iran is watching what we are doing, as the law is watching what we're doing, if we do not stand up and enforce this provision, it will not take them long to join in. many members of congress asked what we plan to do to implement a larger strategy for syria. ask, --ined that as we as we act and deal with the chemical weapons problem, we will implement a larger policy that we have been pursuing for some time to bring civil war in syria to an end. we believe that the best way to do it about because it offers of notatest prospects creating a vacuum when assad leads, and the best prospects of keeping the country and its constitution together. it involves putting rusher on

the assad regime, isolating it, denying of resources. is involved with a diplomatic track to get an agreement on the pollutants bowls of a political transition and what it would look like. what we are proposing to do to deal with the use of chemical ispons on august 21, it taking place in the context of the larger strategy. of course, the primary object of is to deter aside from using the weapons again, and that is to degrade his ability to do so. a good have the additional benefit of advancing the water strategy and ending the civil war. finally, the last two points that we made in our briefings to congress along with some of the details of the intelligence and some of the military plan that we're looking at was that without it was very important to say what this is and what this

isn't. what we found in our engagement with members was that many of them had just returned from their home states and their home districts could they were going and town halls and hearing from their constituents. it was privately understandable that when an american here's the headlines, the television about military action syria, they really think of the last 10 years. the frame that they process that through his a decade of war in iraq and afghanistan. overseasmerican troops . we made it clear to the members of congress we are engagement what this is. tailored, butd, effective military action to deal with the use of chemical weapons. what it is not is open ended, it is not was on the ground, it is not a rack, it is not afghanistan, it is not even libya. made balancing the

risk of asked -- action versus inaction. tospent many hours trying gain them out, take steps to mitigate them and prevent them. that consequences of inaction are much greater still. the international norm against the use of it -- chemical weapons would be dangerously weakened. the message was thought to be that he can act with impunity and do it again. politicalake stability in syria less likely, and it would send a message to our allies that we do not mean what we say, and it would send a message to iran and north korea that it is safe to continue with that with impunity. that is why we recommend a decisive response. thehat are some of

questions up lawmakers has is how does the president planned a receiver the strike? does not plan to have any action without congressional authority. is that still true? >> in our earliest consultation with members of congress, they wanted to have their votes count. the resident went to congress because he believes we are sure going back together. we heard clearly from him, and from the members of congress that they wanted to be in on this debate. i'm not going to be jumping ahead in the process. the president has expressed his desire to secure the support of congress for this action. ideology get into any hypotheticals about what could happen.

>> are you going to stand by that? correct i say there is no point in jumping ahead of where we are now. >> this physiological evidence that you said you had. are you walking under 100% certitude that this happened? intelligence community has different levels of confidence that is expressed in any situation. high is the highest they can go. they will not tell you with 100% guarantee that anything that's happened in terms of the assessment they have made. they put together the facts. we have certitude in the facts. when you put those back together, and you make an assessment, and evaluate that assessment, and graded, there grade is high confidence. standard more than most of our goods are familiar with. decision go all the

way up to us on himself -- go all the way up to us on himself -- assad himself? >> we understand that sought his and troll of the -- assad is in control of the chemical weapons himself. any standing orders to use these weapons would be issued by assad and the intelligence on the intelligence community showed great detail in the chain of command that was involved in the actions of august 21. said, of the things you there will be repercussions if the united states military strikes. the eyes dates should be fearful of that -- the united states should be fearful of that. actually, today the syrians and announced control

of and maintenance of the chemical weapons stockpiles in syria. do you have any confirmation of that move or not? do you feel that you have lost ground in this matter must and if so why are you losing ground? comments, let's me say first of all that we take every possible precaution to make sure that we can prevent and defend against anything that might arise from the use of military action. we have done that and we will continue to do that. that our judgment president outside and syria have very little interest in picking a fight with the eyes dates of america. i do not think that is likely at all. regards to the reports today, about this russian initiative, we have seen the reports, and we want to take

a hard look at the proposal. we want to discuss the idea with the russians. we would welcome a decision and action by syria to give up its chemical weapons. the whole point of what we're doing is to stop syria from using these weapons again. i think it is important to keep a few things in mind. first of all, the international community has tried for 20 years to get syria to sign onto the chemical weapons convention. joining 189 other countries in doing so i need is one of only five countries that has not, and just last week he would not even say whether or not he had chemical weapons despite overwhelming evidence that he has used them. we've also tried to work with the russians and the united nations repeatedly on syria and chemical what and -- chemical weapons. until now they have blocked all of our initiatives. that is the background. it is also important to note that syria has one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons in the world.

it would take time and resources and probably a peaceful environment to do this. all that said, we're going to take a hard look at this, and talk to the russians about it. it is very important to note that it is clear that this proposal comes in the context of the threat of u.s. action, and the pressure that the president is exerting. it is even more important that we do not take the pressure off him and that congress give the president the authority that he is requested. finally, in terms of where we are with congress, my sense is this. from all of these briefings, my sense is that when members of congress have a chance to see the intelligence, to read it, to get the briefings, to ask questions, they come away convinced of two things -- che weapons were used against civilians in syria, and the assad regime was the one who used them. classifieds got the

brief, and as they're coming back but -- today and this week, they will have an opportunity to hear it. i believe that when they see the evidence, it is compelling and overwhelming. then it comes down to a very basic question. are we or are we not going to do anything about fact that assad poisoned his own people with gas, including hundreds of children? that is the question before the members of congress, and when they have the evidence, and the facts, i think they will come to the right conclusion. >> said you're taking a hard the at the proposal, and russians, does that mean that sort are state mentioned the idea earlier that the proposal comes with administration? abouterally just heard this as you did just some hours ago. we have not had a chance to look at it or talk to the russians about yet. >> you set aside could turn all of this over without delay --

answering ae was question, speaking publicly about if all assad that. we would welcome al-assad doing that in a verified manner, where he could count them and dispose of them. making sure he cannot use them again. unfortunately, the traffic to -- recentding reasons statements by alice i'm not even acknowledging at them, does not inspire confidence. >> is this an ultimatum coming from this white house to bashar al-assad? again, we will look at what the russians of repose, talk to them about it, and decide. >> susan rice said that failure to respond was going to increase instability in that region. are concernedcans about the option -- opposite, that response would increase the its ability.

how do you address that? >> i think the case is very compelling that the family to take action would produce all sorts of airing negative consequences in terms of the interests of countries in the region. many of them are our partners and allies. first and foremost, we know with some degree of certitude that the failure to take action with toe al-assad -- would say assure all assad you could use these weapons again. it would affect the countries in the region, if i'm julie affecting us -- eventually affecting us. if we do not take action, they will conclude that they can seek to acquire them, and use them with impunity. all that adds to the level of risk and danger and threat to the united states. what we are talking about is very important to understand. this is limited, this is focus,

but we believe effective in terms of telling al-assad do not do this again, and also make it more difficult for them to do so in a very practical way. it is not going to war with syria, it is not iraq it is not afghanistan. i think the chances of the action we propose to take leading to greater instability are very small. to the contrary, failure to act would cause a greater instability. >> americans fear after the fewest few days of these limited targeted strikes, what happens on days 4, 5, and six? cannotwill understand i get into the details until i get the opportunity to go into it with members of congress. they are the people's representatives. i wish we can go into more detail with everyone, but that is why we have elected representative, it is their job to make those decisions. the president talking to

peter berg -- and st. petersburg about this? >> i was not there. have beenp it >> we talking with the russians a long time about the comic weapons and syria. and firemen of civil conflict and war. -- an environment of civil conflict and war. >> what about st. petersburg? >> i do not have a readout of any of the other information we have been provided supplies -- we have been provided so far. counterparts who have been engaged in the conversations to join the americans and the russians is now several weeks. >> can you explain why the american people should believe absence of classified information that you been given

that you can effectively persuade is year i'll assign not to use weapons again without targeting the chemical weapons stockpiles themselves? >> in a limited way we can degrade assad's capabilities, specifically his capabilities to deploy chemical weapons again. -- al-assado a side the consequences of using those weapons. some of the questions that tony just answered, the only reason why we have a dynamic today with the russians have dropped a proposal and there has been some response from the syrians is regards to stockpiles of chemical weapons that they have not knowledge they have. you have rusher being placed on prospect ofh the

the united states strike. importanty it is so to continue with that pressure on all aside and make it clear resolution that is been in place for over a hundred years and should not be violated. there is some information that we cannot give you, but there has been an enormous amount of information before the congress and the public, and that will continue to be. chemicalhow you that weapons were used on august 21. it is a horrifying effect. every adult who has a concern about this should view those images. they were shown over the weekend, and are available now. the horrificate consequences of that attack on civilians and in particular children. they must then ask themselves if

-- ifgreed that every they agree, as every member of congress who has seen these agree, that chemical weapons were used. and if they violated the prohibition, should we do something about it? result of thate at in action would be. >> are you saying then that is --ose all of the russians this proposal that the russians have announced is a result of determination, the push for military action? in light of that, how do you respond? say themakers who president got to this too late? weaponsse of chemical on a widescale basis on august 21 a few weeks ago, the president decided it was

entirely appropriate in a circumstance like this to seek authorization from congress because we are stronger and more effective when we act in a unified manner. so i do not think that this has been a question of responding too slowly. in fact, and response it can be said the demands and suggestions --members of congress better that their voices be heard and their votes for granted, that the president agreed. he engaged in action to resent tax to congress so they can make their own decision about whether or not this international prohibition should be backed up. a violation of it should have consequences. because as tony just said, the alternative is greater instability if there are no consequences, al-assad gets the message he is free to use these

weapons going forward. what you have is an unraveling of that international prohibition against the use of chemical weapons. with potentially even more devastating consequences in the world. and has been exulted a stated by russian officials that this is an event -- an effort to avert action being taken by the united states with the support of many nations, and hopefully with the support of congress. --hink it is sick explicitly i think it is excessively in reaction to the threat of retaliation of this action. john mccain has been one of your real allies on this. he has in a core part of your said it effort, and has

would be unbelievably unhelpful. can you explain what senator kerry -- secretary kerry meant by unbelievably small? inhe was referring to that the context of what the united states and the american people have experienced in the context of these past 10 to 12 years. , and whene, long-term we saw obama coming to office, open ended boots on the ground engagement. that was the contrast that senator kerry was making. i do not raising reflects some error. it is a fact that by comparison that this is certainly much more limited, and a smaller duration and size. >> he was talking about the operations?

>> correct. he was talking that clearly come a if invalid, the action would import -- in important ways degrade al-assad's capabilities. he would be deterred from using cap -- further chemical weapons. all get that that the effort on the russians may an effort to determine those reaction. is there an effort on the u.s.'s part, with secretary kerry? accept thatou can it is our position, and has been for some time that the syrian regime should not only not use, but should also not possess stockpiles of chemical weapons. we would welcome any development, and have for some time now that would result in the international control of and

destruction of syrians come up weapons stockpile. what you're seeing a very fluid environment is with the threat of military action, syria and rusher of which has been a -- and russia which has been an ally of syria, coming up with a would- proposal that avert military action. it is important to say that we will study this, and work with russian, and seek with them. it is also born to note, of course, that we would have some skepticism about the al-assad regime's credibility. in even the last 54 hours al- refuse toregier -- acknowledge that he even has chemical weapons, even though the whole world knows that he used them. what i will only say is that

there are ongoing conversations on this matter at the highest level. that includes conversation with the russians. we have this proposal that has just come forward, and we will study it and see if there's action that can be taken upon it. we have to be mindful of the failure of the al-assad regime chemicalng to sign the weapons convention. for the last several years, or even in the last year to allow u.n.yuan inspectors -- inspectors,, and stalled them. this is not a regime with a history of promises being kept. that being said, we will look over this proposal and speak with russian. we would not be having this , any positive

conversation would not have happened if there were not the threat of u.s. military action. the ministration be militaryo to delay action while having these discussions? >> will have discussions with the military generals, and see the position on syrians, weapons. will provide information to lawmakers here in congress, as many of them make their way back to washington and avail themselves of the kind of read things that we have discussed. in our effort to secure authorization. this is ongoing, and in a parallel track, the compositions

will take place with the russians and others, about this possible proposal. >> would the administration delay military action while taking a hard look at this proposal in the discussions you just spoke of? you're not going to bomb syria while talking to the russians? sortshave a response of by the syrian foreign minister, as reported anyway. we will engage in conversations about that. military action, we are engaged with congress at this point. we will continue in that effort with congress. of anthis notion unbelievably small effort, as the words of the secretary of

state, does the white house stand by that organization? -- characterization? the caseys are making in congress. you can focus on phrases that a senator might take issue with, but you know exactly what senator kerry was referring to. scope of the cosan traded military action is small in comparison to what we have been engaged to in this country for the past dozen years and large-scale open-ended military operations in iraq and brought numerous the unitedost to states. keep ouroking to

commitments to wrap up that war. this is a response to the violation of international ovation against the use of chemical weapons. it would be limited in scope. it would involve no boots on the ground, no american troops serving on the ground in syria. in a operation that would be limited in scope and duration, but would have a specific impact on assad's capabilities in response to this abominable violation of the international prohibition against the use of chemical weapons. in the meantime, we will engage with the russians and the others in the efforts to bring about the only possible outcome in terms of the civil war in syria. about the need to act now to deter birds or chemical weapons use -- future chemical weapons use.

would a more forceful reaction eight months ago with the first use of, local weapons have deterred this use? the prior instances that we ,ssessed with high confidence it is because of the overwhelming scope of this use, the amount of chemical weapons of thehe threat consequences when it comes to casualties that it is the president's view and the view of many others that this must be responded to. assad has to be held accountable. if you think other members of the international community in terms as being up our assistance to the. opposition, this case is far

more egregious that anybody who has seen those videos can have them. -- fathom. -- took action on a much smaller scale to those other actions. >> you do not include would've been able to prevent this? >> we took appropriate action ionalin seeking congress ruble -- approval for action then. transferring syrian chemical weapons to save sites for them to be stored and destroyed. are responding to the is -- werehey were

discussing the issue of the syrian weapons chemical -- chemical weapons stockpiles. the use of chemical weapons on civilians that led to agonizing children more than 100 , the level of seriousness in response to this that abrasive the discussions and there's not a great history here when it when it comes to assad credibility. but we would deftly talk to the russians in general. you want congress to wait while we assessed the credibility of this russian proposal? have said inthers

the last couple hours, it is precisely because of the process we have undertaken in enlisting international support, and the process we are undertaking in making the case were members of congress, and the resultant threat of military force that has produced where we are seeing these proposals. we are seeing the potential avenue to move forward. it is because that pressure exist that we cannot let up applying the pressure. we have to make it clear to assad and the russians that we are very serious about the need to respond to the violation of this important prohibition. clear thatd to make there are consequences of inaction when it comes to our national security. more instability in the region, the threat of further use of chemical weapons, the appropriation of these weapons

around the world. the signal that failing to hold al-assad accountable would send a signal to ironic and has the hezzbola, to use these. it is likesk because before when we had the 45 day deadline to turn over their weapons and the only deal would be an authorization, and nothing else? >> i would refer to specific timetables to the senate majority leader's office. what we are making is the substance argument to lawmakers and the public from the president on down to show what ,appened on the 21st of august

that chemical weapons were used that night, and the horrifying effects of it. ae fact that beyond reasonable doubt there assad regime was possible on that night. that we need to go as a matter of our own national security, take action with support of many nations around the world, and with the support of congress. >> as you're aware of it, charlie rhodes had this in of you with the president -- charlie rose had this interview with al-assad. as the president then a made aware of, or briefed on the contents? do you have any overall assessment? >> the president overall is being briefed on the situation with matters with regards to

syria. i do not know specifically what he was briefed on when he came to the al-assad interview, but i'm very company he is aware of it. what tony said in terms of the repercussions is what i will e. -- echo. we obviously assess what kind of i think tony's assessment that we do not believe it would the -- the asad regime would view it a war with thein united states. >> we are going to leave the last minutes or so to go live to the house. you can watch this anytime at c- span.org. the house is about to start legislative work for the week. two bills on the calendar today. the revote e rules and pass

h.r. 2052, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2052, a bill to direct the secretary of commerce, in coordination with the heads of other relevant federal departments and agencies, to conduct an interagency review of and report to congress on ways to increase the global competitiveness of the united attracting foreign direct investment. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry, and the gentleman from georgia, mr. barrow, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from nebraska. mr. terry: at this time, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material in the record on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. terry: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. terry: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 2052, the global investment in american

jobs act of 2013. now, we recently saw the latest job numbers. while they're somewhat positive, the reality is we ve more people out of work since 1978, out of the work force. people are giving up looking for work, and it doesn't have to be and shouldn't be that way. there are many foreign companies who want to insource their jobs to america, but there have been many barriers standing in their way. these are many -- there are many foreign companies who should and want to come here. these are good, high-paying jobs that many americans are looking for. in 2010 alone, u.s. affiliates of foreign firms employed an estimated 5.6 million americans. these americans also made on average $77,000 per year. these u.s. subsidiaries invested $41.3 billion in

research and development and made $149 billion in capital expenditures in the united states that same year. in the manufacturing sector alone, f.d.i. inflows were nearly $84 billion in 2004, according to the national association of manufacturers. unfortunately, according to the testimony of the organization for international investment at our legislative hearing last spring, the united states share of foreign direct investment dropped from 41% at the high in 1999 to just 17% in 2011. today we're here to reverse that trend. with l, h.r. 2052, also the gentlelady, ms. schakowsky and mr. barrow on the other side of the aisle, this bipartisan piece of legislation that instructs the department of commerce to conduct an intraagency review geared toward identifying those barriers to foreign investment

to the united states. it also instructs the department of commerce to make recommendations on ways to lower or eliminate those same barriers. the united states should be the leader in attracting foreign investment. we have a stable government, safe working conditions and the most skilled work force in the world. i believe that our long-term global competitiveness and economic success as a nation is directly tied to our ability to attract foreign investment. by creating an environment where foreign companies want to move their manufacturing operations or distribution centers to the united states, we are fostering an environment or atmosphere of organic government stimulus-free economic growth. we must be aware of potential impact on the u.s.'s ability to attract foreign direct investment when considering new laws and regulations. we want these companies to come

here and help us grow our economy, but there are a number of areas within the purview of the federal government where we can improve the domestic climate for foreign investment. it's my hope that the heart of the testimony will highlight the areas where it can act on its own authority and in congress where it lacks authority. i want to thank individuals that helped get this legislation off the ground and on the house floor today. first off, i'd like to thank the gentleman from illinois, mr. roskam, whose championed this issue for several years. i'd also like to thank the gentlelady from illinois, the ranking member of this subcommittee, ms. schakowsky, as well as our friend, mr. barrow from georgia, for his leadership. i believe we can all agree that we shouldn't stop our efforts to put america back to work until every american who wants a job can find one. this legislation is a step in the right direction, mr.

speaker, and i urge my colleagues to support this bill, and i reserve the rest of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. barrow: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank the gentleman from nebraska for his leadership on this issue. mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. barrow: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 2052, the global investment in american jobs act, because it will encourage the growth of good american jobs. every time i go home, i'm reminded of how investors overseas spur jobs here at home by tapping into the talent of america. dutch companies like d.s.m. in augusta, french companies like one in wanseboro. and chinese companies like y.k.k. in dublin, can invest in any country in the world. they are proud to invest in georgia's 12th district.

this bill requires the department of commerce to investigate how it can be an attractive investment for foreign-owned companies. the united states still has the best workers in the world, and they deserve every opportunity to offer their skills to companies looking to expand. i'm proud that this bill also enjoys broad bipartisan support. this is how congress can and should work, democrats and republicans coming together to get americans back to work. i urge my colleagues to support this bill, and i look forward to building a stronger future for american workers by passing h.r. 2052. and with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry: i'll continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. i'll continue to reserve, mr. speaker, if i may. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman reserves. mr. terry: i'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: and again -- mr. barrow: i'm pleased to yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlelady from illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from illinois. ms. schakowsky: thank you. i appreciate the patience and understanding just coming from a classified hearing. i want to first thank the chairman and his staff as well as committee democratic staff for working so hard and so diligently and collaboratively to come to an agreement on legislation that would help guide american jobs and economic growth. there is a strong incentive to invest in america which remains the best place on earth to find talented, motivated employees who are at the core of the middle class. my home state of illinois ranks number one in the midwest in terms of foreign-direct investment with nearly 1,600 foreign-based firms ploge more than 300,000 -- employing more han 300,000 illinois

residents. it has a diversified economy, cultural attraction. it has maintained the strong labor, health and environmental standards to help build the middle class which i believe is the key to successful foreign-direct investments. some companies are working to respect the rights of workers as they invest in the united states. on friday, it was announced that volkswagon is working clab are atively with the united auto workers to unionize the chattanooga, tennessee, plant. that will help ensure the workers are a consideration at the plant as they continue the investment in the united states. that being said, it is important that the study authorized in this legislation examine both the benefits and the costs of foreign-direct investments. doing so will allow us to determine the ways to drive investment that maintains high labor, health, environmental and national security standards. on that subject, i'd like to

enter into a colloquy on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. terry. mr. terry: go ahead. ms. schakowsky: i must express my reservations. mr. chairman, you worked with me in a very collegial and bipartisan manner to craft a bipartisan bill, h.r. 2052, is a good product. now we have before us an amendment that makes three changes that could be perceived to weaken important provisions of the bill. i have concerns about each of them. but i'd like to focus on the elimination of cost benefit language regarding the bill's required review of the current economic impact of foreign-direct investment. during our negotiations, i suggested that language because i believe that we needed to ensure that the review be balanced and you agreed. in addition, some of the language in the findings and in the sense of congress could be read as if there are only benefits of f.d.i., and we wanted to be even-handed.

while i do believe there are benefits to f.d.i., there are also costs that must be considered. regardless of the amendment before us now, can you assure me that the bill's requirement of a review of the current economic impact of foreign direct investment required under this bill will include a review of both the benefits and costs of foreign direct investments? . terry: yes, i agree with the gentlelady that it will have both costs and benefits. i appreciate working with you. you have shown great collegiality as well in our negotiations. i want to thank you for that. ms. schakowsky: thank you very much. reclaiming my time, if i could just say i will not oppose the amendment but i do expect to work with you to ensure that the review, should this bill become law, is balanced and to ensure that any report of this committee on h.r. 2052 include the clarification that you just made. i thank you and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from nebraska. mr. terry: having the right to close, i am going to reserve and allow them to finish their time, if they have any. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. barrow: i thank the gentleman. we have no further speakers on our side and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from nebraska. mr. terry: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. terry: i'll close by saying this truly has been a bipartisan effort. both sides of the aisle want the u.s. to be in a better position to attract the foreign direct investment which does create jobs in the united states. that has been on the decline. we need to reverse that, and this is one of those times when you go home and you hear at your town hall meetings, why don't you work together, the people need to see how we work together on this bill and resolve the differences between each other on this and today we're here to have what i think will be an overwhelmingly positive vote.

with that i want to -- i ask unanimous consent to put in a couple of letters. one is -- there's about 150 entities that signed onto a letter of the organization for international investment. i'd like to submit that. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. terry: and then also another unanimous consent to submit the letter from santa feed dated september 9, 2013. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. terry: and with that i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, h.r. 2052, as amended? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- mr. terry: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman. mr. terry: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking

this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2844 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2844, a bill to amend the communications act of 1934, to consolidate the reporting obligations of the federal communications

commission in order to improve congressional oversight and reduce reporting burdens. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. eshoo, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. speaker. i first ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials in the record on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. speaker. the legislation before the house is afternoon, h.r. 2844, the s.e.c. consolidated reporting act is a bipartisan bill that seeks to provide flexibility and relief to both our job creators as well as the federal communications commission. this bill is another step in the process of streamlining government, so that businesses can focus their time and

resources on growing our economy and creating jobs instead of complying with outdated and burdensome mandates from the federal government. every dollar spent on outdated f.c.c. reporting mandates is a dollar that could otherwise be spent creating more high-paying jobs and investing in new infrastructure. h.r. 2844 also recognizes the reality that our nation is in face cal crisis and that we must -- is in a fiscal crisis and we must find ways to do more with less. by consolidating reports into a single biannual communications marketplace report, not only do we recognize this new budget reality by giving the f.c.c. more flexibility and tools to drive greater efficiencies, but we can usher in a platform to analyze the converged nature of today's highly competitive, intermodal communications industry which has moved beyond the traditional confines of the 1992 and 1996 cable and communications act. this simple commonsense measure will also ensure that congress

has timely access to the commission's best analysis of the communications landscape at the beginning of each congress, by requiring that the communications marketplace report be published in the last quarter of an even-numbered year. this will allow congress better use findings to inform our legislative activities. mr. speaker, this bill is a great example of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle coming together to reform outdated government mandates that were created by congresses of the past. i applaud chairman upton and walden as well as ranking member eshoo for working so closely and cooperatively with me on this legislation and i strongly encourage my colleagues to join in supporting passage of this commonsense measure and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask that enough time be yielded to me that i may

consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 2844, a bill to streamline many of the outdated reporting requirements that congress has placed on the federal communications commission. at a time when agency resources are limited, this bill i think is an example of how to make the f.c.c.'s reporting obligations more efficient which in turn will ensure that the agency can focus on its mission to protect the public interest and promote competition across the communications marketplace. the bill also ensures that the f.c.c. has the flexibility to continue assessing the state of competition which is so essential and so important in our country, across the entire communications marketplace, including particular submarkets like wireless, cable and

satellite. this data is vital to both consumers and to policymakers. i want to thank chairman walden, certainly the chairman of the full upton, and most especially representative scalise for pursuing this legislation in a bipartisan manner. and for working with me to ensure that the expert agency, the f.c.c., was included in our deliberations. mr. speaker, the house passed a similar bill in the last congress and so i recommend to owl of -- to all of our colleagues this very sensible bill that again is something that all members can stand for. and that is to stream line a federal agency, kind of get rid of some of the weeds of the past and clear a much -- a better path for the agency to continue

again assessing the state of competition across the entire communications marketplace. so with that, mr. speaker, i don't believe i have any speakers on this side. i urge my cleeclee -- i urge my colleagues, everyone in the house, to support the bill. i think it deserves that kind of support. and i will yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentlelady from california again for her hard work on this and the good bipartisan cooperation that we've had in making these reforms. and at this time i'd like to yield five minutes to the chairman of the telecommunications subcommittee, the gentleman from oregon, mr. walden. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. walden: i thank the chair and i thank the gentleman from louisiana and the gentlelady from california for their great work on this i think really good bill. this is the kind of thing, you know, i was in small business for more than 22 years with my wife, and these are the sorts of

odds and ends that can eat a small business and live and it can eat an agency alive as well. these silly mandates that get put on, often for a good reason initially, but then no one goes back and asks, why are we still asking for a report on the status of the telegraph industry or whatever else. we went back and did that. this is the kind of nuts and bolts work that i think helps clean up government, helps make it more efficient, make it more productive, make it more affordable and get it out of the way and help to get it -- to stop doing things it doesn't need to do. and too often we don't do that. and i think one of the hallmarks committee has been a real bipartisan effort to make sure that programs that we create we then follow and make sure they're working. like we're doing with first net and the intendtific auctions to try and track and make sure it's working and then to dig even deeper and look for those things that aren't working or they're outdated but yet put a burden on an agency and cost either those who pay for that agency through their taxes or through fees or

whatever, it's all coming out of the private economy, into the government economy. we need to stop that. and so this bill consolidates eight separate congressionally mandated reports on the communications industry into a single comprehensive report. as my colleague from louisiana said, it changes the timeline so that the congress can get the information in a better and timely manner and it cuts costs. so i hope this bill will receive strong bipartisan support in the house, i assume it will. and i hope that our friends across the building will take it up and congress it as well. so with that, mr. speaker, i appreciate the bipartisan work of my friend from california and from louisiana, i urge the to us to approve this measure and send it expeditiously over to the senate and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. speaker. in closing, as we hear from our constituents, as we just got fwrack this august work period where many of us held town hall

meetings throughout our district, people are frustrated, why can't congress work together to get things done, i think this is a good example of how both parties came together and looked at some very outdated laws. people always ask, why are you passing laws, why don't you get rid of laws on the books that don't make any sense. that's what we're doing here with this. we're going through and repealing laws that are burdens to our small businesses who are out there trying to create jobs in the technology industry, one of the great growing secretaryments of our economy is the tell -- growing sectors of our economy is the telecommunications industry. of course as the chairman of the subcommittee mentioned, we actually do repeal the telegraph report. why we still have a law in the books that requires a report be issued on competitiveness in the telegraph industry, it goes to show you how you have so many of these outdated laws on the books still to this day and congress needs to from time to time go through and repeal outdated

rules and regulations like this. that's what we're doing in this legislation. it's a good, commonsense piece of legislation that we worked in a bipartisan way to bring to the floor. i urge all my colleagues to pass the legislation and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2844 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and, without objection, the motion to reconsider -- the gentleman is recognized. mr. scalise: i'd like to request the yeas and nays on this one. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed.

pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house will stand intervention in syria. they have received nearly 700 comments. you can go to facebook.com /cspan. we're going to capital here now to hear from representative peter king who spoke after a briefing on syria.

>> hi. they stand?g you met with the president today. -- where do you think they stand question mark you met with the president today. i was at the white house. it is going to be difficult to move individual members of congress. we do support the concept of the attack to move republican members individual. he president really addresses the nation and the white house makes a full-scale effort. hopefully it changes the nature of the debate. andpresident has to show dennis done a one at to show some advice on how republicans

could be persuaded. this is a national security threat to the united states. it is not just the atrocities in syria. it is high in jordan, israel, and the connection between syria and it raran. they can result in a lot more carnage and distraction if we do not take action now. also to show that he has a comprehensive plan. you cannot keep sending different signals of body language out saying congress is needed. .ngres's does at it is a red line but not his red line. he is strongly behind this. he intends to follow through. may be to satisfy some of the democrats. if you expects republicans to come on board, we do not want to have an attack or the sake of an attack. >> did you get the impression

that was taken into account and will be incorporated? to get intoonough account. they have competing interests. they are going in a different direction. that is what makes this more difficult. i have a good relationship with denis mcdonough. the president is the commander in chief and he has to decide how to do this. if you once the chance of getting republican votes, it shows he is strongly behind it. this is really in our natural interest. >> have you ever been asked for advice on how to lobby members of congress or even the broader american public? > >> this is the first time i've been asked by the obama white house. >> what does that show you?

shape. are in a tough this is a very serious issue. they realize their message has not worked. i given credit for for reaching out. hopefully it can work. says depends on what he tomorrow night. he cannot make this a partisan approach or say send how he will do a better job than president bush. this has to be an american a unified effort. >> talk about the idea of the message not working. why isn't their message working? what is it that they need to say differently? lif>> i will make a coherent explanation. they have focused -- not focus on it enough. shown that president this is important to him. the entire week being crushed the congressional

approval was not needed. play golf with the vice president. going to sweden. it is not his red line. it did not show a seriousness of purpose as necessary. he has time to show how serious this is >> is that thy already not cast? they have been talking about this for eight days. it has not moved the meter at all. >> he is the president and we can never underestimate the power of the white house, the bully pulpit of the presidency of the united states, and the president can make a strong statement. if members of the white house and the national security staff reach out to members to show the importance of it, then it can be done. i would not underestimate the

power of any president to influence public opinion, but it has to be done in a way that emphasizes the national security interests of the united states. as tragedy as -- as tragic as it is that happened to the children of the united states, it has to be demonstrated that the united states security is at risk. >> [indiscernible] >> he has to show and find his way to do this, that it involves jordan, israel, the entire region and it involves the access of the alliance with syria and iran, and how do we intend to expect iran to be fearful of forcing their red line, and it also has to do with north korea. the immediate ones are israel, jordan, the middle east, and the access alliance between syria and iran. >> if the president fails to get

the support of the house on this resolution, do you think he should go ahead with targeted military strikes question mark -- strikes? >> i think the president has legal authority to do that. i thought that the president had the fully get the -- full legal authority to do it from the beginning. >> any thought on russia? >> yes. secretary clinton was outside and i spoke to her before she gave the speech and i saw what she saw on russia. of thet want to it ahead administration. this is something very new. see how real it is, whether this could be a deal 18 tactic, and how much role we want to give

russia given our relationship. >> would you trust the russians >> it is a question of you lay outut -- we have to lay the whole situation. i do not want to speak for them. sometimes you have to shake hands with the devil. >> thank you. king.resentative members of the house armed services and intelligence committees were briefed by ashton carter and admiral winfield. house members and senators are purchase a baby in a closed briefing at 5:00 p.m. eastern -- house members and senators are participating in a closed briefing at 5:00 p.m. eastern. refers include susan rice --

--efers include james rice susan rice, james clapper, and martin dempsey. then rice commented on seriousness of the situation at the new america foundation earlier today. this is about 45 minutes. >> hello, everybody. i am the very new president of the new america foundation. i have been here a week and i have already come to appreciate the enormous work that goes into setting up an event like this one. thanks to all of our teams. since all of you are here to see ambassador rice, since she has kindly helped us gather you, i cannot go without a love for the weekly long, our new digital magazine. sign up for that on your way out. it's a great pleasure to be will to introduce susan rice, the national security advisor.

she became national security advisor in july, the first woman to her deposition in a democratic administration. she moved back to the white house after four very successful years as u.n. ambassador. she was on the frontlines of what seemed like a steady series of national security and global security crises, in north korea, iran, libya, sudan, mali, and syria. this is her second tour in government. during the clinton administration, she was the director for peacekeeping and international organizations of the national security council and then the senior director for afghan affairs and the assistant secretary of state for african affairs. i have written a lot about the arc of successful careers.

there is not a lot of arc to ambassador rice's career -- it is a straight upward. she did take a break between her true tors of service to be in the brookings administration and she is a mother who took her infants into her senate hearings. a mentor, friend, and strong supporter of lots of foreign policy people in this town. i am personally very glad that ambassador rice is sitting next to the president at this particular moment. she has deep experience of many different types of conflict. she has been part of the complicated dance between force and diplomacy, deterrence, and she's a tough negotiator and forceful advocate.

she ensures all sides are heard and also understands the law of unintended consequences. she has firsthand experience of assuming the responsibilities of leadership both at home and abroad. in many ways, i think ambassador rice represents the very best of a new america. she is going to speak to us today on why the united states must act in syria. ambassador susan rice. [applause] >> good afternoon, everyone. let may begin by thanking annemarie for your kind words and your invitation to be here today. and to apologize to all of you for the late start. if i've learned anything in my new job it's that i'm not the master of my own schedule anymore. i want to thank you for your principled leadership both in government where we worked

together so closely and now at the new america foundation. and i want to commend you and your colleagues for the many contributions you make to our national security discourse, including on the challenge that brings us together today. in response to bashar al-assad's barbaric use of chemical weapons against the syrian people, president obama, after careful consideration, has decided it's in the national security interest of the united states to conduct limited military strikes against the syrian regime. president obama has asked congress for its support in this action because in a democracy, our policies are stronger, more effective, and more sustainable when they have the support of the american people and their elected leaders. tomorrow evening, the president will address the nation and make

his case for taking action. today, i want to take this opportunity to explain why syria's use of chemical weapons is a serious threat to our national security and why it is in our national interest to undertake limited military action to deter future use. there is no denying what happened on august 21. around 2:30 in the morning, while most of damascus was still asleep, assad's forces loaded warheads filled with deadly chemicals onto rockets and launch them into suburbs controlled or contested by opposition forces. they unleashed hellish chaos and terror on a massive scale. innocent civilians were jolted awake, choking on poison.

some never woke up at all. in the end, more than 1400 were dead. more than 400 of them children. in recent days, we have been shocked by the videos from neighborhoods near damascus. as a parent, i cannot look at those pictures. those little children lying on the ground, their eyes glassy, their bodies twitching, and not think of my own two kids. i can only imagine the agony of those parents in damascus. sarin is odorless and colorless. so victims may not even know they have been exposed until it is too late. sarin targets the body's central

nervous system, making every breath a struggle and causing foaming at the nose and mouth, intense nausea, and uncontrollable convulsions. the death of any innocent in syria or around the world is a tragedy, whether by bullet or land mine or poisonous gas. but chemical weapons are different. they are wholly indiscriminate. gas plumes shift and spread without warning. the masses of people they can

fell are immense. the torturous death it brings is unconscionable. chemical weapons, like other weapons of mass destruction, kill on a scope and a scale that is entirely different from conventional weapons. opening the door to their use anywhere threatens the united states and our personnel everywhere. there is no doubt about who is responsible for this attack. the syrian regime possesses one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons and the world. assad has been struggling to clear these very neighborhoods in damascus and drive out the opposition, but his conventional arsenal was not working well enough or fast enough. only the syrian regime has the capacity to deliver chemical weapons on a scale to cause the devastation we saw in damascus. the opposition does not. the rockets were fired from territory controlled by the

regime. the rockets landed in territory controlled or contested by the opposition. and the intelligence we've gathered reveals that senior officials were planning the attack and plotting to cover up the evidence by destroying the area with shelling. we assessed that he has used them on a small scale multiple times since march. but august 21 was very different. whereas previous attacks each killed relatively few people, this one murdered well over 1000 in one fell swoop. assad is lowering his threshold for use while increasing

exponentially the lethality of his attacks. his escalating use of chemical weapons threatens the national security of united states and the likelihood that left unchecked, assad it will continue to use these weapons again and again and take the syrian conflict to an entirely different level by terrorizing civilians, creating even greater refugee flows, and raising the risk that deadly chemicals would spill across borders into neighboring turkey, jordan, lebanon, and iraq. obviously, the use of chemical weapons also directly threatens our closest allies in the region, israel, where people once again have readied gas masks. every time chemical weapons are

moved, unloaded, and used on the battlefield, it raises the likelihood that these weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists active in syria, including assad's ally hezbollah and al qaeda affiliates. that prospect puts americans at risk for chemical attacks targeted at our soldiers and diplomats in the region and even potentially our citizens at home. equally, every attack serves to unravel the long-established commitment of nations to renounce chemical weapons use. 189 countries, representing 98% of the world's population, are parties of the convention which prohibits the development,

acquisition, or use of these weapons. the united states senate approved that convention by an overwhelming bipartisan majority. binding america to the global consensus and affirm that we do not tolerate the use or possession of chemical weapons. the assad regimes attack is not only an affront to that norm, and also a threat to global security, including the security of the united states. failing to respond to this outrage also threatens our national security. failing to respond means more and more syrians will die from assad's poisonous stockpiles. it makes our allies and partners in the region tempting targets of assad's future attacks. failing to respond increases the

risk of violent instability as citizens across the middle east and north africa continue to struggle for their universal rights. failing to respond brings us closer to the day when terrorists might gain and use chemical weapons against americans, abroad, and at home. failing to respond damages the international principle reflected in two multilateral treaties. it must never again be used anywhere in the world. failing to respond to the use of chemical weapons risks opening the door to other weapons of mass destruction and emboldening the madmen who would use them. we cannot allow terrorists bent on destruction or a nuclear

north korea or an aspiring nuclear iran to believe for one minute that we are shying away from our determination to back up our long-standing warnings. if we begin to erode the moral outrage of gassing children in their beds, we open ourselves up to even more fearsome consequences. moreover, failing to respond to this brazen attack could indicate that the united states is not prepared to use the full range of tools necessary to keep our nation secure. any president, republican or democrat, must have recourse to all elements of american power to design and implement our national security policy, whether diplomatic, economic, or military.

rejecting the limited military action that president obama strongly supports would raise questions around the world as to whether the united states is truly prepared to employ the full range of its power to defend our national interests. america's ability to rally coalitions and lead internationally could be undermined. other global hotspots might flare up if belligerents believe the united states cannot be counted on to enforce the most basic and widely accepted international norms. most disturbingly, it would send a perverse message to those who seek to use the world's worst weapons that you can use these weapons blatantly and just get

away with it. now i know that many americans are horrified by the images from damascus and are concerned about the devastating broader consequences. but while they believe the world should act, they are not sure military action is the right tool at this time. let me address this important argument. the reason president obama decided to pursue limited strikes is that we and others have already exhausted a host of other measures aimed at changing assad's calculus and his willingness to use chemical weapons. as the august 21 mass casualty attack makes clear, these efforts have not succeeded. since the beginning of the regime's brutal violence against

its own people more than 2 1/2 years ago, we have consistently backed the united nations diplomatic prcess and urged the parties to the negotiating table, fully cognizant that a political solution is the best way to end the civil conflict and the syrian regime's torment of its own people. we collaborated with our european allies to impose a robust sanctions to pressure the assad regime. we supported the creation of the inquiry to document atrocities. when assad started using chemical weapons on a small scale multiple times, we publicized compelling evidence of the regime's use, sharing it with congress, the united nations, and the american public. at our urging over months, russia and iran repeatedly reinforced our warnings to a assad.

for the last year, we admonished syria directly. we all sent the same message again and again -- do not do it. but they did it. first, on a small scale, in a manner hard for the world to discern. in response, we augmented our non-lethal assistance to the opposition and expanded the nature and scope of our support to the supreme military council. we pressed for more than six months to gain united nations investigation team unfettered access. or if not, at a minimum, it could establish a shared base that might finally compel russia and iran, itself a victim of

saddam hussein's chemical weapons attacks in 1987 and 1988, to pull the plug on a regime that gases its own people. but when u.n. investigators finally entered the country, the regime launched the largest chemical weapons attack in a quarter century while the inspectors staged on the other side of town. for five days thereafter, the regime stalled the affected areas to destroy critical evidence. so only after pursuing a wide range of nonmilitary measures to prevent and halt chemical weapons use did president obama conclude that a limited military strike is the right way to deter assad from continuing to employ

chemical weapons like any conventional weapon of war. the fact is president obama has consistently demonstrated his commitment to multilateral diplomacy. he would much prefer the backing of united nations security council to uphold the international ban against the use of chemical weapons, whether in the form of sanctions, accountability, or authorizing the use of force. but let's be realistic. it is just not going to happen now. believe me. i know. i was there for all of those u.n. debates and negotiations on syria. i lived it. it was shameful. three times the security council took up resolutions to condemn lesser violence by the syrian regime. three times we negotiated for

weeks over the most watered-down language imaginable. and three times, russia and china double vetoed almost a meaningless resolutions. similarly, in the past two months, russia has blocked two resolutions condemning the use of chemical weapons that does not even ascribe blame to any party. russia opposed two mere press statements expressing concern about their use. a week after the august 21 gas attack, united kingdom presented a resolution that included a referral of war crimes in syria to the international court. again, the russians opposed it as they have every form of accountability in syria. for all of these reasons, the

president has concluded it is in our national security interest to conduct limited strikes against the assad regime. i want to take this opportunity to address concerns now that even limited strikes could lead to even greater risks to the united states. let me describe as plainly as i can what this action would be and, just as importantly, what it would not be. the president has been clear about our purpose. these would be limited strikes to deter the syrian regime from using chemical weapons and to degrade their ability to do so again. what do we mean by limited? this would not be the united states launching another war. as the president has said

repeatedly, this would not be iraq or afghanistan. there will be no american boots on the ground, period. nor would it resemble kosovo or libya, which were sustained air campaigns. this will not be an open-ended effort. as the president has said again repeatedly, this action would be limited in both time and scope. nor would this be new. the united states has engaged in limited strikes multiple times before. recall president reagan conducted airstrikes measured in hours against libya in 1986. president clinton conducted several days of strikes against iraq in 1998.

no two military actions are identical. each has its own costs and benefits, but these previous engagements are proof that the united states is fully capable of conducting limited, defined, and proportional military action without getting in a drawnout enmeshed in a drawn-out conflict. what do we mean by deterring and degrading the chemical weapons capabilities? strikes could target a range of capacities to manage, deliver, or develop chemical weapons. assad would discover that henceforth, chemical weapons offered no battlefield advantage relative to their cost to use. and if assad is so brazen as to use chemical weapons again, he would know that we possess the ability to further degrade his capabilities. so in short, this would not be

an open-ended intervention in the syrian civil war. doing so would require a much larger and sustained military campaign, putting american forces in the center of the civil conflict. as president obama has made clear, it is neither wise nor necessary to do so. like many, i understand the public's skepticism over using military force, particularly in this part of the world. the wars in iraq and afghanistan have left many americans wary of further military action, however limited. what the president is proposing is fundamentally different. --like iraq, we are not adding

betting on the existence of weapons of mass destruction. in syria, we have the undeniable proof that chemical weapons have already in unleashed with horrific results. the entire world can see the true, there are always risks that accompany the use of military force. a rangewhy we're taking of responsible measures in the region. event -- in this event we do not assess that a limited military strike will rule the -- release on intended actions in the region. assad's allies would be more than foolish to take on the forces of the united states or our allies. obamanow that president