extensively the sites that were hit with these chemical weapons, with the sole purpose of destroying as much evidence as possible, so that is going to make that process more difficult. 2005 to 2007, served as a former deputy director, looking at intelligence gathering, john sano, thanks for your time. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] 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 10, 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable ileana ros-lehtinen to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner,

speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2013, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip each, to five minutes but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. lumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: congress returns this week after a month of connecting with people at home. hopefully with a little time with family and friends. some think our overwhelming agenda was made nearly impossible with the syrian question, which no one expected when we recessed.

somewhat ironic, even though 100,000 syrians have been killed and two million refugees are flooding into neighboring countries. we face a looming budget showdown and a debt ceiling crisis. while we have futile votes to defund obamacare, the rest of the country is in the midst of a profound change in health care. one of the most profound in half a century. the health care reform train has left the station. what if we took a break from sabotaging obamacare and creating a debt ceiling crisis to do our jobs as representatives of the people and as leaders? what are we for? we might start with syria. i have deep reservations about the use for force, but as one of the people who called upon the president to involve congress in this decision, i think most of us have an

obligation to at least hear him out. let's work to refine the russian proposal, which appears to have had some american origins. what about the two million refugees who need our help to say nothing of their host countries? let's seize upon some of the promising signs out of iran from their new leadership to make progress both in syria and with the iranian nuclear question. domestically, let's spend our time rebuilding and renewing america, not just lamenting the porous shape of our infrastructure, but working together to support the vision and the resources to rebuild and renew the country and put americans back to work. internationally, i see my good friend and colleague, congressman ted poe, on the floor.

why don't we zero in on the efforts with our international water for the world legislation to help deal with sanitation and safe drinking water for poor people around the globe? think about those 200 million -- 200 million hours women will spend in sub-saharan africa gathering water today, time they won't spend in school or working for their families. let's use the fall to identify and move forward on the vast array of things where we actually agree we can work together and they won't cost very much. america will be the better for it and so will congress. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, for five minutes. thank you, k: madam speaker. russia's diplomatic intervention in the syrian

crisis is indeed welcomed news, but whether it is real or not, the president needs to step back on the dangerous precipice he's brought us to. certainly he's made his case with war with syria clearly. that we must punish the use of kim company weapons. he assures us the strike will limited and it will aid them. the case is quite clear. it is simply not convincing. it's possible that an attack on syria will convince assad not to use chemical weapons in the future, but it is just as likely to convince him that being in for a penny he might as well be in for a pound and he ought to unleash his entire chemical arsenal. it is just as likely that an american strike on syria will produce a retaliatory strike, perhaps hezbollah against

israel, having a strike on iran and a catastrophic chain reaction. we don't know where it will lead, but we can be sure that the morning after the attack we would confront a most uncomfortable irony. in retal take for assad killing -- retaliation for assad killing syrians with chemical weapons, the united states will kill civilians with conventional weapons, an unavoidable tragedy of war. well, who would be our new allies in this war? they would be the islamic forces that are responsible for their own litany of atrocities, including the massacre of syrian christians, the beheading of political opponents, summary executions of war prisoners and acts of barbaric not to be discussed in this forum. we would be aiding and abetting those forces. we're told that al qaeda not

more than a fourth of our new coalition and the rest were moderates. we were told the same thing about libya. we were told the same thing about the muslim brother heed in -- brotherhood in egypt. they're quickly overwhelmed in nicolings they attempt. nor can such an attack be limited in duration or scope. the fact is once you've attacked another country, you are at war with that country and its allies, whatever you wish to call it and whatever you later decide to do. and wars have a very nasty way of taking turns that no one can predict or control. world war i began with a series of obscure incidents that quickly escalated into world war. in the middle east today is a powder keg compared to the antebellum europe of a century ago. finally, we're told american credibility is on the line. well, chemical weapons are barbaric but this isn't the first time they've been used in

modern times. they were used previously in syria in the yemeni civil war, by the vietnamese against the cambodians, by the libyans against chad. the only unique thing about this incident is it is the first time an american president has declared their use to be a red line. our credibility was harmed by foolish and reckless statement by the president. let us not further damage it with a foolish and reckless act by congress. wars are not something to be taken lightly. from the podium right behind me, general mcarthur warned that in war there is no substitute for victory. if you're going to start a war, you'd better be prepared to put the entire resources of the country behind it to endure every setback along the way, to utterly annihilate every vestige of the enemy and to install by force a government of our design and choosing and

to maintain that government until all opposition is ceased. if you are not willing to do that, then you have no business firing the first shot. more than a decade of irresolute and aimless wars in iraq and afghanistan should have taught us this lesson, that victory and not stalemate, must be the objective of any war. yet, this would be a war whose avowed objective is stalemate. that is self-defeating, it is immoral. the president has already made his case very clearly, and he's very clearly wrong. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kaptur, for five minutes. ms. kaptur: madam speaker, i'd like to thank president obama for his considered judgment in the matter of syria and for not head strong rushing the united states to military action.

i thank him for his consultations with members of congress in both chambers and for allowing the american people time to express their views. we must always, the con-- all reap the repercussions of unilateral u.s. actions. as the world's greatest military power, we must employ our power wisely and only with good measure. i have every confidence that our u.s. military can perform any task to which they are ordered successfully, and we owe them our deepest respect and gratitude. i also want to thank and acknowledge the government of russia for early reports we are learning about regarding discussions under way to rid syria of weapons caches of danger, both to syria as well

as our global community. both russia and the united states as the world's premiere nuclear powers hold awesome responsibility to move our world to a more peaceful and stable posture. surely we must focus that effort on the very unstable set of states across the middle east. russia and our country both have suffered from terrorist attacks and well understand the consequences of unresolved conflict and terrorists preying on unstable states. my hope is that the russian initiative gains momentum and let all nations of good will on our globe find a way forward to address the tragic consequences of the syrian civil war, starting with

greater humanitarian assistance to refugees that have flowed intoed a joining nations like jordan and lebanon and turkey, straining some of those nation's abilities to even hold their own internal affairs together. surely our world can better address the human suffering that is evident to anyone who's paying attention. surely, surely all reasonable world leaders can find a better way forward for syria and for us all. madam speaker, i yield back my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. poe: madam speaker, the drums of war are beating by the president who eye roncally won the nobel peace prize. -- eye roncally won the nobel peace prize. he wants to fire missiles in syria because the tyrant assad is violating the rules of wars

by allegedly using chemical weapons. the president's goal is not to remove assad, not to destroy the chemical weapons but to send assad a message. to be clear, there is no imminent national security threat or interest for the united states by us starting this war. and make no mistake, shooting rockets into another country is an act of war. war has consequences. what if the outlaw assad chooses then to use chemical weapons again or chooses to shoot back? he could retaliate against the united states, one of our embassies, the navy that fired the rockets or other u.s. military installations or even specific troops or retaliate against its neighbor, turkey, or israel, using our aggression as an excuse. this of these excuses,

war has more u.s. intervention and involvement. now, who are the players in this war that is taking place already? on one side you have syria, tyrant assad, with the aid of russia, with the aid of iran that news reports say have 10,000 iranian troops in syria, and hezbollah. hezbollah, as you remember, madam speaker, is a terrorist group. then, on the other side, you have the free syrian army. you have patriots. you have mercenaries, paid soldiers from other countries. you have criminals that have come in to just pillage the land and using this as an opportunity. you also have an al qaeda affiliate. you also have al qaeda from iraq. now, last time i recall, the

united states is already at war with al qaeda. they are the enemy of the united states, and it looks like now you've got a terrorist group, hezbollah on one side, a terrorist group al qaeda on the other side, and we want to get involved in this civil religious war, to send a message not to use chemical weapons? and, of course, you not only just have these players, you've got turkey, jordan, saudi arabia and qatar lined up on the side of the free syrian army. turkey, next door neighbor to syria, a year ago a turkish f-4, built by the united states, was flying along the syrian border and it was shot down. don't know who shot it down. . meanwhile the united states already has patriot batteries on

the syrian border facing syria in turkey. the dutch, germans, and americans have manned those batteries. why? to make sure our nato ally is protected from incoming rockets. we escalate this regional conflict in one country, it may escalate to another regions, like turkey. then we got real issues because turkey's a nato ally. we are obligated to help them if they get into a war with syria. then about the terrorists. as i mentioned they are on really both sides. we hear from the administration, in all due respect, that it's the minority of the fighters on the rebel side that are al qaeda. i respectfully disagree with the secretary of state. what seems to be happening is the free syrian army is going through syria liberating syrians , and al qaeda is in the background coming in and

occupying the territory and imposing strict islamic shari'a law. and we could see this play out that if the rebels eventually are successful, then we may have a second civil war between the free syrian army and al qaeda. all of that may be down the road. and why would the united states want to get involved in this situation? so today, madam speaker, i have filed a resolution stating that no u.s. funds will be used for this war with syria. this religious civil war is not our war. so no money for the peace president's war. and if he starts a war with syria, i suggest the president return the nobel peace prize. if he really wants to send a message, he should follow samuel golden's advice, try western union. that's just the way it is.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, r. mcgovern, for five minutes. madam speaker, last week the united states department of agriculture released its annual report on food security in the united states. the report documents the levels of food security and insecurity in this country. in this record usda measured the amount of food available or unavailable to households and individuals. in other words, madam speaker, usda measured the amount of hunger in the united states. it measured the ability of americans to put food on their tables. the good news is that hunger isn't getting worse. the bad news is that there are still 49 million people living

in our great country who are food insecure. 49 million people who don't know where the next meal will come from. 49 million people who are forced to choose between basic needs like rent, utilities, and food. 49 million people who don't have the resources necessary to make ends meet. 49 million people who are hungry. that's one out of every six people living in this country who are food insecure, a figure that hasn't changed since 2008. while it's a good thing that food insecurity isn't getting worse, that's simply not good enough. we must do more to ensure that healthy and nutritious food is available to everyone in america. we must ensure that 49 million people are not left behind when it comes to buying food. the fact remains that millions of americans are still struggling to make ends meet. millions of americans continue to feel the effects of the worst economic recession since the great depression. as a result of the staggering loss of jobs and reduced wages that came from the recession,

millions of americans were forced to turn to the federal government's pre-eminent anti-hunger program, snap, formerly known as food stamps, to put food on their stables. snap participation rates skyrocketed precisely because of the recession. snap is a safety net. it's designed to increase participation in times of need. that means the cost of the program goes up as more people need help buying food while they are either unemployed or struggling with lower wages. that's precisely what happened during the recession. and that's why there are so many people relying on snap today. these food insecurity numbers confirm that hunger is a problem in america. that there are millions of people, 49 million people, who don't know where their next meals are coming from and need help buying food for themselves and their families. this is a sobering report, madam speaker. one that would normally result in congressional hearings on the problem and possible ways to reduce hunger in america. but we are not living in normal

times. that's because, madam speaker, even with the release of this report showing that rates of food insecurity are unchanged since the end of the bush administration, this republican controlled house is preparing to consider a bill that would cut at least $40 billion from the snap program. that's right. the response to this report is to make hunger in america even worse than it is today. i want to remind my colleagues, there is not one single town, one single city or county or congressional district in america that is hunger free. for the life of me i can't understand why the republicans want to cut this program that provides food to millions of americans. i cannot understand why the republican leadership wants to balance the budget on the backs of the working poor. snap is not only successful, it's efficient and effective. the error rate for snap is among the lowest if not the lowest error rates of any federal program. that's right. fraud, waste, and abuse in snap is at an all-time low which

means snap dollars are going exactly where they should be going. to feed hungry americans. on top of that, snap kept 4.7 million people out of poverty in 2011, including 2.1 million children. that means that cutting snap will also result in increased poverty in america. the irony is that there are some members of this house who are collecting millions of dollars in taxpayer funded farm subsidies, while at the same time they vote to take away food from hungry americans. madam speaker, hunger in america is real. it must be addressed. that's why i called for a white house conference on food and nutrition, a conference where we can explore hunger and nutrition and develop a plan to end the scourge once and for all. we will not end hunger by cutting the most efficient and effective anti-hunger program in the country. we will not end hunger through arbitrary, harmful and spiteful budget cuts. we can end hunger now if we decide to take that step. the usda food security report provides evidence that we are not doing enough to end hunger

now. the upcoming vote top cut the anti-hunger safety net shows how truly heartless the republican leadership is when it comes to work -- to the working poor in america. we can do more, we can do better. we can and we must end hunger now. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, for five minutes. mr. thompson: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, on august 22, the united states department of health and human services, inspector general, daniel leavenson, announced his decision to initiate an investigation into the centers for medicare and medicaid services. a.k.a. medicare. and it's medicare's handling of the competitive bidding program for durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orr thotics and supplies.

-- orthodics and supplies. initiated a request for the investigation on june 20, 2013, following disclosures to suppliers that lack the license sure and accreditation, in violation of the program's guidelines for participation in the bidding program. the so-called competitive bidding model is being used by the government to procure goods and services for our nation's seniors and those facing life altering disease and disability. while c.m.s. makes claims that competitive bidding program will increase market competition and lower costs, in practice it's shown to be anything but competitive. over the past several years, we have seen the program negatively effect seniors and force small medical companies, many of them are local and the only entity capable of providing quality goods and high level service out of the market. out of business. in 2011 more than 240 economists and market augs design experts

wrote to president obama concerning the flawed bidding model. the experts wrote that, quote, the current program is the antithesis of science and contradicts all that is known about proper market design, end quote. these warnings have become reality over the past several years. the license sure and accreditation of uses is just the latest among a long list of program failures. for many of these reasons, on june 12, 2013, 227 bipartisan members of the house, a full majority, including 82 democrats and 145 republicans, sent a letter to c.m.s. outlining the flaws and abuses in the program. requesting that the agency delay further implementation until such issues are fully addressed and fixed. despite the growing number of reported abuses under the program, and the strong congressional concern about the bidding design and a long

overdue need for transparency and accountability, c.m.s. moved forward with the program in 91 new bidding areas on july 1, 2013. bringing the total to 100 areas nationwide. while c.m.s. has admitted to the abuses, the agency has failed to detail how these failures occurred or offer a plan for corrective action. with any hope, the office of inspector general's efforts will shed light on how these failures occurred and impose a new level of transparency at the medicare agency, c.m.s., and among the agency's administrators. in the meantime it will be up to the house of representatives to take corrective action. with this said i respectfully request that each of my colleagues join me in co-sponsoring h.r. 1717, medicare dmepos market pricing program act of 2013. this commonsense measure

authored by my esteemed colleague from georgia, dr. price, will apply real market principles to the high lie flawed competitive bidding model. mr. speaker, we owe as much to our constituents, to the taxpayers, and our nation's medicare beneficiaries. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 12:00 noon today. >> the house will be back at noon central. ande are a number of bills one on setting up licensing for insurance brokers to sell policies across state lines. votes will be completed by friday. the wrapping up

relatively early today as the president will be speaking tonight on his request for congressional authorization to use military force against syria for last month's chemical attacks that killed more than 1400 civilians. the senate today debating whether they should consider that resolution. mitch mcconnell has just announced he will be voting against that resolution. some news today. a possible diplomatic breakthrough. accepted a proposal to place its chemical weapons under international control for dismantling. it is a step that could allow yria's government to avert u.s. missile strikes. france will seek a u.n. resolution on syria's chemical weapons. more details are coming here on

c-span. to michaeltake you chertoff. he says if the u.s. does not respond to chemical weapons, it will have a strategic impact what happens in iran. he made the remarks at an event hosted by the international a fair society on the challenges facing the homeland security department. he led the department from 2005 until 2009. this is about an hour. >> thank you for that kind introduction. i am delighted to be here. this is a significant moment to be talking about our security.

this will be a very important week in the history of our country. we are coming up on the anniversary of september 11. we are on the eve of a presidential speech that will lay out the case for why we need to take effective action in syria in response to the use of chemical weapons. that will lead to a debate in congress and perhaps to an authorization and to military action. between direct relation of the horrible event in this country and the possible of a new challenge in another part of the world which could be quite serious for this country and for the region as a whole. if i was standing here 12 years ago or maybe 11 and a half years

afterhich of surely september 11, i would be giving you a different presentation than the one i am going to give you. i would not have had the experience of being the secretary of homeland security. there were not have been a homeland security department. our nation was still the recovery from the aftermath of the deadliest attack on civilians in the history of the united states. notould begin and wondering if al qaeda would attack but when and how. years that have passed since september 11, we have invested heavily in our nation's homeland security infrastructure. we have also done that overseas. we have done a lot to protect our ports and are aviation.

we have strengthened security. we have invested in training and exercises to identify and plan for future threats and to prepare us to respond and recover if a threat is carried out. we have taken in our missteps in sharing information and intelligence which is maybe the fundamental attribute, capability that we need in order to protect the country. what is they equivalent of radar in the 20th century has become intelligence collection and analysis in the 21st century. as a result, we have had a lot anduccesses both seen unseen by the general public. successfuly had two attacks on american soil. one was wagered nidal

hasan -- major nidal hasan. of whatlike the scale we faced on september 11. what we have been threatened with in the intervening years and what many of us would have assumed we would face again. sayny assessment we have to that the homeland security enterprise has been a success. let's be clear. we have been successful not because al qaeda and similar groups have not tried to attack us. plotill recall the airline which was an effort and a plan to take 10 to 12 airliners down with bombings that would have occurred over the atlantic ocean

on flights going to north america. --t was frustrated day009, the christmas attempted bomb plot was not a successful detonation. there was another effort to put bombs on printers and they were very highly sophisticated bombs that were only deflected because of good intelligence work. within the last couple of years, there was an attempt to attack the new york subway systems with bombs. that plot was frustrated. year, twof this past individuals detonated bombs attending the boston marathon.

these continued threats remind us that over 11 years has passed since september 11, we have to continually rethink our strategy , innovate, adapt ahead of the enemy. if you're bomb making skills are much more advanced than they were in 2001, so we are facing a much more capable enemy. we cannot fall into the trap of thinking that war against with asts will be won single moment. it will ebb and flow. we will mitigate it. we can't expect it will end with a bang or a whimper. of do we use these lessons september 11 to propel us into

the future and help us deal with the dynamic threats that we face? we need to step back and look at homeland security in a broad sense. a strategic sense. that today's battlefield is different than it was 25 or 100 years ago. it is a global battlefield that takes place in a conventional type of war environment or like you have seen in afghanistan or iraq. it also takes place on city streets in boston. it involves networks, global communication, global finance. transformed the nature of the battlefield. unlike warss that we might study 50 or 75 years

ago, there are no bystanders in the struggle. everybody gets enlisted as a combatant or as a participant or as a victim. we'll have to conceptualize the nature of our strategies in a much broader sense. the second point i would make is there is a tendency to think about strategy when you think about terrorism in what a whatessor described as -- our military assets? how can we strike back using military force or similar types of force against the adversary? look at power in the broadest possible sense. power.wer and smart we have to use all the tools in the toolbox.

that does sometimes mean military pulls. it also means our ability to analyze strategically. it means law enforcement. a great example is how the fbi moved from being a conventional law enforcement organization to an organization that is deployed people around the world in battle zones to collect fingerprints and forensic evidence, not for purposes of making a criminal case in a court room. we have brought the capability of law enforcement into the battlefield.

there are other elements that we have to consider as well. our diplomatic power, our economic power, our ability to lead and to invest in other countries, which becomes critical in our national strategy and has to be considered an important asset. one of the less known accomplishments of this country has been the figure is investment that we have made in assisting people in africa fighting aids and malaria. it yields enormous dividends in building goodwill for the united states. the people who benefit from these programs do not view the u.s. as an innovator or explorer. you see that sometimes here in washington. we are blessed with a broad

international population. i get into a taxi cap and i think the drivers must be high consumers of the news. i get recognize as being the former secretary of homeland security. "my cousin is grateful for what you did to help us fight the lariat and aids." people question the value of foreign aid, it is an investment that pays enormous dividends and dividends that do not cost people their lives. we have to consider how we use all of these tools. let me identify three other principles that i think are important in dealing with the threats that we face in the coming years. the homeland and what happens

overseas are not separate. the department of homeland security does not do the same function as the department of defense does, but there is overlap. the threat moves back and forth readily. we are not bystanders to world history. we are not optional participants to world history. we may have thought it was up to us whether we wanted to get involved in kosovo or korea. 9/11 taught us that if we do not reach out and touch the world, it may strike us and hit us. we need to make sure the distinction between the homeland and what occurs internationally is not viewed as more significant than it is. one thaty has to be recognizes one-size-fits-all.

lesson you come away inh is that the strategy each case has to be adapted to the circumstance. that doesn't mean being tactical. problem and trying to fix it and move on. it means you have an overall strategy that you adapted to what the local requirements and circumstances are. the final overarching point is this. the regions are connected. it is easy to put the template of regional studies on the way we look at the world. these regions overlap and there are consequences that may be felt. to take a strategic vision. look at how we deal with china. look at how china behaves in africa and what our policy in africa is.

those things are going to be interconnected. let me talk about four areas where i think strategic focus deserves attention. first is al qaeda. as has been said, we have visited an enormous amount of thege on core al qaeda, central group of leaders that ran al qaeda in 2001. .e have degraded al qaeda 1.1 andas adapted and morphed has improved its capabilities. 3.0.re now 2.0 or this is an al qaeda that is regionally distributed. make no mistake. there is a unified ideology and there is a recognition that what

benefits one benefits others. you are dealing in a network that with an organization is different than it was 12 years ago. it can be more dangerous because it is more widely distributed. we have seen this in yemen, which is now probably the most dangerous platform from which attacks against the u.s. are being lost. we see it in ouiraq. al qaeda in iraq has experienced a resurgence in aiding and abetting what is going on in syria. we've seen it in west africa, east africa, and nigeria. let's take the example of libya. we went into libya a couple years ago. the thought was that qaddafi brutally respond to uprisings

and we were going to support europeans in first trying to stop killings. that morphed into killing qaddafi. i am second to no one in saying that dorothy was a bad man who deserved any bad thing that happened to him -- that qaddafi was a bad man. the implications in removing him from libya. he decided he was going to give up his weapons of mass disruption program and begin to cooperate with the western world. he did he do that because he had an epiphany? no. he got scared in what he saw in iraq and got afraid he would become a victim. he surrendered in advance. was he someone who was in fact

making progress towards reducing his program and cooperating? there was some forward movement. what was the strategic implication every moving him and doing it with the condition that we were not going as western powers and put boots on the ground and stabilize the country? there were a couple of things that emerged. we lost control of some of the weapons that he had, which are still out and about in several parts of the world. when he fell, his mercenaries began to move south. they began to connect up with a terrorist affiliates. some who move south were some that were released from the prisons and they became reinforcements for al qaeda's franchise in north africa.

we saw an extremist takeover in mali. we saw stress placed upon other parts of libya. here the consequence is not clearly a net gain. i have to wonder whether the message we sent to who were those leaders contemplating what their position was going forward on nuclear rising, whether the message was, " if you cooperate with the united states, we kill you." is the masses to keep your nuclear program going and not cooperate? i am not suggesting going into libya was an easy analysis. questionsook at that, are raised about whether it was a strategic win or a tactical

win. let me turn now to syria. i started myime speech, this may change a couple of times. it is only good for about 10 minutes. some would argue what i said about libya applies to syria and that we should not get involved in syria. the strategic position is different. syria is located in a different part of the region. ria hasppens in sy an impact on turkey, lebanon, iraq, and possible israel, as well. much more strategically significant than the case in libya. the use of chemical weapons and the fact that the regime is acting in many ways as an extension of iran and in cooperation with hezbollah means

the strategic outcome of what happens in syria is much more significant for the united states and our allies than was the case with libya. assad did not renounce his weapons of mass destruction. he has used them. the strategic calculus is very different. if assad wins it is a triumph hezbollah.d for loses but is replaced bad. that will be equally the only outcome strategically here is to have the minor groups of opposition forces the strong to be able to claim control of syria and give us a reasonable

shot at controlling that country and preserving some kind of peace for their neighbors. superficially, two similar situations. i would say very different significance for the united states. that of course has become all the more emphasize by what is going on right now. the president has declared there is unequivocal evidence, that chemical weapons have been used by assad, notwithstanding warnings. willng to respond to that have a direct strategic impact on what goes on in tehran. it will be the reverse of what happened in libya. "if you do not cooperate with the u.s., you get away with it."

frameworkstrategic with which we occupy the region. finally, egypt. egypt is not in the state of syria or libya. there is a struggle going forth there. here is a case where there was a moderate democratic elections. there was not a mature electoral process or a mature set of electoral institutions. wonppears the president who the election was accumulating power and taking steps to degrade the existence of civil society to continue. election doesone not make a democracy. we have had circumstances where we saw elections that turned out to be the last election because the people in power abuse their

position to make it impossible for themselves to be replaced. there'll be a lot of debate about whether that is what happened here are not. i would say we have to start from where we are. is notary regime that forcing civilians into power. the muslim brotherhood is now out of power. where do we go from here? it is important to move forward in the direction of restoring institutions of civil government and having elections that are free and fair but elections that are rooted in a foundation of democratic institutions including independent courts and pretending further rights of minorities. an election is not merely a turnover of tyrants but has some kind of enduring framework of freedom. the strategic benefit to the

united states is very clear. it means a stronger ally and a friendlier ally. likely to have a model for the region and it also means having hope for others who are looking into countries that are looking into the aftermath of the so- called arab spring. that there is a path to freedom and justice. that doesn't mean we should militarily intervene. this is an example where the strategy is about soft power. economic aidnd of in the proper kind of assistance. critical inwill be helping the new government and coaxing the new government into moving in the direction that is strategically significant for us and that is right for egypt. we have three different case studies. the strategy demands something different in each case.

in one case, it suggests we need to intervene. another case suggest the rightness of power rather than hard power. let me talk about homeland security from a domestic standpoint. we have seen we still face a threat in this country from either lone wolves or people that are remotely affiliated with terrorist groups overseas, as we saw in boston. we do not want to militarize the united states. we use other kinds of power. we use our intelligence capability to identify threats before they come to pass. we also want to use our criminal justice system, which has been effective in dealing the massacre with terrorists. some say when you do one the

mastic issues, you should not use the courts. the courtsyou that can be quite effective in dealing with people that are caught in the united states or about two commit acts of terrorism. those are important tools in the toolbox. there needs to be out of reach an understanding of the causes for people to become radicalized. part of the strategic approach is to address those elements, either psychology or propaganda, a number of people willing to put bombs on themselves or leave bomb someplace in order to kill americans in this country. strategy is hard. tactics is easy. tactics without a strategy take

you into one problem after another. as you embark on careers in various parts of international relations, you'll find a much more disordered world, and much more challenging world that maybe was the case 30 or 40 years ago, but a world in which andrstanding, listening, the value of having strategy will be the paramount characteristics we need in this nations's next-generation of leaders. thank you very much. >> thank you very much for such an interesting presentation. i am sure you have a lot of questions to ask and comments to give.

us toe a professor with help us with this discussion. having work with the united states senate and the house of representatives and the state department. team and investigation develop the final reports for the intelligence committee on the terrorist event. he worked with the homeland .ecurity committee 2007, he directed a project at the national academy of public administration would focus on the aspects of the intelligence forecast of the fbi. years, he hashree

been involved with national security at the george washington university. he is a graduate of dartmouth college. please tell me in welcoming him. >> some of my students who may that the worldow does not rotate around the ivy league. gw is very, very important i want to thank manuela and the board for organizing this evening. since i have been teaching

national security and foreign- policy related to 9/11 for the last six years now, it is terribly important. terribly important to hear from somebody with experience and background and vision that former secretary chertoff has. i also want to thank dean brown for creating a dynamic teaching environment here at the elliott school. it has been a pleasure to teach here.i look forward to continuing to do that. because i worked for the homeland security senate committee and because i would have to with secretary chertoff would be coming for the committee to testify, one of my responsibilities as a staffer was to prepare very difficult questions for the secretary.and a number of different -- difficult questions. i would work the night preparing pages and pages of questions. sure enough, senator lieberman would ask me, he would say, do i

need to address him as mr. secretary or as judge? i would usually say to him that michael would work just fine. [laughter] i have the privilege of asking the first question. and i guess what i most appreciate about michael's presentation to you was his emphasis on strategy. as those of you know and have taken my course, i talk about strategic thinking and planning and policy all of the time in my course. terribly important. i would like to ask mr. chertoff to focus on how a strategy that is a long-term vision that is a strategic vision, how do we address the continuing terrorist threat and persistence of the al qaeda network?

and i would like him to address what he feels are some of the root causes for the terrorism that seems to fester in middle eastern countries and what can we do in terms of hard power, soft power, visionary power, strategic thinking -- what are the things that come to his mind on those basic root causes of terrorism threat? >> that is a huge question and i will confess in the answer i do not really actually know the answer. i will tell you during the time i served in government, when president bush was in office, his view was the fundamental problems was lack of democracy. if you had freedome in countries

in the region, that would eliminate the frustration that gave rise to some people become terrorists. i suppose he was modeling it after our own country and at least in theory that people have that democratic countries do not go to war. while i think there's a lot of appeal to that, it is not a sufficient explanation or approach, because there are other dynamics at work. some of them are social dynamics and cultural that need to be addressed and it is not just about the ballot box. the role of women in society, what your economic prospects are, where the young people feel frustrated and pressed down. it is about whether people feel an individual sense of fairness. more important than the ballot box is the courtroom, the fact that a person does not feel they can be imprisoned or punished arbitrarily. if you look at how the tunisian uprising occurred, it was because a street vendor felt

unfairly abused by a petty bureaucrat. maybe that is part of it, the idea of rule of law. a lot of this is ideology. societies own a certain responsibility to communicate within themselves to their own people what is the doctrine and morality and what is appropriate. there were times for example in some parts of that region where for reasons, and dictators or leaders had fomented a virulent type of ideology and some that took root in parts of south asia. i am afraid i do not have a simple answer. i think we are going to be doing something more or less pragmatic watch the various iterations of

the so-called arab spring play out. figure out what worked and what did not work and what did we learn from it. >> excellent. i want to open the questions as quickly as possible to the students and our visitors. feel free to raise your hands and i believe somebody will come over to you with a microphone so that you can ask your question. ok, let's go right here. >> what role does the media and american public opinion play in homeland security strategy in the middle east? >> it plays a huge role. one thing you learn about homeland security is different from purely military activity is when you are dealing with the military, you basically have the

enemy you are attempting to eliminate. your own forces, you have control over and then you have civilians but they are more or less bystanders in the process. in homeland security, civilians are actors. they have to cooperate. what we are trying to do is drive civilians to behave in a certain way to maximize security and minimize the threat. sometimes it is about the expression see something, say something. come forward if you see something that is dangerous. a remarkable number of plots that were disrupted because somebody came forward with the fbi or the police said there is something funny here you have to take a look at. that is important way in which civilians attitudes are important. also civilian patience and commitment is important. we ask a lot of people. there are hassles in the airport.

as smooth as we try to make the process, nothing to be perfectly smooth. you have to have identification or other things you need to do. in some sense, the public tolerates that. the consequence would be people will start getting killed. we would likely revert back again. ideally would like to not have groundhog day play out. we would like to learn our lessons. that requires exactly what you said, communicating with people and their attitudes. one of the lessons i learned was the public affairs element of how you deal with an event actually has tremendous significance. it is not just after thought, send somebody else to deal the press. you have to look at all the ways of communicating as indispensable to carry out what you are trying to do. without public operation in a domestic environment, you are going to have much more difficulty carrying out your efforts. >> a question here.

>> first of all, thank you for coming to visit us and speak to us. the question i have in regard to syria and the strategy there since you mentioned strategy in syria is complicated. great britain has taken an unprecedented move in not supporting us as allies. what would you say if you were giving advice to our president now on the best strategy to look out in terms of syria especially with the thought of reprisal against american interests? >> let me begin by saying what i said which is we have to start with where we are. there are things i would revise doing differently over the past year or two. those days are gone. we find ourselves in a particular situation.

assad, he looked as if he was going to be pushed out by the operation of the insurgency itself, now he appears to be pushing back. he has used chemical weapons. the president has said there is a red line and did say that a year ago. there seems to be quite compelling evidence that a line was crossed. that is where we find ourselves. there are a couple of things we need to think about strategically, and admittedly a hard problem. what is the endgame we are looking for? four possibilities. assad wins, bad outcome. syria fails as a state and becomes a drain on all of its neighbors and persistent fighting -- a bad outcome. the best outcome, not perfect, is a moderate group is sufficiently strong that they are able to take control of the country and marginalize the extremists who are still a minority and syria is not a fundamentalist country.

the best outcome is one that gives them the breathing space to put in place some kind of institutions, preferably with international help. that is the kind of base strategic issue. the second strategic issue is the chemical weapons were used. we declared a red line. how do we not act without sending a message to iran and everybody else that, we tell you if you do x, we are going to do y, never mind. there is an idea floated if they give over their chemical weapons to u.n. would that stop things? a cynic would say it is a last- minute maneuver to push things out in many months. ask yourself these questions, do we have an adequate base line of what assad has? how would we actually inspect

and enforce the rule in the middle of a war going on, absent a cease fire? how would we know if everything has been given to us? these are challenging questions. if you rewind the tape back, for many years in the mid-1990's we did this with iraq. hussen said he was destroying things and inspectors will come and he would not let them in and it will look like something had moved. that left the matters in a very unresolved way and in that circumstance, basically what happens is the person who has the weapons is trying to wear the patients out of the west until they finally give up. again, as you evaluate that, i understand there are reasons. you have to consider whether in a practical sense this is measurable and achievable or

whether it is likely to be a way of delaying while assad continues to do what he does. >> maybe at the end of the row here? >> excuse me. do you consider the cases of bradley manning and edward snowden indicative of the success of the departments if you see something, say something slogan? >> no. [laughter] >> what is the proper action of insider when they know the government has lied to the american people? >> let's take these two cases. i do not know that manning put out there would be publicly disclosed, sure the government lied.

most people said the u.s. government act pretty much the way they say they will. were there some may be harsh comments made about local political officials or candid assessments, yeah. and you should have that and the ability to do that. that is why when students in this room get comments from their professors that are candid on their papers, they do not post them on the internet so everybody can see the criticism. i do not know if manning qualifies as a whistleblower. as far as snowden is concerned, a lot of the stuff that he disclosed, while highly damaging, does not reveal illegality. i am struck by the contradictory nature of the criticisms. there was a period of time where the fisa court which reviews whatever the nsa did as a rubber stamp.

then it will be declassified when the fisa court gave a paddling to the nsa. the story was looked at the court is attacking the nsa. which one is it? it is easy to glamorize because a, they can be revealed in a way without context. i have yet to see serious malfeasance revealed by this or serious illegality. still less have i seen that snowden went into the authorities, the inspector general, anything you would expect him to do. what i have seen is this though. somebody absconded to china, spent time in the russian consulate and now in russia where he considers the guidance light of future. the country where they deal with whistleblowers is by killing them.

if you happen to be -- if your sexual orientation is different from what putin likes, that is illegal. if somebody wants to use chemical weapons, you have shipped them the precursors. i would not look to snowden as a whistleblower. >> maybe in the back there? four or five rows back. >> thank you, mr. secretary. in 2000 a canadian citizen was arrested and sent to syria where he was tortured. he sued. the canadian government awarded him $8.9 million for what happened. a british citizen was captured in morocco and tortured at guantanamo and his case was

thrown out by the american court using the state secret privilege. several british courts upheld what happened to him was illegal and he was given several million dollars. it was revealed that the department of homeland security was opening u.s. mail from a foreign source. in 2009, it was revealed by the media that homeland security agents were targeting groups for terrorist activity based on antiwar group or islamic lobby group. numerous times, when we try to have oversight, the government has invoked the state secret privilege. do you believe the department homeland security can be trusted to uphold the rule of law if they have little public or judicial oversight? >> i would not say there is very little judicial oversight. we could have a whole discussion about this. if you look at the totality of

cases and discount media reports because there's a wide variety of outlets and professionalism. if you look at the totality, here's what is striking about the united states. in many cases, the u.s. has lost cases in court. in no case did the u.s. government defy or failed to carry out what the court's instructions were. some the big cases are cases where the u.s. did not either partly lost or lost a significant argument. and when the court laid down the rule about what would happen, the government acquiesced. that is why there is a different process for people in guantanamo than there was several years ago. i would have to say whether you when a particular case is not the basis of the judge of law but whether that the courts are independent and whether that the

courts do rule against the government upon the government obeys. if the united states, the government does obey. if you look around the world, that is pretty remarkable. >> wait for a microphone. >> mr. secretary, how has your department responded to global terror threats with communication may not be as vast as large organizations, financial transactions may not be as easy to track as well? >> a great question. the model of what we first put into place after 9/11 when you are dealing with people coming from overseas is one that looks out.

just as international terrorism relies on global communication, finance, and travel, those are also vulnerabilities that can be exploited. lone wolves may not communicate with anybody else. they are living in their hometown. low-finance operations. actually that is where increasingly we have seen communities and local police that play major roles. the behavior, the person who behaves out of character that actually is the tipoff that something might happen. again, if you look at some the cases we have had in the past successful in disrupting a lone wolf has been because a small group because somebody in the community came forward and said there's a problem here. we had a case some years back where people from a particular

community in somali immigrants came forward and said our children went to somali to fight and that tipped off the authorities that there was a pipeline. just as you have your high-tech kind of well-known national security agencies that deal with threats that are global, when you are dealing with local threats and lone wolves, it is police boots on the ground, local folks, community leaders who have got to be part of the process of identifying threats. >> right here. right here, second row. >> mr. secretary, i wanted you to address the boston marathon. you said communication is key but in that situation one problem was communication between certain departments and government and certain governments. >> the full facts are not in and i do not want to speculate.

you have to look at this in several stages. one set of questions will be, why? somehow they lost track of tsarnaev, the older one, when he went over to chechnya and was over there for a few months. why there was not an alert on that? why was the russian warning did not integrated or taken seriously? the second set of issues is whether within the u.s. government where people did have warning, how come they did not pursue further communication? i do not know the answer but that's a second case of issues. once the bombings occurred, were the authorities effective? they were effective. that is a tribute to the training and exercises that had

gone on for years to get the police in gear to do with they had to do in order to shut down these folks. that illustrates in many cases, it's important to mitigate damage as to prevent it. you will not prevent everything but if you can stop it, prevent the tsarnaevs from going to new york, that is encouragement. the facts are not in. all of these tragedies are always occasions to do a hot wash, to really review and reconsider what the lessons learned are. there will be some useful lessons here. >> right here in the middle. back there. she will wave to you.

>> we have a lot of questions of the middle east and obviously what is going on over there. a huge part of dhs is also ice, so over the summer immigration reform was huge in the news and there is nothing going on about it. my question is do you think this will come back 2014 and then 2016 and do you personally think it will come back? >> i've spent a fair amount of time in 2007 when i was secretary, the president requested me -- and when the president requests it, that means you have to do it. i wanted to do it. he requested me to work with senators on both sides of the aisle to put together the immigration reform proposal.

we actually came out with the proposal not terribly different from what you see now that had a broad array of people supporting it, both quite conservative republicans and liberal democrats. look, i think this is going to happen. it has to happen. the only argument against it is if you think the current system is great. i have not yet met a person who said great. there are a number of different problems. while we have made a lot of progress in controlling the border, in many ways the real challenges are people come in legally and having visas and overstaying. what draws them in is illegal employment. how do you address that problem? we need people to perform certain jobs that americans do not want to do that we should open up a managed, clearly identifiable program that people can use to come to work temporarily. we have had that in the past.

you identify them and they have to play by the rules and they pay their taxes. that both eliminate some of the demand and if you put in an enforcement system, you make a path for people who are not here legally to get work. you kind of force those people into a legal channel but given the opportunity. second problem is we educate, probably some people here from other countries in important skills. they get advanced degrees that we say goodbye, go create jobs in india or china. why do we not want to encourage those people to create jobs here, not only for themselves but others? that's another thing that has to get fixed. we have people here illegally. many of them are rooted here and we have to find a way to deal with them. so they are not exploited and also create reservoirs where they can be preyed upon by

criminals. that is coming up with some fair way to resolve the situation that involves some combination of penalty. a probation period where you can monitor them and make sure they are in compliance but not forever foreclosing the possibility of them being citizen if they want that, and many will not. history shows that only a modest percentage of people who actually have the opportunity want to be citizens. many want to go back home. i understand there are challenges with all of this. we have taken three or four swings at this ball and pretty much everybody ends up with roughly the same vision of what has to happen. which tells me nobody has a genius idea for fixing this that does not have the basic outlines i laid out.

the fundamental question is this if you think the system is good the way it is, you should vote against reform. i think the american people are coming around to that. it is going to be very tough with a lot of stuff going on to get on the agenda. its time will eventually come. >> right here. sorry to all of those with their hands up. >> thank you, mr. secretary. given the recent situations of the diplomatic realm and the limitations on the security council's capacities, how do you think the diplomatic strategy will be effective and how relevant will it be in the future for other situations? >> in terms of what is going on with syria and the security council? >> yes.

>> i do not think anyone was shocked at the fact the security council was unwilling to take action. it had made it clear they do not want to take action. the russians were not willing to take action in the balkans in the 1990's and there was resistance to taking action in iraq in 2003 even though that was a breach of multiple u.n. resolutions. there's a question of the role of the security council and whether it paralyzes the ability to deal with issues that occur internally with this activity. i was in cambodia. i went to the trial of the

khmer rouge -- i read about it but you really have to take a deep breath and when you are confronted by the fact that almost 2 million people were killed. almost one third of the country, and it was a deliberate, painstaking killing. murder over a period of 18 months. is there any point in which there is a right of self-defense for the people in the country who are being victimized? we all agreed that we have rights of self-defense. is there such a point that a government forfeits his obligations to its citizens they have to say somebody has to protect them from being killed and raped. that is a moral challenge. the security council does not answer that question. this should not be undertaken lightly. one of the big challenges for international activity in the next decade is going to be how

do we deal with mass atrocities when governments cannot be reasoned with or sanctioned. i do not know the current mechanisms will be adequate.>> excellent questions. thank you very much for asking the questions, and you probably want to close? >> we would like to thank all of you for coming. secretary chertoff, thank you for coming and offering such remarks.ng thank you very much. this was our first academic event of the year. we hope to see you for the rest of them. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] ichael [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] >> president obama states his case for strikes against the assad regime for using chemical weapons last month. we will have live coverage at 9:00 eastern. the associated press reports the president is agreeing to a you

u.n. discussion. the president is going to capitol hill this afternoon. syria has accepted a proposal to dismantle chemical weapons. france has proposed a resolution that would force a plan militarily if the government would fail to follow through. secretary kerry spoke to the house armed services committee this morning. john boehner has said he is skeptical of the offer to turn over chemical weapons, but he has said obama has not yet sold the american people on the need for military action. speaker boehner has supported the president's call for using force. mitch mcconnell announced he will oppose the resolution authorizing a military strike against syria. nationalo vital security risk is at play and there are too many unanswered

questions about the united term strategy. the ap reports o'connell becomes the first leader to oppose the syrian resolution. here's a look at the unofficial vote count. for it ors are leaning toward voting for it. 26 senators are against or leaning no, and 48 senators are undecided. , 184 members are against it or leaning that way 120 six remain undecided. the house will not be taking up the issue today. it is possible later this week. today members will gavel back in in 30 minutes. we will have live coverage of that debate beginning at noon eastern. while we wait for the house, and look at this morning's

"washington journal." host: barbara lee from california, serving the 13th district. what are you hoping to hear from the president? guest: i hope the president will talk about the fact that the world cannot tolerate chemical weapons. the world cannot tolerate nuclear weapons. and we have to address the use of chemical weapons in a very forthright way. this means we have to look at all options in addition -- not in addition, but aside from a military option because i want to hear him talk about what weorts at diplomacy -- and are beginning to see some pay off -- that are being mounted by the administration. and the fact he has to make a case to the mac and people why he believes should diplomacy

fail that military strikes he believes are warranted. host: he has made the case to the black caucus? guest: yes. yesterday we met with the president and he has been very methodical law forthright, it was a candid discussion and he laid out why he believes the intelligence is accurate, which i believe that the assad regime used chemical weapons against its own people. you have seen the harbor effect the horrific images of that terrible assault. to achieve a political settlement, to recognize that there is no military option, that a military strike could lead us further from a political settlement. those are points of views that

are credible. but the president rightfully has come to congress. is a tremendous constitutional law you're an leader, and he did the right thing for the debate. the country now is engaged in this debate about what is the appropriate response should be to the assad regime. host: is military appropriate? do notat this point i believe the use of force can lead to a political settlement. i do not believe that we can know for certain what the collateral damage could be, and i know the administration is mitigating against that. we are not sure what type of effortsory strike or would occur by whom. and also, i am not certain -- that strikes, even with targeted strikes -- i am not certain that that would not insert this country into a

regional war nor insert us into the syrian civil war, which has killed over 100,000 people. talk aboutuest to syria, to get your thoughts from her about it. you can also said a thought or question on twitter. yesterday, the proposal from russia. what you make of it? >> i would say be cautiously optimistic. those who believe there are alternatives, and i am writing an alternative to the use of force, and this was one step in that alternative in terms of

putting the chemical weapons under international control. also the geneva convention. so i think this was an opening for a diplomatic initiative, even though i am aware and confident that the president continues to engage in diplomacy. we have to see. for those of us who do not support a military strike, we have to be cautiously optimistic and hopefully this moment is a defining moment. host: here's the text of your proposal? guest: it provides a variety of options. it states and i will go over a couple of them. in terms of peace talks at the geneva conference. we also want to look at the mandates, the united nations mandates on inspections and make sure that the u.n. is involved in this effort is in accord with

international law. i worry about the united states moving forward without the international community with us. we also talk about in the resolution about the chemical weapons convention. 189 countries in the convention, and we want to make sure there is a meeting and everyone, all signatories, respond to what has taken place in syria. we need the world with us on this. and i also believe and we have put this here that while we know what would happen or could happen at the security council, we think the general assembly should pursue and isolate assad and in fact tried to figure a way to get him to the international criminal court international criminal court. some have talked about more tribunals. i think we should push for that. i do not think anybody believes player and her

has not used chemical weapons against his own people. my alternative actually lays out how do you hold him accountable in terms of an international criminalrecord -- court referral, in terms of freezing his personal assets. host: will this come to a vote? guest: i do not know, but i think it is important to have an alternative. those of us who are reluctant or voting no on the use of force, we have to explain to the public , given what we know about what has taken place, what our options and alternatives would be. so we are laying this out. we're asking members to cope sponsored this, and -- to cosponsor this commodity want the a but to understand our diplomatic solutions short of military action which provide such possible dire consequences. have people lining up

to call him, but how will you vote as it stands now? guest: i am not voting for the use of force as it relates to a military strike in syria. i believe there are options that must the explored. such as what is in my alternative. but also i believe that this could ask of -- this could escalate and more violence would take place. i worry about a regional conflict raking out. i worry about retaliation. and collateral damage, we cannot be certain what that looks like. i cannot support that. i believe in what secretary kerry and the president continually remind us of, that there is no military solution, that we must get to the political sentiment, because there is a civil war going on and we have to do what it takes to get to that settlement. a military strike, does not do that. tennessee, good morning.

caller: good morning, pedro. her why she to ask will not stand behind the president here. it seems like we have a man who has given us things that we need here. .e is ending two wars we heard the same thing about libya. now they do not want him to get rid of another ruthless dictator. what is wrong with everybody who do not see this? he has given us health care. you're fighting a get -- you are fighting against change. change is what the world needs, and you are fighting for it over there, and you're not willing to help? i do not understand. guest: thank you very much. i have supported the president. he has done a phenomenal job. he has been methodical, very focused, and he has been using quite a bit of restraint as it

relates to syria. as a member of congress, i did not support the authorization to use force after 9/11. that was a blank check, and horrific moment for americans, and you see what has taken place and turns of policy. now we have drone attacks and other attacks that have been used as a result of that. we have to be very careful. during that time i offered an alternative that said let the united nations complete its inspections process. of course to my that was defeated. what is very important, the country debate issues around war and peace issues. when we are committing possible troops or military hardware and personnel, into harms way, it is very important that we deliberate this and as member of congress, we need to debate this

and need to know what we are doing. this has nothing to do with any personal or political disagreements with the president in terms of what he is doing. it has to do with us wanting to debate this and supporting an alternative. this is a democracy. we have a duty as members of congress to put forth alternatives and talk about going to war and what that means in terms of our constituents, our country, and global peace. host: jamie, from west virginia, republican line. caller: my comment is that i do agree with your guest on some things as far as not using any military force, but i think that all of these people out here saying that we should be going and there and should be doing something, that we have this obligation, they need to also think about reinstating the draft. 1% of high-school graduates go into the military.

that is it. these men and women are stretched too thin right now and money is tight. guest: well, sir, i do not support reinstituting the draft. we have some of the finest troops in the world. yes, our armed services and armed forces are stretched, but i think we need to make sure that the role and mission of our military is existence is what the threats are and we need to support our veterans. we have many veterans who have come home who need the type of economic security that we, the democrats, are trying to provide it. so, we have to do the right thing by our veterans and by those in harm's way as we speak. the draft takes us backwards. we have a volunteer force now and young people who want to

join the military. i applaud them. i am the daughter of a 25-year military officer, i know the sacrifices they are making and i know that they deserve our support and we need to really focus on how we continue to support our veterans to make sure that they continue to receive the kinds of benefits, economic, and job security that they deserve. host: walter, new york, democratic line. caller: i want to know the countryies most involved, like syria, saudi arabia, turkey, why aren't they not at the front of this with the possible help of the united states? why don't they bear the cost that we will incur? i would think that they would be the first ones to take their own interest in hand to solve this problem in syria with our support. thank you.

guest: clearly, some countries have stated their outrage at what has taken place. when you look at jordan, they are stretched thin with refugees. incidentally, i think we need to provide as much humanitarian assistance as we can now because of the flow of refugees into turkey and jordan, as they are very overwhelmed. that is a part of my alternative. our position, my position has been that this country is going to use military force, we have to have the world behind us, we have to have the international community saying not only do we condemn what assad has perpetrated on his people, and we need to put our money and troops where our mouth is.

i salute the president and the administration because they are trying to put that together and we should not, i believe, move unless that takes place, because once again we do not need to take on this terrible, terrible issue if, in fact, the world is not with us, but we also have to recognize that we have a duty as leader of the free world to hold the assad regime accountable. host: there is a photo here of nancy pelosi and her role in supporting the move on syria. guest: she has been working to make sure that, one, the diplomatic option and political

settlement are achieved, as well as backing the president to make sure that because he has come to congress, rightfully so, that the president achieves the success that he has asked for. our leader is doing what she needs to do in terms of her caucus in trying to help to negotiate the votes that are necessary to support the president. that is her job and i think she does it. the affordable care act, all the legislation she has championed, she is very successful. host: has she spoken with you directly? guest: i have. host: what are those discussions like? guest: very frank, we talk about what needs to be done to get to the negotiating table. the benefits, i would say the pros and cons of the use of

force and the difficult position the president is in. also the fact that we need to hold the assad regime accountable for what he has done and the horrific crimes that have taken place. she understands this very clearly. she would prefer a diplomatic and political solution, but obviously her job is to also support the president. host: our guest is democrat barbara lee, representative from california. we are discussing syria. representative lee, there is a story going across the ap right

now out of moscow, according to the syrian foreign minister syria has have not accepted the notion to surrender control of their chemical weapons. guest: lets hope that that is the case. it would be a game changer. we will have to wait and see. force as an option has to be maintained. host: how do we verify that? guest: i am sure that the administration will be able to verify a news report very quickly. but to have a system established where the international community can verify the facts that syria is going to do what they say they're going to do. host: capitol heights, maryland, republican line. caller: good morning.

i agree with you 100%. we should stay in a peaceful road. that is the job of the united nations, you know, to sort these things out. we should be talking about americans invested in the war. as far as the stock market, you know, people make big money behind these wars. this is why they are so quick to go in to wars. we need to have a real serious discussion about that. thank you. guest: thank you. i think that the american people want to see us invest our tax dollars in creating jobs and infrastructure development, in education, developing a world- class educational system so that our young people can be competitive with the jobs of the future. people are war weary. i also think that the american

people understand that we are in a new world and that peace and security has got to be part of our agenda. we have to figure out how to maintain a balance without neglecting our own country in terms of nation building here at home, and that has got to be a priority. unfortunately with the party, congress cannot even get a job bill passed because there are these priorities of the tea party. i think the democrats have put forward a major effort to support our president in creating jobs and turning the economy around. host: the syrian foreign minister set a meeting that the government quickly agreed to to "derail u.s. aggression."

guest: again, if this is accurate, and let's hope that it is, this is a deciding moment. host: are you skeptical? guest: i am cautiously optimistic. there are some who are skeptical because we know oftentimes that the united nations, especially, has have arrangements in deals negotiated where they did not happen and russia has backed down. as someone who has to be very focused on a diplomatic initiative and a non-military approach to a political settlement, i have to be cautiously optimistic. but these facts have to be verified, monitored, supervised, and the world has to step up and insist that this be enacted appropriately. host: how much of your thinking

today is shaped by decisions you made about iraq 10 years ago? guest: my thinking comes from many years ago on foreign policy. i worked for the former chair of the armed services committee, who was a tremendous leader on foreign policy and international relations. much of my analysis and thinking comes from that era, when nuclear weapons were involved, when the nuclear freeze effort was unacceptable, it was a part of my life's work. i truly believe that if we are going to seek a world that is worthy of our children, we have to think about a world where peacefully people can coexist, whether or not we disagree with someone's political perspective, where

they live, but i think it is important that we respect differences and always seek alternatives. it also comes from being a military brat. my father was in two wars. i understand the impact of war on families and our troops. i support our troops fully and want to see them out of harm's way, i do not want to see them in harm's way when they do not need to be. i was the only one who voted against afghanistan because i thought the resolution was too broad. now it is still being used to justify the use of drones. i saw that coming and i could not support that. i am trying to repeal the 2001 resolution. with iraq, my amendment just said -- let the u.n. inspectors complete the process before we decide whether we will take military action or not.

had the congress had waited, we would have known that there were no weapons of mass destruction. i think we have to be careful when we move forward on issues of war and military action to be sure, to be certain that it is in our national security interest. i am not an isolationist, but i also believe we have to be very prudent. the american people deserve a debate. they deserve for us to look at non-military means as we decide how to go and live in a world where we insist that global security is a priority. guest: next is indianapolis, indiana, on the independent line. tony, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i agree with the representative

about going to syria, but my comment would be that i never would have guessed that russia would be the ones to support diplomatic talks and getting anything done. i think that if the president would have taken assad out, maybe he could have played golf rather than do something else. thank you. guest: i do not agree that the president plays golf more than anything else. he works very hard. he is a bold leader, very thoughtful, very methodical. i think that when we talk about international support, i cannot see russia or any other country wanting to allow the use of chemical weapons.

that is a threat to everyone, everywhere, every country, every nation. part of what we have been saying in my alternative is that we have to push russia and make sure that the entire world comes together to ensure that we rid the world of chemical weapons. again, i am cautiously optimistic on this opening, but i think that the administration sees this and is going to be very careful to make sure that what is taking place is accurate and will actually be followed up on. we need to give it a chance. host: republican line, florida. caller: number one, i do like you as an individual, but i wish is you all would stop the platitudes. i heard you take a stab at the tea party. the speaker, nancy pelosi, doing

things for the president, whatever -- the voters represent them. i know that those in the same party like to work together, but the fact is that apart from the president, democrat or republican, you need to carry of the will of the people and that is part of what is wrong here today. the other thing you're trying to do is give the administration credit for going to congress. you know that he went to congress because of the polls in the tide that were taking place. as it relates to what happened with john kerry, who gave his speech yesterday, he had no idea, he just put something in the air and vladimir putin came out of the blue and said -- let's do this. the reason we are going into syria is not because they have

chemical or biological weapons, it is because of what they did with the weapons and the people there. the question would be those people are still dead. if it was about weapons, we would have gone in a long time ago when we knew they had weapons. it is the fact that you have thousands of individuals already dead. that is what the president said >> would do something about. we will go live to the next -- to the house. no legislative action on serious today. that could happen later this week. live to the floor of the house.

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our guest chaplain, reverend dr. harmon stockdale, missionary baptist church, rochester, new york. the chaplain: heavenly father, we acknowledge you with adoration and humble gratitude. we pray for your presence and guidance over this distinguished body before whom

we stand. we thank you for this great land in which we live, the united states of america. and we thank you for all who share in making the policies, laws and decisions which guide and govern our nation. we ask your blessings upon all of our elected and appointed leaders as they lead us to face the challenges of our day. grant that we as a nation may be mindful of your providence and your grace as we give moral and ethical leadership to the people of our world. may justice, equality and compassion always be the guiding principles for our way of life. and may we never forget that to whom much is given much is required. in your son's name we pray,

amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from new york, mr. higgins. mr. higgins: 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: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

this week all eyes will be upon us as we debate the use of force in syria. this decision is not one that should be made lightly as ultimately there are many factors to be made, to be weighed. make no mistake, that what's happening in syria is truly a human tragedy. mr. gosar: that nation has been torn apart by civil war and it's without a doubt that assad is not friend or ally of ours, but things are very complicated. a large number of those who oppose the assad regime are affiliated with al qaeda. in the case of syria, assad and the rebels, it cannot be said, that the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. in this dangerous civil war, the enemy of our enemy is still and will always be our enemy. it is this dynamic which has led us to the overwhelming response of people throughout my district and this nation to say without imminent threat to the national security, without a plan, without a goal, without unified international support from our allies we must stay out of syria. thank you and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? without objection, the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. higgins: mr. speaker, the situation in syria is that of a national civil war. it's a sectarian and ethnic conflict between two warring factions, and this is not about democracy and freedom. there is no social contract, there's no constitution, there's no preamble, there's no unifying vision as to what syria wants to become. this is a brutal battle between two bad sides for control. assad is a brutal dictator for certain, but the opposition's best fighters are al qaeda and islamic extremists bent on creating an islamic state in syria. the international community,

194 countries has said but for turkey and france that, yes, the united states, go get them. just don't ask us to participate. so the american people will find themselves once again for the third time in a decade in a region of the middle east, in south asia, another civil war essentially alone again. the american people want nation building, but right here at home in america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> 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. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to oppose the president's action in syria. i just returned from the middle east, meeting with heads of states, in qatar, egypt, the united arab of emirates and our ambassador of nato. it will further destabilize syria and cause a collapse of

the government. what will happen then? what will happen is that country will then fall in the hands of hezbollah, hamas, al qaeda, muslim brotherhood. at the end of the day, what's important, mr. speaker, is who has control of those weapons of mass destruction. while what mr. assad has done has been bar barrack and evil, the havoc that will be played upon this world if those weapons fall into the hands of the islamic extremists we will never forget -- we will never forgive ourselves what will happen. mr. pittenger: we need to work together to find those weapons of mass destruction and securing those for the future. there are many people who are living outside of their country now as refugees, tens of thousands of abled men who could be recruited to be part of that solution. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to

address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this week i will reintroduce the resolution recognizing september as national childhood obesity awareness month. it raises awareness of the issue while discussing ways we can engage our families and communities on how best to curb this unhealthy trend. ms. fudge: over the past three decades, child obesity rates in the united states has tripled, and today nearly one in three children are overweight or obese. these numbers are even higher in minority communities were nearly 40% of african-american and hispanic children are overweight. children today experience a different lifestyle 30 years ago when children ate less and exercised more. many groups have stepped to the plate to help. community partners like the campaign to end obesity, cheer for healthier america, ywca and

health corps have taken the charge to help our children achieve the healthiest lives we can give them. let us use the month of september to elevate the issue of childhood obesity and recognize our community partners. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. johnson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: thank you. mr. speaker, after 3 1/2 years, the obama administration has failed to make its hallmark legislation, obamacare, work. instead, it has delayed or waived portions, including the so-called verification system. this was obama's way of ensuring folks who receive federal assistance to buy health insurance met the criteria buried within 600 pages of red tape, the administration said it would no longer verify the information provided by individuals but

simply rely on self-reporting. mr. speaker, this opens a wide door to further fraud and abuse in our health care system. this fraud could amount to $250 billion in taxpayer funded payments. that's no pocketbook change. that's why i urge my colleagues to support a commonsense bill, h.r. 2775, no subsidies without verification act, to protect packspayer dollars and further chip -- taxpayer dollars and further chip away at this unworkable law. you know the american people want and deserve and need much better. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. defazio: the president has come to congress, as he should, to ask authority for a military action and discretionary military action. the sad fact is he doesn't have to because of a defective law

passed by congress in reaction to nixon's bombing of cambodia in 1973. the bill that congress passed is a shadow of our constitutional authority regarding war and peace. and this president has come to us. that's good. the result is not yet known. it's already resulted, perhaps, in a diplomatic breakthrough. that is also good. in the future we need to make certain that each and every president comes to us when it's not -- against imminent or real attack, our troops or our citizens. i'll be reintroducing legislation to fix war powers and require that the president come to the congress before launching a discretionary military action. we must fix this law. this is a good president. let's make this the law of the united states of america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise?

>> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to urge the president and my colleagues to oppose any u.s. military action in syria. based on the evidence given to congress, i have serious reservations about authorizing the use of military forces in another mid eastern country. the president has not convinced me that we have vital national security fathers at stake in syria or a clear military objective. mr. marchant: there are far too many unanswered questions and unclear objectives. the constituents in the 24th district of texas are deeply skeptical about the military value -- the value of military intervention in syria, and i fully agree with their concerns. on behalf of my constituents and many concerned americans, i

respectfully urge my colleagues to weigh the evidence fully and to be realistic about what can be achieved in military intervention. let us vote for what's best for the united states. keep the u.s. military out of syria. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the entlewoman from new york rise? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for ne minute. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, i'd like to commend the obama administration for its willingness to consider a new alternative proposal for dealing with syria. the proposal is to hand over all, and i stress, all of syria's chemical weapons under the oversight of the international community and to safely and verifiablely destroy them. this could actually remove those weapons from the battlefield and peacefully

prevent the further use of them against the people of syria or her neighbors. this idea has gained support om u.n. secretary general, ban ki-moon as well as russia and france. mr. speaker, this needs to be vigorously pursued. the attack against their own people using poisonous gas is morally reprehensible, and if this plan is successful, it could produce an outcome that everyone desires. preventing the assad regime from using chemical weapons. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> 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. >> mr. speaker, the american people are still struggling with a shaky economy. mr. hultgren: during the august work period, the number one question i was asked in my constituents, where are the

jobs? we saw the unemployment rate drop to 7.3%, but for all the wrong reasons. people didn't find jobs. they stopped looking for them altogether. between july and august, that amounted to more than 300,000 people. a smaller percentage of americans are working or looking for work than at anytime in the past 35 years. it is so discouraging to be told the recession is over but then you look and you look but you can't find a job. employers are on my -- around my district tell me the best stimulus for hiring is to reduce government regulations, cut taxes, simplify the tax code and push for smaller government. yet, what do they see ahead? more uncertainty as they race for the october deadline to set up expensively and confusing obamacare exchanges. no wonder businesses aren't hiring. the unaffordable care act doesn't give them the confidence that they need to be able to afford hiring new employees. let's restore their confidence to hire and train new workers. the house has passed numerous

jobs bills to reduce regulation on businesses. let's have the senate act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise today to speak on syria. the real issue is the assad regime gassed more than 426 children and their parents. those who perished died a horrible, horrific, mergsyless, and completely unnecessary death. we must come together and act with the president to create a credible threat of force and thereby deter the future use of chemical weapons. i am somewhat optimistic as recently reported syria is willing to place its chemical weapons under international control, this solution could possibly bring a peaceful resolution. mr. vargas: we must remember that iran is also watching.

the ayatollah is looking to see if the u.s. is willing to stand up against those who gas their own people. will they really stand up then against the plan to build nuclear weapons? we need to stand with the president and send a message to the world that we mean what we say. that we won't allow assad to keep gassing his own people and that we won't allow iran to develop a nuclear weapon. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to honor today a group of hometown heroes from corpus christi, texas. the corpus christi universal little league team. universal made it to the little league world series this year in williamsport, virginia, after they won the southwest regional tournament. they showcased their talents on the international stage

defeating teams from australia and canada. they received a grand welcome home on corpus christi alongshoreline boulevard with a parade where my district director presented them with a flag flown over the united states capitol and a letter of congratulations from me. they are an inspiration to young men and women throughout texas and america. mr. farenthold: this summer, they saw and demonstrated that hard work pays off. it's a feeling i know they will carry with them for many years to come. way to go, universal. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from new york is recognized for one inute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. tonko: it's been more than five weeks since we recessed and all the problems we put on hold remain here. this long list of challenges includes repealing the sequester. according to the nonpartisan

c.b.o., sequestration will cost us about 750,000 jobs this year alone. now is the time to act. instead of messaging bills or playing procedural games in an attempt o repeal or defund the affordable care act, we should be addressing unfinished business. americans have sent us here to do a job. help put people back to work and grow our economy. i encourage house republicans to work with democrats to roll back these mindless, thoughtless sequester cuts. they are the worst way to save a bad program and the most foolish way to cut a good and vibrant one. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. hardworking americans have called on congress to stop obamacare. while they expect that washington elites will deride their message and disparage their cause, they are here because they understand the

consequences of obamacare's oppressive mandates. back home over the month of august i heard from parents who pay higher premiums only to have health coverage dropped for their spouse. i have talked with hoosiers who make ends meet with two part-time jobs after their hours were cut. i have seen the discouragement of neighbors who hope this is finally the week they'll find work. americans know that this isn't what a recovery looks like. but they wonder if washington even cares. mr. stutzman: president obama told them to trust the bureaucrats. the same bureaucrats who gave carve outs to big business and kickbacks to big government. republicans told them we have a different plan. we promise to stop obamacare and put patients ahead of politics. as obamacare's october 1 deadline approaches, those families wonder if we really mean it. mr. speaker, now is the time to keep that promise. now when it really matters, we must stop obamacare.

the speaker pro tempore: the entleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, because of obamacare health insurance costs could be increasing more north % for a young in carolinians, those who pay just over $100 a month now pay have to pay $185 for obamacare-approved coverage. the administration has attempted to console us with promises that the blow of such sharp cost increases will be softened for the neediest americans through income-based taxpayer subsidies. however there's a problem. it's not just medium americans who will have access. because the obama administration has decided to rely on an honor system for subsidy distribution to draw money, income won't have

to be verified and neither will one's access to, quote, affordable, end quote, employer provided health coverage. we are told this honor system will be temporary, but we are not satisfied. develop a verification system now or delay the subsidies. better yet, give every american a break and repeal this law. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore:, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> last week we learned even more distressing news about our economy. the labor force participation rate is the lowest in -- since 1979 during jimmy carter's presidency. we refuse to settle for the new normal. americans deserve better. mr. neugebauer: and how do the president and democrats in congress plan to make things better? they still insist on the full implementation of obamacare which its own authors already describe as a train wreck. but the house is working to dismantle this unworkable law

and we are taking another major step this week. we are introducing legislation that will prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in the distribution of obamacare subsidies. house republicans will continue to work to protect americans from the harmful effects of this law. it's all part of our plan to foster a strong economy and more structured and secure future for all. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to speak to the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i spent the last few weeks back home listening to my constituents then hearing their stories of just how tough times are in obama economy. mr. walberg: what's the latest economic news? more of the same. another disappointing jobs report was issued by the labor department last week.

we learned that far too many of our fellow americans have simply given up looking for work. the labor force participation rate is at the lowest since 1979. is this what americans should come to expect? is this the new normal? americans deserve better than this immediatey observinger economy -- this mediocre economy . our plan revolves around more jobs and expanding opportunity instead of stifling it. that's how we'll get our economy back to work. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: jab. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. recorded votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. neugebauer: i move the house

suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1155, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1155, a bill to reform the national association of registered agents and brokers and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. neugebauer, and the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott, will each control 20 minutes. the gentleman from -- the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. neugebauer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and submit remarks extraneous materials on the record for h.r. 1155 as amended currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. neugebauer: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. neugebauer: thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important piece of insurance regulatory reform legislation today. the most serious regulatory challenges facing insurance agents and brokers are redundant, costly, and sometimes contradictory requirements that arise when they seek licenses on

a multistate basis. it has become clear that the main cost of these problems is the failure of many states to issue licenses on a truly reciprocal basis. on average multistate agents sell insurance in eight states. that means eight different applications, eight different procedures, and separate background checks and multiple inconsistent standards and duplicative processes. these requirements are not only costly and inefficient, but they hinder the ability of brokers to effectively address the needs of their consumers. congress recognized the need for lee forming the insurance industry licensing system back in 1999 when it incorporated the national association of registered agents and brokers ubtitle into the gramm-leech-bliley act. it didn't provide for an immediate establishment of narev, but it encouraged states to simplify the process. nationally -- unfortunately the original passed in 19 9 did not

work, and nationally nonresidential licensing rest pros pit -- reciprocity has not been achieved and the burden of insurance agents and brokers and the impact has directly impacted our consumers despite the best efforts of many stakeholders at making state level improvements, it has become clear true licensing reciprocity can only be achieved through additional congressional action. this bill we are considering today, h.r. 1155, reform act, or narevi referred to as immediately establishes it as a private, nonprofit entity managed by a board composed of eight insurance regulators and five marketplace regulators. it provides for nonresident insurance agent and broker licensing while preserving the rights of states to supervise, discipline, insurance agents and brokers.

overall this legislation would benefit policyholders by increasing marketplace competition and consumer choice, and by enabling insurance producers to more quickly and responsibly serve the needs of their consumers. i'd like to thank my colleague, mr. scott, from georgia, who introduced this piece of legislation with me earlier this year. this bill has almost 90 bipartisan co-sponsors. and is supported by groups such as independent insurance agents and brokers of america, national association of insurance commissioners, the national association of insurance financial advisors, and the council of insurance agents and brokers, and major insurance trade -- company trades. this legislation passed this chamber by a voice vote twice before in the senate banking committee unanimously approved an identical companion legislation. i ask that my colleagues support this needed insurance regulatory arab by voting for n

reform act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. first of all, mr. speaker, i want to just say i know i join many people across this nation and around the world who are prayerful and who are hopeful that this break through, this window of opportunity that we have dealing with the syrian situation works. now, mr. speaker, i can't tell you what a great joy this is for me. i have worked on this bill for the past six years. we have been dealing with many areas to fix our financial system, to make it work. we have a very complex and complicated financial system. there is no industry that has

the challenges that are being faced today as the insurance industry. and the economy, its demands are rapidly changing. because of advances in technology, mobility, the narrowing and making the world much smaller. so essentially what we have here s a long overdue fix to help these small business owners because that's what our insurance agents are. . h.r. h.r. 1155, the national association of the registered agents and brokers act, or what we call narab, as my distinguished colleague from texas, mr. nugebure --

neugebauer, has just stated, is very dear to us. many of us in the financial services committee have spent years toiling on this issue. so have many in the senate. and as my colleague, mr. neugebauer, has said, we passed one house in 1999. but look what has happened. we've had terrorist strikes. we've had all kinds of things that have happened. we've had an economy almost on the verge of depression, and standing there in the middle of this storm dealing with the wants and the needs of the american people in all the areas, property damage, health, car insurance, you name it, has been our agents. so i want to just briefly take you through exactly what we're

proposing here. r. 1155, first of all, creates a streamline agent and broker licensing system. that's very important. that strengthens the competitive insurance market while maintaining those ever important consumer protection items. it strengthens the business. it strengthens the competitive insurance market. doesn't weaken it. and at the same time strengthens and protects our consumers. narab will allow agents and brokers to more efficiently operate on a multistate basis. that's so important. businesses no longer conduct around the corner or down the

street or just in the next town. it's all over the country, and our insurance agents and brokers need the flexibility and the smoothness in our system to be able to negotiate in the best interests of not just the insurance industry but most importantly for the benefit of consumers who move om state to state to city to city. now, next, narab will allow our agents and brokers to also address the increasing concern nd greater importance of our technological and mobile connected world. as we know, we are all connected. a t, our narab will be one-stop licensing compliance mechanism for insurance agents and brokers operating out of

their home states. each will have their own state, but narab will work as a one-place clearing-house to satisfy that. while at the same time preserving the long -- long standing authority of states to discipline the insurance producers. the states, nothing is being taken by state control in this bill. as a matter of fact, it strengthens states' controls, and that's why all of the state insurance commissioners support this legislation. and through a nonprofit board for insurance agents and brokers obtain approval to be on a multistate basis, narab act deals with marketplace entry and would not impact the

day-to-day state regulation of insurance agencies. we sat down, we brought the state insurance agencies in and the commissioners to work with us so that we could have a joint understanding on this bill. narab will be governed by a board dominated by state regulators. again, dominated by state regulators. and would establish membership that exceeds the existing requirements of any state. again, exceeds the requirements of any state. a perspective narab member would be required to be fully licensed in his or her home state and satisfy rigorous membership criteria. an approved narab member could obtain the regulatory approval necessary to operate in any

other selected jurisdiction. this is a crucial piece of legislation, an excellently drafted piece of legislation. and for those of us who are concerned about small government, it's very important to note that narab would not, would not be a part of a report agency and would not have any kind of federal regulatory power. we're out of the business once we pass this bill. it's in the hands, where it belongs, at the state and local level. the legislation is supported by nearly the entire insurance industry, including all the major agents and brokers associations as well as the major insurance association.

adationly, the national association of insurance commissioners, which represents allstate insurance commissioners has formally, formally endorsed this version of the legislation. this state-based reform benefits our consumers first, and that's at the head of the line of our concerns. and it benefits our consumers through increased competition among agents and brokers and lead to greater consumer choice at lower prices. that's what the consumer is looking for. this bill also will assist an important sector of our economy, small businesses, by streamlining nonresident licensing regulation. the house has two is recognized the need of this commonsense reform by passing this nearly identical legislation, as i

said before, subsequent to suspension rules. once again we ask for your support. and with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. neugebauer: i thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield two minutes to the chairman of our capital markets committee, mr. garrett from new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. garrett: i thank the chairman and the gentleman from texas for your leadership on this legislation today. i rise in support of h.r. 1155 which is the national association of registered agents and brokers reform act. you know, this bill, as we like to say, commonsense step that will create a clearing-house, if you will, for insurance agents and brokers alike to obtain approval to operate on a multistate basis. you know, under current law they have to obtain a license in each and every state so the regulatory process, as you can imagine, varies from state to

state. so obtaining and obtaining licensing is both time consuming and very expensive. so having complete this process over and over again basically compounds the difficulty and often proves daunting, quite honestly, to smaller agents who are just trying to do their job and to serve their clients and meet their needs. so what we have here now is the narab clearing-house. this would allow the agents to complete the process only twice. once in their home state and once again for narab. and then be eligible to sell in all the states. here's an important point. narab is supported by all the stakeholders, including, as the gentleman just said, by the state insurance regulators, and it does so because it brings much-needed efficiency to a multistate licensing process. and while doing this, the legislation would also preserve, and to me this is very important, state-based insurance regulation and also consumer protection. finally, this legislation would not, as was pointed out, create

a brand-new federal insurance regulator in its place. you see, by law narab would not be a regulator or a part of any federal agencies. it would have no -- any federal agency. it would have no regulatory. so with 56 approaches, this bipartisan bill would reduce this needed -- needless red tape and complexity that's out there and would help insurance agents better serve their clients. so i urge this house to adopt this legislation today, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. scott: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. neugebauer: i thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. radel, for a comment -- sorry. correct that. to the gentleman from

tennessee, mr. fincher, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. fincher: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise today as a co-sponsor and supporter of h.r. 1155, the national association of registered agents and brokers reform act of 2013. as mentioned, this important legislation strikes the appropriate balance between easing the licensing requirements for insurance agents and preserving state authority to supervise and discipline insurance producers for their actions. through this legislation, i hope all consumers, especially the citizens of tennessee, will benefit from a more competitive insurance market. narab is supported by all insurance industry stakeholders, including state insurance regulators, regional and national insurance companies and trade associations. h.r. 1155 is seen as the most effective, efficient way to enable insurance agents and brokers to be licensed on a multistate basis while retaining state regulatory authority. while today's legislation

speaks to insurance agents and brokers, similar issues exist for claims adjustors. to address these issues when consumers present have a claim, i introduced the claim act, h.r. 2156, to streamline the licensing requirements for insurance adjustors operating outside their home states. all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks bill would preserve state authority to supervise and discipline adjustors for their actions while streamlining state licensing regulations. as we join together today to support h.r. 1155, i call upon my colleagues to similarly support -- and enact the claim act to ensure consumers receive the same excellent service when they need their insurance. i thank the gentleman from texas, mr. neugebauer, for his hard work on this very well-thought through legislation, and i hope it will help the citizens of this country receive excellent insurance products and services and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves.

the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. scott: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. neugebauer: thank you. now, mr. speaker, the gentleman from florida, mr. radel, recognize for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. radel: mr. speaker, i rise in support of this bill introduced by my colleague, representative neugebauer. this bill reduces costs for homeowners and renters not only in my home state of florida but for everyone throughout the entire country. today, insurance brokers and agents face hurdles when they try and work across state lines. what this bill does is make it easier, less expensive for them to get licensed in multiple states. the best part about this, ultimately it saves you, the consumer, money. the legislation streamlines the federal role in real estate licensing while allowing states to continue setting standards for the work that best fits their states, because after all, we know what's best for our states and our communities. lowering costs for insurance agents and brokers means more

options and lower prices for consumers. i'm glad they support this bipartisan legislation. i encourage all of my colleagues to vote for the narab reform act, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. scott: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. neugebauer: i reserve. i yield back to the gentleman to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is now recognized. mr. scott: if the gentleman has no more speakers, i yield back. i want to say what a distinguished pleasure it has been to work with the gentleman from texas, my good friend, on both the financial services committee and the ag committee. we do a lot of great work together. it's a great pleasure, and i commend this bill to the full house of representatives, hope we have a unanimous vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields back. mr. neugebauer: i also want to thank the gentleman from georgia. he worked tirelessly on this issue.

i think what's nice about this issue, it's bipartisan. it's good piece of legislation. it doesn't expand government, doesn't cost the taxpayers any money. ultimately, i think it will bring better choices to consumers. help our small business people across the country. for example, in my congressional district, it is closer to three or four other states than it is to some of the cities that are within my state. for example, from lubbock, within 100 miles to colorado, within a couple hundred miles from oklahoma and colorado and so these other states and so basically we have a lot of insurance agencies and agents that now will have the ability to do business in multistates in a less cumbersome way. i encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1155 as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the 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 is laid upon the table. gentleman from texas. mr. neugebauer: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. 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 motion will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. walberg: i move the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2747. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2747, a bill to amend title 40 united states code to transfer certain functions from the government accountability office to the department of labor relating to the processing of claims for the payment of workers who are not paid appropriate wages under certain provisions of such title. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg, and the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. walberg: thank you, mr.

speaker. i -- i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 2747. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. walberg: mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of h.r. 2747. and i yield myself such time as i may consume. with our nation -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walberg: with our nation facing difficult challenges at home and abroad, it is important we continue the work the american people sent us here to do. that includes pursuing commonsense reforms that will make the federal government more efficient and a better steward of taxpayer dollars. the legislation we are considering today is a small yet important part of that of the. approximately one out of every five workers is employed by a federal contractor. drawing on the strength and expertise of the private sector

work force to complete federal projects has helped deliver better results at a more competitive price for taxpayers. a number of laws govern the wages workers on federal projects receive. for example, the davis-bacon act requires federal contractors to pay workers the local prevailing wage. additionally, the contract work hours and safety standards act ensures these workers receive 1 1/2 times their basic rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours a week. both laws have played a central role in federal contracting for keaks. -- decades. however, both are plagued by inefficiencies. the department responsible for enforcing these laws, yet the general accounting office has long been a middle man in an overly bureaucratic claims process. here's how the current process works. mr. speaker, the department of labor first determines whether

or not workers have failed to receive their proper wages and calculates the amount of pay they are due. next the department forwards to g.a.o. a report that states the names of underpaid employees and the amount they each are owed. funds from the relevant contracting agencies are delivered to g.a.o. which then deposits the money into an account it treasury department. based upon claims forms submitted by affected workers, g.a.o. transmits payments request to treasury which disburses directly to workers their unpaid wages. it should be noted that g.a.o. has no authority to overturn or even challenge the department's judgment in this area. as a result of this lengthy back and forth between numerous federal entities, workers can experience delays in receiving their correct wages and taxpayers are forced to support an unnecessarily complex process. i think we could all agree we

can do better. h.r. 2747 is common sense and bipartisan legislation that would transfer g.a.o.'s administrative duties upped these two laws to the proper federal agency which is the department of labor. g.a.o. has requested this relief and believes it will encourage more efficiency within the federal government. furthermore, it will free up time and resources at g.a.o. that can be better spent fulfilling its central mission of investigating waste and abuse in the federal government. by moving wage claims adjustments for federally contracted workers to the department of labor, we can ensure workers receive their pay in a timelyier manner while providing greater efficiency. quite simply, mr. speaker, this legislation is a win for workers and for taxpayers. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 2747 and reserve the

alance of my time. >> mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the pending legislation, h.r. 2747, the streamlining claims processing for federal contractor employees act, which will transfer authority for processing claims under davis-bacon act from the government accountability office to the department of labor. the department of labor is already responsible for many aspects of davis-bacon. this change will help streamline the process and ensure that workers receive their hard-earned pay in a timelyier and more efficient manner. i would like to thank the gentleman from michigan for introducing this commonsense fix which i am pleased to co-sponsor. it's time we transfer this administrative responsibility to the agency that enforces the law, and i hope this bill will be the first step in a larger effort to allow the department of labor to engage in further enforcement actions under the davis-bacon act, including the

g.a.o.'s current department authority. as a strong supporter of davis-bacon and the protection it provides our contracted workers, i am pleased to see that this bill will help streamline the process and allow our workers to access to the prevailing wages they rightly earned. that's why i rise in support of h.r. 2747 and i thank the gentleman from michigan for introducing the bill. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense proposal and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. walberg: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers to speak to this issue. i would be glad to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walberg: i want to thank the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney, as well. not only for his support of the legislation but for his leadership on this issue. as members of the house subcommittee on work force protections, we are privileged to oversee a number of federal

laws and agencies that directly affect the lives of workers and their families, the basis for this country's greatness. the davis-bacon act is one law in particular that i believe is in need of additional reform. independent reports have highlighted administrative challenges facing the law that result in workers being shortchanged and taxpayers being overcharged on federal construction projects. i know there are sharp differences over what, if any, davis-bacon reform would look like. but i believe we have demonstrated today, mr. speaker, how incremental yet important change can occur if we work together in good falte on behalf of the american people. at the very least i hope we can continue to discuss these issues with one another. thereby bringing us closer to common ground that is necessary to move this country forward. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on h.r. 2747 and yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: gentleman from michigan yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2747. so many as are 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 is laid upon the table. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. walberg: mr. speaker, i request 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 yain -- yeas and ays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass s. 130. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 17 -- 137, senate 130, a bill to require the secretary of the interior to convey certain federal land to the powell recreation district in the state of wyoming. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from the northern mariana islands, mr. sablan, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes