the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 415. the nays are zero. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is on the vote of the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, to suspend the rules and pass s. 459 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 140, senate 459, a bill to modify the boundary of the

minuteman missile national historic site in the state of south dakota and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 414, the nays are five. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. members will please clear the well.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 339, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 2775, to condition the provision of premium and cost-sharing subsidies under the patient protection and affordable care act upon certification that a program to verify household income and other qualifications for such

subsidies is operational and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? ms. clarke: to provide an explanation of my missed votes this afternoon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. clarke: mr. speaker, i was unavoidbly detained and missed the first series of votes today, september 10 -- the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. ms. clarke: had i been present i would have voted yes on roll call h.r. 1155, national association of registered agents and brokers reform act of 2013. i would have voted on roll call 2747, 51, mr

streamlining claims, processing for federal contractor employees act and yes on roll call number 452, s. 130, powell shooting range land conveyance act. i ask my votes be recorded after the vote tally. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman's statement will appear in the record. ms. clarke: thank you mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, section 202-d of the national emergencies act 50 united states code 1622-d provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the president publishes in the federal register and transmits to the congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. consistent with this provision, i have sent to the federal

register the enclosed notice stating that the emergency declared in proclamation 7463 with respect to the terrorist attacks on the united states of september 11, 2001, is to continue in effect for an additional year. the terrorist threat that led to the declaration on september 14, 2001, of a national emergency continues. for this reason, i have determined that it is necessary to continue in effect after september 14, 2013, the national emergency with respect to the terrorist threat. signed barack obama, the white house. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my name as a co-sponsor rom h.r. 2019.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. r. moran: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the chair is prepared to entertain requests for one-minute peeches. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: just last week in houston, texas, beginning of the school year, we experienced an enormous tragedy of the loss of a young man in school violence inside one of houston harris county's schools, high schools. i rise today to give sympathy to the family of joshua bussard and

friends, teachers, parents and administrators for an it is an unspeakable act to have an incident that causes children to fear the very place that they should be safe and secure. i look forward as all of our elected officials and law enforcement have already offered their commitment and time to work with the young people to restore their faith in the sanctity and security of schedules but more importantly to speak to the issues of bullying and speak to the issue of violence and work with the parents to be able to say that the cessation of violence in america's schools must end and end it in terms of knives, guns and children must feel loved. we look forward to coming to your school district and standing with the children to ensure that they know that there are those in the united states

congress, like my good friend, mr. hoyer, and others that will stand together to ensure that our children can learn and are safe. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there further requests for one-minute speeches? for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. moran: ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and stepped my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. moran: the intergovernmental counsel on climate change report indicated that there are dire new estimates for the rate of warming around the planet in the next century. the report represents the latest finding from the international scientific community that not only is the planet warming but 95% certainty that that warming

is being caused by human activity. we have known for over 100 years how greenhouse gases work in the atmosphere. we also know that atmospheric concentration of heat-trapping gases have been rising. we directly track and measure the human activities that release heat-trapping gases such as burning fossil fuels. we understand we are responsible. unfortunately, there are some politicians in this body that are content to ignore the overwhelming scientific consensus and that is being done at the bidding of the oil and gas lobby. the house of representatives have to listen to these experts and take action on climate change. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: any requests for one-minute speeches? the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. culberson for

today after 3:00 p.m. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. as we come back after our august district work period, there have been several major events that has happened and generally it does happen in late summer in the western part of the united states. and those events generally revolve around forest fires and i'm joined on the floor tonight with a number of my colleagues from the western part of the united states in whose districts we experienced some of these forest fires. but the reason i wanted to have this time, mr. speaker is because this issue about forest

management that i'm going to get into and my colleagues will be getting into has been building up for some time. i have the privilege to chair the house natural resources committee and we have broad jurisdiction overall federal lands and that includes our forested lands. and what i have observed in the time that i have had the privilege to be in this body is that our national forests are being badly mismanaged, particularly on federal lands. and they are being badly mismanaged because of events, generally events and regulations coming from the federal government. and we'll talk about that a bit tonight. but there is a solution to what we will be discussing tonight and the problems we have had in the western part of the united states with these forest fires, and that's the healthy forest act that we'll have on the floor hopefully later on this month. as the chairman of the natural resources committee, i have

always felt that all federal land, unless otherwise designated, should be for multiple purposes, and that includes recreation and commercial activity and includes whatever activity would be allowed under unless congress otherwise designates and those designations could be national parks, could be willeder necessary areas or national monday youments. unless congress otherwise designates, these areas should be for multiple purposes. and in many respects that goes to the problem that we're facing -- that we will be talking about tonight, the high incidents of forest fires on our federal lands. what we propose in the healthy forest act that i hope will be on the floor here later this month that is passed out of committee by a voice vote is

that on federal lands where there is multiple purposes, there should be target dates for harvesting timber. if one looks at timber like any other commercial crop, timber harvests in a longer period of time, 30, 40 years. you should still manage that crop. that means thinning and doing all the things you do with any other commercial crop. this hasn't been done. and as a result, this has led to these catastrophic forest fires that we have had. and when you look at the data and i know there will be a chart on the floor later on that shows when you reduce harvests, the incidents of wildfires goes up dramatically. it is getting into the taxpayer's pocket because when we are properly managing lands 30 or more years ago, for every dollar that the federal government spent on managing our forest lands, $2 would come back

in return generally from the revenue that was realized because of harvesting. but now, mr. speaker, that ratio is exactly reversed. for every $2 spent, we only get $1 back and as a result, it's getting into the pocket of the taxpayer where we need a positive cash flow, we don't have a positive cash flow. the response to that is to set target dates for -- in various forests for how much timber should be harvested. mr. speaker, this is not just on the federal level where there would be a benefit, there's a benefit also to local communities within various counties that are heavily timbered on forest land. back some 100 years ago when we were looking at using these forests as national assets,

there was a promise by the federal government to give local counties 25% of the revenue. this was their source of income. and it worked well for some 80 years. but because of the regulations that i mentioned in my brief opening remarks and, and particularly in the northwest and particularly in washington, oregon and northern california, because of the endangered species act and within the act, the spotted owl, timber harvests have dropped off dramatically. these counties have lost their revenue. in washington, oregon and california in the last 20 years, timber harvest has fallen by 90% on federal lands. as a result, those counties that rely on the revenue from forest activity simply don't have any ther means of income and

unfortunately that's one of those issues that needs to be addressed. we do address that in the healthy forest act by allowing counties to manage these federal forests and get a return as they did starting some 100 years ago of 25% of the harvests. . we hope to have this bill on the floor, as i mentioned, later on this month. it did pass out of committee, by the way, on a voice vote. i think that is significant, because i think more and more people are understanding the need to properly manage our forests. now, mr. speaker, i want to recognize the first gentleman whose district was heavily impacted, and we all heard about the forest fires surrounding yosemite national park, so, mr. speaker, i want to yield back my time by

recognizing the gentleman from alifornia, mr. mcclintock. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman, i want to thank chairman hastings for organizing this discussion and for his work on h.r. 1526, the restoring healthy forests for healthy communities act. this act takes on a poignant and crucial importance to my district in the sierra nevada mountains of california where the yosemite rim fire continues to burn through nearly 400 square miles of forest land. for years, foresters have warned us that the excess timber will come out of the forest one way or another. it will either be carried out or it will be burned out, but it will come out. for generations, we carried the excess timber out of our forests through sound forest management practices leaving

room for the remaining trees to grow healthy and strong. we had far less frequent and less intense forest fires, healthy trees that were disease-resistant and pest resistant and a healthier watershed as well as a thriving economy. but today extremist federal regulations have driven that 80% in the nearly sierras and we can sign them to a policy of benign neglect. rather than harvesting a small percentage of the trees to keep our forests healthy and fire resistant we are watching more than 400 square miles of the sierra nevada incinerated. if we had just harvested a small fraction of those trees, it's quite possible we could from ared the sierras excessive fuels and it's likely

we could have snuffed out those fires when it started. a generation ago crews moved along well-maintained timber roads. when a fire first broke out it took no time for a crew with a bulldozer to get to that fire and stop it before it got out of control. today those crews are gone, the roads are in disrepair and so fires that a generation ago consumed just a few acres now consume hundreds of thousands of acres. the result of these misguided policies is now clear and undeniable. economically devastated communities, closed timber mills, unemployed families, overgrown forests, overdrawn watersheds jeopardize transmission lines, rampant disease and pest atlantas and increasingly intense and frequent forest fires. that is the story of the town throughout the sierra nevada

once thriving and prosperous communities that have been devastated by these policies. this is not environmentalism. true environmentalists recognize the damage done by overgrowth and overpopulation and they recognize the role of sound, sustainable forest management practices in maintaining healthy forests. if there is any doubt of the connection between the reduction of timber harvesting and the increase in acreage incinerated by forest fires, i ask you to look at this chart that shows the board feed of timber harvested from our public lands since 1983 and the forest acreage destroyed by fire. there is nothing subtle about these numbers. as the timber harvest has decline, the acreage destroyed by fire has increased contemporaneously and proportionally. it is either carried out or burned out, and at the moment

it's being burned out. they say there isn't enough money for forest thinning, and yet we used to have no money keeping our forests thinned and healthy when we sold commercially viable timber. the problem is if they take place at all, timber harvests are restricted to small diameter trees with no commercial value. i mean, can you imagine a fishery or a wildlife policy limited to taking only the smallest juveniles of the species? thus, the u.s. forest service, which once produced revenue through timber sales now consumes revenues and that isn't enough to maintain the acreage the government owns and controls. the mountain communities that once thrived economically are now economically prostrate with unemployment levels that rival those of detroit. this act is long overdue. by streamlining regulations and refocusing the forest service's mission on sound forest

management practices, h.r. 1526 will mean environmentally healthy forests and economically healthier communities. ironically, two weeks before the yosemite wildfire broke out, congressman nunes and i held a meeting that would add more restrictions on nearly two million of acres of the sierras. our expert witnesses warned urgently of the fire dangers these policies that have created. yet, these warnings were actually ridiculed by leftist newspapers like "the sacramento bee." how sad. two weeks later the yosemite rim fire was burning out of control. mr. speaker, on behalf of the people of my district, i want to thank the gentleman from washington for this important reform. i only wish it had come in time to prevent the environmental devastation we are now suffering this summer in the sierras. i thank the gentleman for

yielding. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from utah is recognized for 48 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. bishop: ok. thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to be able to control this next 48 minutes as we explain how significant this secure rural schools fix is and how important it is that we do something on a program that quite frankly is not sustainable. so this time i'd like to recognize, if not the father, the godfather of secure rural schools, the gentleman from oregon, his state is impacted significantly by this program. it is a significant issue to the school kids of oregon and mr. walden of oregon knows the significance and the importance of this particular issue. so i gladly yield to the gentleman from oregon to explain his particular on the secure rural schools issue. mr. walden: well, i thank the gentleman from utah, the

chairman of the forestry subcommittee, a subcommittee that a number of years ago i had the great privilege and honor to chair when we passed legislation, as we're going to do in this house once again to not only make america's great forest healthy but also then to stop the devastation that we heard from the gentleman from california. we have so much work to do, to continue the legacy of real environmentalism, which is healthy forests and healthy communities. when president theodore roosevelt created the great forest reserves back in 1905, thereabouts, he said they have to be in partnership with the communities and the communities have to be supportive of this, and the great purpose of this creation of forest reserves and the speech he gave in your home state, as a matter of fact, in utah, i believe, would be for home building, water for agriculture, which means the preservation of healthy forests. in the real-term preservation which i want. not what we're seeing inio

similarity national park and 4 -- yosemite national park and 400 miles of devastation. not where are the smoke was so thick in the rogue valley that they had to cancel the shakespeare theater, the people had to wear masks. i called into the call center of one of the phone companies and the attendant there to me said, he said it's smokey in here inside the building. this is not what we want out of our forests. it's not what our taxpayers want. it's not what the schoolchildren want. you see, we've lost the jobs, we've lost the revenue from the jobs. we got sheriffs in counties in my district that now have maybe one deputy. we had situations of violence. 911 calls. a woman was being attacked. 1 d basically told by the 91 folks, we don't have anybody to send. can you tell them to go away? you can't make this stuff up.

i thank chairman hastings, chairman bishop, others for bringing this bill forward. let me tell you what it means in a state like mine. in 2012, the oregon department of forestry in collaboration with other state and federal agencies, issued a report to the oregon governor stating that over the 20-year period from 1980 to 2000, wildfires in eastern oregon burned approximately 553,000 acres with an average fire size of 26,000 acres. over the last 10 years in the same area, it's burned a million acres, averaging 93,000 acres in size. that means wildfires have tripled in size in the last 30 years. not all those are in forests, but the point is it's out of control and it's very, very deadly and expensive. and it's unacceptable. the oregon forest resources institute reported that since

1990, the timber harvest from federal forest lands in the great state of oregon have dropped by more than 90%. 9-0, 90% reduction since 1990 in harvest of timber off federal lands. in fact, 60% of oregon's forest land is owned, controlled but not really managed by the federal government. it now contributes less than 12% of the state's total timber harvest. 60% owned and controlled by the federal government. 12% of timber harvests. and what does that mean for timber-dependent communities? counties that are under -- have like 50%, 60%, 70% ownership, my friend who taught school knows you don't have a tax base and you don't have jobs because now you're not doing harvest. you can't turn and entice big company to come in. this is a forested rural area, long way from freeways in most cases, but not all. what does that mean? in nine of the 20 counties i

represent, a double-digit unemployment today. 16 of the 20 counties i represent have more than 14% of their populations living in poverty in america. 14% in 16 of the 20 counties. here's a chart that shows what's happening. it shows mill closures in lost 3/4 of our mills and 30,000 mill jobs. and just recently we lost another one in josephine county, the rough and ready mill closed. they were ready to invest $2 million in upgrades and said we can't count on a timber supply off the federal lands that surround them. there went 87 jobs. want to show you another picture. i used it before over the years. it's indicative bhaps in a fire. this is caleb and ashley after the fire that burned 140,000

acres. 2007. it just shows the devastation these young children out there. what does it mean for our kids? the chairman asked about that. the oregon department of education says 60% of the schoolchildren in the county where this fire occurred lived in are eligible for free and reduced lunch. there's poverty all over the west, and there's a way to end that and produce jobs and revenue and have healthy forests rather than what we see it today. the chairman's bill would have sustainable yield the forest can produce and only harvest half of that with a sustainable yield and only on a land that's suitable for timber harvest. says if you're going to appeal a plan you have to at least be involved in the process. we put that in the healthy forest restoration act that passed this body overwhelmingly and i think passed the senate, huge support, signed by then-president bush, signed into law. limited in terms of what we need to do, but it had that provision in there. strikes a balance. you need to participate in the process in order to have a

right to appeal. it includes a one-year bridge payment. this gets your school -- the counties that currently have lost or will lose their funding for emergency services, for roads and for schools in the secure rural schools side, this is a bridge, this is a bridge to put people back to work in the woods when coupled with active management. this is balance. if i could write it on my own, you know what, you don't get that process here. we put together a good plan. we worked through our differences and forged a balanced plan that would create jobs, up to 3,000 in oregon in these very unique lands. it ensures the health of these lands for future generations and provides long-term management and certainty of funding for our local services of roads and law enforcement that lie within these counties.

o.n.c. would generate $100 million in revenue. we don't say give us another check. we say let us manage our own lands and do it under the oregon state practices act which is one of the leading environmental laws in the country for sustainable health and management, do it under that and we'll create the jobs and save them and create the revenue for our schools and let me tell you about the protections you'll get. it provides activities near streams, lakes and wetlands must include water quality protection, downed logs have to be left in large clear cut areas. some will say, 120 acres? let me tell you that the douglas complex fire that burned this summer burned 48,000 acres. if there isn't a more destructive clearcut than that, i don't know what is. after it burns, there is no

requirement they go in and replant. if you harvest 120 acres, you are required to go in and replant and those trees survive. let me show you what happens after a fire to the environment. there's no stream setback here. fire knows no bounds. our legislation says you can't harvest near a stream. you have to have setbacks. we believe in the environment. this is what you get when you don't manage. lack of action has an impact in a dynamic forest environment. doing nothing doesn't mean the forest gets better. it means it gets overcrowded and overstocked and we'll always have fire, it will blow up like my friend and colleague from california he experienced and all over the west this summer and every summer thereafter. the forest service spends more time fighting fires. ought to change the name to the

u.s. fire service. we ought to get back to managing these lands and the legislation does that. i thank the committee for its incredible work. i look forward to voting for this when it comes to the floor. and together, we'll get back to proper, thoughtful, constructive management of our federal forests. we'll take care of that trust the people put in us to take care of their federal lands and take care of the people as well. and i yield back. mr. bishop: we have heard now from three members of the west coast, one from california, oregon and washington who explained the situation and how this particular act is a solution to the problem to those west coast states are finding in their forestry efforts and this impacts the interior of our country and i yield to the representative of the state of montana who represents the .ntire state of montana

representative daines will explain what is happening in his state. mr. daines: i thank the gentleman from utah and reserving this hour, saving our national forests, which is very important to my home state of montana. h.r. 1526, restoring healthy forests and healthy communities act is important to montana, because many of our counties in montana rely on the forested economy or at least the realics of what used to be one. several decades ago, montana forests supported timber jobs and revenue stream for our counties and schools. in fact, i remember growing up when i was riding in the back seat, mom and dad up front in the station wagon, we would watch logging trucks drive up and down our highway s --

highways and timber sales helped support our schools. but today as i now drive around the state representing the state of montana, most struggle with unloiment. lincoln county, northwest county in my state with is comprised of national forest land used to generate timber jobs. they now face double-digit unemployment. the beaverhead national forest faces a high mortality rate due to beetle kill. we are of the year seeing forest fires on one hand and standing dead timber on the other that has died and we can't go in and harvest the dead trees, which we have a couple of years to do so because of the process here on our national forests. inflexible and outdated federal laws like the national

environmental policy act and the endangered species act have imposed a huge administrative burden on federal agencies which limit our timber industry's access to wood and ultimately have resulted in the mismanagement of our forests allowing places that we love to recreate but instead burn up in smoke. as the gentleman from oregon mentioned, it threatens our watersheds as well. 100,000 acres in montana have burned this year. the number of large fires, large fires has been as high as five just this week. my son last year played high school football his senior year. we had friday night lights. high school football games in montana canceled because of air quality, because of forest fires. laws like nepa and endangered species act are often the basis of lawsuits and aren't filed by

the rank and file residents of montana who are working to collaborate our national forests but filed by extreme groups toll halt projects that could help prevent fires and create hundreds of jobs. in one of our hearings, a top national forest official deputy chief jim hubbard said litigation has played a huge role in blocking responsible timber sales in montana, including projects supported by collaborative groups. to quote mr. hubbard he said this, it has virtually shut things down in the national forests. and the gentleman from oregon mentioned, the numbers in montana are the same. timber harvest is down 90%. mr. chairman, something must be done and i'm glad i'm joining

you to introduce this bill. h.r. 1526 will revitalize the timber industry in montana and create thousands of good high-paying jobs. reducing the threat of catastrophic wildfires in montana. the act will cut the red tape that has held up responsible forest management and timber production and includes comprehensive reforms to discourage and liberty the flood of friffolous appeals and litigation. it requires the forest service o increase timber harvest on nonwilderness lands. this improved management will protect the health of our forests, the health of our watersheds, the safety of our communities and allow jobs to return to the timber industry. the legislation restores the federal government's commitment to provide 25% of timber sales

receipts to timber counties and ural schools program has provided stopgap funding to timber counties after they plunged in recent decades. it's the taxpayer now who is funding that gap when we could have timber industry cutting down trees and supplying jobs and supplying receive news to support our schools. recently, we welcomed the vice president and general manager of land and lumber in columbia false, montana, he testified at a hearing. during the hearing, chuck perfectly summed up the challenges we face. he said, and i quote, this is a nonpartisan, nonregional issue. it's simply the case of doing the right thing to manage our public forests. if we don't, mother nature is going to do it for us and when

she does it, it's uncontrollable and it's catastrophic. mr. chairman, i could not have conveyed our challenges any better than that. we know too well how devastating wildfires can be to our communities and local economies. i urge passing the restoring healthy forests and healthy communities act. and i yield back my time. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i appreciate the remarks of the the gentleman from montana. very few people realize the federal government owns one out of every three acres in this country and disproportionate. of the 13 western states, 54% of the land mass is owned by the federal government. 33 states east of denver have 4% of their land, east of the western states. which simply means, no one actually quite understands how this relationship necessarily

works. it also means that the unfortunate truth is as we've already heard is that private and state forests are today healthier than the federal forest system. but those of us in the west realizes this firsthand because those are our neighbors and the areas that surround our community. i'm glad to hear from the next two speakers who will be talking from colorado, the first one is the gentleman from from colorado springs, who is on the resource committee and going to explain the significant situation that they find in colorado with our forest health situation. i yield to mr. lamborn. mr. lamborn: i thank the gentleman from utah and i'm glad to serve on the subcommittee with him and we serve with chairman hastings who is doing a great job on these resource issues. the bill h.r. 1526 the healthy forests for healthy communities act is a long-term solution to help put hard-working americans

back to work and ensure the rural counties have a stable source of revenue to help pay for schools and teachers. it was introduced by representative scott tipton of colorado and i'm a co-sponsor. over a september try ago the federal government made a promise to actively manage our forests and share 25% of the revenues generated from timber sales with counties containing national forest land. this is funding that rural counties depend on to help fund vital services such as education and roads. but the federal government has failed to uphold this commitment and has cut back on active management of our national forests. this lack of active forest management not only deprives counties of revenue to help fund schools and roads but inhibits job creation and makes our national forests increasingly susceptible to wildfires and invasive species. currently, there are over 21 active large wildfires burning

right now in eight states. over 406,000 acres are burning with two of the 21 fires contained. last -- this year to date, there have been over 35,000 fires with almost four million acres burned. last year, the waldo canyon fire occurred in my colorado district claiming two lives and destroying 500 homes. h.r. 1526 will help improve forest health and prevent catastrophic wildfires by lowing state and local opportunities. it will improve forest management by allowing counties to manage portions of national forest land. restoring active management of our national forests would ensure a stable, predictable revenue stream for counties and schools. active management would promote healthier forests, reduce the

risk of wildfires and decrease our reliance on foreign countries for paper and timber goods. i thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue and i yield back. mr. bishop: since mr. lamborn has already introduced the concept of what's taking place in colorado and the bill from mr. tipton, let me turn to mr. tipton from colorado to explain the significance and why he did that particular bill. mr. tipton: i appreciate your leadership on this issue along with chairman hastings. my colleague described some of the challenges that we have been facing in colorado. i would like to be able to expand upon that. not long ago, i was at the incident command centers in colorado on the east side of the rockies and in pa goesa springs on the west side of the rockies. to visit the command centers to deal with the west fork complex

fire. how big is the fire? 170 square miles and counting. not 170 acres. we are talking about 170 square miles of forest in my district. the challenges that this is going to place in terms of being able to deal with endangered species, in terms of water quality, tourism and the economy in western colorado can not yet be numbered. that is why restoring healthy forest act is a bill whose time has come. . there have been over 35,000 forest fires in the united tates n in 2013. several factors have led to a

significant increased in the magnitude of fires in the last decade. so far this year, 3.9 million acres have burned and these figures continue to grow with 1 active lanche fires. the property damage and costs associated with these is tremendous. to date, the forest service has spent over $25 billion in fire suppression alone. in 2012, the forest service spent only $296 million in hazardous fuel reduction whereas they spent $1.77 billion in wildfire suppression at the same time. part of this is a planning process. we have dealt with leadership in the forest service. they've talked about computer model which is their own folks are telling us simply don't work. we have to be able to get in and effectively managed the -- manage the forests to be able to build for our communities and be sure our children are

able to see the same forests we grew up living. in the cost of proactive healthy forest management is indeed far less than the cost of wilefire suppression. when it comes to our forests, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. but instead of ramping up forest management efforts and addressing hazardous conditions in the west, the interior department has proposed to cut the budget by 48% for fuel reduction in 2014. and forest services propose red deucing this proactive management by a further 24%. members of congress on both sides of the aisle have expressed outrage as this approach and further reducing funding for hazardous fuels. under the current management system a cumbersome regulatory framework has inhibited forest management while excessive litigation as obstructive projects that would prevent wildfires protect our vital

water supplies. the status quo is not working and immediate action is needed to fix this broken system. our forest management package, h.r. 1526, would allow greater in and local involvement fire prevention to reduce litigation an help restore sustainable timber harvests, create jobs and provide reliable sources of revenue for rural education and infrastructure. h.r. 1526 addresses shortfalls of county revenue for schools and critical services caused by a lack of timber harvests, by thriring forest service to produce at least half of the sustainable annual yield of timber required under the 1908 law and share 25% of those receipts with rural counties. in order to heat this goal while prviding for forestings, the bill continues by directing the forester is stroice

prioritize fire reducing projects, to expedite locally based projects it builds on the positive streamlining procedures implemented under the bipartisan healthy forest restoration act of 2003. i'm pleased to be able to work with chairman bishop and chairman hastings on this bill. it is time we stand together to be able to return hell to our forests in a proactive and responsible and positive way. h.r. 1526 accomplishes that goal. with that, i yield back. mr. bishop: i thank the last few speakers from colorado for explaining the situation in their states with federal forestland. before we turn to someone in the east who gets what we're talking about, let's continue with the back ben of the rocky mountains by turning it over to the representative from the state of wyoming, mrs. lummis, to describe how this impacts her state. mrs. lummis: i thank chairman

hastings for bringing this important legislation to the attention of the american people, especially of this tremendous fire season that we've had in the west for the past three or four years. where we have lost valuable natural resources, jobs, wildlife, livestock, people, houses, it is an unnecessary devastation, it always amazes me when we would bring about egislation to address regional haze that has no environmental impact other than to reduce the view sheds or the damage to the view shed when the daniel to the view shed is being caused by our inattentiveness in managing our national forests. i want to talk, mr. chairman, about forest health and the benefits of logging to having healthy forests, vibrant

wildlife, and clean water and air. the air is cleaner when the west is not on fire. he water is cleaner when protected from the ash that goes down the hills into the -- down the hills, into the streams, choking the oxygen out of our streams which then in turn kill ours fish. that reduces fishing opportunities and it reduces a vibrant fish population. in addition to providing clean air by lack of fire, clean water due to lack of fire, by logging, we can actually have more vibrant, widespread wildlife habitat and water for that habitat. when we log and do it in a manner that preserves natural contours in our forests, we can

have high mountain meadows with forages that will keep elk, deer, an other species on those high mountain meadows longer in the year, thereby providing habitat for a vibrant, healthy, diverse, you think lat population and the -- ungulate population and the species that share that ecosystem habitat. so it's good for wildlife. furthermore, it's good for the health of the forests themselves because if you would look, for example, at the medicine bow national forest and the route national forest in colorado, these two forests have been absolutely denuded of pine by the bark beetle, with the exception of the young trees in the areas that have previously been logged. the healthy areas of the

medicine bow national forest in wyoming and the route national forest in colorado are the areas that were previously logged. because there's a diversity of the age of the trees. thereby having a young, more resilient, healthy tree intermingled with stands of medium maturity and high maturity tree thesms combination of the old growth, the medium maturity trees and the young trees makes for a more vibrant, healthy forest that can better withstand an onslaught like the bark beetle ep democrat take has devastated so much of the inner mountain west system of we've addressed clean air, clean water, wildlife habitat through the opportunity for high mountain me toes an we've addressed the health of the trees themselves. and all this can happen while we have jobs in logging, while we have opportunities for

revenues for schools. the point here is, we're all part of this ecosystem. the people, the animals, the air, the water, the trees. all can benefit by this bill. this is a commonsense solution that has taken americans decades to understand and preesh the importance of but that has never been more apparent than it was this summer. thank you, mr. chairman, for this important dialogue. i yield back. mr. bishop: i appreciate the gentlewoman from wyoming being with us and talking about the concepts going on an what we can do for our future. if i could, mr. speaker, you know, at the turn of the century, the 20th century, the so-called progressive era, there was a paradigm shift that took place in the united states in which the government decided to basically keep all of the land. it was based on three premises. first is the west had to be

protected from itself. the second is only somebody in washington, d.c. would have the vision to make decisions that could impact the rest of the nation, and if there was ever a conflict between what local leaders or local officials wanted an what d.c. wanted, d.c. obviously had the better advantage. the result of that is as you have heard from people here today, that our forest system is not as helly as it used to be or ought to be. that communities that relied upon the timber industry to survive, the school systems in those areas that relied upon the timber industry to survive, have been decimated. our solution as a congress and administration has been to find a temporary payment to these solutions with no revenue source to make them permanent. what we have now tone is since 2000 when the school program started is spend $6 billion from the pockets of those who live in the east to fund a temporary program. what we actually need is a

long-term solution that works that puts people to work, that finds a real source of funding for education services, an provides a real solution for what we need. a solution that will provide for healthy forests a solution that will provide for vibrant communities, an for the support of our public school system. that is indeed what this proposal for the secure rural school program attempts to do. mr. speaker, about 20 years ago, a former democrat member of this house who is now part of senate leadership, i realize that's an oxy moron, senate leadership, but he was here an gave an impassioned speech on the noor that dealt with the controversial decision of major league baseball about the potential of switching to aluminum bats. that representative from illinois who is now a senator, rose and said, i rise to

condemn the desecration of a great american symbol. i'm not talking about flag burns, i'm referring to the baseball bat. several experts tell us that wooden baseball bat is doomed to extinction. please do not tell me that wooden bats are too expensive. please do not try to sell me on the motion that metal clubs will make better hitters. if we foresake the great americana of broken bat singles and pine tar, we have certainly lost our way as a nation. so his conclusion was simply this. i do not want to hear about saving trees, any tree in america would gladly give its life for the glory of a tai at home plate. as much as i agree with his statements, i'd like to take his statements one step further, and say not only would any tree in america give its ife to be at home plate, any

tree in america would give its life to provide education in america. we don't need all the trees, just some of the trees. by cutting just some of thee trees you improve the health of the forest. if you don't cut them you have forest fires. i would like to turn the time of this special order over to mr. thompson of pennsylvania for the management so that he may speak and also produce -- introduce a couple more speakers we have still to caulk about -- to talk about this vital issue of secure rule schools and how this house has finally come up with a solution a long-term, lasting solution o this particular problem. i yield back to the chair for the pup of yielding to the gentleman from pennsylvania. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

mr. bishop: for the pup of yielding the remained ore they have time to pennsylvania. d -- to the secret from ennsylvania. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced spoifl january 3, 2013, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for 12 minutes as the designee f the majority leader. mr. brady: thank you, mr. speaker, mr. bishop, chairman hastings. as a person from pennsylvania, the eastern portion of the united states, i do get it. this is a problem as you've heard peevesly from my colleagues from the western part of the country is devastating there it's devastating in communities in the pennsylvania fifth congressional district. mr. thompson: we have the allegheny national forest, we have four counties that struggle because of a failed

policy in terms of forest management. they struggle economically, when we do not have healthy forests, we do not have healthy communities. so i stand here very appreciative to chairman hastings' work and certainly supportive of h.r. 1526. as chairman of the agriculture committee's forestry subcommittee, i continually point out that the forest service is housed within usda rather than the interior. it was done so for very specific purposes. this decision was made long ago because our national forests were intened for multiple use. the most important function of that mission is to properly manage these forests an grasslands in order to retain the ecological health of those resources for sustained economic and reck ragal use. you cannot adqualityly manage a forest without harvesting timber. look to our private and state forests to see how to manage a

forest effectively. representing a forested district and outdoorsman i'm alarmed how our annual harvests have dropped off in the past 20 years. between 1960 and 1989, forest service was harvesting 10 to 12 billion board feet per year. nce the 1990's it fell below two billion board feet. this is about one-fifth of what they are harvesting in an average year. we have seen the economic impacts of reducing our harvesting levels in our national forests. 25% of the timber receipts generated on national forests are required to be returned to the county of origin. the purpose of this is since there is no tax base there for

local government, timber receipts would provide a consistent source of revenue to the counties to be used for schools, police and local expenses. in 2000, this lack of timber dollars created the secure rural schools program to make up for the loss of the county revenues in the forest lands. this program would not have been needed if the federal government was keeping its promise to these rural areas by managing and harvesting the appropriate amount of timber. in the national forest loathed my district we have met the recommended level of harvest but no where near where we need to be and this is true across almost every other national forests in the country where they are generating a few percent of the recommended level. too low harvesting will have an impact on forest health. decreased timber harvesting

means more dead trees and flammable materials that do little more than serve as fuel for wildfires. the incidents of wildfires have decreased in recent years, owever fires we are seeing are much more intense. why? the reason is because of the increased flammable materials are not removed through management activities. land million acres of are at high risk. it was 9.3 million acres when they harvested 200,000 acres. this means 44 times as many acres burned as were responsibly managed and harvested. as an orange co-sponsor, i applaud chairman hastings in the introduction of this bill. this legislation will provide responsible timber production on

forest lands in areas specifically identified by the agency. access and retaining the multiple-use mission is paramount to ensure that our rural forest communities continue to flourish and be viable. at this time, i'm pleased to recognize my good friend, western caucus colleague, mr. earce. mr. pearce: thank the gentleman from pennsylvania for yielding and his work on behalf of h.r. 1526. new mexico is the home to multiple national forests. we see firsthand the effect of our national forest service policy. last year, in the middle of the year, fire broke out, four acres, two, three days. the forest service policy was basically let it burn. they let it burn three, four days and the winds got up as they do in new mexico always and

blew that fire into 10,000 acres almost immediately. started burning down homes, 255 homes burned. it's at that point we began to speak publicly about the forest service policies that would create infernos in our western forests. formerly, we had a policy of the rule that was if you get a fire, you put it out by 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. if you're not successful, then it's 10:00 a.m. the next day. you dedicate the resources you can to putting out the fire. those policies have been amended by current chief tom tidwell saying we are going to let them burn. we are wondering if the trees will survive this forest service policy. many of the fires in the west are not surviving. hundreds of millions of acres

are at risk every year. not a matter if they will burn but when. as we talk publicly about forest service management policies during that fire, then we started getting calls from individuals around the country who had retired out of the forest service saying yes, keep talking. we as retired professionals disagree with the current philosophy in the forest service. we invited one of those 30-year employees in to our district to run a congressional study and to come up with recommendations. he basically had two after months of study, he said we should be mechanically thinning our forests, that is logging in our forests and secondly return to the 10:00 a.m. policy. one of the downstream effects of bad forest service management. first of all, we are losing the habitat for millions of species and burning millions of species

in the fire. these are endangered species and we are killing lots of animals and destroying a watershed in new mexico. in one fire, the forest around one of the lakes there that provides drinking water was at risk. the forest service said they should clean it. instead, lawsuits were filed to stop that. the fire burned right up to the edge of the lake. the lake now has 50 feet of fill in it. all the fish are dead, starved r oxygen, exactly like the gentlelady from wyoming said. they are filling with silt. forest service personnel said they will have to empty that lake for the next 15 years, 15 years of dead fish, 15 years of downstream facing flooding, 15 years without the drinking water that sustains a community of about 30,000.

these are what we face. but also the west is starved for jobs because of forest service policy. the original organic act, the act that created the u.s. forest service said they should be logging to create local commerce and jobs and should be protecting the watershed. the u.s. forest service is anythingly gent. we in the west are suffering, lost educational opportunities, destroyed forests and those forests will not grow back for 100 years according to the forest service personnel. time for us to pass h.r. 1526. i support it. and i yield back to the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. thompson: i would like to recognize the gentleman from lamalfa.a, mr.

mr. lamalfa: mr. speaker, every year, rural america, especially the western states and areas like mine in northern california are in the news, not for something good, but for something we see going on, so many wildfires. and there's no reason for this. that's why i support this bill here today that would make our forests perform for us instead of a detriment to us and our health in california and in the western states. we can have either the type of air quality problems that are happening like in the central valley of california, for example, one of my colleagues is talking about although we have had challenges there in recent years, they have improved things. air quality is much worse because of these fires than anything going on by people or after the improvements that have gone with air quality issues. back in 2008, the whole summer and into the fall, brown, dirty air where kids couldn't go outside because the quality was

10 times above health levels for them to be safe. we see our small communities that are devastated by an economy that has been shifted away due to forest management and forest service policies that don't work for them. this legislation would allow our forests to perform for us and help these economies, the health of the forests and the health of the people and the health of the local economies to be strong once again and as was mentioned earlier, our rural schools. let's do commonsense legislation instead of watching our forests burn. i urge support. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from nebraska, mr. fortenberry or 30 minutes. mr. fortenberry: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. fortenberry: this is an extraordinarily busy week in washington as we have all returned from a district work period. there are many, many issues to discuss including how we are going to fund the federal budget and get the fiscal house in order and have the right type of tax reform and deal with a whole host of other issues. i felt like it would be very, very inadequate if the evening didn't go by to get into a discussion as to the nature of the syrian conflict and potential for united states military involvement. mr. speaker, i wrote my constituents last week as they expressed tremendous concern about the potential for u.s. entanglement in the situation in syria. in fact, it's overwhelming the number of people who shared deep heartfelt concerns. it is overwhelming and i'm hearing that from my colleagues as well. and this isn't some sort of

populous reaction to the elites of this institution and government, but an intuition of the american people who are suggesting to us in leadership that we have poured ourselves out as a country and sacrificed tremendously to give other people a chance for stability, human rights, for the right forms of development, for political outcomes that uphold just governing structures. and where have we gotten for our investment? you see, since world war ii, basically the united states has been tasked the role of superpower and we have accepted that arrangement, but there are tremendous, tremendous pressures upon us as we continue to move forward in the 21st century as we empower other people in other economies through appropriate development to take responsibility for themselves. the united states has not always

done this perfectly but fought multiple wars and engaged in many, many areas of the world in order to try to give other people a chance and to stop aggressive ideologies that are inconsistent with basic and fundamental human rights. i responded to the people of nebraska and i wanted to share that with you this evening. life in syria today is as the philosopher thomas hobbs once wrote, nasty, brutish and short. the oppressive regime by president assad wages battle wages against rebels who employ the same brutal violence that the government has. the result is there are more than 100,000 persons dead, many snnt civilians, mothers, fathers and children. in response to the suspected use of chemical weapons by assad, president obama is now

advocating u.s. military intervention, although of course the situation is now fluid. he has stated that the use of chemical weapons is a quote red line that assad could not cross without a serious rethinking of involvement in the conflict and included significant amount of humanitarian aid targeted to those caught in the middle of this violence. the president has asked for a vote of congress prior to taking military action and some in congress are signaling their support. in recent days, however, i have clearly stated my opposition to this idea. i oppose this action of unilateral military strikes. the united states should not bomb syria in the name of stopping violence in syria, while quick unilateral military strikes might satisfy the president's red line rhetoric, the collateral damage and risk

of subsidy stabilization is very high. as congress has returned to washington, there are hard questions in the process of being asked, what will be the consequences of this bombing? who's on the other side of this and how much do we really know of this rebel movement that we will be implicitly aiding if we attack assad's government? what happens following the military strikes? why not expend the energy of this debate over military involvement on some lid filing international outrage and holding russia, an ally of syria, holding them accountable? the international community must work together to creatively stop the saveragery of assad but cannot hide behind the united states military might, no longer can it be assumed that the united states is responsible for

fixing all aspects of global conflicts and no longer should the united states accept that framework. for the sake of global stability, a new construct must instead take its place one in which the responsible nations of the world are serious about their own defense and stabilization of conflicts within their region. . in light of the activities in sir ark the quites should continue advance support for the victims of the civil war and we should use this opportunity to facilitate new international partnerships that seek lasting solutions to complicated situations of mass violence. until such a united front is achieved, unilateral military action may only introduce further chaos to an already disastrous problem and as i have said, implicitly put us on

the side of a rebel movement who has also shown willingness to murder innocent civilians. it is not clear whether or not the more moderate elements of that very movement have any capacity to implement governing structures that are just and lasting. so then what happens? syria, this area, degrades into a vast, ungovernable space, ripe for jihaddists with no protection for innocent persons or the ancient peoples who call that place home. mr. speaker, there are a number of other aspects of this that i've written about that i'd like to share momentarily but i'd like to turn to my good friend, congressman charlie dent, from pennsylvania, as he wishes to share a few conceptings and perspective on this conflict. mr. dent: i thank the gentleman from nebraska for organizing this special order to discuss

the crisis in syria. in my view it's indispute thabble al-assad is a villain who has committed heinous mortal crimes with the use of chemical weapons against his own people. what is debatable, however, is america's poll sunny syria and the broader mideast. i have raised the issue of ria with this administration at numerous hearings as a member of the appropriations committee. i've also worked with syrians in my own community and i have the largest community of syrian americans of any member of congress in the united states. i've met with them, they've brought to my attention issues of abdoesn'ted christian archbishops whose wrabs are unfortunately unknown. there's a lot of work going on to try to secure their relouis. but that said, you can understand their concern for that part of the world. i have spent time, too, you know, in meetings with

america's wonderful friend king abdullah of jordan who has also shared his perspective on the plight of the syrian people. but what i've observed most of all, very sad observation, as the friends of the syrian regime, iran, russia, and hezbollah are far more committed to president assaad than the friends they have syrian people. that would be the best. and in the arab league, to these moderate opposition forces. now i've asked former secretary of state hillary clinton back in february of 2012 if the administration was going to support moderate groups given that the assaad's government was weak and there was a popular uprising and she provided -- she was clear with

me that she thought that providing light arms would be of little help to the opposition in the face of assaad's substantial military. you know, to put it bluntly, and in short, she didn't want to get too involved at that time. we really didn't have much discussion about the benefits to america, its friends, allies and their interests. if iran's influence in the region were substanceablely weakened through the overthrow of assaad. i thought at times that the president maybe was more concerned with maintaining his reputation as a noble peace prize winner anti-war candidate rather than developing what i thought would have been a more practical response for syria. it just seemed that inaction and indecision were and frankly today remain the order of the day. in the meantime, fast forward from a year and a half, two years ago to today. al mistra and other radical

islamist terrorist organization have rushed into this vacuum and filled the void, so to speak. today there rnlt any good public policy outcomes for the united states. the time of the united states to more constructively intervene, reach a more efficacious resolution the time for that has long passed and so now here we are, we've, over the last two and a half years, the syrian civil war has descend, into both a sectarian and proxy conflict and these events have moved well beyond the united states' ability to control with iran, hezbollah, committed to ly the assaad government. i think we all know, as mr. fortenberry knows, and i appreciate his leadership on this, we know we have a war

weary population. which is not going to support a halfhearted, poorly thought out military strike which will only expose the united states and its friends to greater risks, including the possibility of a broader regional conflagration. this could include more chemical weapons attacks against the syrian people and possibly israel. potential cyberattacks on american critical infrastructure in both the financial services and energy sectors. an unleashed hezbollah and other unforeseen asymmetrical responses. i'm depply concerned about this as we all should be. we can't just look at syria in isolation. we have to look at it in a broader context of the mideast. unfortunately and i'm gong to have to be critical of the president at this time, witness how president obama turned his back on egyptian president

mubarak, who, in 2011, after two weeks of uprising. whatever his faults, whatever his shortcomings, mubarak was a loyal, 30-year friend of the united states. a lesson learned by our friends and our allies throughout the region and throughout the world. of course, back -- prior to that incident, there was the green revolution in iran where we saw a lot of very brave people nigh ran stand up to the ahmadinejad regime in ian, we witnessed that, and it seemed that this administration could barely utter words of support to these very brave people who stood up to a tyrant, ahmadinejad, who obviously made all sorts of reckless and inflammatory and hateful statements against the west and particularly israel. i was just astounded that the administration could barely ulter words of support. then,ing of, we learned about leading from behind in libya.

actually, leading from behind the french and british in libya to be precise. i was one of only a handful of republics in the house to support the action in libya. i'm not an isolationist, i think we have an important role, internationally, the united states. but let's move forward, articularly to 2013. assaad use -- assaad's government launches chemical attacks against his own government. i believe the intelligence is clear he did it, his government did it. i'm not debating those fact what appear to be facts but we witnessed these chemical attacks in both the late spring and again just a few weeks ago in august of these chemical ttacks, we witnessed again the trampling of the red line set

down by the president not once, but twice, maybe more than that, for all i know. now with over 100,000 syrians killed, what is the president's strategy for syria? i couldn't expla -- explain it to anybody if they asked. he's talked about pinpricks or his administration talked about pinpricks, shots across the bow, a military action of day, not weeks. no intention to topple assaad or degrade his military capacity to make war on his own people, for that matter. i'm learning a lot about what we will not do but i'm not sure what we will do, what we're trying to accomplish. a limited air strike to punish mr. assaad is not going to alter the outcome of the syrian civil war. what's the point or purpose? what's the claire i have to mission? in my view, america's national interest is two-fold in syria. one, we want to limit iranian influence in the region, and two, the other issue, of course, deals with securing those chemical weapons.

and frankly, from both the isad government and the radical elements of that opposition who would be probably just as inclinesed to use those. so much so that king abdullah of jordan came to members of congress to express his real concern about israeli forces getting dangerously close to chemical sites in the southern syria, just a few months ago. so now we also witness too that the -- there really is not a coalition of the willing. to tackle mr. assaad's crimes. it seems more like a coalition of the unwilling. we have the united nations really doesn't seem to be anywhere to be found, though in recent day the last 24 hours, we're hearing there may be discussion with the russians about some kind of resolution on securing those sites but the u.n. is not anywhere to be found. nato doesn't seem fully engaged at all though maybe some members are supportive. and of course we witnessed what the british parliament did to

prime minister cameron in rebuking him so the british are very, dear, beloved friends and allies are not willing to be engaged in this one, we're on our own. i called this a coalition of the unwilling. and so i think it would be -- it would behoove the united states not to move in what appears to be a unilateral manner. i've read that some of the arab governments would be willing to help pay for this mission should we strike you know, on the one hand i appreciate that, on the other, the united states military is not a mercenary force for anyone. and a lot of folks may be encouraging us or cheering us on but it doesn't seem they're willing to put people in harm's way. so i think we have to keep that in mind as we talk about this. i'm going to conclude in a moment, you know, i was one of the folks who said, it's important for the president to consult with congress prior to taking any kind of military

action, it's important in our system, though i don't believe the president necessarily needs a congressional authorization for what he calls a very limited air strike. but now that he's asked me to engage in this debate, again, i owe the president fair consideration of his policy in syria. whatever it may bfment and again, i said call me skeptical, now you can call me outright opposed, i said from day one that the president didn't seem to have his heart in this impending military action, he was looking for a way out. after the u.n., the u.k., nato, a lot of our friends not willing to go along, the president turned to congress as a last resort for his authorization with where he's run into very, very heavy skepticism, to put it mildly. i didn't see any churchillian resolve in our commander in chief. our men and women in union forl deserve a command for the chief who is full throated in support

of what is likely to become a very dangerous military operation. and could possibly spiral out of control. but more importantly, we have to be cognizant of the potential consequences and ramifications of that action. and i think the president of the united states owes that to the american people to make it clear what his policy is, what his mission is not what he's going to do, but what he intends to do. and after, you know, the president really threw this issue to congress, we witnessed, you know, president assaad's jubilant supporters celebrating in the syrian streets, i'm sure the corridors of pow for the tehran and moscow. you know, and it seems now that america's friends and allies watch this mystifying failure of presidential leadership unfold with dismay. so have i. so have our constituents. we have all received these calls. in my view, and i'm sad to say this, barack obama may have

diminished his own presidency in the process but more problemmatically, diminished america's standing in the world among both friend and foe alike. and that's a real stradge di. in this upcoming vote in congress, if it's to come at all at this point, is not so much a vote on authorizing military strike, military intervention in syria. the stakes have grown beyond that it's much more a vote of confidence on the president's syrian and broader middle east policy. on that score, i have no confidence. just want to say one last thing, i mentioned i have a very large syrian population in my community, syrian americans, great americans, they've been part of my community for a long time, larmly christian, ant oklahoma orthodox, greek orthodox, presbyterian and other doe de-nominations.

they are scared. they are -- and other denominations. they are very scare. they know what assaad is and many are uncomfortable with what he is. on the other hand they've seen ll mistra and al qaeda and are terrified of that operation. so they're caught in this sectarian cross fire. they don't want to be. they're worried about acrossities. grievous atrocities being committed against the christian people of syria. we just witnessed the other day there was a story, a small village, i believe not far from damascus where the language of aramaic is still spoken, one of the few places. that's the language jesus christ spoke. to know that these people could be under attack when you find out that the forces have

intervened. that said, you think about this and worry about the history of mankind and the history of the christian tradition is at risk here and potentially a great risk of extermination. and we have witnessed this in egypt, too. there are lessons to be learned in egypt. a mubarak fell, the specific population in egypt became vulnerable. terrible things have happened. and i fear that we might see similar, if not worse things happen in syria. so whatever this country -- whatever course of action this country chooses to pursue, i don't believe a military intervention would advance america's policy objectives and i don't think it would think it

would change the trajectory of the syrian war. people have said doing nothing at all is the worst of all options. if we're not certain of what this so-called limited intervention will bring, i would argue that no action is better than a limited action which may not do much of anything to alter the course of this civil war. we have to be carbous and i do appreciate the gentleman from -- caution -- cautious. i yield back to the gentleman. mr. fortenberry: i have heard you speak behind the scenes in this body particularly today for the people who are directly impacted by this, people who you represent. i appreciate your clarity. and your resolve on this issue, because i know you, as i do,

have great respect for the institution of the presidency. he is our commander in chief. but we also have a responsibility to render to him our judgment in this case. and so my judgment is no that a unilateral military strike is going to accomplish an objective of potentially stabilizing, punishing, preventing assad from doing further damage versus pulling the united states as a coalition of one into a conflict where we are very unclear as to what the collateral damage and destabilization outcome could be. in addition to that, the american people are saying there is a serious problem with us being drawn into another conflict where the options are all bad, where our hearts are with the innocent victims and continue to provide humanitarian aid, but we must not allow the

international community to hide behind our military might. that is what the people are sensing. we are being drawn into something that has much broader implications for the international community to respond in a creative way. if we expended this energy in trying to get underneath the problem and perhaps point the finger and lay it at the footsteps of the russians, maybe we would have had better movement. we'll see what the president will say tonight and we'll listen with open mind. i don't know whether he is going to pull back from his intention to potentially strike syria or not. but i think it is prudent to allow some diplomatic actions to potentially take their course, even though that might be a bit far-fetched at the moment but hopefully that diplomatic momentum has good creative elements and stops the situation

and pressures assad and brings about a collective international response that stabilizes the situation and protects innocent people. i think that's the best outcome we could potentially hope for. mr. dent: it seems that the policy of the united states and syria since the beginning of the uprising in syria has been one of inaction and detach meant and any respects -- detachment and many respects we outsourced to ur friends, the turks, qataris and saudis and others. and whether we like it or not, many of the folks who are armed don't share our interests and values. there are moderate forces if the united states demonstrated some leadership in to help identify

moderate secular forces that could have been multi-ethnic and secular, kurdish, christian, sunni, that might have helped bring about a better opposition force that the international community would be rallying around. that hasn't happened. you read about large swaths of territory in syria dominated by opposition forces that are radicalized and that's unfortunate because there are elements of the free syrian army who want to bring about more representative government and would embrace the values that you and i hold dear. time has passed. and i don't see a good outcome as i stated earlier. and i just wish -- i think the american people understand this and also speaks to nato. what's happening with nato. a great organization. i believe in nato.

collective defense organization. leaving it to the military and political value. since the end of the cold war, maybe it has gone adrift. and turkey has been a loyal friend and nato ally for decades, this are directly affected by this conflict. they may make demands of us at some point and we will have to think that through what would we do if the turks make a request of us and the friends of ours in jordan. mr. fortenberry: it's a good question you raise. new international constructs that might be using templates of old international constructs but are revitalized so we can have collective operations if necessary to engage in this stopping of mass violence. the nato allocations, they don't meet them. the money they are supposed to contribute they just don't do it.

who has to pick up the pieces? we do. there is a free rider problem as we call it here. and you deal in a lot of international circles and you hear the united states is the only superpower and you must act and you must be compeled morally based upon who you are to do something here. all of those are fine points. but in the 21st century, you have a shift of the global framework for international stability occurring. we have expended for 70 years providing that framework for stability, protecting human rights. but the united states cannot single hand he hadly lift this burden for the entire world particularly for countries who have benefited from our past sacrifice and have the economic wherewithal and should have the moral compass to think about regional organizations to stop this type of conflict before it

starts and demanding outcomes of sovereign territories. i recognize we are in a difficult moment because we are being pressured to decide unilateral action or not. this will help bring about new models of multi lateral cooperation to prevent this from happening and when it does happen to have the right response in place. mr. dent: gentleman yield? i want to say one more thing. the president has said this red line that was crossed was not his but the international community's and 98% opposed chemical weapons use. unfortunately 98% of the world isn't prepared to help us in this intervention. we are on our own. and i yield back. mr. fortenberry: our time has expired and i do thank you for the conversation and i appreciate your insights and clarity. it's complex and difficult

unilateral military action allows the international community to hide behind our might and it's not the right response at this time. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from owa, mr. king, for 30 minutes. mr. king: i appreciate the presentation that's come forward from my colleagues from pennsylvania and nebraska with regard to the syrian situation and the international issue that's in front of all of us. not always. self but that's where i stand this evening on this syrian issue. and i think it would be of interest to the gentleman from pennsylvania that myself and a couple of other members

yesterday morning, perhaps day before yesterday morning, my days blend together, we sat down with syrian christians who were ex-patriots who escaped from syria, very interested in the cause there and i understand the gentleman from pennsylvania has constituents that would be representative of the same cause. very interesting conversation we had day before yesterday and the concern that they expressed essentially came back to, it's hard to choose a good side in syria and that assad's -- he is an evil dictator and known that for a long time. free syrian army is a force for good and is taking over by forces that are not so good. it appears to them and appears to me that whether it would be the assad forces that prevail in the end or whether the forces that are taking over the free syrian army, it's not going to be good for christians in syria and i'm concerned for us to find

a way forward, the best hope for christians in syria is likely to be the moderate groups that began the free syrian army in the first place, those groups at want a secular syria that respects freedom of religion and respect the rights of humanity that we defend here. so i reiterate the statements that the gentleman from pennsylvania has made and we stand certainly with the christians in syria and the secular forces in syria, however they have been marginalized by the forces of the muslim brotherhood, the forces that are assad and the anti-freedom forces that want to take syria over and use it for their own evil aims. having traveled over into that part of the world, not into syria and we came back last night from a trip that was in tokyo and we dealt with the top leadership in japan including the prime minister and from

there to the united arab emirates, where we had a meeting set up with a number of the the officials and that was at 11:00 and scheduled to meet with the crown prince about 1:00 in the afternoon and gave us a pleasant surprised and arrived at our 11:00 meeting and we were able to have a long engaging conversation that gave us a good perspective on the middle east and syria. i appreciate my colleagues' focus and interest and mine is focused the same. i would be happy to yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. dent: i thank the gentleman from iowa for his kind comments about his experiences with various folks in syria. this past sunday, i attended a church service at my own church that has a large syrian community and a woman made a presentation at the church who represents the -- leader of the

church in lib none and syria and spoke in my church in very moderate secular tones about why she thought it was not in anyone's interest for the united states to intervene at this point in the syrian civil war. after that church service, i stopped by another church after their services ended and met with some of the parishners whose family members are over there and told me some of their family members have been killed and there was a lot of crying and wailing and deep sadness and it's quite emotional for them as you can well imagine that they feel strongly that this intervention is going to make the fight plight of the syrians dire and could lead to their extermination, their term, not mine. that's how serious this it.

15% to 20% are christian. and the christians, they're worried about this. thank you, mr. king, for allow noge speak. mr. king: reclaiming my time, i thank the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. dent, and i would add that there was some dialogue in that breakfast meeting with the syrian christians that took place the day before yesterday in the morning about how there was a concerted effort to push and eradicate christians out of all the areas in the mideast. that seems to be something they have embarked upon and i know that there's a long history of it, over 1,000 year, but it's been accelerated here, i believe, mr. speaker, within the last few years, in fact, this date of this meeting goes back to 1982 when that began and we're hearing similar narratives about christians

that are being persecuted by both sides in this and the population percentage in syria of around 15% to 20% it fits , from the m told different sections of the syrian christians, my number came to 2.6 million syrian christians and there are about two million syrians that are refugees, who have left syria and are housed, many of them, in refugee camps in other countries, about two million refugee, about 2.6 million christians in syria or around syria, that's almost the equivalent of the population of the state of iowa. we've watched as assad has persecuted his people, the people that were not his, anybody but his political allies were persecuted by him over the years. and i remember that he was identified by the bush administration as, i believe,

an evildoer. i remember some communications being opened up with al assad that took place in -- sometime in 2007 or 2008 and i remember some pictures that came back from there. this individual now has been identified as the head of the regime that's launched chemical weapons against his own people. the evidence that we see doesn't necessarily confirm that it would be assad himself who gave the order but it does appear there were chemical attacks and it appears there were conventional artillery assault into the same neighborhood that brought about many casualties and to sort out whether they were chemical casualties or kinetic action casualties is a question that's not been answered yesterday. -- yet. i'm hesitant to get far a into this from a factual standpoint because of what's classified and what isn't, mr. speaker but

he forces in syria, it doesn't get brought out enough, if at all, they're lined up on the side of either sunni or shia. anding of the sect of the shia is the sect that is assad himself and he's supported by them and when you look at his allies, hezbollah, iran, they are shia. and if you look at his enemies, generally speaking, his enemies are al qaeda, muslim brotherhood a list of sunni interests that have poured into syria but the beginning of this conflict, it was a conflict formed by the free sir ab army that wanted to unseat assad and establish a government of, by, an for the people of syria and consistent with american ideals and american principles of a government that's empowered by the will of the people instead of by the will of a dictator or

a king and so as the free syrian army began, their forces were growing, they were strong, they were taking overer to and since that period of time we've watched as the, sometimes labeled as rebels, effect has diminished. it's almost been in direct proportion to the influence of the muslim brotherhood, al qaeda and other radical interests stepping in to take over and pick up some of the resources that are being used to support the opposition to assad. and as i've watched this and from what i know and from the information that's come to me, the free syrian army is more representative of the muslim brotherhood than the population of syria. not by the population itself but by who commands the resources and who is being trained. now it's ever more clear that

there's not a side that's easy the t on to be confident forces are the forces of good. to identify the good guys has goten tougher month by month, it's tougher today than it was a month ago or six months ago but that doesn't mean there aren't good people that we should be strengthening and empowering. but anyone who supports al qaeda or is of al qaeda is our enemy. anyone who is muslim brotherhood or supports muslim brotherhood is our enemy. the difference between al qaeda and muslim brotherhood, they have the same military wing but muslim brotherhood has a broader political approach but they're looking to establish the muslim caliphate everywhere in the world they can and establish sharia law everywhere they can. they don't view human rights,

that our founding fathers claimed for us he, they don't have respect for that, they reyebt it and their approach is not compatible with human rights. so we see the sectarian taking over yria the secular interests in syria and i believe that there's an ability, if we can identify the good guys, to empower them, train them, fund them, supply them. if there's a way to bring this around and bring it to a good conclusion. the people that need to be in pow for the syria are a long ways from power and the people that don't need to be in power, brotherhood muslim side of this or the sunni radical islamists or the shia interests in assad are competing with each other for dominance, they fought each other for years as well. there's a good result that could come over a long period of time if the administration identified the people we should

be aligning ourselves with and if they could emerge as the strong force. but while that's going on, we've been offered something from putin and the russians that i don't think anyone expected a little more than 24 hours ago, and that is a way to avoid a military conflict and engaging u.s. forces in syria. i will say, mr. speaker, that the mail that i'm getting and phone calls i'm getting are almost universally in opposition to going into any kind of military action whatsoever in syria. almost universal. all my calls today were against going into syria. almost every call for the last week were against going into syria. it's not that i make decisions clusively off of constituent input or american communications input, i have an obligation and i owe my constituents and iowans and i owe the people in this country my best effort and my best judgment and that includes the

input that comes from them weigh master's degree heavily than if it were not from, directly from my constituents. and i owe them my best effort and be judgment and that is to go out and gather information and i have probably the best access to the broadest amount of information of, including myself, among my constituents. i owe them my best effort. part of that best effort is to go an see with my own eyes and get into those parts of the world so that i can be fully informed because this congress is being called upon to make decisions that redirect the destiny of the united states of america. we should not do that in an uninformed way, we should not do that in a willfully ignorant way an there are many things going on in the world that you cannot learn by listening to just briefings here or reading the paper, we should know from long history that you've got to drill into these things, got to look at the right people in the eye, and got to verify the information they've given you. i've done that, i've done it

over the last weekering i kept my powder dry on syria throughout that period of time because i wanted to gather all the informing i could, didn't want to take a public position until i had seen as much as i can with my own eyes, hear as much as i can with my own ears an even though we've done a trip into cairo and into the united arab emirates and into the mideast and had briefings in countries yobbed that, an briefings from our state department and we met with, as i said, syrian christians and we also met with refugees from libya, we met with special forces interests and different perspectives on the mideast entirely and different perfect i haves on the syrian operation, put that all together from state department's position and i came back with that, stacks of notes on it, mr. speaker, but i didn't want to speak either on my syrian position until i sat

through a classified briefing that i knew over a week ago was scheduled for 5:00 yesterday that went if 5:00 to about a quarter to 7:00. thee the briefing was useful, those there to brief us were suzanne rice and director clapper and secretary kerry and we also had secretary of defense hagel and also yen martin dempsey the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. five people of the highest level you could ask for short of the president of the united states gave us a briefing with the data that they have and what they know and told us what was classified and what wasn't. they told us the conclusions they'd drawn and some method about how they arrived at those conclusions. my independent assessment doesn't agree with the course of action that seems to be the direction from the president of the united states. doesn't mean that i disagree with the data they have but the conclusion on how to move

forward, i do disagree with. and i've take an position today that if there were a vote on the floor today to authorize military force in syria, i would not support that. mr. speaker. i would vote no. i want to make it clear that i believe the president has a constitutional authority to order action in syria or anywhere else. the president of the united states has to have that authority to order our military into action in an instant. our continental congress was not very functional when it came to fighting a war by consensus, when they finally got through the revolutionary war and put a country together and built a constitution that could be ratified by the majority of the states and of the 13 original colonies, they concluded we needed to have a president of the united states who was also the command for the chief of the united states military who was in full control of the military and subsequent to that, there was a piece of legislation passed within the 20th century that

was a war powers act designed to restain the activities of the commander in chief, the president of the united states. those two krnings one the constitutional authority of the command for the chief to order our military into battle in an instant without consulting congressened and the other, the war powers act that requires the president to come back after a period of time and consult with congress, those two are compatible as long as they are respected by the congress and by the president of the united states. any time we're engaged in a long military engagement, i think the president should come consult with congress. if it's a short operation and it's over before it can be con sult, that's consistent with the constitution. i would point out when president reagan ordered our military into gra nay da, that was an -- into grenada, that was an operation that took place quickly, he came before the american people and after it was launched that he ordered

military action in grenada, it was a successful operation and we pulled out when the objective was achieved. that was ronald reagan. when george herbert walker bush, bush 41, ordered our military into action in panama to put an end to dictator noriega, and drug smuggler noriega, that order was issued and our military took to the field and as that operation was folding, then we found out about the order of our commander in chief. this operation that's proposed in syria is an operation that the president of the united states has the authority to order. he has the constitutional authority to do so. and if he had identified a target -- identified targets in syria and determined that was the right course for america, he should have issued the order to engage the military in the fashion that his best judgment said he should. but what has happened instead is, there's been a vacillation

that's taken place and he's sought to sell this to the american people while the message and the warning is going out to assad, the red line that was drawn in the sand back during the presidential campaign, it appears the administration thinks that line has been crossed multiple times and if you cross a line, a red line in the sand enough times it gets blurry after a while. now they decided august 21 was the bright red line crossed by assad and here we are on the eve of the benghazi attack, on the eve of the anniversary of the benghazi attack, tomorrow is september 11, and on the niversary, of course, of the september 11, 2001, attack, now we're negotiating with congress to get support to go into military action in syria. my position, mr. speaker, is if the president thought it was a good idea, in a very limited way as secretary of state kerry

says, he should have done that he should have issued the order, got it over with. if they're right and it's a narrow operation he could have pulled back and we would be done by now. but he watched as david cameron and the united kingdom took the issue before the british parliament, the british parliament voted down the initiative to strike syria over the chemical weapons and that put the brakes on the united kingdom supporting us or any other entity in an operation in syria and when, i think, the president saw that, maybe concluded well, i'll ask congress if congress says no, then i'll have this responsibility, his cup taken from him so to speak, the one he asked for when he put out the red line statement during the campaign in the debate with mitt romney. . so we're now in a situation where we have a protracted national and global debate and each stop around the world where we've gone into, into tokyo and

the u.a.e. and cairo and brussels and met with multiple enltities along the way, syria is a discussion matter. but they look to the united states to lead. and some of the countries don't think it's a very good idea to go in there. but they say they'll support us anyway because they want america to succeed. they understand that if we're not strong in the world, if we don't lead in the world, then this becomes a very precarious place. and so i had it expressed to me a number of times, we don't think it's a very good idea but if you do this, we'll support you. or, we think it's a bad idea but have to support you anyway. but i didn't find anybody that said that they were really happy about the idea that america might strike someplace inside syria to send a message to assad. some said, don't pave the road to damascus for the muslim brotherhood. that the devil we know may not beed a because -- be as bad as the devil we don't know and

we're starting to learn that. so as this is unfolding, heard the gentleman from pennsylvania i believe it was mention nato. and our nato operation. we aren't going to have the support of nato in an operation in syria. nato operates off of a consensus, the 28 nations or so that are nato now, have a lot of troubling getting to a consensus, if some of those countries decide they don't want to participate they'll just simply not commit their forces. and in the end it comes down to what will the u.s. do? what won't the u.s. do? we're not going to have the support of the united nations. there's already been that effort to bring it before the united nations and we've got opposition from russia and opposition from china. now, maybe they'd reconsider, maybe china would reconsider, maybe russia would reconsider. but united nations is not going to be there behind us, mr. speaker. nateow's not going to be there behind us. we will have perhaps a coalition not of the willing but a coalition of the unwilling, but

those unwilling to allow the united states to say be embarrassed by this policy. so the best course forward appears to be the lifeline that was tossed to us in the last 24 hours by putin from russia. said, let's take you up on your offer, secretary kerry, and see if we can gather up these chemical weapons and eradicate them from syria. if doing so will prevent a military strike, then let's give it a go. that's a british expression by the way, mr. speaker. give it a go. i'm for giving it a go. i think that's the best alternative we have. i think the military strike is a mistake. because it runs a risk of paving the road to damascus for muslim brotherhood and other radical islamist entities that are part of that consolation, that have been systematically marginalizing the true free syrian army and empowering themselves and some of them with resources that we would see as

sourced back to u.s. taxpayers. the best course forward now is to work with the russians and see if we can can get the chemical weapons gathered together. i would want americans involved in any kind of a mission to gather those chemical weapons. i think the united nations showed an ability to go into iraq before 2003 and do the nuclear inspection that was there. i was uneasy with their conclusions. in fact, i didn't agree with their conclusions. but they're the force on the planet that has an opportunity to have the credibility, the global credibility, if they get to that point where they say, we've got all these weapons picked up or they'll qualify their answer, that's the kind of thick that should be going on, mr. speaker -- thing that should be going on, mr. speaker. but in any case, any kinalds of inspection team, any kind of chemical weapon inspection team, aunled the auspices perhaps of the united nations so it isn't directly under, say, russia, or

the united states, but with americans there on the ground to verify the actions that are taking place and give us a sebs of credibility and confidence -- sense of credibility and confidence. and, mr. speaker, i pount out, it won't work -- i point out, it won't work to go there and just get the job done to eradicate the chemical weapons. we must do so in a way that has credibility so that especially the american people will accept a conclusion and we can perhaps move on. but picking up chemical weapons and gathering up that entire inventory, which is tons and tons of that inventory, if it's done so in a precision way, perhaps doesn't change the balance of the regime vs. the forces for good and those evil forces, align themselves with forces for good. perhapses it doesn't change that balance or changes it in a more minimal wathan a military strike would. -- way than a military strike would. and it's also curious to merks

mr. speaker, that this level of -- meek, mr. speaker, that this level of outrage didn't exist between the iraq and iran war in the 1980's. doesn't mean it's all right. i think it's a good position to take. against the abuse and the use of chemical weapons. as far red line itself as a reason for america to put ourselves into a military conflict in a nation that we don't have much strategic interest in is i think a mistake and i would oppose that. we should remember again who are the forces there, what message does this send to the world, what have we seen happen in the arab spring? and the arab spring that has emerged now or a couple years into that looks to me like the forces that have emerged on top have invariably been the muslim brotherhood. and so it isn't always good to see a change within a regime or

administration. we saw jimmy carter, president carter, support the return of the shah in iran. current rt ousting the power, the power that was in iran, and put the shah in a king that there would be representation that was a religious movement. excuse me, the opposition to the shah in iran. in any case, the ayatollah was viewed by president carter as being a religious movement that was the voice of the people and we ended up with the ayatollah instead of the shah was a beginnings of radical islam within iran. and the flow that came from 1979 until today might have been different had we taken a different position in iran. where we had friends in iran, now we have enemies in iran. and as we have developed friends in iraq, we're washing that friend -- we're watching that friendship diminish, as we develop the foundation of support in afghanistan, we're

watching that diminish. and as we see that we have been strong friendses and military -- friends and military alliance with egypt and we supported mubarak and he was our friend. we built military operations going on in the sinai desert. that took place a good number of hawaiians serving there and people from probably every state serving in the sinai and operations with the egyptians. and then mubarak was essentially pushinged out and the message that came -- pushed out and the message that came from our administration is he needs to leave yesterday. well, the morsi forces were able to push mubarak out, they held one election, 5.8 million of the 83 million egyptians voted for morsi. morsi came in as an incompetent muslim brotherhood and the muslim brotherhood came out of that, on top again like every other situation in the arab spring that's unfolded in the last couple of years, mr. speaker. no, the best break we've seen in

egypt is that 30 million to 33 million egyptians took to the streets, their peak day was the third of july, they took their country back. and yes they had the support of the military and some call it a coup but there was no constitutional provision for them to impeach the incompetent morsi. and the egyptian people had had enough. you can't mobilize that kind of support unless there are many good reasons. the economic shambles that they allow to take place and the injustices that were taking place under the morsi regime. so now we have a new leadership, a new leadership that has taken a hold in egypt and i've met with the interim president of egypt, and he makes it clear he's the interim president, that they're going to hand the country of egypt over to an elected representative government. they're going to pass a constitution that they're busy writing now and the military will let go of their control of the country and submit to the civilian leadership that emerges in a constitutional fashion.

they've laid out a timetable and a road map, mr. speaker. so, this is the best future that egypt can hope for. morsi was a mistake, he is muslim brotherhood. these forces are anti-muslim brotherhood. they are pro-egyptian people and i'm supporting the forces that are in place in egypt now and i face-to-face encourage them, move forward with the timetable that you have, it appears to be aggressive, and it has some risk but writing a constitution, ratifying a constitution, having elections and establishing a civilian government in egypt, and then handing the control of the military over to that civilian government is the right thing to do. it sets the right destiny for egypt and i think that the united states needs to do a 180 on the support of the people that are now in charge in egypt. so i appreciate, mr. speaker, your attention and an opportunity to address you here this evening and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: thank you, gentleman. the gentleman is recognized for a motion. mr. king: mr. speaker, i move

the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: thank you, the gentleman. the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow for morning hour debate.

tying language defunding the health care law to a spending bill, the continuing resolution, a funding bill for the federal government. what's their goal in doing that? >> their goal is to provide an outlet really for their members who really want to have yet another way to go after the health care law and also avoid a government shutdown. the way they've constructed their first plan, and we'll see what happens from here, is that there would be two separate

pieces of legislation heading to the senate and it would be tied together somehow. one would defund the health care law, one would keep the government running past september 30. and the idea is that it would be constructed in a way that would force the senate to vote on the health care provision, presumably they would take that out, and then be able to pass the underlying spending bill. >> how are house republican rank and file reacting to the two-pronged plan? >> house republicans are conflicted on. this you've got a number of republicans who view defunding of the health care law as the primary goal. and so this structure where they've got two votes and -- [inaudible] is starting to cause some blowback. so you have republicans like broun start to say, well, i don't really like this idea. which raises questions about how they're going to proceed.

what leadership has been doing during the day so far has been to -- [inaudible] where the votes might be on this and then maybe we'll start to see a bill. >> the house has spent some 40 times trying to repeal, replace or defund the health care law. what makes it different this time around? what will make it different this time around? >> i'm not sure anything will make it different this time around. some of those have succeeded. they've been able to carve back pieces of the law that the president has agreed to. but when it comes to something like no funding to enforce or implement the law or over the course of the next year, that's just not going to be something that the president's going to sign. he's clearly willing to say, ok, you want to shut down the government over, that i'm willing to have that fight. >> debate on the debt ceiling, which has to be raised sometime, you know, in october or november, according to the treasury secretary, will that likewise draw some call to defund the health care law?

>> yes. you're starting to hear some reports out of the house that republicans are looking for a way to tie the health care law to the debt ceiling. it might be something like delaying the individual mandate . republicans like that argument because the president and the administration have delayed the employer mandate so they'll paint it as an idea of fairness between big business and individuals. it's a little more complicated than that. the individual mandate is the core of the entire bill. the employer mandate a little less so. but you could see something like that emerge. and it's the same conflict. are republicans willing to basically stop the government from being able to borrow additional money and not be able to pay bills in order to force this issue? >> has the white house reacted specifically to the house epublican plan, this two-pronged approach on the c.r. and the defunding of health care?

>> not specifically. because there's no plan. tip include you'll start to see an official administration response waws there is an official bill that comes out of the rules committee or at least has been written. we would expect to see that soon. that said, the administration has been incredibly clear all along about its position on the health care law and wanting to get it up and running and successful starting october 1. so anything that would not let that happen is kind of difficult to imagine. >> richard rubin, thanks for the update. >> sure. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> we're also hearing that the white house has issued a veto threat on a bill offered by representative diane black that's expected to come up in the house tomorrow. it requires the creation of a program verifying household income and other qualifications before cost-sharing subsidies and premiums under the health care law are implemented.

cbs news sent a tweet about it and there's another one from the "huffington post" that says, white house just issued veto threat on house g.o.p.'s latest obamacare derailment bill. falls on house to, quote, stop flithe fighting old political battles. again, president obama speaks about syria tonight. our live coverage begins at 9:00 eastern with the president's remarks. then your calls and comments. here's what senator ben carden said today about syria on the senate floor. >> the authorization of force is an awesome responsibility that each of us has. none of us want to see american troops in harm's way. none of us want to see the need for the use of military force.

so this is a difficult judgment for us to make. the constitution envisions that both the president and congress are involved in the deploying of u.s. military. certainly the president and the congress have a responsibility to authorize the use of force. now, today in this country, americans are tired of war. we've been involved in iraq and afghanistan for way too long. we thought these campaigns would be short campaigns. they turned into long campaigns. there's been a tremendous loss in human life, in fiscal resources as a results of the wars that the united states has participated in. but the public also understands that we have a responsibility

to use our military to protect national interests. of the people of this country. they understand that america's military strength keeps the people in this country safe. and they expect that the president and the congress will use that military force in order to protect the national security of the people of this country. now, what is in our national security interest and why would the president come to congress asking us to consider the use of military force in the current circumstances in syria? people recognize that when we're about ready to be attacked, there's a need to use force. the united states plays a unique role in the international community. for we understand that standing up for basic internationally recognized human rights is a

responsibility that we all have. i supported president clinton when he asked for the augsization of force for the united states -- authorization of force for the united states along with the international community to be involved in restoring order in the republics of the former yugoslavia. where there was ethnic cleansing in bosnia and kosovo. but for the leadership of the united states, communities -- additional communities would have been destroyed. people would have lost their lives. we stoods up because it was in the united states interest to stand up for the enforcement of basic established international human rights. so, let us evaluate what's happening in syria today and understand that what's happening there may be far from other shores but the impact is

very much -- could be felt here in the united states. i serve on the senate foreign relations committee and we were called back into session last week because of the president's request for the congress to act on his request for force, use of force. we held hearings that were open to the public, we held classified hearings in order to better understand what had happened in syria. mr. president, i think it is now clear beyond any doubt that the assad regime in syria used chemical weapons. the evidence is clear. it was not the first occasion that they used chemical weapons. they had used chemical weapons in the past. but not in the magnitude that they did on august 21 of this year. in which over 1,400 people were killed, many of whom were

children. videos of that image are now available publicly. people can see the horrific act that was imposed upon people of syria by its president, president assad. the action of syria on august 21 violated international norm. since chemical weapons were used in world war i, the international community has come together and said even in war we will not permit the use of chemical weapons. it is so horrific, so indiscriminant in its killing and its maiming that it's an international -- that as an international community we will stand up and say no, you cannot use chemical weapons. the evidence is clear that president assad of syria used chemical weapons. in a mass way.

killing over 1,400 people. that action requires the response of the international community. for if it goes unchallenged, it is more likely that president assad will continue to use chemical weapons. he just considers it one of the weapons in his toolbox. and he will call it out more and more if it goes unchallenged by the international community. the people of syria are not the only ones at risk, mr. president. these chemical weapons could easily be used against american allies in that region. it could be used against turkey, it could be used against jordan, it could be used against israel. and if the use of weapons of mass destruction in syria goes

unchallenged, the president assad can get away with the use of chemical weapons, what message does that send to the regime in iran and its ambition to become a nuclear weapon state? and perhaps use nuclear weapons . what message does it send to the government of north korea? which is openly pressing the use of nuclear weapons. we have a direct interest in preventing the use of weapons of mass destruction and we have to work with the international community to say that this will not go unchallenged. we had not only a moral imperative, and we do have a moral imperative, but we also have an issue of our national security interest. if these weapons of mass destruction get in the hands of

terrorist organizations and groups, it threatens the security of americans, it threatens the security of our allies. we have a responsibility to protect our national security, of the people of this country. mr. president, i talked to many people in maryland who talked to me about their concerns. about the use of the american military in syria. they recall what happened when the congress authorized the use of force in iraq, where there was evidence of chemical weapons and then we went in and found no chemical weapons. there were statements made about this would be a limited operation, our troops were there for a decade. so there is obviously concern about the information being made available to us and what is being asked of the congress of the united states.

when force was authorized against iraq, my resolution was pending on the floor, served in the other body, in the house of representatives. i had a chance to firsthand see the information about iraq and its risk factors to the interests of the united states. you may recall that the popular sentiment was for america to authorize the use of force, for congress to authorize the use of force. i voted no on that resolution. because i was convinced that america did not have a national security interest to use military force. so let me explain the difference between the circumstances in iraq over a decade ago and what we're facing today in syria. the justification, the original justification for the united states entering its combat troops in iraq was that iraq

was deeply involved with the then government of afghanistan and the attack on our country on september 11. i've looked for that information, mr. president, and i saw no relationship between the iraqi government and the attack on our country. yet those statements were made and it was used as justification for use of military force. here the justification is the use of syria by chemical weapons which has been established. and i believe the international community has now understood that the e is clear assad regime used chemical weapons in contra invention to international norm. when we were authorizing the iraq use of force, there was no restrictions on the u.s. military.

we used ground troops we used hundreds of thousands of ground troops in our campaign in iraq. putting american lives directly at risk and putting america directly in harm's way. the request of the president of the united states for military action in syria does not include and in fact the resolution that has come out of the senate foreign relations committee makes it clear that there will be no ground combat troops from the united states of america. we will not be drawn in to a ground war. the iraqi resolution that was approved over a decade ago had no time limit on that authorization. as we saw with that authorization and with the afghanistan authorization, those campaigns went for over a decade.

with american troops at risk. the authorization that has come out of the senate foreign relations committee contains a 60-day limitation on the authorization on the use of force. 60 days. can be extended once for an additional 30 days. a limited campaign. it's very clear that this authorization is restricted to the specific objective, the specific objective to degrade and deter the use of chemical weapons by the syrian regime. to prevent a transfer of chemical weapons to terrorist organizations. the senate foreign relations committee recommended resolution is limited, is limited to that mission, it's limited in the type of military operation, no ground troops, it's limited in time, not to exceed 90 days. and it is limited to the fact

that it should be -- use of force should be the last option , not the first, the last option. i've said many times on the floor of the house and now on the floor of the senate that the use of military should be the last resort. that there are other options that need to be explored first. so, the resolution that has come out of the senate foreign relations committee requires the president to pursue diplomatic ways to resolve the issue before he can use force. and he must certify to congress that he has done that. before he can use force. mr. prkts you understand this directly because you've raised some of these issues. we now have an opportunity that we hope will work. we now have the attention of

russia and syria, since they know that america's serious about reacting to their use -- to syria's use of chemical weapons. they know that we won't stand by, they now have acknowledged that chemical weapons in great numbers exist in syria. and quite frankly i think they've acknowledged the attack and the use of chemical weapons in syria. of course the videos speak for themselves and the physical evidence is overwhelming. so, now the suggestion is they would turn over those chemical weapons to the international community. if that's done, we have achieved our objective in the resolution that's before us. to esolution before us is degrade and deter the use of

chemical weapons by syria. if they turn their chemical weapons over to the international community, we have achieved our objective. however, any such plan must be verifiable, enforceable and timely. excuse me by being a little bit suspicious of the suggestions made by russia and syria. i want to make sure that it is verifiable, that it's enforceable and that it's timely. but, mr. president, we eamented a diplomatic effort -- anticipated a diplomatic effort when the senate foreign relations committee recommended this resolution to the floor of the united states senate. there are many members of the senate, including the presiding officer, that are looking at ways that we can come together to support the president's effort to stand up against the

use of chemical weapons. and i hope we will be able to come together with language in his resolution that will allow the syrian government to turn over their chemical weapons in a timely way, in an enforceable way, so that military force will not be necessary. but make no mistake about it, but for the leadership of president obama, but for their fear of the use of american military force, we would never be at this opportunity right now where we have a viable diplomatic chaling channel that we can pursue. so i just want to acknowledge that but acknowledge that we anticipated that diplomacy would be used as it always should be used before the use of military. we hoped military would not be necessary. but we have to react to the use of chemical weapons.

now, let me explain some of the things we don't want to see happen. mr. president, i referenced the hearings that we had in the senate foreign relations ommittee on i -- i want to congratulate the people on the committee. we had a very open hearing. then we had access to classified information. then we had an open discussion in our committee and all views were heard. we tried to recommend a resolution that we thought was responsible for the united states congress to weigh in on. it was not the resolution that the president had submitted to us. it was one that was much more limited to the authorization that we thought was appropriate. but i think it had served its purpose, from the point of viewing of putting syria on notice that the united states is prepared to join the international community to say, chemical weapons will not be allowed to be used. but we also made it clear that we will not be drawn into a civil war.

president assad has done some horrible things in that country. he's lost in my view the legitimacy of leading the country. but it's up to the syrians to resolve their civil conflict. american troops will not be drawn in to the military problems -- the civil problems within syria itself. they'll have to resolve that. and as the united states has said and the international community has said there needs to be a plit cal solution to the future -- political solution to the future of syria. and yes there are some good people in the opposition, there are people some peer concerned about in the opposition. at the end of the day, it's up to the syrians through a political process to determine their own government. what we should expect is that government that will respect the human rights of all the people of syria and will respect the right of syrians to

determine who their leader should be. but all ethnic communities should be able to live in peace in syria. and that's our objective. to get to that political solution. we won't be drawn into a broader conflict. as i said earlier, people i talked to in maryland don't want war. people i've talked of this nation don't want the united states drawn into another war and neither do i. one more point about the response to the use of chemical weapons. yes, our first priority is to make sure these chemical weapons aren't used again. the best way to do that is get control of the weapons and make sure they are not used and hopefully destroyed. but president assad needs to be held accountable. he has committed war crimes. he has committed crimes against humanity. he needs to be held accountable

for the criminal actions that he has perpetrated on the people of syria. as we know, over 100,000 have lost their lives. many of these are civilians who were put in harm's way by the syrian government. against international norms. so, i have encouraged my colleagues to join me in an effort calling on an ternational tribunal to take president assad and his case and establish the international justice so that he goes -- that he is held accountable for his actions. one last point about the resolution before us an that is it is important to work with the international community. and i would hope that we would

find more countries standing up for the importance of international participation on the use of chemical weapons. one of the hopes that we have in this new opportunity for a diplomatic solution is for the united nations to assume its appropriate role. the united nations security council will have an opportunity as early as today to pass an enforceable resolution condemning what happened in syria and accepting the offer to take control of all its chemical weapons and do is enforceable and in a way that accomplishes its goal. i hope that the united nations security council will act. host: the international community -- i hope the

international community will join us. the united states leadership is needed, president obama is providing that. but the key point is that we must respond to the use of chemical weapons. i think this debate is strengthening our country, i understand that there are different views, i would urge , colleagues to get together to support a resolution that puts america on record, supporting president obama on saying that we will not permit the use of chemical weapons to go unchallenged, that our objective is to make sure the world is safer from the use of chemical weapons and we're prepared to work with the international community in order to achieve those objectives. with that, mr. president, i would suggest -- [inaudible] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] fdic north dakota >> the white house all lit up by an hour before president obama will give his take on syria. whether they'll be a military

or diplomatic end to syria's use of chemical weapons. his remarks will be live at 9:00 eastern. up next, more about syria from two capitol hill law makers. >> i have tomb to the floor today to talk about the most sobering issue i face as a senator, as a wisconsinite, and as an american. the issue of military action by the united states. let me start by saying that the assad regime's use of chemical weapons against the syrian people is morally reprehensible. and a serious violation of longstanding international law. the various treaties and conventions addressing these issues have been ratified by most of the world's nations. there's reason why almost the scombire world has gathered under the chemical weapons conventions.

to ban these weapons. it is because chemical weapons are truly barbaric in nature. they are a global threat and they therefore require a global response. the president has made the right choice to seek congressional authorization for any potential military action in syria. the gravity of these issues before us are significant. nd they deserve a full debate. president obama should be praised for understanding and appreciating that fact. we must demand that all presidents, not just this president, come to congress to get approval before taking military action in another country in instances where we are not facing an eminent threat. and i have made that case with both democratic and republican presidents.

but i strongly believe that our response to this situation must not be a unilateral mim military action. this is not america's responsibility alone. and it is not in our interest to set the precedent that it is our responsibility alone. syria violated international laws and should be held accountable by the international community. america must not act alone. the use of chemical weapons is a global atrocity and demands a global response. that is why i oppose going to war in syria. and that is why i oppose authorizing military involvement in syria's civil war. not for one day, not for 60 days, not for a decade. i believe in engaging and

involving ourselves militarily -- i do not believe we should involve ourselves militarily in the middle of a brutal years' long civil war. that would not strengthen america's national security. the answer is not to do nothing. the answer rather is to create a situation where these violations of humanitarian norms and crimes against humanity can be dealt with effectively by the u.n. and other international institutions. so, we must continue to focus on building a global coalition to support the encouraging developments in the past few days, to resolve this crisis without the use of unilateral military engagement in syria. by working through the united nations and its institutions,

we strengthen international frameworks that can help resolve the conflict in syria and build a safer and stronger international community moving forward. i firmly believe i firmly believe the recent potential for progress in today's human discussion is a testament to american democracy. by president obama fulfilling his duties to come to congress and through our serious debates here on capitol hill, i believe drive arica has help more constructive international regime's assad's atrocities and we now must give the opportunity of a path forward without military involvement in this area a chance to succeed.