sheet -- now we're almost at $4 trillion, that's beyond quat rupeling the balance -- quadrupling the balance sheet. that's close to quintupling. what does it mean to the long-term economic security of america, mr. speaker? this is something that happens, $4 trillion without a single vote in this chamber, without a single vote across the capitol in the senate, without a single signature by the president, without any consent by the american people whatsoever. $4 trillion in balance sheet expansion, not a single bit of consent of the governed. why is that important, mr. speaker? it's because this doesn't happen by accident. this happens in response to a crisis. now this chamber responds to crises. the administration responds to crises. but the federal reserve responded to economic crisis, tried to do what it could do to help the economy grow.

well, i happen to have in my hand, mr. speaker, the testimony from then federal reserve chairman ben bernanke, february 9, 2011. mr. speaker, you won't remember february 9, 2011, here in the chamber but that was my first month on the job. i'd just gotten sworn in. they'd just given me the voting card for -- for the seventh district of georgia, i'm sitting in the committee and here comes federal reserve chairman ben bernanke, to talk to me, just a freshman here in congress, about economic policy and how it is we're going to grow the american economy that might have been my first month on the job but it wasn't chairman paul ryan's first month on the job. he was a veteran. he's a veteran of the budget process he asked dr. bernanke, i'm looking at the expansion of the balance sheet, the chairman id, i'm looking at qe 2,

quantitative easing 2 it was called,ened i'm trying to figure out what this is going to do to the economy long-term. i want to quote from chairman bernanke because it's important. he clarity is important. mr. chairman, paul ryan, was asking whether or not all this work by the fed was going to monetize our debt, whether inflation was going to come and we were going to solve our debt problems by just inflating everybody's money right out of existence and chairman bernanke said, no, sir. no, sir. monetization would involve a permanent increase in the money supply to basically buy the government's bills through money creeeas. -- creation. that's not what we're doing, he says. he said, what we are doing here is a temporary measure that will be reversed so that at the end of this process the money supply will be normalized, the amount on the fed's balance

sheet will be normalized and there will be no permanent increase on the balance sheet for inflation. february, 2011, chairman ben bernanke said the fed's balance sheet will be normalized. the fed balance sheet will return to a normal level because what was happening at the fed at that time buzz a temporary measure. again, mr. speaker, you won't be able to read these numbers but i want to help you find february, 201 , on this chart. it's right here, right here. it was at this point where you see a mild dip, mr. speaker, where chairman bernanke said the balance sheet, which has risen to not twice its normal levels but three times its normal levels, it's a temporary measure and the balance sheet will begin to return to normal. mr. speaker, we're three years later and far from returning to normal, the size of the balance sheet has doubled. temporary measure, don't worry

about it, we're on our way, going to return to normal. rather than return to normal, the size of the balance sheet has again doubled. not one vote in this chamber, not one vote across the capitol in the senate. not one signature by the united states president. not one bit of consent from the 300 million americans who are governed. balance sheet doubled. what does that mean? why is this important, mr. speaker? i promised you a humdinger of a federal reserve conversation, i told you the federal reserve is an exciting topic, you're thinking, rob, you're talking balance sheets, balance sheets don't inspire me at all. what about interest rates? do you remember the interest rates of the 1970's? do you remember when getting a 1% mortgage was a pretty good deal? i do. folks don't realize that today. if you were born after the 1970's, you've been in a time of relatively moderate interest rates. what i have here are 10-year

interest rates. the u.s. treasury 10-year rates. i go back to about 1960 and we track these rates out. back in the 1960's, they were about 5%, 4%, go right on up there into the end of the carter years, beginning of the reagan years, 6% on a 10-year treasury coming out of the federal government, mr. speaker. and then after those carter-reagan year, you begin to see the numbers decline. we go all the way out now, we're looking at yields under 2%. mr. speaker, this is interest rates on money the frft borrows. again, i hate to dwell too much on my high school economics class lessons but you know how interest works, right? if there's a lot of something and you want to borrow it, you can pay a little bit of interest. but if there's not much of something and you want to borrow it, you pay more interest. or conversely if there's a lot of debt, in order to get folks

to buy that debt, you have to pay higher interest rates, only a little debt, to get folks to buy that debt, lower interest rates. never before have we had as much debt as we have now. never before have we rolled it up as much as we have now, never before have we borrowed as much from future generations, sacrificing their future prosperity for our current benefit. so you would think we'd be paying the highest interest rates in american history. let's go to the chart. no, no, highest rates in american history back in the late 1970's, early 1980's, what we're paying are the lowest interest rates in american history. i want you to sort through that with me, mr. speaker. we have more debt than we've ever had before. we're borrowing more from the world than tried to borrow from the world before, and yet interest rates on our borrowing

re going down instead of up. going down instead of up. the debt today in america, mr. speaker, is four times higher than it was in the late 1990's. yet the interest service on the debt today is the same. because wore borrowing at these low teaser rates. what enables these low teaser rates, among other things, when the federal reserve is willing to buy those bonds. long-term treasury purchases you see them right here. they didn't exist prior to 2009. now those purchases are grown to over $1 trillion. turns out you can get lower interest rates on your money if you're willing to buy it from yourself and pay yourself back. you can charge less. but what does that mean to long-term economic security in this country, mr. speaker? that sounds a little bit like a dangerous ponzi scheme to me. maybe it's something aberrant

about the 10-year rates. so i want to look here, mr. speaker. you can't see my colors but i've charted the 10-year yields from 2009 out to today. and i coordinated them with the implementation of this federal reserve policy called quantitative easing. the red squares, mr. speaker, indicate when quantitative easing stops. the green squares indicate when quantitative easing starts. it begins in 2009, qe-2, qe-1 ends. qe-2 begins. qe-2 ends. qe-3 begins. qe-3 not quite yet ended. and you'll see that interest rates directly correspond, directly correspond to when these federal reserve programs begin and end. dramatic manipulation of interest rates, again, not a single vote in this chamber,

not a single vote in the across the capitol in the senate, not a single signature of the president, not a single bit of consent from the hundreds of millions of americans who are governed, interest rates being manipulated. it's not just the 10 year rates, mr. speaker. the 30-year rates too. this is long-term money. if you borrow almost $18 trillion, as we have borrowed here in this country, you're in the going to pay that back overnight. that's a long-term promise. you would expect that the long-term rates would be getting higher and higher because the risk is getting greater and greater and greater again as we threaten america's fiscal security by borrowing from tomorrow's generations to pay for today's ben fits. -- benefits. it's fair to question the morality of that. if you started your small business on the day jesus christ was born and lost $1 million on your first day in business but you worked hard, you worked seven days a weeking mr. speaker, from the day jesus christ was born until today and you lost $1 million every

single day, you would have to work for another 730 years, mr. speaker, to lose your first trillion dollars. your first trillion dollars. another 700 years, million dollars a day, seven days a week to lose your first trillion dollars. we borrow from tomorrow's chin, tomorrow's yen ration from tomorrow's prosperity, almost $18 trillion. yet interest rates are going down. why is that? it's because, number one, we're the best of all the worst economies on the planet, let's be clear. of all the disastrous economies on the planet, ours is the least disastrous system of folks still want to come and buy american debt, thank goodness. forbid the thought one of these other economies will improve one of these days, swreel a hard time finding debt service. w much more of our own can the fed buy? most debt in history, interest

rates going down. mr. speaker, maybe this all sounds like a pretty good scheme, then. if i can borrow as much money as i want to, beyond historical norms, keep interest rates as low as i want to, below historical norms, maybe what this means is, i found the secret meck anymore for making money. i can just create prosperity for the american people out of thin air. it turns out that's not quite true. in fact, it's not true even close to what i have -- it's not even close. what i have here is a dollar index. that's the value of the american dollar around the globe. because $1 is meaningless. what's meaningful is how much a dollar can purchase. if i can only purchase one coca-cola, mr. speaker, with $1, then that dollar is worth one coca-cola. if i can purchase 12 coca-colas, it's worth a lot more to me.

it's still just one dollar. we don't care about the dollar, we care how much it will purchase. again, qe-1 goes into effect. qe-1 ends. qe-2 goes into effect. qe-2 ends. qe-3 is announced, goes into effect, goes out over the horizon. this is what i want you to see, mr. speaker. qe-1 goes into effect and in the midst of the qe-1 operation, before it begins to wind down, the value of a dollar has dropped by 15%. i want you to think about that. if we tried to pass a bill in this chamber that looked at everything that everybody had in this entire great country of ours and taxed it all at 15% to bring that in immediately, what do you think the chances are we'd pass that? what do you think the chances are we'd get one vote on that? senate wouldn't pass it, the president wouldn't sign it, yet

when we devalue our dollar, we devalue everything that everybody has by the exact same percentage. in the case of qe-1, 15% reduction before that program decided to wind down. come over here to qe-2, it's another 5% reduction in the value of a dollar, mr. speaker. here's the thing. we can print as much money as we want to, it's our right as a sovereign nation. but the more you print, the less valuable it becomes. that's what chairman ryan was asking when he asked chairman bernanke if he planned to monetize the debt. he was asking, do you plan to print so much money that the money itself becomes less valuable. if you owe $1 trillion, do you plan to print so much money that you pay back the $1 trillion with these newly printed $s that are worth only a fraction of what the original por rowed money was worth? -- borrowed money was worth?

qe-1, dollar collapses 15%. qe-2, dollar down 5%. for every action, there's a reaction, mr. speaker. the federal reserve has these mandates, interest rates, inflation. full employment. there are only so many levers they can pull and in fact the answer is that they've run out of levers, mr. speaker. that's why you see the balance sheet looking the way it is today. look at the lines that never existed before in the history of the country. look at these lines. long-term treasury purchase. that's new. that's something that's just been implemented in the last five years. folks ran out of tools. look at this line, mr. speaker. federal agency debt, mortgage backed securities. whoever thought of the federal reseb purchasing mortgage-backed securities by the billions. monthly by the billions. never existed before in the history of this country,

expanding part of the balance sheet. . mr. speaker, there are only so many tools that the federal reserve has to use in order to try to keep this economy afloat. each one of these tools, tools never proved by the congress, never approved by the president, never approved by the -- american people, and yet the federal reserve's balance sheet now larger than the entire budget of the united states of america, isn't it time we have this conversation? chairman paul ryan says, isn't this monetizing the debt? chairman ben bernanke says, no, thanks temporary measure, balance sheet levels will return to normal. when were they going to return to normal? that comment was in february of 2011. since that time we've seen another 100% increase. in the size that have balance sheet. mr. speaker, i'm not saying the federal reserve is wrong. i have some grave concerns. we've asked the question, how is it you're going to unwind these giant balance sheets? the answer is, i don't know,

we've never seen it done in the entire history of the united states of america, but don't worry about it, it's going to be fine. it's a frightening thing. it's a frightening thing. here we are in the longest recession of my lifetime, the most stagnant growth coming out of a recession that we've ever seen in the history of this country. the federal reserve pulling all the levers it knows how to pull, congress pulling all the levers it knows how to pull, the balance sheet getting larger, unwinding it getting arder. i want you to open up the wall street journal d next -- "wall street journal" next time you have a chance and keep an eye on this dollar index. i can't say it too strongly. if i tried to pass a 5% tax on everything that everybody has, everybody earns, everybody owns , i'd be laughed right out of this chamber.

yet through monetary policy, we could deval all of those exact things by that exact amount and nobody would even know. there'd be no record of debate here in this chamber. there'd be no record of a vote in the senate. there's be no vote that the president signs or vetoes. it would happen with the stroke of a pen, with the federal reserve board governors and america would be none the wiser. every day you can find it, mr. speaker. track that dollar index. what happens when you start to deval -- devalue money, mr. speaker, is you start to run into inflation. and we see that, i talked earlier about what happened in the carter years, before president reagan came. in we were looking at annual inflation way up above 12%, back after world war ii, again printing a lot of money, borrowing a lot of money. economic turmoil, even though folks were at work, maximum

employment, inflation rates up about 18%. but here we go. this chart's from 1946 out to 2014. folks say, rob, why are you so worried? isn't inflation kibled of low today? inflation is incredibly low today. think about that. week of pumped all this new money into the economy, we have all this additional liquidity, we have all this cash parked on the sidelines and yet inflation is incredibly low but ticking up. the question isn't what is inflation today, mr. speaker the. the question is -- mr. speaker. the question is, when inflation starts to move, will we be able to control it? we've spent so many of our tools trying to stimulate the economy again, we can question whether or not that was the intent of the federal reserve act when it was passed, have all of these new leskers created and pulled -- levers created and pulled in a time of economic crisis, but they have been created and they have been pulled and so when inflation comes, will we still have any tools in the tool box to

control it? this is not just my fear, mr. speaker. you can go this week to the "wall street journal," this is june 19. inflation is rising in the united states and could become a serious problem sooner than the federal reserve and many others now recognize. going to the end of that article, mr. speaker, it says the key to the future is how the fed will respond when prices steadily rise above its 2% target rate. while overall unemployment rate is still relatively high. a misinterpretation of labor markets slack and a failure to create a positive, real federal funds rate could put the economy on a path of rapidly rising inflation. in the old days, the federal reserve, with all the power that it has, with all the leverage it has to pull, all the tools in its tool box, focused on inflation and

interest rates and employment. but with all of those levers ving been pulled, with inflation on the rise, with unemployment stubbornly high, and with interest rates stubbornly low, what levers are left to pull when the next crisis comes? mr. speaker, it's not a question of if the next crisis comes, it's a question of when the next crisis comes. and when we do these extraordinary things to solve today's crisis, we put america at risk for tomorrow's cry sills. i do not fault those folks who are trying -- crisis. i do not fault those folks who are trying to make things better but i do fault us as an institution if we allow the prosperity of tomorrow to be traded away to treat the ills of today.

mr. speaker, federal reserve act, commit it to your reading, we'll be down here again because this is an issue on which this chamber must, must exercise our article 1 controls. i thank you for the time this afternoon, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. does the gentleman have a motion? mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i move the house do now you a jirn -- do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question son the motion to adjourn. those -- 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 11:00 a.m. tomorrow.

situation, or it will be a hindrance. over the last several years, we have not seen the kind of trust and cooperation developed between moderate sunni and shia leaders inside iraq.

that accounts in part for some of the weakness of the state. that then carries over into the military capacity. i think it is fair to say in our consultations with the iraqis, there will be short term and immediate things that need to be , and ourtarily national security team is looking at all of the options, but this should also be a wake-up call for the iraqi government. there has to be a political component to this. that sunni and shia, who care about building a functioning state that can bring about prosperity to all people inside and workome together diligently against these extremists. concessions onre

both shia and sunni that we have not seen so far. , whatst point i will make has happened over the last couple of days underscores the importance of the point i made at my west point speech. the need for us to have a more approach toonal, partnering and training. partner countries throughout the middle east. we are not going to be able to be everywhere at one time, but is to make sure we are consistently financed, trained, advised oteri forces with countries including iraq. that have the capacity to maintain their own security.

that is a long process but one that we need to get started. that is part of what the counterterrorism partnership fund that i will be calling for congress to help finance is all about. to extendthe capacity our reach without sending u.s. troops to play waccamaw. that will be more legitimate in the eyes of the people of the region and the community. it will take time to deal with it in the short term. >> we will take one question. david. president, [indiscernible] where is the line drawn?

>> i gave a long speech about this. i would probably refer you to that as opposed to repeating it. but the basic principle, like all, is that we, nations, are prepared to take military actions whenever our national -- national security is -- the issues to do with the border, humanitarian concerns, borders around, writes to navigation, concerns around our ability to deal with instability states,le worst failed populations there and refugees flows, wherever we can, our pressure and -- we should partner wherever possible. we should be more effective if we work with nations. that is part of why australia is

so important to us. there are a handful of countries in the world we always know we can count on, not just because they share our values, but we know we can count on them because they have got the capacity. australia is one of those countries. we share foundational fell use about liberal democracies and human rights and a worldview that is governed by international law and norms. and, aussies know how to fight. i like having them in the foxhole if we are in trouble. i cannot think of a better partner. worldf our task now in a where it is less likely that any particular nation attacks us or our allies directly, but rather, more typically, that you have disorder, asymmetric threats, terrorist organizations, all of

which can be extraordinarily disruptive and damaging, but are not the typical types of war equipped to fight, it becomes that much more important for us to start building new partners who will not be as capable as the australians, or our own troops. will take some time and resources, but we need to start now. we have learned some lessons over the last decade. we need to start applying them. >> house minority leader nancy pelosi was asked today about the possibility of u.s. intervention in iraq following the increase in violence in the country. she also spoke about immigration let us -- legislation. defeat. cantor's this is 35 minutes. bipartisan delegation led by the chair of the armed services committee. 70thre observing the anniversary of d-day.

it was quite wonderful to see the patriots. we spent most of our time to see the veterans hearing their stories and the rest. yesterday, members sat down for a regular roundtable meeting with the service organizations. we heard their suggestions of how we can work together. we want to work in a bipartisan way and that is what the senate did yesterday. we are pleased with the bill that passed. overwhelmingly. v.a. reform legislation. they cautioned us. this is only a piece of it. one piece of it that they had concerns about, that we were cautioned about, is that they do not want a temporary measure, which many had advocated for in the short term. to our veterans to go qualified clinics for services forther health providers their needs. this is not to be something that

weakens the veterans health administration. hoping to -- how quickly we could pass that bill, we could pass it immediately here as well, or we may go to conference on jeff miller. hopefully, we will have something very soon to celebrate the fourth of july with a bill signed by the president, either by sending over the senate bill, passing in both houses. in anytors voted for it. event, we have another alternative. unfortunately, the senate did not do the same thing for student loans. the president took action earlier this week to address the crushing burden of student loan lives ofhing on the america's families. 71% of those with a bachelor's degree have a debt.

the average is 29,400. perhaps you are among them. we have the majority of halflation that has cut in the interest rates or the subsidized loan for undergrads. an income-based payment program -- we created the tax credit maximum of 2500 dollar tuition tax credit for eligible families and students. we must take action now to go further. the george miller bill in the and the companion bill, elizabeth warren in the senate. we would hope -- we were hoping they would pass. that is the student emergency act. that is some kind of an acronym but i get them all mixed up. it starts with bank on american

opportunity tax. -- b-o-s-e-l.t does that mean anything? no? [laughter] existing student loans at lower rates. the republicans in house and senate, both houses, shows to stand to block the votes in both chambers. a significant defeat in the senate on that. we were much more hopeful in the senate. it was just another example of a republican agenda, focusing on doing what they need to do for millionaires at the expense of the middle class. one example, again, is on the floor. instead of working to create american jobs and strengthen the economy for everyone, republicans have continued their double standard, adding aliens with the twot

builds on the floor today. the house is considering more of the completely unpaid $614 billion, 12 bill gop package for permanent tax breaks, mostly for business. it is so interesting to see. we must have unemployment for,ance extension paid but hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks not paid for. -- as way, 50 times in much in tax rates for business do theould cost to extension of unemployment insurance. 24%, what they're doing is 24% more than the entire federal deficit that is projected in 2014. that is $492 billion. deficit is the

coming down, thank you president obama. we need to talk about it more. what they're doing today is almost seven times the investments in education, job in aing, social services, year. 10 times the annual investment in our veterans. that is what they're doing on the floor today. what is also problematic about it, the problems it creates are twofold. one is an opportunity cost for all the investments they want to make if we have a budget. when the chairman had his proposal, it was paid for. now, he is ringing a bill to the floor that is not paid for, but realpermanent, a opportunity cost than any investments we will have in growth in our country. also, an opportunity for having reform,nsive tax

fairness, supplication reform, close loopholes, lower corporate rates. you all of the things but let's do it comprehensively instead of taking these things off the table, crippling our ability to invest in the future and r&d and all the things we want to do in an important way. but not a deficit increasing way. so they continue to require full offsets for everything. they want full offsets for the senate veterans bill. but not for their tax breaks. the debate yesterday and will continue it on tuesday. millions of children nationwide depend on the school breakfast and lunch for their daily meals. republicans are determined to overrule the views of science and medical professionals, nutritionist, who are urging children to eat more fruits, vegetables, whole grains, etc..

fewer foods containing those ingredients. this is a time one in three children in america are obese. isn't that a stunning feat -- figure? we have the appropriations bill, which will return to the floor on tuesday. republicans are even going after nutrition for pregnant women, mandating the program with more white potatoes. fruit, vegetables, whole grains, and the rest, and they have an amendment that says, more white potatoes. then the nutritionist recommend. these essential to traditional standards are hard to explain to anybody, but we know they reject science, they ignore clear-cut , betray theidence best interests of american families, while protecting special interest. we have to do what is right for our children and our families. they deserve better.

do you have any questions? just jumping in there right away . he gets points for being around. ok. >> things have gotten very serious in iraq here. states -- whated should united states do? if so, -- [indiscernible] the united states has been in iraq in the last 10 plus years. [indiscernible] multifaceted question there. what is happening in iraq is troubling, especially seeing what is happening in syria. my understanding is, from the , thatmetropolitan journal

the state department said we are supplying some weaponry to their government. i do not think or is an appetite engagedountry to become in any more military activity in iraq. why is it not? it does not matter why. it is a fact. the american people have been exhausted with wars. if you want to talk about iraq and the opposition they have always had to our military engagement there, we have to go back to 2003. fall,k to 2002, in the when the bush and mr. -- administration misrepresented the facts to the american people , took us into a war on a false premise they knew not to be true , told the american people the world would pay for itself, it will be over soon, we would be greeted by rose petals, that we

had to go in there because the smoking gun might be a nuclear plume. told thehat they american people. of course, it was not true and they knew that. i said at the time, intelligence does not support the threat. you could not find in any available. they had to show us every -- any sign of that threat. so we go down a path, diverting our attention from afghanistan, finish the job in 2002-2003, and instead, we take up another war, and here we are. war begets work. it is just not a good idea. what is next? that is what the american people want to know. what is next? was it hanna that said, people think one more act of violence is going to end violence, but it is like a flywheel. one act of

violence provokes another act of violence and here we are. failedpresents the policies that took us down this path 11 years ago. it was march 19. call saying,the the president called to tell you we are initiating military hours.into iraq in a few my question was why? we have not exhausted any remedy. before we goe, but forward, we have to know what is going on. the american people do not have an appetite for secretary -- sacrificing our troops, our treasured -- presses -- precious and foremost.t >> do you believe the conditions

were created to allow summit like this and does it have a responsibility to get involved? >> the shia sunni conflict is a very old one. this may have happened with or without that. but i do know the 1990's, irann the and iraq. ,hat did this do, but a war gave iran all the freedom it needed. no more problems at the border. look where iran has gone. they were a check on each other, our concern is, that they could develop a weapon of mass discussion, which we cannot tolerate. that.annot do they have the freedom to do that because we free their borders and give them opportunity. in ancient form -- the fight

between the sunni and shia is an ancient one. the desire to have a need to -- even greater than one country, a unity, in that part of the world. it is a real danger to a region. it has global implications. -- i do not know going in what our going in does about that. are we going to fight a war we just got out of? 2003, almost a decade? when we won in 2007, one of the written -- one of the main reasons was the war in iraq. people opposed to the war in iraq. it had nothing to do that much with party. legislation to have a time certain for us to come home. the president vetoed the bill and we could not override the veto. so we go on and now the violence continues.

but we are responsible to go into iraq for a variety of reasons. >> [indiscernible] do you think your fear that the shakeup in the house and republican leadership will make it more difficult if not impossible to get any type of big issues, immigration and other things, done this year and possibly the next? word "fear"use the to me, it does not mean war. it is an unfit -- unsafe place for children and other things. i do not think this is making it any worse. say, let me not talk about fear. we are about hope, we democrats. i hope what will become of this

is that people, when they look up, and this is why i said this is a game changer, it is a whole new ballgame. public is paying attention. what is going on here? the republican party is going even further to the right. the representative who was here is here's till -- here still. going further to the right. it is about an antigovernment attitude. oner the current leadership the republican side, we have had a shutdown of government. we have not passed immigration. we have not passed the voting rights act, which has always been bipartisan. we had the votes for the immigration bill. it passed the senate in a bipartisan way. i do not know how things could get worse than the obstruction

that is already here. but i do hope the republicans paying attention, it will improve the debate and people understand what the choices are elections are about two things if we take it to that point. it is about who gets elected but also about the debate. if we could have a debate about issues, then perhaps with the public paying attention, the debate could bring us back to a place of compromise and bipartisanship, instead of further in the direction of obstruction. do you feel sympathy for mr. cantor personally? >> [laughter] sure. [laughter] of course. it is hard to lose an election.. but most of us are here are -- because of policy and what we want to do. we have some understanding of politics and we all know you keep your home fires burning.

the people are the boss. a speak. that is really what counts. but i have as much sympathy for him as he would want me to have or him. why are you laughing? that was a sincere comment. you next and then we will come -- here. >> [laughter] what was said around that bill, it could cost as much as $50 billion a year. in the house, voting on tax. why should anyone think either party is serious about reduction? the first art of it,

that is why what is -- whatever is happening on the ill, it theot be something on ongoing that increases the cost of health care. we have got to get to a place where we make the veterans health administration well. many, many like the health care they're getting. it is just access that is the problem. that is where the correction has to take lace, to facilitate they are getting the health care. once they get the health care, for most of the people i am approve ofm, they the health care they are receiving. we do not want this to be and ought -- an ongoing position. secondly, there are many or diagnoses that really cannot be dealt with outside of the a is him in an effective way. if you have a cold, ok.

if you have a were related injury, the earlier diagnosis of what that is, the treatment of certainly for the patient, but also less costly for the veterans administration. this is expensive, no question about it. we owe our veterans the care they deserve. they understand what they tell me and the individual veterans. is a temporary measure, everybody, that not and mostly, people will need to go in health. this is a temporary measure. they would go to pay for it, i have not seen any suggestions for it. but we have to do that. that is our moral responsibility. we do not have a moral

responsibility to give tax unpaid forusiness permanently. we are talking about a two-year proposal as a transition to a healthier v.a. health administration. we have to handle these things discreetly and understand what the path is we are going down what is thelong and best way to get it done, the cheapest and most efficient way. is of the cheapest ways earlier diagnosis and care for our veterans are the second point, i totally object to what the republicans are doing on the floor. to make these permanent and unpaid for is -- an opportunity to reduce the deficit, investing in growth in our economy, and having the opportunity to do conference of tax reform, close loopholes and lower the orbit great, invest in growth, and bring more revenue into the

treasury, because of the smart decisions we make. nearlytie our hands with $1 trillion in permanent tax cuts, which leaves out a lot of things as well, earned income -- income tax credit, it is a long list. i would not like it better if it were included. the high-end at the cost of the low-end. >> some democrats have been gleeful at cantor's defeat, saying it would make it easier for them to run against tea party republicans. other democrats are not so sure, saying this is an isolated race with a specific set of circumstances. you are a savvy political thinker. what do you think? >> we do not have enough information to analyze the race more fully, but i will tell you one of the

advantages for democrats coming out of here is not only what i did before. the public with the and now wants to see, what do you have to offer and what do they have to offer and that is a good thing for the debate in that country. also, the mentality of, no party wins in the off year, all that thinking, that is so stale and so obsolete and so unimaginative, so yesterday. the whole communication system changed and that is a factor i a social network that enabled the toporters of the professor mobilize his troops. i do not know. we are too busy to be gleeful.

have said toers me, i got the tea party candidate and that means i will be able to help other people in their collections area that will really be an easier race for me now. others are just waiting to see. i think, again, every assumption is from before there you just have to evaluate every district. when all the pundits in washington say, they do not know. he was going to win by 35 wins and he lost by 10. a45 point difference in what the conventional wisdom was. it was not wisdom. saying, nobody knows where it is on the ground, in those districts, one at a time, to see how it lays and it may play differently from one district to the, but everybody has to know the district.

being a politically savvy person, i would say to people, know your district. down to the grassroots, down to the last leg of grass -- blade of grass, because in most districts, one may not be right and the other part in any way. understand who you represent. your title and your job description are one and the same. representative. do not ever forget that. >> kevin mccarthy is becoming the favorite to take the leader position. does he see mike someone you could -- like someone you could work with cory do you have -- with or do you have someone else you would rather work with? >> whoever has the support of their party will be the leader of the party. hope -- i am always hopeful we

could get back to a place of governance. you see the antigovernment attitude people have. and the debate as to the amount of government, more or less, has been historic in our country. it is a legitimate debate. dothink a lot of what we can for the good of the american people is science based. we can grow the economy and improve the air our children breathe, the number one in the world because of our economic our national security, which is affected by all the technology and science. antigovernment, anti-science, anti-barack obama, obstructionist. neverg is our agenda and is our timetable.

that is what we have had until now. an opportunity and boa to the american people to find common ground. that will hopefully be the case for whoever the leader is on the >> thecans i area conservative favorites at himself out of the race today. do you think he is an acceptable option to be majority leader? >> he will have to talk to the republicans that i'm the last person to talk about it here in your talking about who they should choose. that is up to them. it is up to them. i will have to run off. i think we will have votes. theou are talking about aftermath of can for's race. results have said the of that race absolutely 100% killed the prospects of an immigration bill this year.

people on the other side have said, there is a great opportunity. have you had any conversations with republican leadership in the last week for the last 48 hours, to suggest to you and immigration bill this year may be possible? >> the last hours have been busy. really busy. i am not one of those who thought. can toward was an advocate for immigration reform. in fact, i thought he was an obstacle. i do not think this is an immigrationo reform. i do not think the race was about immigration. it was about a lot of other things. the act not being the complete bill. they said it is about favoring wall street over main street. money set -- many sentiments many of us shared. not, i will talk to the

speaker here and i regularly do, about what our prospects are, but i have never seen. can't cantor as a-- eric force for this. nobody knew where he was. >> any solid evidence recently that a move on immigration in the coming weeks and months is in the offering? >> in the election, i did. next week, we are in normandy. before that, i had the impression there were conversations taking place. i believe the speaker was of good heart on this. that he wanted to have immigration reform. he wanted to do it in pieces. any way you want to do it, but we need to do something. now today there's a letter from the evangelical immigration table writing to all the republican leadership saying exactly two years ago we came

together to advocate for immigration consistent with blibble values. after thousands of hours of work reaching millions of evangelical christians, the evidence proves america is ready for common-sense immigration reform. with all due respect, it's time to decide. and, of course, in one week or two we will be observing the one-year anniversary that a bipartisan immigration bill passed the senate. the speaker has told me that he doesn't intend to take up that senate bill, or that he doesn't even intend to go to conference with that senate bill. so what -- is there something else that he would propose we stand ready to cooperate with him on that? and i think he's always been of good intention in that regard. we e is the speaker and haven't had a vote.

1,100 people are being deported every day. one person with the power to bring the bill to the floor. so i'm hoping that if this makes any -- and, again, you inside the minds of the caucus to see how they interpret this. but like when they brought the debt ceiling to the floor, 199 republicans voted to default on the full faith and credit of the united states of america. 28 republicans voted to lift the debt ceiling and we provided the nearly 200 other votes that enabled it to be lifted. so let's do something like that again. he already has done that one time, at least one time. so hopefully he'll do it now. i'm very hopeful, because i have said -- and i sincerely mean this. i would rather pass comprehensive immigration reform. i don't love the senate bill, but that would do -- than win

the election in november, because it is so necessary for our country association transformative for our country. i'd rather just get the job done and not have it be about politics and an endless, fruitless debate about it. yes, ma'am. >> i want to follow occupy that earlier question about the prospects for legislating. the republicans that we talked to yesterday said that lesson in cantor's loss says if you compromise, you get beat. >> when would that negotiation and compromise take place? >> the republicans are only going to become less willing to talk to democrats and they are convinced they can take the senate. >> you predicate it -- with all due respect, you predicate it the premise that said that negotiation -- the president has walked away from every debate. they shut down government.

they haven't brought up their bipartisan voting rights. i don't know where all this cooperation was taking place. can you give me one example? i don't know of any. i really don't know of any. >> they're admitting the motivation for them to work across the aisle is only going to get worse. does that mean the president can't really get anything done? >> i think the next election will be about governance, getting the job done for the american people, or be trucks. d what we've had so far is obstruction. forgive me for not stipulating to we've had all this cooperation up until now. i haven't seen any of it. obstruction versus governance.

and the american people, whatever their view of the amount of government in their lives want us to be able to govern, they want us to be able to help meet their needs, to help job creation, to build the infrastructure of america. people can't do that on own. at least they have to have a public/private partnership. there will be rebuilding of america, having a policy to make it an merg, educate our children, have a judicial system that brings justice to the american people, things that you cannot do yourself but that are part of the governance of our country, instead of obstruction. and the obstruction takes many forms, including cuts in the appropriations bill for anything that would be a cop on the beat. and that is really specifically a cop on the beat. they cut the cops program in half, and the commerce justice appropriations bill a couple of

weeks ago. so unfortunately -- i mean, we still have time. we'd like to use that time for governance the next five, six months and hopefully we can get some things accomplished. but i to not accept a cell priss that says this is going to have -- premise that says is is going to have less cooperation across the aisle. we did cooperate with them when mr. miller missed the boat on his own bill the other day and he came to me and said will you agree to let them -- give unanimous consent for them to take up his bill so he can vote on this bill? and, of course, we did. he's a distinguished chairman of the veterans affairs committee, and we didn't want the tyranny of the bells to interferes with him associating himself with his own bill so in any event, i'm excited about it. because i think if we have a

debate in our country, what is our reason for being here? we have to meet the needs of the american people. let's have a debate about what form that takes. and that would be a very healthy thing, regardless of the outcome in terms of numbers and congress but in terms of impressing upon members of congress that american people want us to get a job done and, therefore, we should seek compromise that we should act in a bipartisan way, try to find common ground. always stand your ground when you can't, but nonetheless, strive very hard for it. nteresting time i'll see you when? next week? two weeks in a row. this is so remarkable. i really can't get over it. anyway, i'm sorry. i have to go to the floor to oppose hundreds of billions of entrenched nently

into our system, which happens to be a very bad idea in terms of hurting our chances to have true, true comprehensive tax reform and a value-based budget that helps us meet the needs of the american people. thank you all very much. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> house speaker john boehner was asked about iraq at his weekly news briefing. he also talked about house g.o.p. leadership after ajority leader eric cantor's rimary defeat this week. >> good morning, everyone. >> good morning. >> eric cantor has been a true friend. and i want to thank him and thank his staff for their

service to our conference and thank them for their service for our country as well. there's no one around here that works harder, puts more thought into advancing our principles and the solutions that we want to enact for the american people. i look forward to him continuing to lead our floor efforts here over the summer. as for the future, let me share a little bit with you that i told the members yesterday. this is a time for unity. this is a time to focus on what we all know is true -- that the president's policies have failed the american people. his administration can't get our economy back to real growth, and he continues to endanger our troops and citizens with his failed foreign policies. at this point the administration can't even provide basic services to our veterans. we need to elect a congress that not only has the will to stop the president, but the power to do so as well.

every day we're showing the american people that we've got better solutions. today we'll act on two more jobs bills that will help small usinesses invest and grow. unfortunately, senate democrats continue to sit on their hands and failing to act on the dozens of bills that are sitting over in the senate. so long as the american people are continuing to ask the questions, where are the jobs, we're going to continue to be focused on this one issue. i said on tuesday that a transfer of five hardened terrorists has made americans less safe, and i mean that and i'll stand by it. when asked last week whether the freed terrorists could return to plotting attacks on americans, president obama recently said, "absolutely." well, i don't think that's half of it. this exchange has encouraged our enemies and increased the risk to our military and civilian personnel serving

around the globe. those who would argue the opposite, i think, are incredibly naive. one of our citizens' greatest protections was knowing that the united states does not negotiate with terrorists. and that issue now -- that principle has been compromised. america's willing to make deals with terrorists, that's the new obama doctrine. back in january, i urged the president to get engaged with what's going on in iraq. this week we've seen big cities in iraq overrun with terrorists. the obama administration's failure to reach a status of forces agreement continues to have serious consequences for iraq and american interests in the region. and the administration's failed policies in syria, libya and egypt and the failure to implement a broader strategy for the middle east is having a direct impact on the situation in iraq. the united states has and will

continue to have vital national interests in iraq. but the progress made there is clearly in jeopardy. the president has celebrated our exit from iraq as a hallmark of his foreign policy agenda. but our focus should be instead on completing our mission successfully, and i would urge the president once again to get ngaged before it's too late. >> the election that we saw, with the cantor primary, what has happened between the two sides, when you have these fights that come out of nowhere? you are side benefited greatly from the tea party in 2010, part of that volatility. but what do you attribute this -- >> i'll let the political pundits describe and figure out what happened in that election. every election is different.

primary been through a process myself. you have to understand, the american people are being squeezed by obama's policies. the economy is not growing. incomes aren't growing. we're not creating enough jobs. and 2/3 of america see no increase in our wages, but their food prices are going up, their gas prices are going up and their health insurance costs are going up. so there's a lot of frustration that's out there, and they look to washington and wonder why we can't resolve these issues. they're hard to resolve when you got a president who won't engage. >> in your primary -- obviously you had at one point a four i would primary. were there certain things that you felt you had to do? >> i ran my race in a way that i thought i should run my race. but i'm not going to analyze that race down there. >> do you want kevin mccarthy to be the house majority

leader? also, how important is it, do you think, for unity in your conference to have a republican at the leadership table? >> well, i do think that members are going to make this decision. we're going to do it next week. i'm sure some will argue it's too soon, some will argue it was too long. but it's important we resolve this issue in a fair amount of time, so that we can do the work that we were elected to do. and so the members will make the decision about who the next majority leader is. >> it's a big deal for you. you talked about how important it was to have eric cantor at your side. do you want kevin mccarthy at your side? >> i worked with all 334 members of congress before. i can work with whoever gets elected. >> speaker boehner, the issue at hand in mr. cantor's race was immigration. a lot of people say immigration reform is dead because your conference will not move. >> let me debunk the first thing. i don't believe the first premise of your question. secondly, the issue with

immigration reform has not changed. the president continues to ignore laws that he signed into law, violating his oath of office. he did it again with release of these taliban five. and i remind the president again yesterday that every time he does this, it makes it harder to gain the trust of our members to do the big things that need to be done around here. >> are you worried about immigration as an issue in 2016, then, if it's not going to happen this year? >> listen, the president is going to have to demonstrate that he can be trusted to implement a law the way it was passed. >> but it's your party. you said that people who think that the bergdahl swap was a good idea are naive. the chiefs of staff signed off on this idea of the metric of national security. do you think the chairman of the joint chief of staff is naive? >> they are dead wrong on this issue. releasing these five people, negotiating with terrorists, is a principle that we have not

violated. and now we violated it and we've put americans at risk as a result of it. >> mr. speaker, what message do you believe that voters were trying to send washington in the selection of virginia? was it a message at all? >> again, i'm not going to analyze what happened in this election. they're all different. i'm sure at some point people will get a handle around what really happened. >> surely you must have a takeaway on situations like immigration. if eric cantor can be branded that he's supporting amnesty, how can your party ever move forward on an issue like that? >> we don't know that that is the issue or was the issue in the election. >> it's one of the issues, though, don't you think? >> on iraq, do you think the u.s. should be launching air strikes? and if not, what should the u.s. do? >> well, i think what we should do is to provide the equipment and the technical assistance that the iraqis have been

asking for. i don't know enough of the details about the air strikes to comment whether we should or we shouldn't. but it's not like we haven't seen this problem coming for over a year. and it's not like we haven't seen, over the last five or six months, these terrorists moving in, taking control of western iraq. now they've taken control of mo sull. they are's 100 miles from baghdad. and what's the president doing? taking a nap. >> white house chief of staff dennis mcdone no and actor and offerman will be at the correspondents' dinner. our coverage starts at 9:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> one of the things most people don't always recognize is that during the behalf of

1812, it was fought from 1812 until early 1815, and it was really about the america re-establishing its independence against the byron leftwich. this was sort of our second american revolution. and this flag is the object for which francis scott key penned the words which became our national anthem. is the image in 1995 that the flag was made to look whole and restored, and there was a whole bottom section reconstructed. when the demrag was moved, there was a deliberate decision by the curators not to do that again. what we wanted was that flag becomes a metaphor for the country. it's tattered, it's torn, but it still survives and the message is the survival of both the country and the flag. and we're not trying to make it look pretty, we're trying to make it look like it's endured

its history and it still can celebrate its history. >> this year marks 2900th anniversary of the british naval bombardment of fort mchenry during the war of 1812. learn more about the flag francis scott key wrote about, while we tour the smithsonian's "star spangled banner" exhibit sunday night at 6:00 and 10:00 p.m. eastern. part of american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> when i started covering congress, you had people like senator russell long, wilbur , people who baker were giants in their own way. now, a couple of those guys got themselves into trouble. but overall these were people that were all very intelligent. they knew how to craft legislation. they knew how to do a deal.

and they all worked with whoever the president was, whether it was their party or the other party. yes, there was politics, but at the end of the day they usually found a way to come together and make decisions for the good of the country. today you just don't see that anymore. first of all, i think the quality of members of congress, the house and senate, in terms of their intelligence and their work ethic has diminished. they're still great people and i shouldn't malign some of -- there are wonderful members on both sides, but i think that they are a minority. i think increasingly people are driven by the politics and by their own self-survival. i think the hardest work they do is raising money. it's not learning the issues or crafting deals, it's making speeches and, you know, positioning themselves to get re-elected. >> emmy award-winning journalist and investigative reporter lisa myers is leaving washington, d.c. behind.

find out why sunday night on c-span's "q&a." >> president obama talked today about the increasing violence in iraq earlier. this is from "usa today." president obama saying that iraq needs "more help as it battles insurgents threatening to attack baghdad." he is considering various options. "i don't rule out anything because we do have a stake in making sure that these jihadists are not getting a permanent foothold in either iraq or syria, for that matter," president obama said in the oval office. iraq among the topics today in the white house briefing with jay carney. >> all right. i have know this is confusing. i am not an oakland a's fan. but i'm wearing this because 12-you, t t -- bethesda chevy chase completed an undefeated season by winning

the championship and i want to congratulate my son's team and all the players and the coach, ernie brooks, who is a great, great guy. so here's to the bcca's. and that is the only announcement i have at the top. can i give this to you? so i'll go right to your questions. except to say that president, as you know, does have an event at 2:00. we're going to keep the briefing, unless everybody decides they want to run over and cover that. but i just wanted to note that that is currently on schedule and if anybody needs to go over, that's fine, we'll keep going. jim? >> thanks, jay. just to clarify something on behalf of my colleagues. this is not your swan song today, is that right? >> probably not. we'll see. it depends on how it goes. [laughter] can i decide that at the end? >> yeah. >> i might have one more in me.

just the president today with prime minister abbott said the u.s. is prepared to take military action when our national security is threatened. does the islamic state of iraq represent a threat to the u.s. national security? >> well, as the president said, jim, we are very concerned isil and the extremist threat in northwestern iraq and the bordering region with syria. and there is no question that iraq is a strong and important partner to us. that is why we have the collaborative relationship with iraq that we have. that is why we have provided substantial assistance to iraq, including military assistance, and we have increased that

assistance over the past year as the challenges posed by the unrest, the civil war and syria have spilled over. and now in the last several days, caused great concern with what's happening in iraq. so what the president made clear was that we have been providing a significant amount of assistance to iraq, including military hardware. i believe josh detailed some of that the other day. and we are actively considering requests from the iraqi government and looking very closely at other efforts we can undertake to assist iraq in this very serious situation. ultimately, as the president also made clear, iraq's future a unified cided by

effort among the different groups and political parties in raq coming together in moderation to fight the extremist threat posed by isil. and that is what we've had discussions with prime minister maliki and others about, other iraqi leaders about, and that continues to be the case. >> have you specifically ruled out the use of any u.s. ground forces? >> we are not contemplating ground troops. i want to be clear about that. the president was answering the question specifically about air strikes and he made clear that we are considering our options as part of the overall effort to support iraq and as part of the overall assistance that we provide and can provide iraq in

this fight. but we are not contemplating ground troops. >> so air strikes specifically are part of the consideration. >> i think the president, when he said that he's not ruling anything out, he was responding to the question about requests for air strikes or would he consider air strikes, and that's what he meant. yes. >> are you concerned that this may be a little bit too late? >> i think that it's important to note that we have been ramping up our assistance to iraq, including substantial amounts of military material and hardware for sometime now. what we have seen in the past several days is a significant and concerning escalation in the violence and in movements jihadists, into the country and the occupation of some towns and cities in the

country. so we have a near-term situation that we need to move very quickly on, and we are assessing what we can provide additionally, what we can do additionally to assist iraq. term, have the longer ongoing challenge in our partnership with iraq in helping them to take steps to furetter unify the country and -- further unify the country and also assist them through the counterterrorism partnership fund, for example, to be better prepared to handle this kind of threat now and in the future. >> were you surprised of this sudden showing of strength by the insurgency? >> i think that -- i know that we have been monitoring this for some time and have been very concerned about and have discussed our concern about the

problems caused by the unrest in syria and the war in syria and the porousness of the border with iraq, the challenges that creates for iraq and has created for iraq and the need for iraq to have its capacities increased and for iraq itself to apply those capacities in a way that meets the challenge. that is why we have taken the steps we have in the past, including delivery of 300 missiles, millions of rounds fire, tank ammunition, helicopter fired rockets, grenades, sniper rifles, m-16's and m-4 rifles to the iraqi security forces. we also delivered additional i a-407 helicopters last year and 10 eagle surveillance platforms are on schedule for delivery this summer. i think you also have been told that we recently notified

congress of an additional sale of $1 billion in arms, including up to 200 humvees, and that sale is now in a 30-day review period. under the strategic framework agreement we have also expanded our training programs both inside iraq and in jordan, where a second round of c.t. training will occur this summer. so this is part of an ongoing effort to help the iraqi security forcers deal with this threat. as the president noted, there is also the need for a unified political approach to be taken by the iraqi government. in response to this common reat that the extremists pose, an extremist group and the members of the group who do not have iraqi national interests at heart, but who are bent on death and destruction in iraq and the threat they individual very

within iraq and, therefore, we will continue our discussions, including in the ongoing consultation that the vice president has with iraqi leaders to urge more unity among the political parties and communities in iraq as they deal with this challenge. >> jay, let me just quickly ask you about immigration. the president last night said the immigration reform bill is not dead, so does this mean you're not ruling out the possibility of taking some sort of administerive action before the august recess? >> the president was referring to the effort to pass comprehensive immigration reform. e believe that the broad coalition that existed prior to this week's primary in the seventh district of virginia is

as strong today as it was then. and the house ought to pass a bipartisan immigration reform measure that would provide extraordinary benefits to our economy, security, and to our businesses and would deal with this challenge in a comprehensive way. that imperative has not changed at all. about theas been talk surprised in seeing how fast what has been going on in iraq. regarding seriocomic what ?xactly is the scenario said, we have been very aware and have discussed here and in other venues the

challenges posed i the war in syria and extremist activity there and isil as it formed and moved across the border into iraq. that has always been a great concern. that is why we have stepped up the assistance we have been providing to the iraq he security forces. >> [indiscernible] saidthink the president moments ago in the oval office we cannot be everywhere at all times. elsewhere,is iraq or we need to partner with other countries and their militaries and security forces to assist them in combating these kind of extremist challenges. that is what that counterterrorism partnership fund is about that the president

discussed in west point, and that is very much the manner in which we have approached our close relationship with the iraq he government and the support we give iraq he security forces. , a sovereign nation like iraq has to have the capacity to do with these challenges. we can assist and we are and we will look at all options in the , butnt near term situation the medium and long-term solution to a challenge like this has to be one that is led forces? security >> does this make an argument that the u.s. should have acted sooner in syria? >> i can remember answering questions before you guys can come up michelle, about our

concern and should we be concerned when it came to supplying with lethal assistance to the opposition in syria, in whose hand that assistance would ultimately end up and whether or not we could trust that that assistance would not find its actuallytremists who had designed against u.s. national security interests or americans. that is why we took the approach we took and also why we have established now for quite some can a manner by which we provide and have provided assistance to the moderate opposition, including to the opposition's armed elements. and that is the approach we took, precisely because we did and many others do not want for assistance from the

united states to end up in the hands of extremists. justin? >> two quick ones on iraq. it wasst one is determined a year ago that airstrikes were wanted against syria. [indiscernible] he makes the same determination here. do you feel it is necessary to put [indiscernible] >> there are legal authorities the use ofregarding conflicts not in in, but elsewhere. we can get more for you on that. the president said today he is considering all options in response to the question about potential direct action by the united states military. get back to have to

you on how that would proceed if that decision were made. >> does this change your catalysts for withdrawal from --calculus for your withdrawal from afghanistan? [indiscernible] i am wondering if that changes anything about [indiscernible] not change the approach that the president announced recently, that we are taking in afghanistan. we are ending that combat mission this year, and pending the signing of the bilateral security agreement will keep a smaller number of troops in afghanistan focused exclusively on the missions the president discussed. the broader question has to be when we talk about this is,

should american men and women in uniform be fighting in iraq today, and is that the right approach for our national security interest should american forces the occupying countries for decades or should we be taking the approach the president took and he ended the war in iraq and establish a relationship with the sovereign government of iraq through which we can provide the kind of assistance we can provide? that is the approach he believes coincides with the strategy he has laid out in afghanistan. >> following up, [indiscernible] >> the president laid out in his speech at west point a strategy that is focused on partnering

with the security forces of that helps them develop the capacity necessary to deal with these kinds of threats, because we cannot have in. forces around the world armed conflicts without end. approachly not a wise -- it is simply not a wise approach. we maintain as the president made clear to use the terry to usenilaterally -- military force unilaterally if needed. we should not partner with other nations' security forces and

effort to the counterterror ism partnership fund that allows those forces to work more effectively against the threat these jihadist pose. >> the westport arguments -- the west point elements for [indiscernible] that itn the fact continues to devolve -- >> when you are asking that about iraq, is the suggestion we should still have tens of thousands of troops in iraq? if that is the proposition, then we can discuss that, but certainly not the president's view. what we can do is consider requests from our partners in the iraqi government. we can provide the assistance we already provide and have provided to the iraqi government, including two iraqi

security forces -- to iraqi security forces. that is military matériel, and we can contemplate other requests and take action as if theand necessary, but question you are asking is should we have a hundred thousand troops in iraq, the president's view is no. e said the tim kain president should present a clear plan to congress. does the president have any immediate plans to consult with members of congress? >> we are in active consultation with members on the situation in iraq and we will continue to do that. >> how would you would characterize what is happening in a wreck right now? --

iraq right now? >> and islamist jihadist group composed of mixed nationalities threatening the sovereign state of our iraq. and the iraqi security forces confront that threat, and we are working closely with the government in baghdad and with iraq's political leadership to a valuate the kind of assistance we can provide in addition to the assistance we have already provided and the assistance on its way to help them meet that challenge. >> would you characterize it or are you not ready to be there? >> the way i characterized it reflects what is happening on the ground. the australian prime minister

has been critical of the president in the past. some would say offensive, at times, about him. past relationship, how would you not describe it, especially since they disagree so much on climate change? >> what the president said reflected the very close nature of the relationship between the united states and australia, the alliance between our nations, iendship, and the tone of the meeting reflected that high level of cooperation. the leaders discussed a number of issues, as you know, and climate change was one of them. they talked about the importance of confronting climate change. president obama emphasized the need for ambitious domestic climate policies as a basis of a strong international response.

the united states will work with australia to advance climate change them a clean energy, and energy efficiency solutions, including in the context of the g 20. this is a topic of discussion, in a as you would expect bilateral meeting between leaders of such close allies. >> did you ask him to put it on the g 20 agenda? >> i do not have a specific agenda to lay out for you, but in the context of g 20, this is something that the president with think is important to discuss. thats there anything about ttip or the trade negotiations in the meeting? >> i have no information. --does the president believe is in jeopardy? >> the president knows the situation in a wreck is serious and that -- in iraq is serious

and there needs to be action taken quickly in order to confront the challenge posed by the isil. i would not characterize the stray sean the ground lee terry early -- ground militarily. the president is aware of that he hason and that is why made clear we are assessing what efforts we can take building on the efforts we have already taken to assist the iraqi government. >> there are reports that forces have assisted in dealing with the isil forces. does the administration have confirmation of that? reports, but we cannot confirm them, and while we appreciate the seriousness of the situation in iraq and the

,brutal actions of isil we urge the government of iraq to take prudent decisions on how to address is crisis in the spirit of national unity. this goes back to the point i was making earlier, that the where thisrward could be effectively dealt with in iraq is for there to be initical unity in iraq combating a common enemy. there is no side in iraq that isil is fighting for. this is a jihadist extremist group that is bent on death and instruction within iraq, and it is necessary for the various factions within ouiraqi politics to come together united by this threat posed to the sovereign state of iraq here to

rebuff the challenge. >> [indiscernible] an issue foris is the government of iraq. are to makethey prudent decisions about how they deal with the threat in the interest of national unity. >> you used in your formulation about a unified effort that builds on moderation. can you in any way credibly up like either of those words, unified or moderate, to maliki's government in iraq and how much weight does this administration make on his decision-making process? >> i can say we agree that all our iraqi leaders including prime minister malik the need to address and need to do more, rather, to address unresolved issues within iraq to meet the needs of the iraqi people. the threat to iraq's stability

right now is isil, and [applause] has an ideology that has little to do with domestic politics. their aim is to take territory and terrorize the people regardless of sect or ethnic or religious affiliation. the sameogy would be no matter who was in power in baghdad. so that said we will continue to work with our iraqi leaders from across the spectrum to encourage the kind of collaborative thatach and governance would best address these unresolved issues. supporttheir leaders to leaders from all -- this has been an ongoing challenge in iraq, as it tries to build a future as a sovereign

state. iraqier to do that, leaders need to have a unified vision about iraq's future that separateiced into visions according to political affiliation or religious affiliation. that is the challenge that arak's leaders -- iraq's leaders have been grappling with for a number of years now. the threat posed by this extremist group highlights the need for iraq's leaders and other actors to set aside some of their differences to join together to meet the common threat posed by isil. >> the president, the vice president, and advisers, all in the past oblivious described iraq as a success story.

when did it go bad? >> the fact is when we have described what was the case and that is that iraq has over the years taken steps to resolve its internal political differences through peaceful means as opposed through violence, this is an ongoing challenge within iraq. isil is not a domestic political entity. tois a force that is trying akaim territory and wre havoc in iraq and a force that iraqi citizen's interest at heart. it is a cause for increased 's politicaliraq factions and a more cohesive approach to be taken by the central government in baghdad when it comes to combating a serious threat. >> the i told you so news

the riske, saying that of losing what americans lost their lives for was caused by not keeping u.s. troops in iraq. question that senator mccain and president obama have differed on the iraq war didn't senator mccain was for it -- the iraq war since senator mccain was for it and barack obama was against it. no question going back to 2008 when senator mccain allowed his vision might include tens of thousands of u.s. forces in iraq in perpetuity, that that was in stark contrast as a vision to one held by then senator obama, which was that we should responsibly end what was already a very long war in iraq. president obama's view is that

iraq needs to come up with the partnership of the united states , be able to handle its own security. from some ofote the statements you said today that within a couple of sentences of each other, senator mccain said this is because we did not keep troops in iraq, but he is not calling for troops in iraq. which i am not a logic expert, but it seems to be inconsistency in the statements. the fact is we cannot be everywhere at all times to meet the challenge posed by extremist it's like isil, but we can partner with iraq, as the

president noted today, through the counterterrorism ownership fund and our direct relationship and with the assistance we provide the security forces and the iraqi people, to work together to help iraq beat back a challenge like this. this has to be ultimately resolved by the iraq people and the leadership. ofyou ran off a list equipment we have provided direct, some of which is now in the hands of the isil. and you were reluctant to be more aggressive in syria and it would appear that the problems come over the border into iraq. how much of what we are seeing in iraq now is the result of not taking a more aggressive response to the civil war in syria? >> as i answered earlier, the approach we took was to weefully evaluate to whom would be providing assistance in syria in the opposition,

precisely so that assistance is not end up in the wrong hands. we have for some time now provided substantial assistance to the opposition in syria, but i think our past history shows and an understanding of the situation in syria and portions of iraq bears out that we need to be very smart about how we legal whom we provide assistance and military hardware of any kind, and that is the approach we take. we think it is the right approach in terms of u.s. national security interests. speakerrt while ago the of the house described the deteriorating situation in iraq and said and what is the president doing? he is taking a nap. that is the response of the speaker. >> my response is to answer the questions a little more substantive to the approach we are taking.

we provide a substantial assistance to iraqi security forces. i would note in that same briefing the highest elected leader of the republican party did not have any suggestions for an approach to iraq that i could tell, or any policy prescriptions that he would offer beyond the statement that you just repeated. >> on the question of troops going back to the end of the war, the administration, with vice president biden taking a leading role, try to get a status of forces agreement that would allow iraq to allow troops to remain for counterterrorism operations. because of that failure all the troops had to come out immediately. the situation in iraq would have been any different if you had not failed to get the status of forces agreement and there have been some residual u.s. force left in iraq? >> the agreement to which you

refer was one that would have to have been reached between two sovereign nations and an agreement to allow for, under conditions we would find acceptable, a remaining force from the american military was by negotiations between the united states and iraq. that ant i would make is relatively small number of troops designed specifically for the kind of narrow mission we are talking about with post-2014 force in afghanistan would not supplant the need either in afghanistan or iraq for a national security force to take the lead effect of a in combating any extremist threat from the outside, as you have with isil, or inside.

again, if the argument is that we should have, as some suggested going back to 2008, tens of thousands of u.s. troops in iraq in perpetuity -- >> a specific question -- >> i answered that, which is a small force focused on c.t. and troop training and assistance is not the same as what was called for by others when it came to a substantial, essentially, occupation force in iraq in perpetuity, which senator obama and candidate for senate obama never supported. >> would it make no difference -- what might have been in different services, i do not think anybody can answer that question. what i can tell you is that the sovereign state of iraq has security forces that need to be

up to the task of dealing with these kinds of challenges. they will have the assistance, that comes with partnership with the united states, as well as with other nations that have the interest of iraq and its sovereignty at heart and provide substantial assistance to iraq as the united states does. mustultimately, iraq future needs to be decided and defended by iraqis. we are providing substantial assistance and are considering in this current near-term challenge what other efforts we can undertake to help the iraqis in this current situation. but the long term here, and this is true two years ago and it will be true two years from now, has to be one that sees an iraqi future that is defended by unified political leadership in iraq and by iraqi security

forces. the president and senior officials have repeatedly over the years and as recently as tuesday described as the president's top foreign policy accomplishment ending the war in iraq. given what we are seeing now in iraq, can you still claim that as a signature achievement? >> there's no question the president pledged to end the war in iraq, and he did, and that was -- >> there is no more war in iraq? >> u.s. combat missions in iraq. what is also the case and what the president made clear as we wound down the war in iraq is that we need to be a good partner to the government in assistanceovide the that we can at the request to help them meet their security challenges, and we have done that. feature has iraq's

to be -- alternately, iraq plus future has to be decided between the reconciliation of the political factions and a unified approach posed by groups like isil. >> and decimating al qaeda when an al qaeda-eight group controls cities in the heart of iraq? >> you have made the decision, al qaedaorpe has been severely compromised and decimated. nobody will disagree with that. what we have been saying for a long time now is that when it comes to threats the united states and our national security interests directly, the threat hasd by affiliated groups grown in yemen, for example, and elsewhere as the core leadership

and core al qaeda has been diminished and decimated. we have openly discussed that. herebrennan when he was and over at the cia has talked about it, and that is a challenge that we are very upfront about. i do not inc. you can target when it comes to al qaeda in afghanistan and in pakistan region that the strategy of going after poor al qaeda leadership has not effectively been prosecuted. arguablyy dangerous or more dangerous that an al qaeda linked group is in control of iraq cities? that thed remind you most severe military attack on the united states in our lifetimes occurred, was organized, and ordered out of afghanistan by core al qaeda. >>

is there a certain here at the white house about oil supplies? >> i don't have any specific information about that, i can tell you when it comes to the oil fields in -- let me make sure i get this right. we understand that that oil refinery remains in control of the government of iraq, but i have not, i don't have any other additional information about that issue. >> reports of evacuations of americans north of baghdad, americans are going to be or have been evacuated as a precaution to get them out of the way out of this moving insurgency? >> i don't have anything on