the ust when you think ignoring of the safety of american citizens couldn't get much worse by this administration, they brag that they're bringing a known terrorist to new york city. nobody on the left seems to be terribly bothered by the fact they say they're putting him on a slow ship to the u.s., when they should have put him on a fast plane to guantanamo bay. . it is better kept than many prisons i've been to, that actually meet the requirements of the law, including the requirements of liberal judges. it is better than so many prisons. and yes, they get to play soccer and when they continue to throw

feces or urine on our guards, they do lose some movie time watching. when i was down there a couple of times, you know, somebody lost movie privileges because they found out a way to throw urine or feces on guards and there actually was a guard that yelled back at the person that threw feces on him and he ended up being punished, i was told by article 15, because you're not allowed to respond when a terrorist throws feces or urine on you. that they will take care of the adequate punishment and they think it's enough to take away some of their movie watching time or television watching time. or maybe take away some of the time they get to be outside playing soccer. they don't need to be in the united states if they've committed an act of war against

the united states and the evidence seems to indicate clearly that this defendant had. and i'm very pleased and i applaud the administration for finally picking up this guy that was so available to international media. they could get interviews with him. and yet the administration didn't want to pick him up. if they had, they could have gotten him at any time. at the last -- last year when they picked up this terrible terrorist in libya, when i was over there, libyans said his address had been on the internet for a year. you know, the u.s. could have gotten him any time they wanted to. they knew where he lived. but the administration finally decided to do something about it. so they did.

there's an article from cbs news, benghazi suspect expected to face criminal charges in d.c. federal court. americans that say someone who commits an act of war against the united states should be brought to federal district court because it's their constitutional right, tell you immediately, they don't know the constitution. because under the constitution, there isn't even a u.s. district court created. how can somebody have a right to a united states district court under our constitution when there's no u.s. district court created in our constitution. as david given, my old constitutional law -- david gwynn, my old constitutional law

professor used to say, there's only one court created in the constitution, the supreme court. every other court in america owes its existence and jurisdiction to the united states congress. and as bill cosby says his father used to say, i brought you into this world, i can take you out. the congress brought these court into this world, we can take them out of this world. nobody has a constitutional right to a u.s. district court. you commit an act of war, you've got a right to a tribunal if we so choose, and we have. you may have a right to a military court. i don't understand, mr. speaker, why in the world liberals in the united states think that someone who commits an act of war against the united states should have more constitutional rights than our united states military.

and this administration thinks they do. how do you know? look at what they're doing to our military. go talk to some of our military members who have been put in prison. they say, we believed our lives were in eopardy, immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury so we defended ourselves. well, you shouldn't have. because you hit a civilian, you hit somebody else you hit somebody that was messing with an i.e.d., they didn't mean he actually planted it. there are all kinds of people we have in prison now who are serving our united states military and they were not given this he rights that person, radical islamist that wants to destroy america, is now

being told he's going to get. so they say they're questioning him. but the federal government said that about the last suspect they arrested and put on a slow boat to the u.s. and there were people here that were saying, this is great. this may be the one guy, i wouldn't mind being water boarded to get all the information out they could. but then we hear from an international arms dealer who says, yeah, i was the one who negotiated the arms deal for the u.s. state department. they wanted to get arms to libyan rebels and i proposed just them buying them and then i'd get them to the rebels and they said no, no, no, we don't want it that direct. so he says he bought the weapons for the state -- but the state department got them to qatar and then from qatar got them to the rebels that were infused with al qaeda rebels.

and anyway, the international arms dealer sent me a statement saying he wanted to testify before congress because the eople he met -- he worked with representing the u.s. government and the others he worked with are either dead or they're in a boat somewhere that nobody can talk to and he figured if he could get his story out before congress then maybe there wouldn't be any need to kill him or stick him in a boat somewhere so he couldn't talk. so what the statement of the international arms dealer has been, the statement that was sent to me, and yet they want to bring someone they say they are certain committed an act of war against the united states and i hear on the news today, gee,

they've had evidence of this involvement since the event happened. since the event happened. that would mean all the time that secretary clinton was out there saying it was the video and looking family members of the deceased at benghazi, looking them in the eye and saying, we're going to get the guy that did the video, knowing all the time the evidence was nothing of the sort. that a video had nothing to do with the loss of these four american lives. there is no right of someone who commits an act of war against the united states to get an immediate trial. he's not entitled under our constitution to get a speedy trial. he's not under our constitution entitled to get a trial before u.s. district court. he is entitled, under the

current law, to go to guantanamo bay, where no one has ever been water boarded, by the way. and have a trial in that courtroom. i went through. and was impressed at how well equipped it was for trying terrorists. even to the extent of having bulletproof glass for the gallery. there could be all kinds of horrible scenarios arise out of this administration's insistence on bringing an enemy combatant, a warrior against the united states, who should be considered ther an enemy combatant or a prisoner of war, shouldn't be

brought -- there are too many bad things that can happen, new york, new york suffered enough, and i do want to finish with this one article published by brite bart, written by carrie pickett this week. i have talked for some time out a texan named mohammed elbeari. i questioned our homeland security about her giving him a secret security clearance when he clearly should not have met any requirements to get such a clearance when he -- we knew that he downloaded two documents from -- using his secret classification and according to reporter patrick poole, not only did he download but he offered them to a national media for publication. well, he's gotten so cocky now

because i've been talking about this for a number of years, and the administration has not bostonnered to revoke his secret classification, he continues to be one of the top advisors to homeland security, our homeland security, for heaven's sake. , he sends out this tweet june 13, that says, kind of comical watching pundits on some u.s. tv channels freak out about isis caliphate. easy, folks, take a deep breath and relax. carrie pickett reports, mohammed elibari is at the center of a controversy involving allegations that former d.h.s. secretary janet napolitano gave him secret clearance which led to him downloading classifying

information. according to representative louie gohmert he shopped that around to a reporter. elbiari, a supporter of the muslim brotherhood is also an active participant on twitter and mocked the freakout by u.s. talking heads discussing the terrorist activities relating to the islamic state of iraq and syria. isis. so he says that. he thinks it's comical watching pundits freak out over watching the islamic state of iraq and syria's caliphate. he goes on in another tweet in response to a tweet back that says so we don't need to be outraged? he says, as i've said before, inevitable that caliphate returns. choice only whether we support e.u.-like muslim union vision or not. top advisor i, a

in the united states of america homeland security department says it's inevitable that we have an islamic caliphate over the united states, it's just whether or not we're going to embrace a european union-style caliphate that's coming or something else. even when he's questioned again by another twitter, he says, u.s. is heading in the direction, talking about islamic caliphate. bush created the o.i.c., organization of islamic council special envoy so that took us a little bit down the road to being part of the caliphate. and then he says obama removed discriminatory engagement policy toward the muslim brotherhood, that's the purging of documents i have been talking about for year. this admrgs -- this administration according to

their homeland security advisor here, has been moving toward being part of a caliphate for years. get used to it. he finds it comical that pundits are even worried about it. with the lawlessness that is occurring in the united states and in our justice department and in this administration, numerous places, and the i.r.s., on our border, it's time for americans to wake up and it's time for americans to let their congressman and senator know we have had enough lawlessness, you guys have got to hold the attorney general and the president accountable and once enough people wake up and demand it, they will get it because the adage remains true. democracy ensures a people get a government no better than they

deserve. with that, i yield become. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. does the gentleman have a motion? mr. gohmert: i move that we do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: 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.

whip team. he got in late. he took the weekend to get into his campaign. he has tapped into a conservative insurgency. ,he feeling among members particularly the younger members

, who feel like they're -- their voices have not been heard. that is what he prominent -- promised to represent. he promised to try to make members important. late.ms too little, too >> have outside groups weighed in on the selection? -- this election? >> they don't play much of a factor. this is internal. a secret out election. the votes will not be publicized. members'shisper in years. i have not heard they are playing too much of an influence. says the whipe race is still a top us best tossup. -- the headline says the whip race is still a tossup.

tell us a bit about those candidates and two is behind them. >> roskam is the cheap beauty with. foras been the lieutenant the past couple of years. lease is the committee chairman. he has been trying to betray -- he the conservative has been trying to tap into that feeling. he is per train himself as the more conservative alternative. that is a tossup race. i would guess he is ahead at this point. it will probably have to go to more than one ballot. if anybodyto be seen

can run away with it. >> the leadership election on thursday held behind closed doors, tell us about the location and where the vote will be held. they will not be c-span cameras there. how about the process itself? >> if only there could be c-span cameras. it is a fascinating process. it will be on best in the building. secretst their votes by ballot. whoever gets to 117 wins out right. racist -- race is between two people/ . the first number everyone is looking for 78. who does not get the number drops out of the race. sewers --owers, their supporters will have to decide who to support. if as expected marlon fall short

of the 78 number and has to drop out of the base, where do they go? with the next most conservative guy? or roskam? who is viewed as a status quote guy. the leaderships remain intact. as the coast of the final five months. >> some members said we had to get a leader from a red state. it is that important? that is a lot of the feeling they have been putting out there. all the the members right now are from blue or purple states. roskam is from illinois. he is not helping people vote for him. he did say he would appoint somebody from a red state. he is trying to quell some of that attention between the north and the south.

viewers can follow all that from daniel neuhauser. >> in iraq, the military sunni group is taking control of key cities. and now threatens baghdad. has said house president obama has not decided how to respond. he met with the leadership of the house and the senate today. senators discuss the current situation in iraq. and the president's policy in the region. comments from majority leader harry reid, marco rubio, and john walsh. this is one hour. mr. president, over the past several days, the world has looked in horror as asus -- i sis, the islamic state in iraq and syria, has swept across

iraq. they are sweeping closer to baghdad. there are no efficient outside bag dad -- outside baghdad. they pose a threat to iraq and surrounding regions. it is an understatement. and his advisers are considering options to combat the threat. concerned members of congress, i should say republican members -- have more interest in playing their favorite game. blame obama. it doesn't matter what it is, it is his fault. people's lives were in jeopardy. our military, special forces, f.b.i. captured someone who was the ringleader of the lib yeah

benghazi attack. they have criticized the president for bringing this man to justice. now, yesterday i listened with dismay when the republican leader suggested and claimed that president obama prematurely withdrew troops from iraq. think about that for a minute, mr. president. 5,500 dead americans, tens of thousands wounded, thousands and thousands of them wounded grievously. i ask my friend and the republicans that he leads, would they have preferred the u.s. stay in iraq? would they have preferred that our soldiers stayed in iraq in harm's way? is he, are they, the republicans, willing to risk more american lives? the republican leader and other

republicans seem to have forgotten why president obama initiated the troop drawdown in 2009, in june. why? the iraqis wanted us out. the iraqi government didn't want american forces to stay. is he, the republican leader and the republicans that he leads, suggesting the american service members should have risked their lives even more, even as the iraqi people were telling our military to leave? mr. president, what has been taking place in iraq is a civil war. do the republicans and the -- their leader believe that service men and women in kentucky and other 49 states across this great country should be inserted in the middle of their civil war? i don't think so.

fighting between sectarian factions in iraq cost thousands of iraqi american lives over the last decade, and it spawned a new breed of terrorism now. yet, the original invasion of iraq would have us believe that this is all president obama's fault. mr. president, think about that. is there anything that could be further from the truth? i don't think so. this is an iraqi civil war, and it's time for the iraqis to resolve it themselves. those who attack president obama for bringing our troops home from iraq are wrong and out of step with the american people. after a decade of war, the american people have had enough. american families have had enough. i do not support in any way putting our men and women in the midst of this civil war in iraq. it is not in the national

security interest of our country. it's not worth the blood of the american soldiers. it's not worth the monetary cost to the american taxpayer. so, mr. president, rather than spending hundreds and billions of dollars on the war in track, about $1.5 trillion, rather than spending more money doing that, fighting george w. bush's war, how about we use that money to rebuild our nation's infrastructure -- roads, bridges, dams, water systems, sewer systems. we have a deficit in the infrastructure of trillions of dollars. how about doing a better job of educating our children? maybe we could raise the minimum wage or give the long-term unemployed unemployment compensation. or maybe we could help men and women draw the same amount of money for doing the same work.

or maybe we could fully fund the veterans administration and ensure that our veterans -- more than a million have come back from iraq -- are getting the care they need and deserve. but instead of addressing these issues at home, they are stuck in the same game, and it's not blame obama. it's a new one, new today, yesterday, the day before. they are stuck listening to the very same neocons -- obviously, that's where the republicans are getting their information again, the same neocons who pushed us into this iraq war in the first place as they try to plunge our military in yet another foreign misadventure. and what, mr. president, is absurd is the fact that for all these years, after all these years, their suggestions haven't changed.

they are in a time warp. those who are the so-called experts are so eager to commit american soldiers to another war, why is their advice so valuable? take president bush's paul wolfowitz who some say was the architect of the war. he has accused president obama recently of not taking a strong position in iraq. wolfowitz took a strong position on iraq's sectarian violence when he stated -- listen to this bizarre statement, mr. president, and this is a quote -- "there has been none of the record in iraq of ethnic militias fighting one another." look at what he said. "there has been none of the record in iraq of ethnic militias fighting one another." mr. president, for centuries --

that's wolfowitz. how about billy -- bill crystal. not the comedian. he's a writer. bill crystal, one of the architects of the iraq war who infamously predicted that american soldiers would be welcome as liberators in iraq and said the war would last two months. well, he was only wrong nine years and ten months. crystal also claimed there is no evidence of discord among the sunnis and shiites in iraq. no, only centuries of discord, centuries. yet, even in light of this incorrect assertion about iraq, crystal went on to say we need to have more fighting in iraq. beating the drum alongside all his neoconservative friends. this morning, there was an op-ed

piece in "the wall street journal." now, who would write that? how about dick cheney, just to remind everyone, former vice president of the united states, who clearly was the chief architect of the war. mr. president, if there is one thing that this country does not need, it's that we should be taking advice from dick cheney on wars. being on the wrong side of dick cheney is to be on the right side of history. to the architects of the iraq war who are now so eager to offer their expert analysis, i say, mr. president, thanks but no thanks. unfortunately, we have already tried it your way and it was the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the country. now, people come back and say they can give me some examples that have been worse, and i'll listen, but for me, i know a little bit about history, this was a foreign policy blund they're would be hard to take

away from being the number one foreign policy blunder in the history of the country. president obama and his military advisors are considering their options to address isis, but putting combat troops back in iraq isn't one of them. i have no doubt that president obama and america will meet this threat head on without the advice of wolfowitz, cheney, kristol, the architects of the invasion of iraq. president obama will meet the threat with the same smart foreign policy that has been the hallmark of his administration. the president will continue to identify and protect what is truly in our national security interest, using our full array of national security tools, standing up to terrorism wherever it threatens their real lives. now i return home every weekend when we're done here and in our work throughout the state to that very same community i still live in. and increasingly people are asking about the situation in

iraq. and the question that i get from many people is and i want to be blunt about how they say it, they say i understand this is a problem but why is it our business? why do we care about what's happening in another country which seems to be a fight among themselves? this is a very legitimate question. because i know americans watch these issues that are happening abroad and they ask themselves why does america need to be the world's policeman? but i want to take a few moments today to explain why this matters, why it matters not just to people in the middle east but even to people in the small city of west miami where i still live. you see, the situation in iraq is, in some extent, a civil war between sunni and shia, like you see in other conflicts in places such as syria and places like that. that is a real aspect of it, and i would say that the current government of iraq has contributed greatly to it, by the way spurred on by iranian influence to further exacerbate that divide between sunni and shia. but while it is fair to say that

much of what is happening in iraq is a civil war between two secretaries, it is not fair to say that that is all it is, because what's happening in iraq has a direct bearing on the future security of every american, even those americans that live in the small city of west miami where i live, and here's why. imagine for a moment if we could go back in time to the year 1997 or 1996 or 1998 or 1999 and had known about al qaeda then what we knew by september of 2001. we would have realized that this was a dangerous group that had the capacity and a deep willingness to attack and kill americans in order to terrorize us so that we would leave the middle east and turn it over to people like them. if we had known that and taken that seriously -- and i would say that some did know this. if we had done something about it, it is fair to say that eventually there would have been some sort of terrorist attack but maybe there wouldn't have

been one on september 11, 2001. if we had actually targeted this group and degraded their capabilities while they were still in their safe haven in afghanistan or even before that, we potentially could have saved the lives of thousands of americans and more importantly avoided of al qaeda in the region and the world, but we did not. and while this is not a time to point fingers or -- or throw blame around, i certainly think it's a time to learn the lessons of that history and apply them to the challenges of our time. what is happening today in iraq and in portions of syria is in many ways the exact same thing. a radical group, isil -- which by the way rose through the ranks of al qaeda until they now have a split from al qaeda, believe it or not, because al qaeda thinks that isil is too brutal to their fellow muslims. this group has been growing in

strength ever since the united states left iraq. this group has been fed and its strength has been given to them by foreign fighters that have spilled into the conflict in syria where they have established a foothold and have used it as a staging and operational ground to take their brand of ruthlessness now into iraq. we saw over the weekend images and photographs and videos of the mass assassination, execution of sunni members or shia members of the iraqi military. they have grown in strength over this time and they have begun to grow in their influence in iraq, and their goal is simple. they want to establish the premier islamic caliphate in all the world. the premier sunni caliphate in the region. caliphate basically means islamic kingdom. and they don't care about existing borders. the kingdom they envision is a vast safe house, safe haven that encompasses portions of syria

that they already have under their control and portions of iraq that they are now gaining control of. and what is their goal for this place that they're trying to set up? their first goal is to institute sharia law. they have a particularly brutal brand of sharia that they have forced upon people in syria and now in iraq. but their second goal is to establish a caliphate state, a safe haven where they can ultimately plan, train and carry out terrorist attacks against the united states and other countries, including attacks here in our homeland. and so we must learn the lessons of before 2001 and we must say to ourselves under no circumstances will we ever again allow a safe haven for this kind of terrorist to ever gain, to ever gain a safe haven anywhere in the world. we will never allow this to happen again. and that is why it is so critical that we be engaged here. the reason why we should care about this issue, it is not because we want to force upon

iraq democracy or force upon iraq the type of government we think they need. the reason why we care is because we cannot allow a safe haven to develop there that can be used to carry out attacks that can kill americans, including here in our homeland. this is why we should care. and this is why it is so important that the commander in chief of the united states, the president, comes as quickly as possible before the american people and before this congress with a plan to address this risk. now, i know the president likes to go around saying the war is over, but no one told isil that. no one told al qaeda that. no one has told these terrorists that. they don't think the war is over. in fact, in their minds, this war will go on for hundreds of years. and the only person who can rally this country behind a plan to address it is not a u.s. senator or a member of congress, not the majority leader or the speaker of the house, not the countless people who write very well-informed opinion pieces in

our newspapers. the only person in this country who can rally us around a plan to address this is the president himself. and so while i understand that he doesn't want us engaged in another conflict, and neither do most americans, he knows, he must know that we are going to have to do something about this. that is not the issue before us. the issue before us is whether we do something about it now or we do something about this later when the problem will be much harder and more costly to address. and so i hope the president does bring us together to solve this problem. this doesn't need to be and it should not be a partisan issue. the national security of the united states should never be a partisan issue. for terrorists to carry out an attack in our homeland, they will not attack democratic sites but not republican sites. they will not target conservatives but leave liberals alone. they will target americans. americans from every political

persuasion died on 9/11. and i fear that that may happen at some point again. so we should all care about this. and the only person that can bring us together to do something about it is the president. and so far he has failed to do it. now, i don't know if it's because it runs counter to his political narrative that the war is over and he got us out of iraq. i don't know why it is, but so far he has not done that, and he must. mr. president, on this issue, you must lead. you must put aside all these domestic political debates that are going on in your office about how this is going to poll or whether this runs contrary to what you said on the campaign trail. this is too important. it's too vital. it's too serious. it's too dangerous. now, i have my own ideas, as do others, about what that plan should look like, but we want there to be a plan. we're not asking the president to come forward with a plan because we're looking for something to attack. we want him to come forward with

a plan because only he can, and he must. in my opinion, that plan has to be we must do whatever we can and everything we can to prevent this group isil from gaining operational long-term control of theser territories in -- these territories in iraq, and to me that means going after their command and control structure, that involves their ability to transit fighters and weapons and fuel and food and ammunition from their safe havens in syria to their increasingly new spaces that they have now carved out for themselves in iraq. but i think all of us in this chamber, when it comes to issues of national security, understand that they should not be a part of the back-and-forth of partisan politics, and i guess my plea here today on the senate floor is, mr. president, you must lead on this issue. you must come forward with a plan that we can rally this congress and our people behind because if we fail to do so, i fear that our nation will pay a terrible price down the road.

never again can we allow an al qaeda-style group to establish a safe haven where they can plot against us anywhere on this planet, and the choice before you, mr. president, is you either deal with it now or some future president and future congresses and future americans will deal with it later. i hope we will deal with it now. i hope we will remember the lessons of our recent history. and the only one who can lead us in that direction is you, mr. president, and i hope that you will because the consequences of failing to do so will be dramatic and in my opinion will be condemned by history, and so i just hope that over the next few hours, the next few days, we will have the opportunity to come on this floor and advocate on behalf of a concrete plan of action that most if not all of us can support so we can assure that we can say that during our time ar. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. mccain: i come to the floor thorp this morning with my colleague from south carolina to put to rest the dlaim w claim wo often today, that president obama wanted to use a residual forces. this is a very important item, aspect of the debate that is now going on and it is chamber that made in growing desperation these days has become increasingly clear for all to see that the president's mishandling of the iraq for the past five years is, his consistt inaction on syria has brought us to the state of disaster.

it is the size of the state of indiana. it is the largest terrorist safe haven in history. isis is re-i.g. nateing conflict in iraq and threatening to erase the gains that nearly 4,500 brave young americans gave their lives to secure and that largely secure when the president took office in january of 2009. in january 2009, the surge had succeeded, iraq was not violent. the surge had succeeded. we won the war and lost the peace. that's a fact. the administration and its defenders are now scrambling to pin the blame of this catastrophic failure on anyone but themselves. they're trying blame the bush administration. thisser a trying to blame people like myself and the senator from south carolina for voting to authorize the war while

conveniently forgetting that the vice president, the secretary -- vice president biden, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, his predecessor secretary clinton, and many other democrats still serve in this body voted for the war in iraq as well. while also forgetting that the senator from south carolina and i began crit siting the bush administration -- criticizing the bush administration as early as 2003 for their mishandling of the war and calling for a change in stravment i called in 2006 for the firing of the secretary of defense, secretary rumsfeld, because of the mishandling of the war. indeed, the very strategy that was finally adopted thanks to a great leader named general petraeus and a great admiral named ryan crocker. most are trying to blame the failures of iraq on iraq's leaders.

the blame lies squarely with prime minister maliki and other iraqi leaders. but the administration cannot escape its own responsibility for the current disaster. this is something that the senator from south carolina and i saw firsthand and we stated over and over, and in order to set this debate to rest once and for all, we'd like to review the record. we predicted when all the troops were withdrawn that there would be the events that are taking place today, not as rapidly but we predicted that iraq would fall into chaos if we withdrew all the troops and did not leave a residual force behind, as we have in south korea, in germany, in japan, in bosnia, and other countries after the conflict has ended. from its first day in office, the obama administration signaled a hands-on approach to iraq. it immediately pushed toker a faster drawdown of u.s. forces than our commanders recommended. it appointed an ambassador to

iraq who had no experience working anywhere in the arab world. i think he is a fine man. edna experience. it adopt the a hands-off experience of adop adopting irai politics. nowhere was the obama administration's failure more pronounced than during the debate over whether to maintain a limited number of u.s. troops in iraq beyond the 2011 expiration of the 2008 status of forces agreement or sofa. the administration is quick to lay blame on others for the fact that they tried and failed to keep a limited presence of troops in iraq. they blame the bush administration, of course for

man dating the withdrawal in the sofa. this does not ring true because as condoleezza rice has blade clear, the plan was to renegotiate the agreement to aphor a continued presence of u.s. forces in iraq. everybody believed, she said, in 2011 it would be better if there was some kind of residual force. most of all, the obama administration blames iraqis for failing to grant the necessary privileges and immunities for a u.s. force presence beyond 23011. this, too, is totally misleading because, as we saw firsthand, senator graham and i traveled to baghdad, to erbil, and we met with maliki, we met with barzani, we met wul the liards of the main political blocks and heard a common message during all of these conversations. iraqi leaders recognize that it was in their country's interest

to maintain a limited number of u.s. troops to continue training and assisting iraqi security forces beyond 2011. but when we asked ambassador jim jeffrey and the commander of the u.s. forces in iraq lloyd austin in direct response to a question in a meeting with then-prime minister -- with maliki, he said, okay, i want to know how many troops and what their missions are. we turned to general austin. the answer was that they had still not made a decision. in irbil, arzani said he would fly to baghdad. the winner of the election said that he would agree. and then after that, prime minister maliki announced that if his partners agreed -- which they did -- he would agree to a residual force in iraq. you now, those are just facts.

just days after the senator from south carolina and i left baghdad, prime minister maliki, as i said, signaled his willingness -- and it is a matter of record, public record -- to a residual presence of u.s. troops if 70% of iraqis agreed. the kurds agreed. the sung niece agreed, and maliki himself had signaled his. we could have lined up the remaining shia support to take this difficult decision. unfortunately, that does not happen. instead, months and months has passed and the administration made no decision on what troop levels they would be willing to maintain that iraq. by august 2011, the leaders of iraq's main political blocks joined together and stated that they were prepared to enter negotiations to keep some u.s. troops in iraq. another entire month passed and

still the white house made no decision. during this long internal deliberation, as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff martin dempsey later testified before the senate armed services committee, the size of a potential u.s. force presence kept cascading down from upwards of 16,000 to an eventual low of less than 3,000. by that point, the force would be able to do little more than protect itself and prime minister maliki and other iraqi leaders realized that the political cost of accepting this proposal was not worth the benefit. so to blame this failure entirely on the iraqis is convenient, but it misses the real point. the reason to keep about 10,000 to 15,000 u.s. forces in iraq was not for the sake of iraq alone. it was first and foremost in our national security interest to continue training and advising iraqi forces and to maintain greater u.s. influence in iraq.

that core principle should have driven a very different u.s. approach to the sofa diplomacy. the obama administration should have recognized that after years of brutal conflict, iraqi leaders still lack trust in one another and a strong u.s. role was required to help iraqis broker their most politically sensitive decision. for this reason, the administration should have determined what tasks and troop numbers were in the national interest to maintain in iraq and done so with ample time to engage with iraqis at the highest level of the u.s. government to shape political conditions in baghdad to achieve our goal. i focus on this failure not because u.s. troops would have been engaging in large-scale combat operations to this day. in fact, they had won the conflict and there was literally no further combat that the united states was engaged in. by 2011, they were no longer in

iraqi cities or engaged in security operations. however, a residual u.s. troop presence could have assisted u.s. forces in their continued fight against al qaeda. it could have provided a platform for greater diplomatic engagement and intelligence corporatiocooperation with our . it could have made iraqi leaders think twice. most importantly, it could have maintained the significant diplomatic influence that the united states still supposed in iraq. influence that had been and still was essential in guaranteeing iraq's nation's political system, reassuring iraqi leaders that they could resolve their differences peacefully and politically despite their mistrust of one noard and checking the authoritarian and sectarian tendencies of prime minister maliki. now, madam president, there's a need for immediate action.

there is a need for immediate action. every day that goes by, there is greater sectarian violence, there is greater success by isis. i don't believe they can take baghdad. but look at the places they have already taken. they are know threatening the major oil refinery in iraq. i can assure you that will affect the world price of oil. there is a need because there is a more polarization of iraq. there is a return of the iraqi-shia militias. there is wholesale killing and slaughter going on. and it will get worse every single day. so what -- is there any good option now in iraq? no, there is no good option. the worst option is to do nothing. and apparently, according to

"the wall street journal" this morning, that is basically the approach that has been taken. we need to recognize that taking military action now is difficult because our intelligence has been so severely degraded since 2011, because isis is becoming so integrated with the sunni tribes. we need to be careful about striking targets. even convoys in the open. there is a real risk of killing sunni tribal elements and pushing the tribes closer to isis. and we also have to recognize that political change in baghdad has to take place, but the question is, do we wait for political change? every day we wait there is more and more iranian influence. the chief -- one of the most evil people in the world, the chief of the iraqi quds force, the iranian quds force, has been in baghdad planning with maliki. so what does maliki do it when

he doesn't see us giving him any real assistance? he turns to the iranians. there are published reports of iranian combat troops now coming into iraq. as more and more of the radical isis people are flowing in back from syria into iraq. as i said, i don't believe -- i've been -- i must -- i admit i was surprised at the rapidity of the success of the isis. but i also believe that the longer we wait to carry out some airstrikes on targets that we can identify, as difficult as it is, with a few people on the ground to identify those, it sends a signal. psychologically, over these people that are traveling long distances in the desert -- isis -- of an american aircraft

flying overhead and perhaps taking some of them out, if they have the sufficient information. that is a psychological effect on any enemy. air power does win conflicts. air power alone does not. but air power can have a significant effect on the morale of your people, on your capability of at least inflicting some damage, of changing the enemy's plans. so obviously political reconciliation is the key, and we must do everything in our power to make sure that maliki appoints a government of reconciliation and departs. but it can't be the prerequisite for u.s. military action because the events and time are not on our side. we also have to recognize that this is not an iraqi conflict. this is an iraqi-syrian conflict

now. the most -- the largest and richest center of terrorism in the history of the world is now in the iraq-syria area. hundreds of millions of dollars from the banks in mosul, and obviously they acquired a whole lot of equipment during their immediate, their credible progress across iraq. i urge my colleagues to have a look at the map of iraq and syria and look at the places that are now controlled by isis. as i say, i don't believe they can roll into baghdad in their vehicles with their guns mounted on them, but they sure as heck can cause a lot of problems: bombings, assassinations, the radicalization of the shiite

militias. if one of the shiite shrines is damaged by isis or u.s. militants, you will see a bigger explosion which will bring us back to the days of 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 before the anbar awakening. the same sunni that were part of the anbar awakening that joined us in putting down al qaeda are now being polarized by maliki, the shiites, and also the chickens are coming home to roost as far as maliki is concerned because of the continued marginalizeation and persecution of sunnis all over iraq, much less in anbar province. so we have to act. we have to act. we must act. and i know that there are always people who will tell our leaders reasons why we can't.

but i know of no military expert that believes that doing nothing is a recipe for anything but further chaos and eventually threats to the united states of america. our secretary of homeland security stated it. our director of national intelligence has stated it, that people in this part of iraq and syria will be planning attacks on the united states of america. that's their view. it also is mine. but we can do some effective airstrikes. we can, and it's more difficult because of our degraded intelligence. by the way, when we left iraq, all of those intelligence capabilities were shut down. to make it more effective and mitigate the risks that could push sunnis into the arms of isis, they got to be accompanied, as i mentioned, with a limited presence of

special forces on the ground. these forces could gather intelligence to improve our targeting by isis control, airstrikes from the ground and provide advice and consent, advice from sunni tribes. i believe that several other steps could be taken. one, who is the most respected people in iraq today? probably, david petraeus and ryan crocker. send them back. send them back, those that worked so closely with the sunni like general mcfar land, then-colonel mcfarland, the people that built up these long relationships with the sunnis. send them back. maliki will listen to david petraeus and ryan crocker. send back a planning team. a group of really smart people that can work with what's left of the iraqi military leadership and identify tactics and strategy that can reverse this

tide of the isis which is about to engulf them. send some air power. send some air power with targets we can identify. and i am fully aware of the risks associated with it. i want to repeat over and over and over again, there are no good options. and also make it very clear to maliki that his time is up, that he must arrange for a transition. now the shia won the election, the majority of the votes. a majority of any of the parties but not an overall majority of the vote. this new government could be headed by a shia. but it has to be a shia that can reach out to the sunni and bring them together in a government of national reconciliation. all my colleagues have seen the pictures, seen the pictures of the young shia who are now joining up and are ready to die,

the movement of basra of the shia militia organizations which had been put down before that are now rising from the ashes. you've seen the pictures, the horrible pictures of the executions that are taking place and the incredible displacement, 500,000 people from mosul alone. the kurds have now taken kirkuk, that's an ambition that they have had for the last 50 years. you will see now a drive for total kurdish autonomy from the government in baghdad, and they will be making their own deals as far as oil is concerned. and the kurdish, the kurds will now be pursuing their centuries-old ambition for a kurdish state which will cause the turks to be very concerned. i also want to point out that if isis continues to succeed and they move back and forth to syria, they will now pose a

direct threat, first of all, to jordan, and then to other gulf states, and finally eventually saudi arabia. but those are right next to iraq will be the most under threat. so i urge the president and i urge my colleagues to understand the gravity and the seriousness of this situation, to understand that if isis succeeds, even without taking baghdad, and they are able to establish what they call a caliphate in the syria-iraq area, larger than the state of indiana, and are able to twain, -- train, equip and export terror not only throughout the region but throughout the world, it will pose a direct threat to the security of this nation. i'd like to thank the senator from south carolina for showing

up. mr. graham: i'm sorry i was late. actually i had an exchange with general demsey about this very topic. senator mccain, do you see any scenario where isis is militarily stopped and that the iraqis can retake ground lost to isis without u.s. air power being involved? mr. mccain: i know of no military expert that believes without the use of military power they will be able to regain territory. mr. graham: did you hear president obama say it's unacceptable for iraq islamists to have a safe haven there? mr. mccain: no. i did hear him say on september 14, 2011 we're leaving behind iraq with a representative government that was elected by its people and other quotations

-- mr. graham: my point is don't you agree he's right, it's not acceptable for our national security interests for isis to have a safe haven in syria and iraq that could run from aleppo to baghdad, that that's not a good thing for us? mr. mccain: i totally agree. mr. graham: if it's not a good thing for us, how do you change it? give me a scenario where we put these folks on the run and syria and iraq without air power. give me a scenario where without reconciliation in baghdad has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding as long as they're losing on the battlefield. give me a scenario where the battlefield turns our way without u.s. air power. i can give you a scenario where it begins to turn on the battlefield. iran comes in with great

numbers. the most likely scenario to stop isis is iranians getting involved with shia militia. does that bother you, senator mccain? mr. mccain: i'd also like to point out something that the senator from south carolina knows and i know. the air power has a psychological effect. when an aircraft flies over the enemy, they are going to do things differently if they fear that they're going to be hit from the air. as we all know, air power does not determine the outcome of the conflicts, but they sure are important in the battlefield equation. mr. graham: is it fair to say the air force in iraq is grounded for all practical purposes? mr. mccain: not only grounded but a lot of air assets, i understand, like apache helicopters, are in the hands of isis. mr. graham: to the president, we agree with you that iraq matters. we agree with you it is not in our national security interest to have isis occupy territory

from aleppo to baghdad, but here's what's a mystery to me. how do we turn this around unless you stop their advance inside of iraq and you go after them in syria? and as to political reconciliation, i completely agree that that is the ultimate change that needs to occur. that airstrikes alone will not get us to where we want to go. but it's a chicken and egg concept for me. can you imagine a scenario, senator mccain, where we can get all the parties together when isis is winning on the battlefield? mr. mccain: that's why i was amused by various commentators who have been consistently wrong, including one in "the new york times" today. all we need to do is have everybody sit down together; a total misreading of the situation. mr. graham: here's the problem with that. to go to a meeting in baghdad, you're likely to get killed trying to get there. who's going to sit down at a meeting in baghdad when everybody is getting killed based on sectarian differences?

my advice would be to use american air power before it's too late as part of a coordinated diplomatic effort, that american air power is part of diplomacy. that may sound counterintuitive but makes perfect sense to me. diplomacy cannot succeed unless you get momentum on the battlefield. when you drop a bomb you need to have a plan beyond the bomb falling. that would be a regional conversation. can you see how maliki can put humpty dumpty back together again? mr. mccain: i cannot. i cannot. that's why he has to agree to a -- mr. graham: i would not send $1 to iraq. i would not send one soldier to iraq, one airman to iraq until we understand over time maliki's got to go. i've been there more times than i can count. maliki did some good things on his watch, but he has become a

political leader that cannot bring the country together. but that, to me, is a concern that's addressed after you stop the momentum on the battlefield. senator mccain, do you believe it's still possible that the kurds, the sunnis, and the shias that we know fairly well can regroup and reconcile with themselves if we act decisively? mr. mccain: i'm totally confident that they can. that is what the country was held together for long periods of time, but we obviously can't -- could i ask my colleague, i began before you arrived talking about this business of, that the allegations that somehow that the, it's the iraqis' fault that we didn't leave a residual force in iraq. and i went through our meetings with maliki, with barzo tph*eu, tph*eu, -- barzoni, with allawi

how they were committed to maintaining force. could you talk about our hearing where you directly questioned general demsey about this dire issue after we had withdrawn? mr. graham: yes, i'll be glad to and put it in context. in 2008 we signed a strategic framework agreement. it was envisioned we would negotiate a follow-on force with advisors, special forces units to secure our nation as well as to protect our gains. in the process of trying to get the iraqis on board, hillary clinton called me to ask if you and i and i think senator lieberman -- maybe he didn't go, i can't remember -- would talk to barzo tph*eu, -- barzo tph eu and allawi. i found in a meeting with prime minister maliki who is open-minded, barzoni said i'll take 250,000 americans.

allawi understood, the sunnis understood it was about the shia politics. after we got back, maliki said if the other groups will do it, i will do it. but he says what kind of force are you talking about, senator graham? ambassador jeffries -- mr. mccain: this was a meeting in baghdad. mr. graham: a meeting in his office. he asked me what kind of force are you talking about? i turned to ambassador jeffries and asked them what is the number? answer the prime minister's question. we're still working on that. and the pri -- prime minister looked at me and said, something to the effect, i don't know what i'm supposed to be agreeing to. we come back and go to the vice president's house, we talk to mr. donlon and said, we need a number. they said they would get back to us about the number. i'm still waiting on that phone call. during my questioning of general dempsey about the follow-on force, i asked him, general austin recommended somewhere in the 18,000 to 20,000 range.

the pentagon got down to 10,000 and below that they felt very uncomfortable. i asked him directly, did the number cascade down or did the number go down because the iraqis said, that's too many americans, we don't want that many americans on our soil? he said, no, sir, the numbers kept cascading down because the white house kept changing the number. so i want the record to reflect that in a meeting with the prime minister of iraq, when he asked me, "how many troops we're talking about?" we couldn't give him an answer. and i want the record to reflect the chairman of the joint chiefs said that the numbers went down and down and down not because the iraqis were saying no, but because the white house kept lowering the number. to the point that it got to be absurd. and we will prove that over time. mr. mccain: i see our colleague from florida is waiting. i think the -- i'd like to have the senator from south carolina

summarize. the cost of inaction of doing nothing is the greatest cost we can incur. the situation on the battlefield is not only terrible but the polarization of the different groups in iraq is growing worse by the hour. we are seeing the resurgence of the old shia militias that we had put -- that thanks to david petraeus we had put down before. iraq was largely under control thanks to david petraeus, ryan crocker and the surge in 2011. if we had left -- and it's a fact -- and if we had left that residual force behind, history would be very different. and i would add one other comment. we cannot ignore syria in this situation. we have to understand that syria is now part of this huge area the size of the state of indiana, which is governed by isis. from montana is

recognized. mr. walsh: thank you, mr. president. i rise today not only as the senator from montana but as a veteran of the long and difficult war in iraq. like most americans, the increasing instability in iraq and the disintegration of the country along sectarian boundaries has me deeply concerned. this past weekend, when i was home in montana talking with montanans, they were very concerned about what was going on in iraq, and they expressed their interest to me on a regular basis. the heinous advance of the islamic state of iraq and syria and their systematic execution of iraqi soldiers and the murder of innocent civilians gives pause to people everywhere. i stand here today as a veteran and as a father whose son has deployed multiple times, and i'd like to recognize my son today who is with me in the balcony, michael, please stand and be

recognized. we fought in the war that washington began based on false information, a war that ended and from which we must move on. i led an infantry battalion, the 163rd infantry, made up of more than 700 of montana's finest into combat. our area of operation was just north of tikrit from baji to kirkuk. the very same area being fought over today. it was late 2004 and the country had fallen into a bitter sectarian conflict, a conflict that unfolded after dismantling of the bathist-led army and fueled by ancient divides between the shias and the sunnies. those same disputes are again boiling over in iraq today. from the end of 2004 to late 2005, my unit fought to hold

ground, secure roads and build infrastructure. we worked with local sheiks and key leaders to forge a path to peace. we helped return iraq's government to its people. while there, we oversaw two successful elections and watched with hope and great satisfaction as the iraqis ratified their constitution. it was during this time that i also dispatched a team from my battalion to focus solely on training and assisting members of the newly found iraqi army. during our unit's entire deployment in iraq while fighting the insurgency, we faced rocket attacks, snipers and improvised explosive devices on a daily basis. four of my men were killed in action, and there isn't a day that goes by when i don't think of those men and their families. master sergeant robby mcnery

of lewistown, montana, died on march 31, 2005. sergeant kevin davis of lebanon, oregon, died on april 8, 2005. sergeant timothy kaiser of thema, california, died on april 28, 2005. and sergeant travis arndt died on september 21 of 2005. travis was from bozeman, montana. and scores of others were injured. one of my soldiers died by suicide after returning home to montana. he was a victim of the invisible wounds of war. nearly 4,500 americans have been killed in iraq. among them, 28 montana heroes. some 32,000 americans have also been wounded. the war cost us more than $2 trillion.

i say more than $2 trillion, most of which congress put on a credit card. and have left our grandchildren to pay the debt. because this nation has failed to prepare for new veterans returning home, we now have a crisis of care within our v.a. health care system, a system that is overwhelmed after more than a decade of war. today, we are seeing 22 veterans die by suicide each and every single day across this country. these are the true costs of war. montanans understand this and americans understand this. and because i work for montanans and i'm listening to them, i call on president obama to use extreme caution when considering options to deal with this sectarian violence that we are seeing take place in iraq today. america cannot afford another iraq financially or the human

costs that are associated with war. we did our job there and we did it with honor and integrity and our men and women should be very proud of their success and the citizens of this country should be proud of the accomplishments of the men and women who served in our armed forces. but today, some are suggesting we make an open-ended commitment to iraq to keep american troops on the ground indefinitely, sending thousands of america's young men and women back into iraq to step into the middle of a civil war is not a solution. so to my fellow members of congress, i urge temperance as we navigate this difficult terrain because i know that foreign policy failures made in washington fall disproportionately on the backs of young men and women from small towns across montana and across america. i have seen war up close, and

like too many american families, i have seen the costs of war up close. on families, on communities, all across this country. so, mr. president, i believe it is now time for the iraqis to secure and defend their own nation, to embrace their own self-determination is the only path to a true and everlasting peace in iraq. i would like to remind the american people of the costs that have been associated with the war in iraq. our v.a. system, we are dealing with a crisis within the v.a. health care system. at one time over a year ago, we had over 450,000 men and women on a backlog list that were trying to get in to see a health care provider. today, that backlog has been significantly reduced, but we still have a problem within the v.a. health care system. we have put over two million

american veterans into that health care system without making sure that the system was ready for them when they came home. could you imagine sending over two million american service members, men and women, into iraq or afghanistan or anywhere else around the world that we weren't -- that we didn't train, that we didn't equip and that we didn't provide the resources for them to go into iraq? when people talk to me about the cost of war, i think this is a cost that we sometimes overlook, because when our men and women return from iraq, the war is not over. we will be dealing with this cost for many, many years. as we talk about the men and women in iraq and afghanistan and we're contemplating our continued deployment, our extension of deployment into afghanistan, i have heard a figure recently that has been thrown around. today it costs approximately $1.2 million per soldier for a soldier in afghanistan.

when we reduced that number in afghanistan from the 32,000 figure to the less than 10,000 figure, that cost goes up to $2.3 million. and again, we are planning to put that cost on the credit card. mr. president, we have a responsibility, and that responsibility lies to the citizens of this nation and to the citizens of montana, and we must continue to look out for these people. i don't want to be an isolationist. i understand that there are problems in iraq and afghanistan, but we have to take care of our problems here in washington, d.c. as i travel back to montana and i talk with montanans, montanans are concerned about our debt. they know we have a spending problem, and we have to take care of that spending problem, but extending soldiers to iraq or into afghanistan is not going to solve the problems that they are dealing with there.

again, mr. president, america cannot afford another iraq, financially or the human costs that are associated with the things that are going on in iraq, and we owe it to the citizens of this nation. i would ask my fellow members of this house or the senate that if it was their son or daughter that they whether going -- were going to send into iraq to fight in a sectarian conflict, would they be as willing to do that as they are today without having a relationship to be sent over there? we hear about suggestions on a daily basis, how long we should be -- what we should be doing in iraq and afghanistan, and i know that it's a difficult situation that we are dealing with there, but we have to make the right decision. we have to look out for the united states of america and what's happening here in america. i think that too many of my

fellow members of congress are too abrupt and think too quickly about what we should do in iraq. i think they need to take a step back and think about the impacts, the second and third order effects of continuing to send our men and women back over to iraq. because like i said, i know that foreign policy failures made in washington will fall dispoe portion atly on the backs of small-town america, towns like cull bertson, montana, livingston, montana, boulder, montana. it's not the large cities that are going to bear all the burden of sending men and women to -- back into iraq. i have also mentioned that i have seen war up close. i still recall the -- the ramp ceremonies that we held shortly after the deaths of the men and women in iraq. we had to have those men and women out of there within a

12-hour period. those were very difficult times to deal with. not only for me but the other 700-plus men and women who were deployed with me to iraq. so again, i can't overemphasize how important i believe it is that we really step back, take a look at what's happening in iraq and determine if this is really the best thing for the united states of america. is it the best thing for our military to have to deal with. we have been at war for over 13 years in iraq and afghanistan. our military will do whatever we ask of it, but we also have to think about the families of our service men and women. the impacts that war in iraq and afghanistan have had on the families, the numbers of divorce, the broken marriages, the broken families. those are also the costs of war that we are having to deal with. these are not easy -- there are

no easy answers to what's happening in iraq, and i know that we will come together and come up with a solution, and i hope it's the right solution because these are very important times. and who knows what will happen next? what happened in the middle east, what happened in europe, i don't think anyone knows, and we have to be prepared. but again, i have said it once and i would really like to emphasize again, mr. president, i believe it's time for the iraqis to secure and defend their own nation. we have heard that they have over 17 divisions. think about the size of those divisions. a division in the united states is nearly 20,000 soldiers. i'm sure an iraqi division is somewhere in that same capacity. so they have 17 divisions, four which we are hearing have dropped their weapons and fallen back, but that still leaves 14

divisions to deal with -- or 13 division that is they have to -- to make this fight and make this stance to protect our country. and i am calling on this -- this senate, the members of this senate to ask the iraqi people to stand ed miliband. [shouting]d miliband. >> mr. speaker, all of us would have been appalled by the images of the brutal aggression of isis, temporizing its citizens, undermining its fragile democracy. iraqis today facing fundamental threats to its integrity security and stability. can be prime minister provide house with his latest assessment of the situation in iraq?

always a welcome appearance yesterday of primers to maliki with kurdish and sunni representatives calling for national unity, can he say what more he believes can be done to encourage more inclusive and representative gohmert which is essential to the future of iraq? >> first of all the leader of the opposition is right that one of the crucial things that needs to happen is for the iraqi government to take a more inclusive approach towards shia, sunni and kurd as important constituent parts of a right but i can tell the house the latest reports indicate fighting is continuing on a front from -- the oil refinery is currently under attack by isil. they are fighting isil. there is this large-scale recruitment not only of shia militias but also of the young recruits to the iraqi armed forces and it is vital that proceeds and that isil is pushed back by the iraqis. but the key thing to recognize

here is when you get this combination of poor governance can of ungoverned bases and support for extremism, that provides an opportunity for the terrorists and went to address this on each of those three fronts. supporting the iraqi government for the work they need to do. >> mr. speaker, i agree, this crisis though it's not just affecting iraq but has consequences for the whole world including the uk. can he tell what extra measures we're taking and cuddly including to the border agency and home office to assure the british nationals in the region cannot return here and engage in violence extremism or terrorism? can he say what the government is doing to prevent people in this country becoming radicalized and traveling to the region in order to fight? >> i believe this is the current focus as i said yesterday, our approach to this issue must be based on hardheaded assessment of our national interest to most important is how to keep our citizens safe here at home and the leader asked specifically by the actions we're taking. we will be legislating in this

session of parliament to make the planning of attacks overseas illegal here in the uk. we will be making sure our security, intelligence and policing resources are focused particularly on this part of the world and the danger of british people traveling there but becoming radicalized and returned to duty. we've stopped a number of people traveling. we've taken what passports including using the new powers that we legislative or in the last parliament and we will continue to do everything we can to keep our country safe. >> the prime minister refers to measures will also look at. i want to talk about iran and its role in this crisis. we support the announcement made yesterday by the foreign secretary to reopen the british embassy in tehran. and the dialogue started by the fort sumter with his counterpart. the challenge we face in iraq is although iran opposes isis, the iranian regime in the past has shown that it does not support a fish for inclusive and

democratic state in iraq. so can he get the house's current assessment and he did the governments of the willingness and attend of the current iranian regime to play constructive rather than divisive role in helping to resolve the iraqi crisis? >> versatile i'm grateful for the cross party approach on this and i would make two points. i think it is important to reengage with dialogue with chiron and that's what we're planning to reopen the embassy. i think it should be done on the step-by-step basis but as i said it should be done with a very clear eye and a very hardheaded because we know of the appalling things that happened to her embassy back in 2011. the people who say they're some sort of inconsistency, with having dialogue with iran while at the same time recognizing how much they've done to destabilize the region, i would say we need to take a consistent approach with all the players in this region which is to say that we support the voices of moderation, the voices that support democracy, inclusive government, pluralistic politics

under the rule of law. we need the iranian government to play the role as well as everybody else. >> mr. speaker, the board of content is course with across the region. is agree with me it is not just iran but other significant countries across the region that have a huge responsibility not to take steps to further fuel the sectarian conflict? that includes support for extremist groups including isis. will be prime minister make clear in his conversation with all countries in the region that will simply fill the conflict of? >> i think it is right that whatever we are looking to do, whether it is the support the voices of moderation and democracy in syria, whether it is trying to help the iraqi government closed down this ungoverned space in iraq, or indeed the conversations we have with other regional players, it's very important we are consistent with that engagement and we oppose extremism,

terrorism and violence. let me reassure the house that when it comes to the support that we have given the rebels in syria, that we do that to the official syrian opposition who are committed to those things and not to extremism, violence and terrorism. at our engagement with the saudi arabians, with an iraqis and others is all on the basis that none of us should be supporting those violent terrorist or extremist. >> the consequences of what's happening in iraq. we're british allies in the region such as jordan that are dealing with a huge refugee crisis and events in iraq threaten to make it worse. britain is doing a good job of providing welcome them into support in the refugee camps but there are more refugees outside the camp and inside the camp. what are the practical measures doesn't prime minister believe we can take to support countries like jordan and like lebanon affected by this crisis? >> first of all let me update

the house because we remain when it comes history, we remain the second largest bilateral aid donor anywhere in the world which a think it's something britain can be proud. were providing shelter, food, clothing and support for the millions of people who have been bit homeless by that conflict. when it comes to supporting the neighboring countries with different some direct health to jordan because the increase of the population in jordan and, indeed, in lebanon is equivalent effectively as a think about it in our own terms, almost 50 million people coming here to the uk but in terms of the iraq humanitarian situation where there is an emerging humanitarian problem because of people being displaced because of the isil murderous regime that we've already announced 3 million pounds of humanitarian aid to people displaced in that region and i can announce today will be increasing that to 5 million pounds so yet again britain will be playing its role

for those who know both of them have been despised by public and face a very difficult situation. >> i welcome that and hope you continue to show what more can be done to us outside the camps and support infrastructure in countries like jordan but let me say this finally, mr. speaker but everything we're seeing across this region begs a fundamental question about whether it can develop a politics where people live alongside each other as citizens rather than dividing along sectarian, ethnic or religious lines. does he finally agree with me while we can and should provide assistance to make that happen, in the end it is about the political will of those in the region that will determine whether this happens or not? >> i agree with the right honorable gentleman. i think it will be a mistake to believe that the only answer to these problems is the heart attack of direct intervention. -- hard. but i also disagree with those people who think this is nothing to do with us and if they want to have some sort of extreme islamist regime in the middle of

a rack that will affect us, it will. the people in the regime as well as trying to take territory are also planning to attack us here at home in the united kingdom. so the right answer is to be long-term, hardheaded, patient and intelligent with the interventions that we make. the most important intervention of all these to make sure that these governments are fully representative of the people who live in the countries, that they close down the ungoverned space and remove the support to the extremist but if we do that, not just in syria but we have to help in iraq, in somalia, in >> more debate on iraq as well as a discussion about the british government decision to reopen the embassy in iran. that is at 9:00 eastern and pacific here on c-span.

>> the thesis for the book is that there is a group people in ignored,hat is being left behind, not included in the discussion for either party. particularly the republican party. blue-collar conservatives, the folks out there that are working people, most who do not have college degrees. folks that understand the value of work and the importance of work and responsibility, people who understand the importance of family, and faith, and believe in freedom in and limited government. those are conservative or public and voters. in many cases, they are not. seeing eitherlly party talking to them about the concerns they have about trying to create an opportunity for them to live the american dream.

>> former senator rick santorum argues working americans of been abandoned by both political parties and offers conservative answers to their problems. this month on our online book club, discussing "the forgotten man." star rating and discuss with others at booktv.org. a house hearing with the administration decision to release five taliban prisoners in exchange for army sergeant bowe bergdahl. he was the last american service member held captive in afghanistan. members her from a soldier who served alongside surgeon bergdahl -- sergeant bergdahl. the hearing begins with the texas congressman ted poe.

the subcommittee will come to order. without objection, all members will have five days to submit statements, questions, and materials for the record subject to the length am a limitation, in the rules. the purpose of the hearing is to hear more about sojourn -- sergeant bowe bergdahl and his exchange for five terrorist prisoners from guantanamo bay. let's hope the negotiators are not the same ones currently negotiating with iran over nuclear weapons. releasing five senior taliban commanders may put the lives of our senior servicemembers in americans around the world at risk. one of the five detainees was a deputy chief of the taliban intelligence service. one detainee fought alongside al qaeda as a taliban military general. another was a senior commander wanted by the united nations for

war crimes and works closely with al qaeda and their affiliates. he led an attack with al qaeda the day before 9/11. anqaeda called it important piece of the 9/11 strategy. release are the quite disturbing. they may help out the taliban while they are in cutter -- qatar. that will be about the time the united states forces will be leaving, and the afghans will be on their own. it appears recent law signed by the president was violated in the secret deal. this law among other things requires 2 things. the ministration must notify congress 30 days before releasing guantanamo bay detainees. second, the a ministration has congressically tell how releasing each terrorist is

in the national security interest of the united states. the administration did neither. it is in the policy of the united states not to negotiate with terrorist. this seems to be violated. it is a designated foreign terrorist organization according to the noted state state department and killed alice americans and afghan soldiers. it maintains close ties with al qaeda as the most dangerous terrorist group fighting in afghanistan. qatar -- matter that this raises another concern close to home in texas. of my constituents was in january 2000 13. an event that many americans have forgotten. hit hisaptured after he coworkers in a space in the refinery. the terrorist never found the

coworkers and they eventually escaped. it has been reported the hostage takers wanted to trade those american hostages at the facility, including victor, for terrorist in united states custody. they wrote me recently to say they were told by our government during the attack that the united states does not negotiate with terrorist. victor was later killed. i asked for consent that the letters be made part of the record. so order. the bergdahl released troubled them, rightly so. victor's daughter wrote to me in the letter. the question that comes to mind is what makes one american life more important than another. if we're going to go and negotiate with one, why would we not negotiate for everybody. i cannot answer that question. i do not know what the united states current policy is on terrorist. with maybe we will find out. negotiating with a terrorist organization like we did is

unprecedented. the department of defense says it will hold sergeant bob doll for hisahl accountable action. susan rice has said that sergeant bergdahl has served with honor and distinction. this hearing will shed more light on that issue. one of our witnesses is a served with bergdahl and he will discuss bergdahl's disappearance. has said chuck hagel he was not aware of any united states soldier who lost their life in search for sergeant bergdahl. the family of one of the brave americans who gave his life, lieutenant darren andrews, is here to set the record straight. he left behind a pregnant wife, a young son at the time of his death. we have witnesses who can tell is what else happened in eastern afghanistan in 2009.

those who have suffered as a result, and what this so-called deal may mean for afghanistan going forward. i will not recognize the ranking member from california, mr. sherman. >> thank you. andrews, we know that you are the father of darren andrews, second lieutenant, who gave his life for his country. we cannot thank you enough for your family's sacrifice. we salute darren's courage. i would like to thank you specialist full for your service to our country. national, a senior security fellow at the new america foundation, who demanded special forces in eastern afghanistan. thank you for your service. you forjacobson, thank

your 20 years of service in the military, including your deployment to afghanistan. first, as to a preliminary issue on iraq. let me point out that we do not have forces in iraq. we do not have a stead of -- status of forces agreement with iraq. president bush established in 2006, and in this governance is responsible for the violence taking place in the country today. it should not be surprising that malik he refused to enter a status agreement under president obama. as to releases for guantanamo, while we are focusing today on five guantanamo prisoners being released, resident bush released

prisoners from guantanamo. most of them were dangerous. over 100 of them we know they are fighting us on the battlefield and we know where. most of the others are fighting against us as well. we just can't pinpoint where they're located. what did we get for the 500 that president bush released? absolutely nothing. except thank you notes from their native countries. as to section 1035d, the president has filed a report. members of the committee can go read it. it is in-depth. , as manyuably late reports to congress are. mind, we have to to avoidsection 1035d constitutional questions.

therefore, it has been and should be interpreted not to apply in this circumstance, particularly in a circumstance involving a prisoner exchange. constitutional to the extent it acts to prevent a prisoner exchange. i would have preferred if president obama had indeed conferred with leaders of congress. i'm glad to see his inferring with congressional leaders about what to do if i write. america is strongest when members of congress are a source of counsel and input, and not persons to be notified when the notification is compelled by a constitutional statute. point other members of congress and leaders of congress can keep a secret. some 60 congressional leaders

knew we had ascertain the header place -- the hiding place of osama bin laden and that did not lead. as negotiate with terrorist, it is a nice phrase that we do not do it. the fact is we do it all the time. the bush it ministration negotiated -- the bush administration negotiate with every terrorist regime in the world. we identified five state sponsors of terrorism and the bush administration negotiate with cuba, syria, and north korea. paid ah administration ransom for the release of marsha barham. : pal desiccated it is said that because we paid a price for the release of bergdahl that this put terrorist around the world on notice of a fact they somehow did not know before. about those cares

who are detained. a walk through the halls of this building shows the pow flags from the vietnam war. no one in the world doesn't know that we care about our detainees. resolutionse introduced by republican members of the available to anyone on the internet that shows that we regard the release of sergeant bergdahl as an important national objective. home is our prisoners important to america. the enemy already knows that. we know it as well. i yield back. >> for the information of the committees, we are in a series of votes. the chair plans to hear the opening statements of all the witnesses and then come back for testimony after the vote. the chair recognizes the ranking

member of the middle east subcommittee. although -- >> thank you. thank you. i think the witnesses for being with us, especially mr. andrews, whose son was killed in afghanistan in 2009. for yourull, thank you service. mr. andrews, i cannot imagine what it would be like to lose a child in the service of our nation. as a stepmother of a marine who served in iraq, and a mother-in-law to another marine aviator who served in iraq and afghanistan, i know the sleepless nights and the constant worry that air and space when their child or loved one is in harms way. our country owes the brave men and women who have served and earned her gratitude a debt that can never be repaid. it must start with being

completely forthcoming with them. in 2011 while i was chair of the house foreign affairs committee, the ministration gathered the chairman of the national security committees as well as the congressional leadership to brief us on a potential prisoner swap of taliban and terrorists for sergeant bowe bergdahl. although the meeting was classified, news reports from earlier this month indicate that the administration had a team of present the administration plan to us. at the time of the briefing, using all permission given to me, i was adamantly opposed to the proposed swap. as were many of our colleagues. my opinion has not changed. i oppose the swap not only because -- not because i did not want to bring bowe home. it is important have him home.

i oppose the spot because the proposal would have resulted in a huge coup for the television. it would have benefited them, jeopardize the safety and security of our brave men and women in uniform and compromised our national security interest. with so many of our colleagues expressing disapproval of the swap, the administration seem to have gotten the message and drop its exchange plan, or so we thought. theier this month, i, like rest of my colleagues in the american public read the news that the administration had swapped five taliban commanders for the sergeant. despite its promises to notified congress, not to mention its legal authorities to do so, the administration kept the deal secret and acted unilaterally. the deal is precisely the reason for the legal mandate that congress be given 30 days notice he cut the administration has a proven track record of overstepping and abusing its authority. itstaliban use this to benefits.

using video of the exchange as propaganda, and a recruitment video and it is only embolden them further. despite the agreement with the , there areof cutter no assurances they will not be back in the fight in short order and orchestrating attacks from the lavish new headquarters. the fact we are placing our hopes in them, a country that has been full throated in support for the muslim brotherhood am especially in egypt, where support for the rutherford act -- brotherhood acted against our interests there, will further a strain on already damaged ties for partners in the gulf. this may have serious implications for national security objectives, especially as it relates to our efforts in iran. this brought more than a bowe bergdahl and the taliban. it is about national security,

the safety of men and women in uniform, and the administration disregard for the law and the contempt it holds for its obligations to congress. hasadministration deals far-reaching applications, for to a deal with taliban terrorists is unnecessarily endangering all the servicemen and women who are operating in war zones now that these five senior taliban operatives are likely to rejoin the fight. it also inspires the taliban and other terrorist groups to conduct adduction's of armed forces personnel as we have one commander amid the taliban is encouraged by the results of the trade. discussion of the legality of the unilateral decision and the frustration level and much of trust that congress has with the administration as result of this swap. there are many unanswered questions. the administration needs to answer.

today it is important we have the opportunity to hear from some of the people, and how the decision has impacted them personally. those who have served in afghanistan fighting side-by-side with a fellow soldier, those servicemen and women who of waste further in -- who may have been placed further in harm's way, who lost a loved one in afghanistan, they deserve to be heard and have the truth. thank you for the time. >> the chair recognizes the ranking member of the middle east subcommittee for five minutes. >> thank you. to our witnesses, thank you for appearing today. -- i joinedcog legs my colleagues expressing gratitude for your son and family for making the ultimate sacrifice for this country. i appreciate you being here in will be for a full grateful for his courageous service to our nation. here and for being

your years of service. we all know that there are substantial questions surrounding the disappearance of sergeant bergdahl and the decision to exchange the taliban prisoners. it may take months before we know for sure what transpired me days and weeks leading up to the disappearance of army sergeant bowe bergdahl. was he suffering from psychological trauma? was he awol? was he a deserter? beguny investigation has and the army will take whatever action it deems appropriate. i am perplexed when some members of congress have already decided the facts of the case. we have a solemn obligation to leave no american soldier behind . when the opportunity to get an american soldier back from the enemy presents itself, we take it. the country has a long history hitting american serviceman back in prisoner exchanges because we promise men and women when they

sign up to serve their country, we would do everything that we can to protect them and ensure they return home. some of my colleagues have apparently concluded now how sergeant bergdahl's status should be treated. how the facts should be resolved. that perhaps one concludes he be left with the taliban. i would ask what kind of , the kindourt is it of military court of justice that we have, where members of congress play the role of judge and jury, find someone guilty, and leave it to the taliban to carry out the punishment. to questiony right why congress was a consultant or notified of the deal. i believe that was a mistake. i would caution against prejudging the facts of the case. what message are we sending our troops if we don't do everything that we can do is retrieve an

militarysoldier the has declared missing and captured. it is an appropriate debate to have. we should be reminded of the 532 guantánamo bay detainees who were transferred before this president came into office. where was the outrage then? aree have those -- there those that suggest the administration has politicized this deal. many members of the congress amy oppose the deal supported the very idea of a prisoner exchange am urging the administration to do more to secure the release of sergeant bergdahl. turning back to our witnesses, mr. andrews, there is nothing we can say to take away the pain of losing a child. i would like to offer my sincerest gratitude for darren's service to his country. for your service, and all the witnesses for your commitment to protecting this

nation. i appreciate the opportunity to hear from all of you today. >> i appreciate the chairman yielded back his time. [inaudible] >> thank you. like many of my colleagues, i am troubled with the insistence the deal made two free five taliban leaders in a change for sergeant bergdahl was the best deal we could get. the washington post reports that among the taliban and five are or more intelligent -- interior minister with ties to osama bin laden, the former taliban army chief of staff, who was thought to have been present when cia andcer was killed in 2001, operatives to work closely with , won his case file is the most endemic and former

taliban leaders detained at guantanamo. i don't know how many of my colleagues have been able of thosento the eyes involved in killing so many. been, i have there three times. as much as i would like to think that they have learned the error of their ways and would like nothing more than to spend a quiet life with their families would like to be put in the very skeptical column. >> the chair will hear the testimony of one more member. we will hear the rest of them after the vote. >> i want to thank the