president obama, but we can say this to you. we trust you, but we're wondering if we're going to be the next allies to be thrown under the bus. people around the world are saying, seems to be pretty clear you can't trust the united states or you'll pay with your life. that's not the america that gained the trust and respect around the world from everyone xcept the radical islamists. and some of the mainstream media. the america that became the most free, the most affluent nation in world history has also been the most generous nation in world history. what we've done and given and lost on behalf of other people,

not to create an empire, not to build an empire, not to force people to speak english and to follow american ways, but so they could be free to choose the way in which they should go. countries historically have not done that, and we have. hasnow that generous nature been used by this administration ntil it's become a vice. a vice that would allow our allies to be killed and oppressed and persecuted because we're going to let the bullies take over. not only did we watch and let bullies take over in other parts

of the world, we saw the ashe spring, that in the not so distant future would become a jewish and christian winter, a bleak, miserable winter for jews and christians and secularists. and we demanded that the leader of egypt be ousted. never mind that this administration had agreements with the egyptian leader, president. e turned our back on them. the soviet after union fell and the united states , particularly the clinton administration, if i understand it, they guaranteed ukraine that

if you will give up the nuclear weapons that you hold and allow us to provide them to russia, we know you don't want to give these weapons to russia, we know you don't trust the russians. but you can trust us, the united states. and president clinton, as i understand it, worked a great deal with ewe crane, trust us, you can trust us. yeah, let the russians have the nuclear weapons that you possess, ukraine. and we, the united states will have your back, we'll protect you, russia wouldn't dare have come against you because we will protect you. we'll fight for you. we've got your back. what this administration has back th the ukrainians' is put a knife in it.

well, you know, there were a lot of russians in crimea. yeah, there were. the russians forced them in there and forced ukrainians out at one time. gee what a great way to claim this land is yours, force the people out of there. if you want to talk about possession, earlier possession being the right to currently possess, you're going to be hard pressed to find any muslim that was a practicing muslim a thousand years before christ, jews,gh you will find the under king david, and you would find king david in the first seven years of his reign in hebron, leading israel from hebron, and this administration

wants to say, that's not israel's land. people that came along and worshiped mohammed 1600 years after king david ruled in this land. they're the ones that should have the land. really? that's this administration's position. seriously? what about the prophecies in the old testament? that in the mountains of sumeria, there would be fruit, there would be grapes, fine wine. for decades. since israel came back into the land it was promised over 3,000 years ago. people have said, you can't grow grapes there in those mountains. we don't know, the prophets blew that one. you can't grow grapes in that area of sumeria, except i've been in that area of sumeria, where the prophets said israeli grapes would grow and provide

great wine. i don't drink alcohol, but the grapes were amazing. and they're growing where the prophets said they would. so how could land that was in israel's possession, that was prophesied would be lost by the children of israel but god would return them to the area and there would be fine grapes and fruit grown in that area, how could that be somebody else's prior claim when they were longer there than anybody still, any tribes in existence today. perhaps that is israel's land. but not according to this administration. this administration's anxious, to help those who are the most

brutal in all of israel. so even though we've gotten used to seing this administration turn its back on allies in egypt, in favor of a radical islamist muslim brother, mor see, in charge, who by the way sent his wife -- his wife had a baby in america. who could be brought up and taught to hate america. just likest like the one that's over 20 years in prison for supporting terrorism, his wife moved to america, had a baby, they've got an american citizen. and actually, it was rather interesting, finding out today that osama bin laden told his wife to come to america to have her baby. he wanted her to have an

american citizen that they could raise up and teach to hate america, who, because of their citizenship would be able to come in and out. fortunately, she ended up in saudi arabia, as i understand, before the child was born. but these radical islamists may be crazy, but they're not stupid. they know as long as we have open borders and welcome people who are pregnant that hate us, they can get in and have baby american citizens and take them back to their country and over their life, teach them to hate america. i've talked about it for a number of years. there have been naysayers and at some point, they'll wise up and see, wow, this has been appening for many years. well, the same administration

at has condemned israel different times for not being willing to step up and do what we told them to do, the same administration that's left the eader of israel sitting, waiting for the president for long periods of time while he went and ate and yet chastised him, you stay here and think about it, like a child, and when you come to the agreement i told you to, then i'll get back together with you. like a child. really? we treat our allies like that? prime minister netanyahu should be thankful because the way this administration treated the ally eader in egypt was to have him destroyed, his position, get him out of office, out of power,

subject him to torture by the locals and look at the ally that this administration had in libya. gaddafi was not a good man but he was scared so badly after we entered iraq that he opened his doors, ok, guys, you know, america, you tell me what i can keep, what i have to get rid of, i don't want you to invade me, i'd rather be your friend. you tell me what i can have in the way of weapons. and he really and truly did give up whatever we told him to. and he became an ally. i even met gaddafi's son here at the capitol before, while president obama has been president. apparently he had meetings here in washington with the administration work people on capitol hill. and yet this administration not only turned on their ally that they had in gaddafi who

supposedly had given up his terrorist-supporting ways, and this administration supplied to al qaeda, ibya to other rebels who were not al qaeda, but to al qaeda, to al sharia, to other radical islamists, to take out gaddafi and some have contended if we had not gone in and bombed gaddafi's caravan as he was trying to get away, they would not have caught him and he would have gotten out. so it would appear that the united states contributed mightily to the torturous death of gaddafi. i'm not saying he didn't deserve a rough death after what he had done to so many, mr. speaker, i'm just pointing out that this

administration had made agreements and discussions with him as an ally and they turned on him, threw him away and not nly that, helped bring about his personal death and de instruction. but, when you deal with al qaeda, when you deal with radical islam, the taliban, it's like handling a snake, a poisonous snake, eventually it will bite. because it's a snake. it's what it does. and now in areas where this administration helped rebels being a christian or a jew is the quickest route to death, this administration sadly, has helped contribute to the situations in the world where there is now more terror, if

you're a christian and jew, than there's been in centuries. and so, i guess i shouldn't be surprised, but i am a little bit urprised, that as hamas, who does get some of our money, money is fungible and we're sending it to the palestinians and every dime of it ought to be cut off as long as they have a relationship with hamas. and yet, because we're sending money that is being used for things like street signs that are named for people who have killed innocent jews,

israelis, christians, we're contributing to what they're doing. and then this administration, through the f.a.a., stuck a knife in israel once again by having the administration, through the f.a.a., ban u.s. flights to and from israel's main airport for a second day and as even cnn reported, it marks another blow to that country's economy and a success for hamas militants, experts aid wednesday. as one said, quoted in the cnn story, it is a big hit to the israeli economy and to our pride, the director of the civil aviation authority of israel said.

but he and other israeli officials insisted that their country's sophisticated anti-missile system makes ben gureon airport a safe -- ben gurion airport a safe place and even though a missile fell one mile away from the airfield prompt the f.a.a. to issue a temporary ban on u.s. flights, quote, we knew about that rocket, said israeli government spokesman. we were tracking it for about three minutes, our air force, we could have taken it down, but because we saw that it wasn't going to hit inside the airport, we let it go. unquote. for america, gaza conflicts strikes close to home. the f.a.a. ban marks something of a vick trig for hamas as well as prudent decision to protect commercial airlines, one expert

said. but his quote included, what is the objective of terrorists? to incite terror in people. that was tim clemente, retired f.b.i. counterterrorism agent talking about hamas. he said, i think because they probably got lucky with this one rocket that came close enough to the airport, to make it seem ike the threat was legitimate, well, the truth is, maybe mr. clemente didn't know, the israelis were tracking it. they could have shot it down, but there have been so many, couple thousand of these rockets have been sent in the last 15 days into israel they could not afford to knock down one that is are not going to harm people or do damage, so they didn't take it doufpblet they knew where it was going -- take it down. they knew where it was going to hit. yet the obama administration

decides to inflict even more damage on israel by harming them economically. we are lifting bans, we are working with iran, even though iran said they want to wipe out the little satan israel anti-great satan united states, they made it clear and they have never, ever ceased to pursue that dream of wiping out israel in the united states. e will give them some money, we'll let them get proceeds. when it comes to israel, we are going to slap them around like a little kid again. even though they had the sophisticated weaponry to knock down rockets and they let one go because it's not going to hurt anybody. this administration seizes on that to declare a ban on u.s. lights to and from tel aviv.

a hamas spokesman described the missile landing near the airport as one victory in the ongoing war between hamas and israel in gaza. the resistance success in stopping the air traffic in isolating israel from the world is a great victory for the the ence he told television. great victory for hamas, great victory for radical islam. they have gotten the united states administration under president obama to ban air traffic into tel aviv so we are sticking a knife in our friend. it's not bad enough that hamas is launching rockets nonstop into israel that they have made clear, no matter how badly

israel wants a cease-fire, they are not going to stop the rockets. they are hoping they'll kill innocent people because they have made clear before to them, to these terrorists, they don't think there's an innocent child in all of israel because ultimately they will be in the military so they are doing the world a favor, they said, they think, by killing every israeli they can. what does this administration do? it says, let's help hamas by into g -- taking a stab the heart of israel's economy. if -- n article from will the threat to israel's only international airport be a game changer? whether or not flights in and out of israel are suspended for any length of time, the suspension of flights by several

major air carriers is hamas' first major achievement of this conflict. mr. speaker, it's tragic that the united states is the one who gave hamas the radical islamists, their first big victory. it wasn't israel that gave thement vicktry. israel has defended itself and that is all they are doing. the article says, with a single rocket which evaded the iron dome missile defense system and exploded between two houses in tel aviv suburb, hamas might just have achieved what it failed to do with nearly 2,000 rockets fired at israel since the beginning of this round of warfare 15 days ago. again, mr. speaker, it should be clear israel tracked the missile, saw it wasn't going to hit anybody, they let it go. it was not a mistake. it was something they saw would be harmless. they let it go.

the israelis did. but the article says the decision of the united states federal aviation administration to advise the three u.s. carriers flying to israel, delta, united, and u.s. airways, to suspend their flights to israel for 24 hours could just be a temporary blip, another inconvenience caused by the current security situation. if the suspension is extended indefinitely for as long as the rockets are flying, and if it spreads to the airlines of other countries, a number of european carriers have already fallen suit and korean air suspended flights already last week, it would create an intolerable situation for the government of prime minister netanyahu. further in the article it says the rocket falling did not change that situation. one factor that could have changed the f.a.a. assessment was probably the downing of the

malaysian airlines boeing 777 over eastern ukraine on thursday with the deaths of all 298 crew and passengers onboard. tens of thousands of israelis planning to fly abroad, tourists who were to leave and those who were scheduled to arrive here in the next few days, will have had their plans disrupted. the national carrier elal, however, will continue to fly and since there have been many cancellations already, it will carry many of those who were set to fly on foreign airlines. but the psychlogical effect on israelis will be significant and this could have a long-term implication for israelis -- israel's economy. the last time there was a wide scale suspension of flights to israel by foreign airlines was not in 2001 after 9/11 when they there were continued threats against israel, or 2002 with

continued threats against israel, or 2003 or 2004 or 2005 or 2006 or 2007 or 2008, there were no flights suspended from the united states under president george w. bush's administration, even though the threats at times were probably more severe than now that they have such an effective iron dome . there were days before the effective iron dome that israel was probably more at risk than they are with the iron dome. but bush didn't call a suspension. but this administration has. the last time there was a wide scale suspension of flies to israel by foreign airlines was in early 1991 when iraqi scud missiles were falling on israel during the first gulf war. israelis then did not travel

abroad as often as they do now and that conflict did not happen during the summer vacation period or significantly the local economy was not integrated into the global market as it is today with hundreds of international companies having research centers in the israeli high tech hubs and thousands of companies here totally reliant on export markets. it took israel's economy many years to break down the reluctance of foreign corporations to invest in work in israel. a few days or couple weeks with limited air travel probably won't change that, but it may well create a temporary feeling of siege. this may prove to be a game changer in a conflict which is now entering its third week. it could provide further impetus for the government in seeking a speedy cease-fire with hamas,

but that seems doubtful. it's much more likely that faced with the prospect of more rockets cutting off israel from international air routes the government will be inclined to order a much more devastating blow, a wider ground operation to occupy the rocket launching sites, or even directed at hamas underground headquarters with dreadful implications for the people of gaza, living below and that will be the fault of this administration by failing to put pressure on hamas, but instead putting pressure on the more reasonable people who have just tried to defend themselves and it made clear, if you stop the rockets, we stop attacking. all we are seeking is peace. hamas holds the peace in its own hand, and with that hand it keeps trying to murder israelis.

then you end up having discussions in mainstream media, not that hardly anybody is tching but like on cnn, when one commentator asked another -- i think it was wolf blitzer in effect, gee, hamas, they don't have near the weapons that israel has, so are you seeing any let up of israel since they clearly have more fighting power than hamas? i'm sorry, that's just really a stupid question. if somebody's coming at you with a rock with the intent to murder you and you have a gun, are you supposed to stand aside and say, yeah, beat me as long as you want to until you kill me. i can't use a gun because it's more powerful than your rock.

of course not. you can use self-defense when someone has murderous intent. israel does have the ability to go in and clean out the weapons in gaza. i have pointed out to prime minister netanyahu and other leaders in israel that going back to the very inception of israel, the very inception, before there was a king, even before there were judges, there has never been a time in israel's history when israel gave away its land trying to buy peace. not only did they not get peace, that land they gaveway was used as a staging area from which to attack it. southern lebanon, gaza strip are

just more modern examples. i didn't understand until i went to israel for the first time why in the world israel would be willing to give away more land. when you're there, you see it among the people. they were tired of suicide bombers. they are tide of rockets. look -- tired of rockets. look, if you just leave us alone, we'll give you land. but hopefully israel's learned a lesson that even though you're tired of the rockets, you're tired of the destruction from hamas, from radical islamists as you ere from the p.l.o., can't buy peace by giving away your country. not part of it. not all of it. as long as you exist, they will want to kill you and eradicate you and wipe you out.

they said they'll create a worse holocaust than world war ii, and i think they are quite serious. this administration ought to do for the good of mankind is to recognize that in hamas are some of the most heinous war crimes in current days because hamas is willing to take school children, the sick, the afflicted, families, and put weapons in their homes, their schools, their hospitals, hiding them nder, hiding them in, and then when israel defends itself by taking out the weapons, they get to claim, oh, gee, look, you killed innocent civilians, shame on you. the hamas leaders ought to be

tried for war crimes, convicted, and killed. they ought to be put to death in a war crime system of justice for using children and innocent people as shields. . this administration ought to be leading the cry against hamas' exposure to its children and its people. but unfortunately, because some of the american money we've spent is capable of being used to fund school books that teach the children to hate israelis and hate americans, hate jews, hate christians, you actually have families that say, sure, you want to hide your weapons in here? gee, if we're taken out by the israelis, then we're martyred and we'll be heroes. what kind of sick thinking have

we contributed to in the region. it's time to cut off every dime that america is giving to the palestinians, hamas, anybody working with hamas, anybody having any relationship with hamas, it's time to take president bush's words that you're either with us or you're against us if you're doing business with hamas, you are helping hamas, if you are friendly with hamas, then you are our enemy and then we ought to enforce that. israel is standing in defense, not only of itself but of the united states of america, because the radical islamists represented in hamas don't just want an end to israel. anyone that wants the destruction and end of israel wants the end and the destruction of the united states of america. and it's time somebody in this administration recognized that.

ting there are military leaders that recognize that and someday they're going to grow a pair and tell the president of the united states that he's helping the wrong side. od bless him when he does. we even have jewish self loathers in this country and in the media, which there have always been who want to beat up on and vilify israel when the country just wants to defend itself. but we know this has happened as long as there have been the jewish people. i mean, go become to world war ii. there were jews that went and identified where other jews lived for the germans. so is it any surprise that you would have some jewish people, self-loathing jew, who would ridicule israel when it's just trying to defend itself?

here's another article. suspension of israel a great victory. hamas. the success of hamas in closing israeli air space with a -- is a great victory for the resistance and is the crown of israel's failure. hat's hamas spokesman. well, he should give credit to this administration. we're the ones, this administration are the ones that gave it to him. then here's an article from reuters. netanyahu asked kerry to help resume u.s. flights to israel. good luck with that. as long as they think they're hurting israel, they'll probably keep it up. sure the president has already got his noble peace prize he, got that before he realy got started. bucek retear kerry doesn't have his yet so the only chance he'll have of bringing any peace to the middle east from his perspective is if you put ressure on the only reasonable

group over there, the israelis. they're the only ones that recognize that human life is valuable and we ought to try to save as much as we can. they've shown great restraint in the gaza strip. they shouldn't have to. we should clean it up for them. another article by andrew mccarthy, palestinians chose hamas and the mass murder of civilians, including their own. he posted this july 22, today, we are yet again being inundated with tales of palestinian woe after hamas' familiar barbarism has provoked an israeli response. it thus bears remembering that the palestinian people chose hamas. whatever happened to all those democracy project plans to

self-determination? hamas is palestinian self-determination. hamas was not forced on palestinians. hamas did not militarily conquer -- conquer gaza. they swept palestinian elections in 2006, thrashing its rival, fattah, which is only marginally less committed to the destruction of israel. anyway, andrew mccarthy quotes from "the wall street journal" the people of gaza overwhelmingly elected hamas a terrorist outfit dedicated to the destruction of israel, as their designated representatives. almost instantly, hamas began stockpiling weapons and using them against a more powerful foe with a solid track record of retaliation. what did gazans think was going to happen? surely they understood on election night that their lives one suspended in a state of utter chaos.

life expectancy would be miserably low. children would be without a future. staying alive would be a challenge. if staying alive even matters anymore. to make matters worse, gazans sheltered terrorists and their weapons in their homes, right besides ottomans, sofas, and dirty diapers. when israel warned of impending attacks, residents refused to leave. on some level, you forfeit your right to be called civilians when you freely elect military officials as statesmen, invite them to dinner with blood on their hands and allow them to set up shop in your living room as their base of operations. at that point, you begin to look a lot more like conscripted soldiers than innocent civilians and you have wittingly made yourself targets. it also calls your parenting skill into serious question. in the u.s. if a parent is found

to have locked his or her child in a parked car on a sum dare with the windows closed, the social worker takes the children away from the demonstrably unfit parent. in gaza, parents who place their children in the direct line of fire are rewarded with an interview on msnbc where they can call israel a genocidal murderer. he also points to this, he says, it's just a warmup for jew hatred that pervades the charter's article 7. then he quotes, hamas is one of the links in the chain of jihad in the confrontation with the zionist invasion. it links up with the martyr and his brothers in the muslim brotherhood who fought the holy war in 1936. it further relates to another link of the palestinian jihad and the jihad and efforts of the

muslim brothers during the 1948 war and to the jihad operations of the muslim brothers in 1968 and thereafter. even if the links have become distant from each other and even if the obstacles by those who resolve in the zionist orbit, aiming at obstructing the road before the jihad fighters have rendered the pursuance of jihad impossible, nevertheless, hamas has been looking forward to implement allahs promise, whatever time it take -- allah's promise, whatever time it takes. the prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said the time will not come until the muslims will fight the jews and kill them, until the jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry, oh, muslim there is a jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him. a jewish not apply to

tree. andrew mccarthy said this is what palestinians voted for. the highlighted section of article 7 comes straight from the islamic scripture, and muslim collections of the doings of the prophet mohammed. it foretells of an eternal struggle until the end of time when, with allah's intersession, the rocks and trees will help find and kill every remaining jew. mr. speaker, this is a dangerous time. prime minister netanyahu seeks ally, thef his former united states. not the stabbing in the back by the ally of the united states. i asked my office to try to set up an appointment with prime minister netanyahu if he'd see

me this weekend. i know the sabbath is coming up. but i would find a commercial way to fly in there, because i believe in the israeli people and their ability to keep me safe despite the efforts of the united states in consoling their enemy. just as my friend dana rohrabacher came to me several years ago and said, look, if u.s. state department is saying iraq, t go into northern into the kurdish area, for more than just maybe a meal because if we do, they won't protect us. they say it's too dangerous. it was the safest area in iraq. and the kurdish people were begging for our help. well, we went in, we were protected for three days, and i know i would put my life in the hands of the israelis, i trust

them and i wish the rest of the united states would trust them. despite this administration. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain a motion to adjourn. mr. gohmert: at this time, i move that we do now hereby 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

can you some -- tell us some of the details of his bill? >> student learning based on their mastery of skills as opposed to their time in the classroom. the current financial aid regulations only give out financial aid based on student'' , and thise classroom would let them waive 20uirements for up to demonstration projects for competency-based learning. >> the second education bill would provide counseling for recipients of federal student loans. it is the bill of the republican from kentucky. can you tell us more about that bill? >> under the current regulations , it is before they start

college and then once they graduate. this would require it annually and would give more specific counseling and require new counseling for pell grant recipients and people who take out some loans, which are jail really -- generally parents of undergraduates. >> the white house has released a report in support of both bills. are they seeking change to any of those? >> yes, the white house, in general, would like the bill to go further than it does and make some changes to the student loan program itself, things like income-based payments and other measures. the democrats generally want to make sure that students are understanding the consequences of not maintaining their student loans, both with their credit scores and with bankruptcy, because student loans are generally not dischargeable in bankruptcy. >> how do these bills fit in with congress we authorizing the education act? >> sure. in the senate, senator tom harkin has a measure for the higher education act.

house, john kline is moving the bill in pieces because there is generally not an idea that he can get a consensus on moving a broad bill, so he is moving what he can in chunks of first. >> what is the future of these bills in the senate, do you think? >> in the senate, it will depend how far senator harkin can get with his broader bill. that seems unlikely to move any further than a committee markup, which probably will not happen until after the recess. if he cannot do that, there may be some reception for him over here, but i think he is still looking to move a broader peace. cq.com, andite is you can also tweak her. thanks for joining us. >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] an update on those two house bills, allowing financial aid for testing based on

experience, and tomorrow, they will vote on another bill that would modify the financial counseling the federal aid recipients received. livean follow the house here on c-span, when they return on thursday. on the next "washington journal ," a texas journalist on the with the problem of from southigrating america without their parents, and the cochair of the regional authority on the efforts to end poverty in the mississippi delta region. "washington journal" begins live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> forever 35 years, c-span brings public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white

house events, briefings, and conferences, and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a service of public industry. we are c-span, created 35 years ago and brought you by your local cable or satellite provider as a public service. like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> a hearing of the house foreign affairs committee, an official briefed congress on the rise of the militant group isis in syria and its persecution of christians. also, whether the u.s. can forces.raq against isis the congressman chairs the committee. this is 2.5 hours. >> this hearing will come to order.

this morning, we consider the u.s. response to the terrorist .akeover in iraq nearly six months ago, the committee held a hearing come and the title of that hearing was al qaeda's resurgence in iraq, and then the own ministration -- the administration said that isis had begun to shift resources from serious to iraq in early 2013, that they had tripled the suicide attacks in that year, and that they planned to challenge the iraqi government for control of western iraq and baghdad. that is what we heard six months ago. the administration testified that it had become aware that had established armed

camps, staging areas, and training grounds. that isis leader had again threatened to attack the united states of america. the administration told us that isis must be, in their words, constantly pressured and their safe havens destroyed and that its objective was to ensure that isis could never again gain safe haven in western iraq. however, what the administration did not say was that the iraqi government had been urgently requesting drone strikes since 2013. that there had been the opportunity to use drone strikes on those camps both in eastern syria before they came over the border and to use drone strikes as their units moved across the

desert. as you know, drones can hone in and can see what's going on on the ground, can see these yupts traverse from city to city. these repeated requests, unfortunately, were turned down. i added my voice for drone strikes as convoys raced across those deserts from city to city, and since that last hearing, isis has done over those six months precisely what the administration predicted it would. it has taken over most of western iraq. it has turned its sights on baghdad and it may be e preparing to launch attacks against the u.s. but again, no drone strikes against those calms. never has a terrorist organization itself controlled such a large resource-rich safe haven as isis does today.

never has a terrorist organization possessed the heavy weaponry, the cash, personnel that isis does today, which includes thousands of western passport holders. the iraqi population is terrorized. they have suffered mass executions and harsh law. last week the remaining members fled on foot in face of isis demand that they convert or face death. to be clear, isis's takeover has been aided by prime minister maliki's malfeasance and incompetence. maliki has disastrously failed to reconcile with key sunni grou groups. many, including myself and ranking member engel, urged him to form an inclusive government and this was quite some time ago and on several occasions so that isis could not exploit

legitimate sunni grievances. maliki has only proven himself to be a committed sectarian certainly no statesman. it is time for iraqis to move forward in forming a government that serves the interest of all iraqis. what started as a crisis in syria has become a regional disaster with the global implications including credible threats to terrorism, humanitarian disaster and upward pressure on energy prices in a fragile global economy. meanwhile terrorist forces and the iranian government are gaining power at the expense of friendly governments. of course, only iraqis can control their future. only they can make the decision to replace maliki. and the performance of the battlefield of certain iraqi yupts was abysmal.

that's to be expected when you put the son in charge and replace them with cronies. americ americans have spent enough blood and treasure in iraq. that's exactly why the administration should have taken the opportunity to inflict decisive damage on isis from the air, through drone strikes while its fighters were encamped in the desert months ago. this morning we are joined by a senior state department official who has been in baghdad for several weeks and an official from the department of department of defense involved in iraqi security forces to learn of the path forward in dealing with this national security emergency. and i'll now turn to our ranking member, mr. engel of new york, for any opening comments he may have. >> mr. chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing about latest developments in

iraq. in recent months chaos has burned across the middle east. the unrest has left thousands of dead in its wake and driven tens of thousands from their homes. a civil war in syria has spilled across the border and now iraq teeters on the brink. since december the islamic state of iraq has marched across iraq. cities have fall on to their control. hundreds of soldiers have been killed or have laid down their weapons and the military equipment they left behind. some supplied by the united states is now in the hands of these fanatics. the border between iraq and syria is gone. isis is advancing towards the border and isis's leaders have declared to rule with a band of barberism in some of the darkest chapters in human his ris. isis is a threat to our region and a threat to the united

states. we have seen this story before and know how it ends. when russia withdrew in the '80s, that country was allowed to become a no man's land. it has trained recruits and plan attacks on the united states. we can't allow iraq to follow the same path. to become another safe haven for another september 11th could be launched. how are we going to meet the challenge? we need to use all the tools at our disposal because in the end there's no solution to the problem. we need to see political changes in iraq, plr inclusive policies and a greater effort to avoid conflict. i have real doubts that prime minister maliki can lead iraq into this new era. maliki must go and the sooner the better. i have real concerns about iran's support for the iraqi regime. even if the united states and iran seem to share a mutual concern over isis, i don't see how iranian and american goals

can be aligned in the short-term or long-term. i don't think the u.s. should deal with iran in this regard. we also need to bear in mind that this is not solely an iraqi problem. while isis grew out of iraq, isis grew in strength and numbers while fighting in syria. isis is a regional problem. this is a spillover from the syrian civil war and fight iing isis will require a regional solution. the right time to train and equip the syrian opposition is well over a year ago. that's when i introduced the free syria act that would have assisted rebels to fight against both the assad regime and opposition like isis. i'm glad that a few weeks ago the administration announced its support for a $500 million training program for the syrian opposition, but we waited so long and by now isis has gained so much territory and momentum

they are far more difficult to stop than they were a year or two years ago. i cannot help but wonder if we had committed to empowering the syrian opposition last year. would isis have grown as it did? would the opposition have been able to apply enough pressure to compel him to a diplomatic transition? and by the way, we passed a bill in the house yesterday unanimously slapping sanctions on hezbollah. hezbollah has moved in as a puppet of iran and moved into syria on the side of assad and have helped tip the balance in assad's favor. the hypotheticals and the what-ifs break my heart because even if we do the right thing, it will mean a small consolation to the family in a refugee camp in syria. i support the president's doegs

send teams to iraq, but i'm cautious in our future action. . we can't end up in another quagmire in iraq. i'm grateful to our witnesses for testifying today and for consulting with congress about our next steps. we must be partners moving forward as we determine what the u.s. role should be in iraq and the congress must play an important role. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. engel. we do go to a minute now to the chairman of the middle east and north africa subcommittee. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. today's hearing is on the terrorist march in iraq. this is not something new or something that caught us unaware. this is the second time this committee has had this witness testifying on the deteriorating situation since february.

it's clear that the situation wept from worse to just about as bad as it can get and i'm interested in hearing in how the administration has adjusted its policies since then because the three steps that he outlined for us last time pressing the government to develop wholistic policy to isolate extremists, supporting iraqi security forces through military systems and information and intelligence sharing and mobilizing the sunni population against isis have all failed to stop the near collapse of iraq. isis continue to advance its cause of an islamic state and christians are being targeted either fleeing, forced to convert or be killed. we have been inadequate in our response to this crisis. the committee has repeatedly called on the administration to do more, to get more engaged and to be decisive because it has been paralyzed by inaction. the threat is very real for iraq in the region and it won't go

away by wishing it away. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. we now go to mr. ted deutsche of florida. >> thank you, chairman, for holding today's critical hearing and for the witnesses for appearing today. i know that you just returned from several week it is in iraq. i hope you will be able to provide an update on efforts for political reconciliation. the request to establish in iraq is terrorizing nations. according to the u.n., 1,500 people were culled in the month of june in iraq and the news of this weekend's horrific persecution of christians in mosul adds another layer. they answer to no one. having disavowed even al qaeda and it's hard to imagine a terrorist organization being so vile that the vile al qaeda did

you want want to be associated with it. but as isis continues its march toward baghdad, how confident are we that the shia stronghold can withstand regional attacks? and what are we doing to ensure the stability of our regional partners? also i hope you'll address what more we can or should do to convince prime minister maliki that isis can't be defeated without some sort of reconciliation process that reverses his attempts. is he willing to do that? will he ever be willing to do that? how does this proceed if he doesn't? and i'll look forward to testimony from both of you and i'll yield back. >> we now go to mr. ted deutsche of -- >> he's not the chairman yet.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. they have their sights set on baghdad. ist cyst made up of bad outlaws and a hearing i held on this issue last week our witnesses were unanimous in the belief that prime minister maliki just cannot lead iraq out of this crisis. he needs to go. the sooner, the better. the united states should not strengthen maliki's hand for military assistance. that's not the answer. i want to know what the plan is to prevent the vise of isil. mending relations with the saudis would be a good place to start and finally they are still held hostage in iraq. i want to know why we have failed to settle them in third

countries including our own while the u.s. has people in liberty have been murdered. i yield back. >> go to brad sherman from california, ranking member. >> we see emerging from beirut and infertile where militias loyal to ethnic or religious groups are more powerful than governments where there is warfare, but even when there is peace it's an unstable peace with militias in real control no matter what the map says by nation states. it's a three-way contest between the sunni, shiite alliance and extremist sunni. i believe that the shiite alliance led by iran is the glaeter threat to the united states. this does not mean that we should not seek to weaken isis.

maliki is not a good guy just because we installed him. his approach to governing is as responsible as any other factor for isis's emergence. in the absence of isis pressure, he would not have changed at all. and now we need a new prime minister in iraq. a distance second best would be some sort of radically changed maliki platform. maliki allows his air space to be used for planes flying to syria from iran carrying weapons and thugs. he's increasingly dependent on iran. we do not want to be his air for force. we do not want to see isis expand. we have a tough problem. >> indeed. we're joined this morning by the deputy stapt secretary for iraq and iran mr. brett mahmoud gerk and the assistant secretary of defense for international

security affairs. thank you. prior to his current assignment, he served as a special adviser to the national security staff and senior adviser to ambassador christopher hill in baghdad. he also served as a lead negotiator and coordinator during bilateral talks with the iraqi government in 2008. since july 2013 alyssa has been performing the duties of the principle deputy undersecretary of defense for policy. previously she worked at the state department on iraq policy and served on the council staff as director of iraq. without objection, the witnesses' full prepared statement will be part of the record. members will have five calendar days to submit statements or

questions or any extraneous materials they wish to put into the record. and if you would please summarize your remarks, we'll have you testify first. >> thank you, good morning. chairman, ranking member and members of this committee, i want to thank you for invite megato to discuss the situation in iraq. since they attacked mosul seven weeks ago, let me first review the bidding on why this matters as this committee well knows. isil is al qaeda. it may have changed its name, but tz al qaeda in its doctrine, ambition and increasingly in its threat to u.s. interests. it is worse than al qaeda. should there be in question o about the intense, read what their leader says. it's important to pay attention who to what he says because we can't risk underestimating the reach of this organization. baghdad in may 2011 the death of

osama bin laden and promise to violent response. training camps are named after osama bin laden. in his audio statements, he issues threats against the united states promising a direct confrontation and in his feud, he clearly is seeking to lead the global jihad. they are no longer just a terrorist organization. it's a full blown army seeking to establish a self-governing state through the valley and in what is now syria and iraq. it controls much of eastern syria. it took control of fe lieu ja and moved on mosul. i arrived about 80 kilometers east of mosul and i'll begin there. in meetings with local officials and kurdish officials, we received indications isis was moving and staging forces in western mosul.

we immediately asked to receive permission from kurdish leaders to deploy forces in the eastern side of the city, but the government of baghdad did not share the same sense of urgency. military commanders, we stressed that the forces would not arrive in time. on june 9th the situation remained extremely tense and we continue to urge the deployment of additional security forces to protect against an attack from west to east. in the early mornings of june 10th, isis launched a bomb attack against the bridge and poured forces into eastern part of the city. resistance totally collapsed which led to a panic and a snowballing effect through the valley and through several cities. the result was catastrophic. five iraqi divisions nearly dissolved and the approaches to baghdad were under threat.

i flew to baghdad first thing that morning with the focus on e ensuring that our people were safe and the northern approaches were bolstered. bymy written testimony sets knot detail the critical response. we first made certain that our people would be safe including contractors working on bases outside of baghdad who were evacuated with the help of the iraqi air force. at the embassy, we rebalanced staff to manage the crisis and brought in additional department of defense resources to en. sure the security of our facilities. in parallel importantly and at the president's direction, we worked to you are jntly improve our intelligence picture throughout western and north central iraq surging surveillance flights to 50 per day, establishing joint operations centers and e deploying forces to assess yupts particularly around the capital of baghdad. these intelligence and security initiatives were taken with r j regional diplomacy led by secretary kerry to better focus attention on the serious threat.

we finally sought to stabilize the political process recognizing it took place at the most vulnerable most in the process, following elections that 14 million iraqis voted but before the formation of a new government. this process of forming new government remains extremely challenging but now has some traction. a a new speaker of parliament was chosen last week with the support of all major communities in iraq and the iraqis are now proceeding along the constitutional timeline to choose a new president and prime minister. the current situation in iraq remains extremely serious. isil remains in control of mosul and is targeting everybody who dise agrees with its twisted call fate. it's also joined in an alliance with militant wing, and with some former groups such as the

isis. going forward, the iraqis must seek to split the latter groups and isolate isil from hard core militant groups. the platforms that we have established through the immediate crisis response are now providing additional information to inform the president and our national security team as we develop options to further protect our interests in iraq. any future decisions in this regard will be made in full consultations with this committee and the congress. any efforts we are to take must be in conjunction with iraqi efforts to isolate isil from the population. what we have a serious counterterrorism challenge in iraq, iraq has a very serious koupt insurgency challenge and the two are linked. based o on my last seven weeks on the ground in iraq, there's a clear recognition by iraqis that substantial reforms must be undertaken and undertaken urgently. this will require the formation of a new government together with the restructuring of the security services. the e emerging consensus in iraq

chrks we can fully support, is a functioning federalism consistent with iraq's constitution, adaptive to the new realities on the ground and based on the following five principles. first, local citizens must be in the lead in securing local areas. second, local citizens defending their communities, however, must be provided full state benefits and resources, perhaps modelled along the national guard structure to secure areas. third, the iraqi army should focus on federal functions such as protecting international borders and rarely deploy inside cities. it should provide support for local forces where they con front isil which is able to overmatch areas. fourth, there must be close cooperation between local, regional and national security services to reduce operational space for isil.

finally the federal government through a new parliament and cabinet which will be established must work on a package of reforms to address the grievances and ensure adequate resources to security services. these five principles can begin to address many of the core grievances in the areas of iraq while importantly denying space for isil to operate and protect groups from attacks. restoring stability will require smart integrated, provisional approach led by a new iraqi government with an appropriate level of assistance. i can report that iraqi leaders from all communities have asked for this assistance in implementing such a program and general austin will be in iraq tomorrow to further assess the situation and discuss concrete ways in which our assistance might be effective. this model of a functioning federalism is achievable and is essential if we hope to deny space within the borders of

iraq. i look forward to discussing more details and once again i want to thank this committee for allowing me the opportunity to address you here today. >> thank you. alyssa? >> thank you, chairman royce, ranking member, distinguished members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to come and talk about the department of defense role particul particularly. i won't cover too much ground other than to foot stomp the point that brett has made. the u.s. has a security interest in assuring that they do not become a safe haven for terrorists who could threaten the u.s. homeland, u.s. citizens, u.s. interests abroad, partners or allies. as the president has said, isil's advance across iraqi territory and particularly its ability to continue to establish a safe haven in the rejoan poses a threat to u.s. interests and to the greater middle east. and we do not restrict that view

just to the specific geographic boundaries that are on the map. just to go over the things that the department of defense is doing. the situation on the ground as brett described is extremely complex and fluid. we are therefore taking a responsible, deliberate and flexible approach to the crisis, but i want to be clear there will not be a military solution to the threat posed. iraqis must do the heavy lifting. in the meantime, the department of defense remains postured should the president decide to use military force. our immediate goals as announced on june 19th are to protect u.s. people and property in iraq, two, to gain a better understanding of how we might train and assist security forces should we decide to do so, and three, to expand our understanding plrly via intelligence. all three are critical to any future u.s. strategy in iraq and to that end we have done the

following things. one, we have added forces to protect our people. the safety of u.s. citizens and personnel throughout iraq is our highest priority. the department of defense is meeting all the requests that have come in from the department of state for security for our embassy and at the airport. as described in our war powers notifications, we have sent a security team, a crisis response element and additional assets and personnel to reenforce security at the diplomatic facilities. the secretary of defense also ordered the transport ship u.s.s. into the gulf. its presence adds to the other naval ships that are there including the u.s. aircraft carrier and provides the president additional options to protect american citizens and interests in iraq should he choose to use them.

isr intelligence surveillance assets, so as part of our ramping up effort, we have significantly surged capabilities into iraq. over 50 a day compared to one a month in previous months. at the request of the government of iraq, we have ramped it up as well as our information sharing initiatives with the iraqis. these over iraq provide us a much better understanding of i isil operations and disposition and allow us to help. we are capable of under a the clock coverage and have been focusing particularly on isil-controlled activities -- territory, excuse me, as well as in and around baghdad. u.s. assessment teams, we have put in nearly 300 additional u.s. military advisers who have gone in specifically to assess and evaluate how we might better

train, advise and assist the iraqi security forces. these are small teams of special forces, members who are working to evaluate the iraqi security forces particularly in and around baghdad. they are armed for self-defense, but they do not have an offensive mission. the two joint operation centers have been established to help coordinate and support efforts on the ground, give us a better picture of what's happening. one quick word about the assessmen assessments, secretary hagel and chairman dempsey received the draft assessment last week. department leaders are taking a deliberate approach and reviewing this pretty lengthy assessment. these assessments will inform recommendations to the president. meanwhile, additional assessing work goes on in and around baghdad with respect to the developing situation on the

ground. in closing i want to reiterate again that we belief that we have a vital security interest in ensuring that iraq does not become a permanent safe haven for terrorists who can threaten the homeland. i look forward to your questions to

we could start now. as i mention in my remarks, you testified before the committee in february, and you told us of isis' plan to take control of western iraq and to challenge the iraqi's government control of baghdad and you reported that it was the administration's objective to prevent isis from ever having a sanctuary in western iraq again. there were countless other warning signs and i know that you, as deputy assistant secretary and others in the u.s. government were sounding the alarm. and your testimony was absolutely correct. we did see this coming. and that makes it even more troubling that the administration didn't do what was necessary to prevent isis

from taking over such a large swath of iraq and specifically the iraqis asked multiple times for drone air strikes against clearly identifiable targets. someone in our embassy brought this up as well. the agitation was for strikes on terror camps. and we know that the administration rejected those requests. now, no one likes maliki. given this isis threat and given the administration's stated goal of preventing an isis sanctuary in western iraq, why didn't we support, at least in this limited way, attacks that would

have done damage to these columns, or to the encampments? >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me try to correct the record on a few things. and, again, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the committee in february. i think what i described was when we really started to see this problem emerge over the course of last summer. and the first principle and the president's policy is that we want to enable local actors to be able to secure their sovereign space as best we can. that was also the desire of the iraqi government. the iraqi government wanted to act on its own with our assistance in enabling functions. we worked through the summer and fall, through our own surveillance and also by showing iraqis how they could use their capability to be able to target some of these sites. they have a platform called a king air. they have a platform called a caravan that can fire hellfire missiles. and we could jerry-rig those.

direct usair support did not come in a formal way until may, and it came on a formal visit with general austin and subsequent phone call between the prime minister and the vice president. since that time, obviously, we've been looking at various options. but the first principle was to enable the iraqis to deny safe havens in camps and sanctuaries within their sovereign space. of course, they faced a significant problem across the syrian border, which was increasingly in control of isis over the last three months of last year. and the border increasingly became under threat. the first principle is to enable the iraqis. that was something the iraqis also wanted and that was through the hellfire missiles, through the caravan aircrafts and through the persistent isr. but the formal request for direct usair support came in may. >> let me just say that we

already have experience in afghanistan with the fact that when you're dealing with suicide bombers or people who want to ma martyr themselves in the attack, one thing afghans are looking for is air support. traditionally secular militaries run away in the face of people trying to lose their own life in an attack and call in air support. it's been a problem -- i've talked to the italians about this. what do they want? what do they ask for? drones above that could give air support for their troops in afghanistan. so you have a situation like this, yes, you've got hellfire missiles, but the iraqis were trying to fire these from retrofitted cesna airplanes. in an environment like that, when you see this coming and you know that air support, psychologically, for infantry on the ground, in this kind of

environment has been such an issue in afghanistan, you know, when you're up against jihadists, why -- why wouldn't we? it wasn't just that the request was coming from the iraqi government. as i say, some in the embassy in the embassy pushed for this. certainly i raised this a number of times. i'm just trying to figure out why, when you can monitor something with the eyes of a drone that can go in and actually see below it, you know, that you have in the jeep the flag of al qaeda waving and a column moving across the desert, why that asset wouldn't be deployed as these troops are coming out of syria or why you wouldn't take the encampment and come in and take out that encampment. i understand that this request went all the way up in the administration and was turned

down. i am trying to get to the bottom of why. >> particularly over the latter course of 2013. poured out of the camps, particularly when they started to be hit and moved into the cities. >> but again, this is with a retrofitted cessna airplane. at least this is what i understand, from the iraqis, that they were trying to deal with in order to express that. can you imagine how effective it would have been with something, you know, a platform that could really delivery something more than a hellfire? >> i also just want to correct the record. when the request did come in may, formal request for direct air support, that request never went up as being denied. it's under active consideration. there's never been a denial. >> that's like saying -- if i could interrupt you. i remember elliott engel making the point three years ago about

support for the free syrian army when there were no foreign fighters in syria and him laying out the argument that foreign fighters were going to come in the absence, if we didn't support the free syrian army. that's like saying, that's still under active consideration. well, yes, but after three years of not effectively getting engaged in a major way, the clock begins to run out and things happen on the ground. that's what's happened with isis. we've watched it come into a vacuum over a three-year period, establish itself on the border with iraq, no action being taken against that encampment, no effective support of the free syrian army to do something about it. then we watched it it go from city to city across iraq without it being hit from the air with drones despite the request that i know were being made.

>> i can say that the information we have now on these networks is night and day from where it was from when it first come in. therefore, there's a significant risk, mr. chairman of taking any military risk without that level of granularity. we weren't able to do anything immediately in may. we now have a much better picture, which will inform eventual decisions from the president and any decisions in that regard that might be made or considered would be in the full consultation with this committee and the congress. >> right. but isis now has the treasury of the central bank in mosul. they have at their disposal probably half a billion dollars,

close to it. >> propaganda, they put out they got $4 million in the first week or so. we don't think that's particularly true but they are a self-sustaining organization and flush with resources, cash and equipment. no question. >> i'm out of time. i'll go to mr. engel. on the one hand when you look at some of these borders in the middle east, they were all done by the colonialists and i've often felt why should we be obligated to maintain those borders? iraq is not a real state. it was slapped together. you've got the kurds. you've got the shia and the sunni who really don't want to be part of each other. and so particularly the kurds, who have autonomy now,

practically have their own nation and probably will proclaim it very shortly. so, my sympathies would be to say to the kurds, well, why should we suck you back into iraq? you have the right to your own nation. frankly, nobody has ever explained to me why the palestinians are entitled to self determination but somehow the kurds are not. i don't think that's fair, quite frankly. on the other hand, we're told that if the kurds break off, there's practically no way that you could stop the radicals from dominating what's left of iraq and that the kurds provide some kind of counterbalance to prevent the radicals from gaining control. i would like to hear from both of you, what your views are on keeping iraq intact or not.

>> as i described in testimony, it's a concept that is under the iraqi constitution that would recognize a very substantial devolution of powers. there's a recognition in iraq that from the center out you're never going to fully control all of these areas, particularly given the capacity of isol. and locals and tribal forces alone cannot defeat isol. they need the support of the central state. functioning federalism concept is really the model that is an emerging consensus within iraq. the kurdish region shares a border with what is effectively isis. more active conversations with with the kurdish regional government to make sure they're able to manage that problem. they also face a very serious strategic -- geostrategic environment, given the geography

of the region. we're in a very active conversation with the kurdistan region. 13 million iraqis voted in a national election, 60% turnout. 328 member parliament that has just convened. today was the first session with the new speaker of parliament, very moderate, pragmatic and emerging sunni leader who secured the support of all political blocks. first session of parliament today they all stood together, all groups to denounce the very horrific tragedy inflicted by isol against christians in mosul. the country, overall, the people do not want to divide into three different countries, three different states. there is no easy solution for that. when you game it out, actually, the consequences are quite serious. >> mr. mcgurk, it's my feeling, correct me if i'm wrong, that

the kurds consensus among the kurds is that they want to separate from iraq. >> the kurds -- a lot of kurds say -- at the hard of every kurd, wants an independent state. there's no question. we have to recognize that. they're also among our closest friends in the region. there's also a pragmatic element given the realities, economics and other things in that we want to work with the kurds in the future. they're choosing their nominee to be the next president of iraq. we hope to have that sorted out over the coming days. within the constitutional framework -- we've had conversations over the last week with the leadership of the patriotic union of kurdistan about their future, and about a future within the constitutional framework. at least in the near term, i

think that's the best way to go. >> i just don't feel that it's fair to hold the kurds hostage because, unfortunately, we have screwed up things in iraq and everything is falling to pieces. we're essentially saying to the kurds, you know what? you have to be the glue that keeps iraq together and, therefore, we're going to deny you your aspirations. i'm not quite sure that's fair. >> strong, capable federal government in iraq that's actually able to exert control and influence to push back on that threat. and while i guess it is sort of a -- there has long been this idea that iraq can split into three pieces, i ask the question, who is in charge of that western and north central part of iraq in that model? while i think, as described,

there are folks in the kurdish region who have as entirations of independence. if you don't have a strong, capable government in baghdad that's able to blunt those threats. syria, the situation on their southern border right there. iran on the other side. that is a tough neighborhood. from a security point of view, the single best blunt, frankly, to isil and a strong iranian influence in iraq is a strong federal government based in baghdad. >> i see my time is up. let me just very quickly say that i hope the you state does not think it can be luled into some kind of partnership with iran in iraq. there are some people who feel that because our interests may come together, converge, that

maybe we should partner with iran. i couldn't disagree more. i think that iran is major of terrorism in the world. we look what's happening with israel, gaza and all the weapon s of hamas, which is a terrorist organization, provided by iran. and i just think it would be a tragic error if we somehow thought iran was a viable partner in iraq. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. ileana ros-lehthinen of florida. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. to make sure isil can't gain safe haven in western iraq and you were confident that iran -- iraq will deny them this. we all know how that turned out. just a few months later isil took over most of western iraq.

how could your assessment have been so far off? why didn't we respond to their calls for help? your testimony from february shows that there was some serious disconnect within the administration on the reality of the threat in iraq. or we've been completely failing in addressing it. some of our military systems and information sharing to get a better intelligence picture of iraq last month, secretary kerry said nobody expected isil to capture mosul. even if our foreign military assistance had not quite kicked in yet, shouldn't our intelligence gathering efforts have been able to get a better assessment, more accurate assessment of samara and mosul? it has been widely reported that while taking control of mosul, isil seized rather large quantities of u.s.-supplied

foreign military assistance and made off with nearly half a billion dollars from the local banks in addition to tanks, humvees that were taken, u.s. officials were quick to deny the claims of isil that they captured advanced weaponry such as blackhawk helicopters. did they capture any caravan aircraft or any other advanced weaponry like man pads, u.s. military equipment and hundreds of millions of dollars? aren't the only items that isil has seized the iraq government confirmed that isil took uranium from mosul university. what is the status of that uranium? what could isil use that for? and on the christian community we've seen that the ancient christian community in iraq is under siege by these islamist militants. once a vibrant, sizeable community now over 1 million

christians have been forced to flee their homes and communities or be killed. their homes are being marked by isil and they are being given an ultimatum, to flee, to convert or to be murdered. mr. mcgurk, in february, you said you were trying to make sure that the christian community was able to protect itself. it's clear we haven't made any progress. we cannot protect them. what are we doing now to help protect the few remaining christians and their religious sites and artifacts? as ranking member engel had pointed out, are we, on any level, directly or indirectly, coordinating with iran on our -- or syria over our iraq policy or isil? and does the administration believe that maliki must go? thank you, sir, and gentle lady.

>> let me to address these in order. i'll bring you up to speed where we are in anbar province. fallujah was in control of isil. fallujah is still in control of isil. our advice was not to move into fallujah but set a cordon and that remains in place, though it is fairly loose. second, we wanted them to hold the proevengs capital of ramadi. so far, they are. what happens changed significantly in anbar is a very sophisticated attack that happened late last month on the strategic border crossing in anbar, which prove that is isil is an army, militarily capable force. multiple-day assault. >> your written testimony, isil also generates $12 million a month through elicit business in mosul. that's a lot of money for

terrorists. quite an economic engine. >> they're a self-sustaining organization. what we have seen in mosul for some time was a modus operandi, the assault in mosul last month did catch everybody off guard. we saw some indications of it coming. we had sources on the ground who told us three days before they were seeing indications of it coming. we did not envision the assault nor the collapse of security forces up there. i will say i've had a number of modistics -- >> i apologize. i threw a lot of questions at you so that you could give me some written responses. thank you, mr. chairman. i apologize. i'm out of time. >> we'll go to the ranking member on the western hemisphere subcommittee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i've been here since 2006 and

i have come to hate the word assess and train. we seem to be assessing and traini training iraqi soldiers assessing the situation of iraq and i think the situation is worse than ever. after spending billions of dollars. we train an army. they fire a shot at them, they run for the hills. where did we go wrong that we put in all this money and training and they can't even defend a section of their country? it's mind boggling to me. now we have the situation where we have isis. i'm concerned that in jordan, for example, we have 2 million refugees. if they destabilize jordan, the whole area -- it's just a whole mess. what do we do with all that money that we put to train all these people?

where are these trained people? it's not just this administration. i'm talking from 2006 on. mr. mcgurk, can you also assist me in understanding this? >> let me address the issue of the training. anyone who has watched the news or been part of our efforts in iraq was disappointed by what we saw in mosul. and i think the biggest thing that we looked at and were surprised by is the dissolving of frankly four iraqi divisions up and around that area, and some areas where they did not fight in contrast to western iraq where they were putting up a serious fight. rather than a lack of capability, i think what we believe is that they lacked either the will or the direction to fight. either they, as brett described, saw a snowballing effect and they had a fear stripped off their uniforms and turned, or they waited for direction from baghdad that did not come and,

therefore, departed. we don't believe that they lacked a basic capability. it's that at the end of the day, they did not have the will or direction to fight in that part of the area. that is critical for any future plans we decide to pursue in iraq. we have to understand whether the partner in iraq that we would be working with has the will, the direction, the capacity to fight and that is why we have folks on the ground right now trying to figure that out. it is not that it's not frustrating. it, of course, is. >> we spend billions of dollars on a group of people that are unwilling to fight? >> i don't think we can say that about all the iraqi security forces. we see them attempting to take offensive action in iraq as recently as this week. it's not a blancht statement you can make. in western rack there's still areas -- >> there were four divisions, though. >> there were four divisions. that's correct. >> mr. mcgurk?

>> first, the leadership in command of these units have all been fired. we immediately were in conversations with iraqi leaders, security and political leaders in the wake of mosul and recommended a wholesale change in the command. new commanders have been appointed. those are commanders we know very well. they're also quite effective. iraqis, just in the past month in terms of fighting units, they've suffered almost 1,000 killed in action and they are holding the line and beginning to conduct some very rudimentry operations to clear some highways. i will not underestimate the extreme challenge here. what we saw in mosul was not indicative of a force as a whole. the units, many of them, are balanced. there's about an average -- i was just on the phone to our folks out there today. the composition of the force is about 55% shia, 23% sunni, by

and large. within the units there is no fracturing within the units themselves. now there are very incompetent, incapable units with poor leadership. no question we found those. we also found extremely capable, extremely proficient and dedicated units and it's in our interests, i believe, to invest in those units. we should not write off what happened in mosul and write off the entire security force overall. it would not be an accurate response to the overall picture we're seeing. nor do i think that would be in our long-term interest. >> can you talk about the direction of jordan? what are we doing to offset that? >> so, obviously, particularly the news a couple of weeks ago about isil taking ground near the jordanian border was a -- we all looked at that very closely, particularly the jordanians. i think what's important to remember is that the jordanians are a very solid, capable force

that is laser focused on this issue. they have moved troops to the border in order to reinforce their side of the border and then the united states has a robust relationship with jordan that is only strengthened, frankly, in the wake of everything that's gone on in syria. there's quite a significant amount of interaction on a daily basis with the jordanians. but we obviously watch that with keen interest. >> sorry we're out of time. i wanted to ask you about -- but i ran out of time. >> we'll let the witness respond to your question there. >> can you talk a little bit about iranian use in this situation to attack camp liberty? >> very briefly, we are watching camp liberty very closely. it remains our goal to get all of the members and residents of camp liberty out of iraq. we are working that extremely hard. we have some leads with other

countries and third countries. we also are going to do all that we can to make sure that they remain safe. i can assure you in all my conversations, even in the midst of this very urgent crisis, i raise the issue of camp liberty to make sure that the residents there remain safe. >> thank you for your courtesy, mr. chairman. >> certainly. now we go to the chairman on human rights. >> let me ask you if i could -- some experts argue that 10,000 u.s. counterterrorism forces should have remained in iraq but the president and maliki both chose otherwise. in retrospect, did that contribute in any way to isil's emergence and the current situation on the ground as it exists today? secondly, senator mcgurk -- secretary mcgurk, you said a

formal request for assistance was received in may. were there any informal requests through other avenues, including from the iraqi ambassador to the u.s. made before that? and how do you define formal request? if certain individuals are asking for help, what modeality needs to be employed to say oh, now they've actually asked? third thirdly, el baredai was in u.s. custody and he said i'll see you in new york. we know that he now has emerged as the leader of isil or isis, i should say and obviously has posed an enormous threat to life and liberty of iraqis, christians and perhaps even to the united states. my question is, especially in light of what has happened with

guantanamo, as a result of the 2012 intelligence act, it was required for the administration to tell us how many of those who were released from gitmo went back into battle. and the report suggested that of the 613 released, 104 were confirmed to go back into the battle against americans and our allies, 74 probably went back, but they couldn't confirm it, for a total of 178, which is a huge number of potential american and allies death to service members. and we had them in custody. so the question there with regards to al bagdadi, why was he released to form isis and do

the terrible things they're doing today? >> let me first, on the formal -- i'm not playing with words on formal, informal request. the conversation kind of goes like this. you'll hear from an iraqi official they want direct u.s. air strikes. you talk about this is what this would mean, access to your air space. well, wait, let's find a way for us to do this on our own. access to air space, direct usair support came in may. very clear, unequivocal, that came in may. >> i do not have information on the release of bagdadi. i came into the process extremely late. we had a legal requirement that would have to go through the iraqi parliaments. i can report from my own

experience that none of the political blocks in parliament were going to support that request given our own requirements. therefore, it was just not possible for us to stay. the raise of aqi, as i testified in my last hearing here, it really regenerated in syria and battlefields and battlegrounds of syria. that's where we saw the massive regeneration and massive influx of foreign fighters and we saw it come back into iraq over the course of last spring and summer. that's what led to the regeneration of al qaeda in iraq, which we now know as isis. >> i appreciate that. if you would get back to me on al baghdadi, i would appreciate that. 2013, the request started coming in for assistance. is that true? >> yes, for enhanced assistance in terms of sharing information, in terms of enabling some of their units. yes. >> did we respond to it in an

affirm active wa affirmative way? >> we responded immediately, helping them with the hellfire missile strikes, training forces on the ground. >> because i'm almost out of time, is there -- are there items or requests that went unfulfilled? >> other than the -- again, other than this most recent request in may. we got a list of requirements and things in swran that they wanted. we have fulfilled every single piece of that list. i can answer in writing a very detailed response. >> if you could, i would appreciate it very much. thank you mr. chairman. >> mr. ted deutsch of florida, subcommittee chairman middle east and north africa. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to talk about our regional partners and it's a really simple question. we talk a lot about jordan and the threats that jordan faces.

miss slotkin, you spoke about that. i was there recently. and appreciate that. i would like to move beyond jordan and talk about our regional partners in the gulf. the question is really simple. who's concerned, what are they doing about it, and who may be concerned but is not helping and perhaps may even be making things more difficult? >> i'll let elissa handle some of this. i'll just say the conversation has shifted over the last 18 months from -- there used to be a conversation when you would talk about this rise of very extreme, al qaeda-type groups that in a second war we'll be able to take care of those groups once assad is gone. now the conversation is obviously these things would

have to be done in parallel. there's a renewed focus on isil. secretary kerry last month immediately went to paris and held a meeting with the foreign ministers of jordan, saudi arabia and went on to rihad. isil took a province, very small town. they don't have any presence there, open highway to saudi arabia, obviously a very significant development. the saudis are very focused on this and certainly as are the jordanians. we work with them every single day on it. the cooperation we've had in terms of iraq, trying to squeeze isil, trying to squeeze its resources, its manpower is at a new level than it was even six to eight weeks ago. >> i'll just add to that that the -- you know, the folks that we have added, the department of

defense have added into iraq have come from the setcom region. we are in regular consultation with all the gulf countries, particularly those who host our troops. kuwait, qatar. i do think people are aware of it. and i think the thing that is critical going forward on all of these questions is that we are going to need a regional approach to this problem. there is no way isil -- the isil threat is like air in a balloon. if you squeeze one part, all the air goes to the other side. you squeeze that one. we will need all of the partners in the region who are under -- who are, like anyone, concerned about this issue, to play a role in countering this threat. >> can i just follow up? if i understood you correctly, just to characterize your comments, the saudis and

emeradis are concerned and doing something about it to be helpful. can we talk more particularly, frankly, in light of -- miss slotkin, i'll direct this to you. a very large arms deal that was announced with much fanfare, tell me what more the qatars are doing other than being aware -- >> i know secretary kerry has had significant amount of phone conversations with all of the gulf allies on how to get more engaged. we're still trying to get a handle on the threat, what to do about it in a more coordinated wa way. >> are there funds coming from

the other countries to support isil or any of the other groups? >> i've been asked this question a couple of times. to our knowledge right now -- again, the intelligence community is assessing that no states, regional states are sponsoring them right now. >> that's what i asked. >> i can't speak in this form to groups within these countries but the states themselves are not supporting isil. >> i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. maliki hasn't done a good job, has he? he hasn't done a good job, has he? he has made things worse, hasn't he? >> we have serious concerns with the government of iraq.

we had a new election and they're establish ago a new government. that's where the process stands right now and whether or not the prime minister can achieve a third term is something that remains in question. >> so we have not, however, officially suggested that he leave or have we unofficially suggested to him that it might be time for him to visit some of his money in dubai? >> let me also just back up, in fairness to the government of iraq. they also face a tremendously difficult situation. the 30 days before they had an election in iraq, 53 suicide bombers were in iraq, blowing up mosques, marketplaces, parades, fairgrounds, playgrounds. they're going to face extreme difficult. isil is trying to tear apart the political fabric of the country.

>> he has not provided the leadership that could overcome what could be inherent problems having a country called iraq made up of that territory that -- and those people that now compose that territory. that territory was devised and put together by european imperialists who decided that would be what the country of iraq would look like. let me say that as far as i am concerned the united states should not have to limit itself and limit what solutions we can possibly have based on what the british empire determined 100 years ago.

with that said, i would hope that we would be open to situations like have iing an acl kurdistan exist. maybe a belujistan as well. there used to be one and the british decided to cut and split that up. the kurds have always deserved to have their own national identity. until we do, i happen to believe that no kind of leadership that we could put into place in iraq is going to be successful. maybe it's too much. even if maliki was the best. it might not be enough that our british friends gave us aas a present when they exited as world leader. one other issue i would like to mention, when you said that we are watching very close