the house. so we'll take you there now live on c-span of the house of representatives.

>> let us pray. we thank you, loving god. is attention of our nation drawn to a raging tragedy. we're torn by aversion of the military years of engagement while compelling narratives unfold in so many in our world.s send your spirit on the people of this people's house that they judiciously balance seeminglier reconcilable differences. them to ex-cute their consciousness and judgments with so ity and purity of heart that all might stand before you honestly and trust that you can bring fruits from their labors. n this anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy, may you heal the lives of all immediately impacted by events of that day. and as we as a nation continue

toward greater peace and security to our world. day us this day and every and may all that is done. be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the chair examined the last day's proceedings. one, rule o clause one, stands approved. join me for the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of to the republic for nation, stands, one under god, indivisible, with all.rty and justice for >> please be seated. >> the chair will entertain up one-minute ests for speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> ask to speak for one minute. >> without objection.

>> mrk, i rise today to mark the 13th anniversary of the eptember 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on our nation. 13 years ago, the nation was and confusion.r we're trying to process the life ty of the loss of we've suffered from the brutal attacks from the world trade center and the pentagon and from downing of the american passenger plane in the field outside of shanksville, pennsylvania. years ago, we did not yet know the full extent of the osses we had suffered or the identities of those responsible or the story of the heroics on 93 that in light 9 all likelihood saved this istoric building from attack and 13 years ago at this hour, we could not know how these vents would change our country in the world. but one thing we do know, even in the midst of all of the pain, and confusion of that awful day, we know that the nited states of america would respond with courage and resolve of the american spirit would

triumph and it has, mr. speaker. so today, let us remember those 700 from my own home state of new jersey and for many states and nations around the world. and let's remember those who fought from that day and given their lives to protect our country over those past 13 years. let us renew our determination to honor forever all those whose a blessing to us into the nation we love so much. i yield back.

>> the point i would like to and the he solutions difficulty to have the council nd legislators be the participants in the process of communicating between the the -- andarties and world -- the situation -- i'm sorry -- host: it's okay. caller: having a hard time my words. host: that's okay, diane. caller: we went into iraq which thing, butink was bad we had no representation of the

religious ideas. religious leaders had been able to meet the sudanese shiahs and the hristians and the -- the islamists, i think that would to help a long way create understanding and i don't think -- i think this is really battle between fear and love. and i think the islamists have a of fear because they think life is r way of threatened by their women being know, exposed to a world of casual sex which is, seems to be the ideology of the united states and other nations. assured by ould be leaders that it's ofortant that people act out

freedom of the heart beat before more important, that's most important in the would find common ground. i think i recommend that people -- dr. judy -- zuni zather's book, which is "battle soul of islam" host: going to leave it there voices. get in more go to james, the republican party. hi, james. caller: good morning. morning.ood caller: i'm calling about the guy -- we need to go to syria, iraq. i'm calling about the guy who attacked you. you do a great job. comes on man that after you does a great job. people shouldn't attack y'all their jobs. host: thanks, james, going to chicago. mark, independent caller.

hi, mark. mark, good morning, in chicago, you're on the air, mark? okay, one last call for mark? are you there? to -- looks like caller, helpginia, me with your name? caller: yes, sophie. host: okay, go ahead. caller: i want to express my the pointment that government abducts people and they did nsom, which to my cousin. instead of wasting $500 million can derate rebels, they just pull out all of the minorities out and leave us out of the trouble. it's money wasted. there are no moderate rebels. talking from my experience because my cousin was abducted by them. that's all i have to say. t's $500 million down the drain. host: thank you. caller: thank you so much. host: the front pages of

everal newspapers across the country, courtesy of the newseum in washington, we'll begin with "the boston globe." to extend air strikes to syria and send more advisers, ground combat role against the islamic state. hen the detroit free press, obama calls for a relentless battle versus the islamic state. also in the papers, the houston chronicle, obama orders the islamic estroy state. and the president says u.s. and llies will use air strikes and train the syria rebels, the moderate syria rebels. times n the richmond dispatch strikes will expand to syria, the president outlining a four-part strategy in last night's address.e if you missed it, go to our website, c-span.org, watch the there.thing tommy in akron, ohio, democratic caller. good morning to you. morning, greta. first of all, i want to

conspiracy r the theory on your necklace. what's next? re you going to say peter's ties match a certain flag of a certain country that they're pro for. it's ridiculous. it's conspiracy theorists. they're throwing a monkey wrench in this country coming together. anyway, there was a comment made earlier from a lady about calling our congressman -- letting them s, know how we feel about this. since i a democrat gjimmy carter. we called and said we didn't want the bailout of aig. and told them we didn't want the affordable care act. and so on. they don't listen. i can come up with is we do have to vote them out. there are certain ones -- i'll example, sherrod brown of ohio. office a number of times. they listened, they're they sent me a newsletter. i watched the vote on the floor,

e voted the way people wanted him to. these are representatives who aren't representing the people. ost: on this issue of the islamic state, do you want congress to vote on the expanded air strike campaign? think there i should be a vote, both in the house and in the senate. i really do. host: and if there's not? caller: god help us. this -- the f military campaign lasts beyond this obama administration? you're looking at 2016. caller: well, i'll tell you what. i do agree with the draft. junior in high school the last draft that was during war.vietnam i was nervous, a lot of people are nervous. but the seniors in high school nervous because they were the first ones to go through this. become more ke us aware. i'm about 20 miles from kent state. all e kent state shooting, of this is going on at the same time. and i believe that a fair -- that means everybody,

congre congressmen's kids, working kids, everybody, if the conflict is going to go on for a while, the draft should be reinstated. "the washington post" editorial. mr. obama's strategy, the president lays out how he plans to ultimately destroy it. the islamic state. go to robert in california. robert? caller: hello. greta. how are we doing? hello? how are we doing? host: good morning, robert, go ahead. caller: the first we're stuck. we have to go into -- in and bomb isis. we have no choice. second thing on the 9/11 attacks, i had actually known 9/11 attacks in february in 2001. i knew every detail, written books, given the information to vote, the fbi, house and an in the in the senate. and to the 9/11 commission and

had been interviewed by the fbi eight times. that was robert in california. excuse me, i apologize. a coughing attack here. me go on to bill in jefferson city, missouri. republican caller, bill, your thoughts. caller: good morning, ma'am. issues about the whole isis thing and everything going on in our world is that the problem with our country is gotten soft.as after world war ii, after world i, we didn't have issues of countries and groups that wanted to attack us because they knew we were the greatest country in world and had the greatest military. everything has gotten soft where the e're going to have small militant groups get larger larger. and want to attack us until we

show them that we are not the people to mess with, then we're going to -- this is worse and worse. i'm a combat veteran marine, i'm also a police officer. i scares me at times because think it's not going to stop. it's going to get worse for the years to come. host: back to "the washington post" editorial. their opinion of the strategy. congress welcomes the renewed commitment and approves funds he will request to train moderate forces in syria as well to rebuild kurdish, sunni, and government forces in iraq. but we also believe that congress has a duty to go beyond writing the check. and ould debate the policy vote on authorizing this mission. though he believes that he lready has the authority to conduct this new campaign, mr. obama said wednesday night that congressional e action on the sound principle that we're strongest as a nation when the president and congress work together. that's the editorial view of

"the washington post." "the new york times," their editorial view -- the attack on syria.pands to and they write, that's why this pen-ended operation which mr. obama says will take time, demands congressional approval despite the claim of authority campaign in iraq and take the fight to syria under the iraq war resolution the war powers resolution. right now, opinion polls favor action. evaporate if there are casualties. editorial board weighing in this morning. "the washington post" and "the ew york times" saying congress needs to vote. bruce, a democratic caller. what do you think? what the pport president is trying to do. but i have a question for all democrats, and all independents. would like to know where the republican party's private army

is at right now. water.s black what is black water doing? black water helping to fuel this mess? thank you. host: todd, indianapolis, republican, hi, todd. would like to make a comment on the president's video. part of in the first it that he would challenge any sets to this country he the -- i could not give you the exact quote. but it was something along those lines. this esn't he consider country's open borders a threat of any type whatsoever? think on the national television, he contradicts himself right there on television. you can't believe anything this man says. right, bill in orangeburg, south carolina, independent caller. this morning?ink caller: i told you i'm not an

i'm patriot aller, of the united states by birthright and declaration of independence. i'm a patriot. the government's first job is to by maintaining the peace at all costs? sorry? host: we're listening, bill. caller: i'm sorry? we're listening bill, go ahead. inler: the job of government order to support the security of the nation, basically the security of the people of the theed states is to maintain peace at all costs. avoiding war in all costs. on the air.ot i -- host: bill, you are -- we've your thoughts. this is jeff flake, republican said on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, we remember those who lost and will still sacrifice to keep us free. james in bristol, tennessee, republican caller. hi, james.

doing?: how are you host: good morning. caller: sorry about the cough you got. host: came on all of a sudden. go ahead. caller: my comment is this. he's going to go over there and bomb, he needs to do it 24/7. i mean, around the clock. this, you know -- host: you think it needs to be a shock and awe? caller: he needs to make them as they -- they do not fear us. he needs to bomb 24/7 over there. he's got boots on the ground because he's got the guys over that are training those guys. so i don't know -- see what he's saying, no boots on the ground. ut there is military over there. and his policy, to me, verybody is leery of his tactics.

is philosophy on war is you go in and defeat the enemy, you don't surrender, or back off. you let them know you mean business. host: the president's war plan. shed the to ambivalence to defeat the islamic state. they write the real political come from ill democrats who oppose most u.s. ilitary interventions in principle and want to spend the money at home. the biggest obstacle that his success will be his own of the american force, the entire political has ry and belief system stressed the limits and damage of military action. lincoln, but it's not lincoln of the gettysburg address, not sherman's march to sea. let's hope the president is a better war president than he has been, an anti-war president. their view is that obama's isis violent cross currents. they view it as much more

complicated. be wise to recognize that at the outset no scheme goes as planned particularly in the middle east with violent cross currents. work, an trategies to need to go things right. iraqis fighting each other need o stay united behind an inclusive government they have yet to fully form. arose ni tribes that during iraq war to rout isis's incarnation al qaeda in iraq, will need to do again. pushover in my, a two invasions by the united states and one by isis will have an effective fighting must and syrian sunnis rive back them without helping barbaric bashar assad. that's "usa today" ice opinion this morning. tennessee. james is watching there,

republican. james, go ahead. >> they need to secure the border. i just don't trust them. can slip in the western border out there. host: jennifer, tennessee, caller.tic jennifer, good morning to you. caller: good morning. i was just calling to say that i think it's really important that we have a much broader long-term what to do in the middle east. stopping one area or another is not enough. to deal with the region as a whole. i'd like to see more in the news about how the countries in the and the iz islamic world can determine how we, not the united states, can get plans are.h what the host: several newspaper rticles this morning about

allies. arabs wary of efforts to confront isis. one point being that it seems to extremism if there's a u.s.-led coalition. shocked are critical of mr. obama's fear to ake action against bashar al assad. the president and for the u.s. perceived abandonment of the the 2011 allies of arab uprisings. say this, many in the gulf fear shiah-led government in baghdad is a rotation of faces that will have little impact on iraq, compounding the reluctance to join any willing. of the so that's one piece in the financial times this morning. also with rk times," this, that sunnis in iraq see their government as the bigger threat. the shia-led military and government sunnis in that as a biggering them threat than isis. jennifer in tennessee,

peter in union springs, alabama, democratic caller. peter, good morning. caller: yes, hi. the president is doing a good job because he's fighting the they don't he way want to be fought. troops on the ground means they won't have the opportunity roadside bombs, suicide over in their country. they want us in that country so method of e the fighting the way they used for the last 13 years. they don'tr strikes, want that because they have no way to promote the propaganda by roadside bombs. then the american soldiers come dying in their vehicles around.enemy is nowhere first opportunity is to use

these tactics. they're running in like they in 1776 or the civil war is not the way to fight guys anymore. you have to fight them from strike them where they appear. not to put the soldiers on the ground so they can take one and put them on tv and cut his head off, thank you. president how you obama arriving at the pentagon for the september 11 memorial be taking at will now. moments from the president with chuck hagel of the joint chief staff, general dempsey attending the an emony marking verse oi the 2011 terrorists, 13 years ago when they struck first new york, the pentagon, and the went down in

shanksville, pennsylvania as well. over on c-span 3. the memorial service in new york is under way. :30 this morning at the world trade center memorial plaza there in new york. we're going to bring you to the pentagon ceremony in a minute. callers. a couple more to peter -- excuse me, rick, athens, texas, independent hi, rick, go ahead. caller: the deal is, this is there has to be a reaction to the action. saudi arabia. by turkey, two of the allies there. he whole point is there has to be an enemy so you can attack the enemy. the deal is it's about the oil as the ing the dollar oil reserve currency. that's what it's about. so you can do what you want do

with that. all right, thank you. host: rep pub caller. go ahead, dena. caller: hello. you're on the air. caller: good morning, i don't president obama is a good wartime president. he's stated several times he like wars. he's trying to get us out of the middle east. i have two young sons who are age.t at draft so moving forward, i'm very happening inwhat's the middle east. i don't think this president, not that he doesn't do a good but he ome areas, definitely is not equipped to problem.is particular we don't know who all of his advisors are. leave it there. the president coming to the podium there at the pentagon. with an -- we want to bring ou all live service of the pentagon marking the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. ladies and gentlemen, please direct your attention on the

flag on the pentagon building. flag hangs from sunrise to sunset in honor of patriot day honor of the 184 lives lost at the pentagon. he national anthem of the united states performed by the united states navy brass quintet. [ "star spangled banner" plays ]

gentlemen, the united states army chief of chaplain's, major general, donald rutherford. let us pray together. lord of hope, we have endured of conflict. we have raised a generation that's never seen a sunrise

without war on our national horizon. we look back on the events that the present, it would be easy to despair. us not forget to we've yet o write the ending on our national story. it would take a moment to look at the day it began, we flames of hatred extinguished by acts of valor. cries of the lost match with the prayers of the grateful. e live every day with those memories, those whose dreams the darkness left unfulfilled. concluding hand shake, the last good-bye, and the final kiss. remember those that we lost and we grieve for them, grieve for families and for ourselves and we come to remember them as to as those who continue fight in our frontiers and those who stand watch within our home.rs at we come to remember that those have pected weakness

instead seen strength. hose who want a division have instead seen unity. hose who sowed seeds of violence and hatred have watched of grape the fruits and of hope. 13 years ago, the lights of to extinguish still shine today. our hope and resolve and the cannot enter our lives. and we pray this day, amen. >> amen. >> ladies and gentlemen, 13 years ago today, at 9:37 a.m., pentagon was attacked. please join us in observing a to remember ence those who perished.

ladies and gentlemen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general martin dempsey. obama, resident, mrs. mr. secretary, distinguished guests, thank you for being here morning. i want to offer a special welcome to the families and we lost on hose these grounds 13 years ago. e know the memorial ceremonies and we know you've been through many are especially tough, emotion-filled moments for you. a great deal of courage to keep coming back here. so thanks for being here. received a note from a mom whose daughter is buried just across the way at

cemetery. she said the pain of losing someone you love, even years away. never really goes at any instant, a smell or a color or a song or a date on the like today can bring first raw relief the moment when everything changeled. she said if there's any secret that there can be room for sorrow and joy, sadness and pride, to exist in same space at the same time. learned that grief is not a lack of faith or sign of love.ss, it's a price of today is foremost about reflecting and about remembering and about the love for the 184 ended here at the pentagon and those that perished n new york and in summer seth county. today is about strength and resolve. we found strength in the hildren who lost parents on 9/11 and who have blossomed into

fine young adults and are now their own mark on their world. we find resolve in the men and 9/11 roused to step forward to defend our country, a in ration that has served iraq and afghanistan. and today offers us, all of us, the opportunity to rededicate lives to the causes of our great nation. future.great for as one of our nation's leaders said, we could easily time and energy to be consumed by the crisis of the moment of the day. ut we must also lay the groundwork to help define our future. t's now my privilege to introduce the man who spoke those words and who strives to live them every day, our secretary of defense, chuck hagel. [ applause ] >> general dempsey, thank you. mr. president, mrs. obama,

distinguished guests, family survivors. we will never forget what happened on this day in this place, an act of terror that shook the world and americans.ives of 184 today we remember those we lost as we are , this day surrounded by those who love them. our nation's strength and resilience, surrounded by those who embody it. and we draw inspiration from the ways in which survivors and to ims' families continue honor their legacy. my thoughts also turn to others lives were forever changed that day. and irst responders heroism and se resilience we celebrate. the pentagon personnel who came o work the next day with a greater sense of determination than ever before. and the men and women in uniform ho have stepped forward to defend our country over 13 long

war, bearing incredible sacrifices along with their families. e live in a time of many complicated challenges. but america has always faced challenges. we have always responded as nation united in purpose, woven together in a fabric of strong character and resounding tomitment to each other, and our country. to lead our nation in such a requires not only the courage and the vision to that but the humility recognizes this unique privilege. in ourraits are embodied commander in chief. ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. [ applause ] ed. >> good morning. >> good morning. scripture tells us we count

those who have persevered. secretary hagel, general members of our armed forces, and most of all, the survivors of that september day the families of those we ost -- michelle and i are humbled to be with you once again. now been 13 years. since the peace on an american morning was broken. nearly 3,000 beautiful lives were taken from us, including 125 men and women here at the pentagon. they would moments have shared with us. 13 years of memories they would have made. ere once more, we pray for the souls of those we remember. you, their families, who love them forever.

nd for a nation that has been inspired by your example. our determination to carry on, your resolve to live lives worthy of their memories. as americans, we draw strength from you. the ultimate is rebuke to the hatred of those who attacked us that bright blue morning. they sought to do more than down buildings or murder our people. they sought to break our spirit. to prove to the world that their power to destroy was power to an our persevere and to build. but you and america proved them wrong. america endures in the strength who through ies your anguish kept living. ou kept alive love that no act of terror could extinguish. ou, your sons, your daughters,

are growing into extraordinary oung men and women they knew you could be. turned this have day into something that those who attacked us could never abide. a tribute of hope over fear and love over hate. america endures in the tenacity survivors after grievous to walk again, stand again, after terrible burns, you smiled once more. for our nation. years.are difficult by your presence here today in he lives of service that you led, you know no matter what comes our way, america will out stronger.

merica endures in the dedication of those who keep us safe -- the firefighter, the who carries the memory of a fallen partner as they report to work each and prepared to make the same sacrifice for us all. of these men and women, gleaming now work in a freedom tower. we visit our great cities. and cheer stadiums for our teams. we carry on because as americans, we do not give in to fea fear. ever. america endures in the courage women who and the serve under our flag. a decade of war, his 9/11 generation has and red our country's call three months from now, our combat mission in afghanistan

will come to an end. honor all who have made the ultimate sacrifice these 13 more than 6800 american patriots. those who thanks to served in harm's way to keep our country safe and meet the of our time. endures in the perennial a imism that defines us as people. yet tomorrow there will be who gers, young adults, were born after 9/11. it's remarkable. and while these young americans did not know the horrors of that had been shaped by all the days since. but ime that brought pain also taught us endurance and strength. the time of rebuilding, of resilience, and of renewal.

what gives us hope, what gives me hope, is that these young who will shape all of the days to come. a small and r hateful minds conspiring to us, america stands tall and america stands proud. values that the sustain us, we will only grow stronger. generations from now, americans our still fill our parks, cities, generations from now, americans will build towers that heavens, still stand for freedom around the world, still wear the uniform those words ing to written two centuries ago. land of the free, home of the brave. enerations from now, no matter the trial, no matter the

challenge, america will always be america. blessed those who have persevered. families who your continue to inspire us all. god bless our armed forces and all who keep us safe, and to bless the ue united states of america. [ applause ] ♪

the ying "america beautiful" ]

>> prom joining the ceremony on this 13th anniversary of the september 11 terrorist attack, including the attack at the pentagon of the american airlines flight 77 which hit the pentagon at 9:37 a.m. on september 11, 2001. with a crew of six and 53 passengers aboard. and five hijackers. here on c-span throughout the day bringing you coverage of 9/11 events. we'll take you briefly now to new york city where the names of the victims of the attacks on the twin towers are being read. they started the reading this morning at 8:30 eastern and will continue until 12:30 eastern this afternoon. >> we love and miss you always. >> my beloved brother, david brian brady. david, thank you for all joining the laughter. there is not day that goes by we don't miss and love you.

godspeed. >> gary harold. >> jeffrey allen hirsch. thomas day head sell. leon bernard heyward. brian christopher higgins. saleno. >> timothy brian higgins. >> robert d.w. higly ii. >> todd russell hill. >> clara hynes. >> neil o. hynes. >> mark hinde. >> kasuki. >> heather ma hogue. >> tara hog. >> thomas anderson hobbs. >> james j. hogan. >> robert wayne hudson iii.

>> dwan hodges. >> ronald g. horner. >> patrick a. hoey. >> john a. hoffer. >> marcia hoffman. >> from the national september 11 memorial and museum. ground zero in new york city. the readings of the names of the victims of the two attacks in new york city on the north and south tower of the world trade center. by the way this continues to 12:30 eastern. you can follow our continuing live coverage over on c-span3. the first attack on the north tower, american airlines flight 11 hit that tower at 8:46 a.m. on september 11. that moment was marked at the white house this morning by a moment of silence.

[bell dings]

["taps" plays]

>> president obama and the sfleard joined by vice president biden this morning at 8:46 eastern marking the moment of the first attack on the world trade center. the north tower in new york

city. at 8:46 a.m. just a reminder of the coverage from new york of the reading of the names of the victims continues over on our companion network c-span3. live look at the u.s. capitol with the flag at half-staff on this 13th anniversary of september 11. a number of members commenting via twitter. kevin mccarthy, majority leader in the house, saying we will never forget this day nor the strength, courage, and resolve that the united nation in the days and years following. also from nina lowey of new york, today on 9/11, we remember the parished, loved ones, first responders. keith ellison says, we renew our promise to never forget those americans lost and remember the bravery displayed on this day 13 years ago. so you can follow -- continue to follow what members are saying at twitter.com/c-span and look for the list of members of congress. the house is in recess.

the senate is in now, but the house is in resess so that -- recess so that members can attend a briefing on isis. republicans also met this morning for their republican conference and figuring a way forward on the continuing resolution that has yet to be brought to the rules committee. jet to be brought to the house floor. just some insight on where they may be on the c.r.a. couple of tweets here. scong long from the hill says darell isis says the c.r. is the likely tool for this point for syria authorization. from the post some comments on the meeting this morning, the initial take away, this morning meeting of the house g.o.p. didn't resolve how to proceed. divided on what to do and how to do it. and also reid ribble that speaker boehner in the republican meeting generally supportive of obama on syria, but wants to see the legislative language. that briefly for all members is under way. we understand or should be in about an hour or so.

the republican conference should be wrapping up shortly. we'll have live coverage of the u.s. house here on c-span once they gavel back in. as we mentioned, the senate's in this morning. before they came in the chairman of the senate armed services committee, carl levin, of michigan spoke about u.s. strategy against isis, against and iraq and syria. he spoke on the council on foreign relations. we'll show you as much as we can until the u.s. house comes in. >> good morning, everybody. welcome to today's on the record meeting. we certainly have a lot to talk about. just so there's no confusion, since we are about the same size and same age and we both wear our glasses on the edge of our nose, this fellow on my right is the very distinguished senator from michigan, carl levin, and i, pbs ombudsman. senator levin is of course the

widely respected chairman of the senate armed services committee. served for 36 years when he retires in january. he literally needs no introduction to this group. he has some remarks before we get started with the questioning. so i'm not going to say much. i would like to say, however, that, while journalists are supposed to be the ones with the nose for news, that i must congratulate the council and senator for superb timing for this discussion and look at american foreign and defense policy. it is, of course, the 13th anniversary of the terrible events of september 11, 2001. it's a week since the senator returned from a trip to iraq and ukraine. and it's just hours since president obama spoke to the nation on the challenges now confronting us. so senator levin, you have the floor, sir. > thank you.

michael, thanks, first of all for all your good work, for your introduction. it's great to be back at the council on foreign relations. again i think this is three years in a row, perhaps, came up on the elevator, i was reminded that we are also here as michael mentioned on the anniversary of the horrific events of september 11, 2001. so this is a very appropriate time to talk about these issues. i just returned from a trip to ukraine, iraq, and jordan. that's the type of trip, by the way, that does not make it into the "washington post" series on congressional junkets to choice travel destinations. current events in these countries are a direct consequence of two of the most

dramatic transformations in international environment that i have seen in my 36 years in the senate. first, the end of the cold war, and second the rise of a virulent strain of islamic extremism. russia's actions in ukraine are a direct challenge to the postcold war hopes for europe. in effect, putin has assert add new sphere of influence, or reasserted an old one, in which he believes he can act with impunity to impose russia's will , much as the soviet union did eastern europe during the cold war. in many ways, putin's actions in ukraine have been a wake-up call to which the western democracies are beginning to respond in a way in which we did not do in the case of russian occupation of territory in georgia and mole

davea -- moldova. in light of ukraine's proximity to russia, russia's overwhelming military advantages in the area and putin's apparent willingness to violate the norms of international conduct, there's little that ukraine would be able to do to stop a direct large scale russian military action should russia choose to invade openly. nato will not go to war with russia over ukraine. nor should we lead the ukranians to believe that we will. as we tragically did with the hungarians in 1956. so what should the united states and our allies do in ukraine? first, we should continue to find ways to make it clear to the russians that they cannot reject the postcold war order in europe while continuing to participate in the european economy at the same time. that's why sanctions are important and must stay in place

even if a cease-fire is effective until russia conforms its actions to the norms of international behavior. second, we should do more to help ukranians defend themselves. ukranians emphasized to me on my visit that they are willing to fight for themselves. and as long as they understand that we will not be sending our own men and women to fight for them, i believe we should provide them with the military equipment that they need. that means both lethal and nonlethal equipment, including m wraps and other equipment that would otherwise be shredded or abandoned as we leave afghanistan. we should do this because assisting people who are willing to fight to defend their own country and their own freedom reflects our values. providing such equipment would enable the ukranians to raise the price the russians have to pay for their aggression, and hopefully make putin think twice

about continuing or furthering aggression. russia's violation of international law in ukraine has already drawn nato closer together. reinvigorating the alliance by providing a new challenge and a strong common interest. putin could, as he boasted, occupy eastern ukraine. but in the long run he would be acting against russia's own interest because he cannot prevail against a united europe. my iraq visit focused on isis and the eminent threat it poses to iraq, the region, and international community. our military leaders and intelligence experts have uniformly told us that air strikes alone will not be sufficient to defeat isis. isis's rapid spread has been possible in large part because it exploited sunni discontent with the maliki government which insisted on ruling iraq on a

narrow sectarian basis. if the new prime minister shows that iraq will now be governed inclusively, isis will find fewer sunni leaders willing either to aid and abet their terror, or to look the other way. president obama has been cautious about resorting to military force in iraq and elsewhere. in the middle east, the use of military force by western nations without arab support can be counterproductive. providing fuel for the hateful propaganda used by extremists who attack a western presence as, quote, occupation. for instance, neither isis nor its predecessor, al qaeda and iraq, existed before the u.s. invasion in 2003. instead, al qaeda in iraq was created in response to the american presence in that

country and fed off the resulting conflict. so what should the united states do about isis? the president laid out a forceful strategy last night. it deserves bipartisan support. first, just as isis poses a threat to the international security, the response needs to be international. president obama has begun building an international coalition to respond to isis. u.n. resolution endorsing the use of force against isis while not necessary would help rally international support. the participation of key arab states in the region will be critical to the effectiveness of any international coalition. if western countries act in iraq and syria without visible participation and leadership by arab nations, it will play into

the propaganda pitch of extreme elements within the sunni community that they, isis, is the only force willing to stand up against foreign domination. active participation by arab states is key because the fight against isis is a struggle for the hearts and minds of sunni muslims as well as a military struggle. the vast majority of muslims oppose the routality of isis, whose horrific actions may be a turning point in persuading mainstream islam of the need to expunge this poisonous offshoot. if mainstream muslims fail to join in the conflict -- and the conflict could be successfully portrayed as one of the west against islam, the poison is likely to reappear in new and different forms as it has in the past. second, within the context of a broad international alliance, i

believe that congress will support air strikes against isis, taking on the group's leadership and infrastructure in both iraq and syria. the president's hand will be strengthened by congressional support, and he was wise to welcome it last night. but he already has the authority he needs under both domestic and international law to conduct such a campaign. under domestic law the president has authority to act under article 2 of the constitution when necessary to defend the united states. the beheading of two american journalists, coupled with isis' threats against the united states and its training of americans, provides sufficient basis for such action. under international law, the president has authority to act in iraq in accordance with the request of the government of iraq. he has authority to act in syria

because the syrian government has proven unwilling or unable to address the isis threat from its ungoverned territories. third, we should train, equip, and assist those iraqis and syrians who are willing to fight isis. their boots are on the ground already. and their own country's future is at stake. this effort should start with the kurds, while limited in their military capabilities, the kurdish have proven willing to fight in their own defense and even to take the fight to isis in key strategic areas near curdis stand. moreover,ed kurds have provided some defense for nearby areas occupied by religious minorities and have taken in refugees fleeing from isis' assaults, providing a haven of religious tolerance that has too often

been absent in that part of the world. we should do all that we can to ensure that the peshmerga has the equipment that they need and to help train them in the tactics that will succeed against isis. training and eequipping the peshmerga will not be sufficient to counter the isis threat outside the areas under kurdish control. we should provide training and assistance to the iraq armed forces as the new iraqi government hopefully demonstrates that it is prepared to govern in an inclusive manner. if anything, should bring the iraqis together in a common cause, the threat posed by the barbaric tactics of isis should do it. as baghdad addresses the greevenances of iraq's sunni communities -- grievances of iraq's sunni communities, western nations should increase the level of military assistance provided.

finally, we and our allies should take additional steps to openly train and assist vetted moderate opposition in syria as the president is requesting. and has requested. even if isis is pushed out of iraq, the organization will survive unless it is also defeated in syria. in syria, as in iraq, isis can be set back by airpower, but cannot be defeated without an opposing force to take the fight to it on the ground. that force needs to be a well vetted, moderate, syrian opposition force that is trained, equipped, and supported by the united states and its allies, again including partners among the arab states. in iraq and syria and ukraine, the fight is for their people to win. we can and should provide robust

assistance to those who are prepared to fight for themselves against terror and aggression. it is the right thing to do. it reflects our values. and it is in our national interest. u.s. military force is not always the answer. but it can be and often is an essential part of the answer to terror and aggression. equally important is an effective political and economic strategy which in the case of isis must include both a broad international coalition with active participation by arab nations, and the establishment of a moderate, inclusive alternative in both iraq and syria. >> thanks very much. we'll get started by asking what roles do you see actually being

layed by saudi arabia, turkey, jordan, arab allies, if there's to be a coalition, and if arab muslim participation is crucial to some ultimate success. is a public role possible for them? and if so what might that be for those countries? >> public role is not only possible, it's essential. if we are going to turn the momentum against the extremists and the terrorists and the fanatics and violence users nside of that strand of islam, it's got to be led by mainstream islamists. there's no alternative. i believe it is possible now for two creens. one is because of isis and who they threaten. that is very clear that they threaten those same countries.

existence of the governments in those countries. the second reason is that what the president is doing and king for us to openly fund training and equipment under title 10 frrks is asking for $500 million for training and equipping, and asking for specific support and authority to train and quip. he already has the authority, by the way. the reason for asking for that ultimate authority under title 10, which means the defense department personnel and not other personnel, doing it covertly, is to show the arab world that we are openly doing something, which we have only done covertly, which i believe they will -- which will help them to do the same thing. a number of those countries have provided support and the effort,

for instance, against assad, but they have not done it openly. but for this effort against isis to work militarily in the short term, but in terms of politically, to turn this strand of iran -- of islam into a minority that has no political power, there's got to be open support of this effort. it's got to be part of an open coalition which will show the muslim world and the sunni world, which is part of it, that this is an effort which reflects the mainstream values of islam. this or them to purge poison that the strand has produced. >> why haven't muslim leaders in this country, especially and elsewhere, spoken out more publicly against isis?

>> i think they have spoken out publicly. i don't know it's been covered adequately. i think in other countries they have not. a number of imams in other countries, as a matter ever fact, aided and abetted the extremists, put it that way. they could either flow from an ideological agreement or monetary support. there's all kinds of motivation that can be there. it needs to be done more because, again, this poison's got to be purged by islam. it's totally anti-islam. i will always -- i won't go into that anecdote, takes too long, but a conversation hi with sadat reinforced my belief that mainstream islamist is totally inconsistent with what the fanatics are doing.

>> to get back to those three countries. do you believe that their role in the coalition -- that's saudi arabia, turkey, jordan -- for example will be visible to the american public and visible to everybody in terms of actual contribution to a coalition? >> the hope is that it will be. that's what the effort is of secretary kerry and the president right now is that it be open. it needs to be for it to be -- for this effort to be successful long term. it's obvious that isis is a threat to them. and i think now that they can do it openly without fear of retaliation in their own countries by a minority that take to the streets. >> i noticed the president actually didn't call the out ofer of assad again -- ouster of assad again, how do you weaken and attack isis without strengthening assad? >> because you go after both of

the problems by various ways. side of syria, but mainly by training and equipping the forces that oppose those two alternatives, which are now in iraq, holding open a third alternative. the two alternatives -- syria, i misspoke. the two alternatives now in syria are either assad or isis. moderates have been weakened. so you got two alternatives. the goal of the president is to have a third alternative that is offered in iraq. and there's -- it may be fully kated to have both of these efforts going on in the same country, but for the most part they will be focused in different parts of the country. >> most of the reporting has suggested that people are

cautious about this whole approach of find it hard to imagine it working or at least recommendations that there had to be some kind of larger american military on the ground presence, not a lot of troops, but certainly a larger -- or some force of special forces or something like that in order to give this a greater chance of success, this overall strategy. is that suggest would agree with? >> not combat forces on the ground, no. number one, it is not necessary. number two, it works against us politically. it doesn't delay the responsibility where it must fall, which is on the people in iraq. and syria, to achieve these goals by themselves. a unified iraq, less sectarian than under maliki.

itself ria which purges hopefully on both assad and of isis. >> the facts on the ground about the iraqi army after all these years are not encouraging. and is there any reason to believe that that army's going to perform better? >> the hope is that a new government, which is not sectarian, the way maliki was, will have the support of an army unlike the previous army, which was not willing to support a sectarian government in baghdad. >> senator, do you believe that there's -- that the president is actually being drawn into another conflict or is intentionally being drawn into this conflict by isis and

related groups? it's something that sort of they want for their strategy? >> they might want it, but they won't want it after what they are going to face. it's hard to psycho analyze people whose mentality is on a different planet from my perspective. they may want it. they may want death. a lot of people who say that these folks want death. they want to be killed. they want to get to heaven faster. if that's their wish, we should try to help them achieve it. >> speaking of psycho analysis, could you give us -- could you give us your overall sense of the president's ability -- i don't mean his personal ability, but his ability to pull all this together, to pull together a congress, coalition, public?

he's taken a terrible beating among the chattering classes and the pontificators in the last several months. his pole -- poll ratings may have dropped. they may have gone up somewhat after these beheadings that have galvanized people. he would appear to be at a stage where his foreign policy presence has been weakened. yet he's got this huge challenge. your ong congress and sense, how well is he able to pull this together at this time of his presidency? a he's able to do it. i predict he'll succeed in doing this for a number of reasons. number one, the american people want to respond to this threat. it's clear from the nature of the threat. it's clear from those -- the

beheading events that the american people want a strong response. they'll supports the strong response which we saw yesterday from the president. secondly, the world community is going to galvanize here. that's essential. this president really has had a hiser of kind of strains in thinking, which i think the american people support. number one is, force is a last resort. secondly, they want -- i think they agree with this president in saying that we cannot achieve for others what they are unwilling to achieve for themselves. the people of iraq and syria have got to basically make the decision and fight for their own countries and their own freedoms. we can help. we should help. but the main focus cannot be us invading a country the way it was in the iraq war. so that is another strand in the

president's thinking. the third strand, which i believe the american people support, is that you need an international coalition, unlike iraq, whereas a western country going in without any arab support into a muslim country, what this president has always focused on is coalition. a broad-based coalition, not just a western coalition, which already i think is clear that there's going to be many western countries that will participate in what the president has outlined, but having visible arab support is what his goal is. and that is something which i believe the american people also support. >> do you see a chance of this spreading into saudi arabia, for example? conflict? >> not in a big way in terms of violent acts. there have already been violent acts in many countries. i can't say there won't be violent acts in many countries. but in terms of large-scale

civil war-type environment, i don't see it. >> do you see this very intense focus on isis now, especially reinforced by the president's speech, as somehow providing putin with an opportunity to do some things in ukraine that would perhaps have gotten more attention? >> i think he's kind of moving in the other direction from this morning's reports in terms of emoving some presence there. i don't think so. i think ukraine is very, very much in the minds of this administration, and should be, and i hope that we find a way to not only add additional pressure with sanctions until putin lives up to international norms, but also provide additional military

equipment to the ukranians. their president's going to be here next week. i have not met him, but what i read about him he's an impressive person in terms of him being a patriot, ukrainian patriot, but also someone who's got some kind of business sense which gives him a certain kind of cachet, i think. but also he's been, i think, strong, relative to his comments about putin. >> just two quick questions before we turn to the audience. one, this -- at a time like this where there's so much emphasis son what the world is really like today and a lot of conflict, on the other hand the size of the army and the marine corps are continuing to decline. does that bother you as a leader of the armed services committee? >> i think we have to downsize

somewhat. we are doing it in a cautious way. the roubled by the hit readiness has taken through some of the budget cuts. and there's been an effort with some success to restore the readyness. but we are going to have a somewhat smaller military, but it is always ready. that's the key. that's the decision. where we have also shorted ourselves is on some modernization. so i believe that the whole sequestration decision, looking back at it, was wrong, his purpose was not to be implemented. its purpose making these -- drord nal record cuts, the purpose was never to be implemented. it was to force us to do something rational. it did not suck side in that regard. i think we ought to find a way to repeal sequestration. if you had a half-hour i would tell you how i will do it.

i won't be around here to implement it anyway. >> you're ok with the troop levels? >> with the gradual reduction, i am. >> also i know you have been to afghanistan many, many, many times. it's kind of gotten off the map a little bit. but there is this sense, again critics talk about the -- how do we withdrawal from afghanistan and iraq has perhaps contributed to the ascension of isis, and just give us a quick look at the situation in afghanistan, if you wouldn't mind. >> in afghanistan, the glass is at least halfful. i believe getting fuller. that's not the perception of the american people. i think the media coverage of afghanistan has been so overwhelmingly negative, focusing on the bad events, the sad tragic events, the violent

events, which are there, but not focusing at all on the accomplishments which are really quite extraordinary in terms of the number of kids that are going to school, including girls. 40% of the students now are girls. 40% of the teachers are women. the opening of universities. it's a totally different place in terms of business, people on the streets than it was five or six years ago, much less 10 years ago. i have been there a dozen times. it is visible what the difference is in afghanistan. the afghan people are glad we came. the afghan people, according to their polls, believe we have had some real success in afghanistan. we, being, by the way, a coalition. how is it the american people overwhelmingly think it's a failure? how does that happen? where do the american people get their information from?

they get it from our media. if the media doesn't cover the positive side of the story, the american people understandably are going to say it looks like we failed in afghanistan. i think bob gates maybe put it as well as could be put, he said, this is the first war that he's ever seen that -- afghanistan is the first war he's ever seen that the closer you get to it, the better it looks. >> well, ok. we'll now get close to our audience. please wait for the microphone. speak directly into it. state your name, affiliation, stand up, of course. keep your comments, to questions nd brief ones, please. >> thanks. with the atlantic council, i also write for monitor.com.

i want to go back to the assad question. the syrian moderate opposition so-called has not gotten its act together in the last three years. it has been cyclist at best both politically and militarily. it seems a huge leap of faith now to think that we really can create an alternate in that country. -- alternative in that contry. if one assumes eventually you do have to get rid of assad to get rid of isis, don't we have to work with the iranians in order to engineer that? thanks >> we are not going to work with the iranians to do that. their motivations are different from our motivations. they support us. we don't. is it a conflict situation? yes. is it achievable? i believe it is achievable. is it a huge challenge? of course it is. but there are going to be forces, trained and equipped, to

go after isis. there are going to be continuing trading and eequipping, hopefully much expanded, of courses, that want to keep the heat on assad. it's a large country. the most -- most of the territory which is effectively governed by isis is in a different part of iraq than the part that is essentially governed by assad. and there's also parts that are governed by the moderate. it's come plecks -- complex. it has to be done and i don't know of any better alternative. i don't know of one than the president laid out. if we are sending troops down there, u.s. troops and western troops in there, if any of the people who are critical of this want to do that, there may be some, then they should say so. i heard some of the republican criticism. even before this speech, by the way, this isn't your question, but it gives me an opportunity

to pick a bone with some of the partisanship here. i have never seen, never seen ch virulent part zahnship in 36-partisanship in 36 years particularly in the area of internationalpolicy. i was a critic of president bush's going to war in iraq. i voted against it. i thought it was a mistake. and then the vote was there. and i joined in supporting our troops. it was never continual. it was never just rat-a-tat-tat against bush. if you disagree with him, you're civil. you say why. and move on. i mean on the eve of the president's speech, mitch mcconnell on the floor, i was there when he did it yesterday, attacks the president on every single -- the president's to blame for everything. ? foreign policy. this on the eve of a president's

speech. i see republicans in a highly partisan way attack the president when he's abroad. we would never do that when a president's abroad. the republican partisanship against this president has reached a level i have never seen in 36 years. that's not a response to your question, but thanks for bearing with me. you. nk congressional quarterly. senator, have you given any thought to what plan b ought to be if the ground forces that we are counting on to defeat isis, both in iraq and syria, don't -- if isis beats them? >> i think first of all you got fully flesh out the

coalition. and see how that works and as you do that, you obviously want a plan b. i think that plan a is being fleshed out militarily and i -- the focus has got to be right now on fleshing out plan a. i don't think there's a plan b that has come to anyone's mind because if there were a better plan than this one, i think people would have proposed it. i haven't heard too many alternatives to this plan. i heard a lot of criticism. but i haven't heard of many alternatives. so the answer is, i think that we should and hopefully will both inside the pentagon, inside the state department, inside the white house be working on alternatives as this is under way. but i don't think there's a fully fleshed plan a yet in terms of the coalition being put together. so it's kind of hard.

personally i have not -- do i think it's being thought of? i hope so. plan b. >> mr. chairman, thank you for your comments. particularly in light of the end of your comments to the previous questioner here, i heard you say, and i appreciate and embrace the need for congressional support, but in light of that, current attitude from many in the congress, how do you see that happening? and when do you see that happening? incidentally, it was reassuring to hear from some responsible republicans and democrats, some bipartisan support for that in the press this morning. >> i think it will get -- the president's proposal will get ipartisan support. i think some of the strident voices are hopefully now against the president are going to now cool it for a while.

while we try to see if we can't find a way to support the president. whether it's through a new aumf a. new authority for the use of military force, or whether it's through a resolution of support. whether it's through supporting the funding that he's asked for the training and equipping under title 10, which sounds technical, that gets to the question of the openness of the support which is so critical to the issue of gaining arab open support, which in turn is so critical for long-term success. i believe there will be bipartisan support for -- i don't know the form. because there's many ways you can express support here. the aufm approach has got some complexities to it as we saw in the last aumf which is still in effect. 11 years later. i hope now in terms of timing i hope we can come up with a --

some mechanism of support. whether it's a combination of supporting the title 10 request for training and quip -- equip money, which i hope we are going to do before we leave. whether it's in addition to that , some kind of a resolution of support. which is perhaps less of a legal document, which is what an authorization for the use of military force is, because that is in law. and it could be more, possibly, some kind of a sense of the congress resolution of support. i hope we can do something in that area before we leave as well. as the title 10 financial support for the $500 million. i think both of those are possible. he aumf, take a longer time to figure that out because, again, that is a legal binding document

which has some impli figures -- implications in terms of how long a period. what are the limits -- you have to work out some language which you as a fantastic lawyer know takes some time. >> jim slattery. thank you very much for 36 incredible years in the united states senate. i want to come back to the question that barbara raised. are we certain, absolutely certain that iran is not willing to play a constructive role in dealing with assad and replacing him somehow? and if there is an opportunity for us to have a conversation with iran about replacing assad, as we deal with isis, which they clearly see as an immense threat

to them -- i am puzzled by why today we are just paralyzed, it seems like, in dealing with opportunities where the enemy of our enemy may be our friend, at least for a period of time, and why we are unwilling to seize these moments. i have been involved for 10 years in an abrahamic outreach to iran. so it's totally passion for me and a probono project. but i strongly believe, senator, --we do not deal with a hani rahani and others around him, god help us in dealing with iran over the next five to 10 years. iies want us to be as creative as we possibly can be in dealing with this situation. thank you again for your leadership. >> your question is are we paralyzed? >> and also are we certain that iran is not open to helping us

deal with a post-assad syria? >> i can't say that i'm certain of anything in the middle east, first of all. with those nations -- with iran, iraqi leadership. there are some things i am certain about in the middle east. that's not your question. most of the things you ask about i can't say i am certain about. does that mean -- i don't see how you explore dealing with iran on this area at the same time where i believe wise in trying to explore with iran a way of making sure that they don't get to a nuclear weapon. i think they would -- if you tried both at the same time, i think they would somehow or other get intertwined and the nuclear piece is so important that we succeed that just hanging on to that possibility is difficult enough, frankly, without talking about adding

another complex issue to it. i just don't think it's practical. i don't think it's wise to see if that is a possibility what you described at the same time where negotiating hopefully or discussing a way to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon. because if that doesn't succeed, the ramifications are huge. and shouldn't do anything which could upset it or raise their expectations that something that we are talking to about in syria might mean that maybe we wouldn't be as tough on them in negotiations on the nuclear ide. >> this lady behind you. i'll get you nix. >> thank you very much. francis cook. senator, thank you for your

service. one of my fondest memories in oman, my last assignment, was your visit with senator warner. we had a democrat and republican traveling with republican secretary of state who was working for a democratic president. >> those were the good old days. >> that seems almost like -- you got a room here foreign affairs professionals, can you give us any hope or some idea what can be done? we are making people overseas very nervous. if we have trouble putting together this coalition, they think we are a hapless giant right now because of what's going on in washington. dick cheaney was on the hill. >> don't send me there. >> nim saying that obama supports the muslim brotherhood, when that gets in the egyptian chamber, it's a real problem for us. what can by do? >> what we can do is continue to look for ways to be bipartisan. i come from a state that produced arthur van denberg who

was a giant. he was heroic. he helped truman succeed with nato and all the other things which they were able to do after world war ii. he had to change his position, by the way, to do it. he had been an isolationist before world war ii. i know how essential it is, and it's really -- at the moment if we are going to get arab and muslim countries to openly get involved in this coalition, we have got to be bipartisan here. if they see us squabbling and not agreeing on things we agree on, i mean we -- ok. you can start arguing about whether or not we should have made a greater effort to leave troops in iraq after an iraqi government said they won't sign an agreement with us that our troops would be protected. there's so much history you could argue about. i'm more than willing to argue that and a bunch of other issues. rye now the issue is whether or

not the body politic in this country is going to pull together to go after a real threat. to us and to the world. that's the question. 95% of us think we ought to go after them. when i say us in the congress, i think -- we go after issel, isis, the answercy think 95% of us would say yes. given that, pretty strong feeling on this and strong feeling in the public, 70% of the public now thinks we ought to do it too. for heaven's sake, in this circumstance, can't we then pull together, drop some of that partisan stuff that we heard from mcconnell on the floor yesterday on the eve of the president's speech? i just don't understand why he thought that would somehow or other either help this country or politically help his cause. i don't get it. but to answer your question, i

elieve that isis ought to be cement, glue, that brings together the muslim world, 99% of whom have got to hate isis. just the way isis can be a mechanism to unify the muslim world. and expel that poison, that element of poison that is there and needs to be expelled. i think isis can have that effect, positive effect in the muslim world. a unified -- for heaven's sake, he same point applies to us. >> this gentleman here first. >> thank you. jack goldstone, woodrow wilson senator. senator, you have far more experience in this region than i do. so i defer to your insight. i come back to this question about syria and iran. isis is already using american weapons that were captured from

moderates we tried to equip. >> that's not necessarily true. the weapons that they captured may not have been, according to that story, even american weapons. keep going. >> if we are going to make the moderates in syria strong and effective force, it's going to require some input of american advisors, trainers, supervisors, iran already has boots on the ground in syria supporting assad. the sunni coalition that is vital to the success of this effort may be perfect received by iran as a threat, a sunni coalition aiming to displace a government they are supporting. how can we not be talking to iran if we are building a sunni coalition in the region? if we are putting american efforts into opposing a regime that they support? if they don't feel part of this effort, it may destroy all the efforts we have made to make progress in the nuclear and other areas. >> if iran doesn't feel part of

the effort? they are already there. so they are already making an effort without being part of a coalition. secondly, the government of iraq -- if they want to talk, which they obviously do, they can do it. that's got to be the filter. it can't be direct conversations with iran for practical reasons. i believe. i'm someone who very strongly believes we ought to be negotiating with iran on the nuclear side. against some very strong opposition to even talking to iran on the nuclear side. that to me is the number one goal right now is to avoid that catastrophe of iran getting a nuclear weapon. and i think this could muddy that water and confuse and complicate those negotiations if in another area we are relying on iran, because i think it could help, it could raise their expectations somehow or other, it could affect what they

calculate we might be willing to do on a nuclear side. i don't want them to change their calculus. i want them to know how serious we are. and the people negotiating with them are that they not get a nuclear weapon and think that somehow or other if they are in a coalition over in a different area that that could in any way change our position or weaken our resolve on the nuclear side. >> i'm mitzi of the naval postgraduate scoo. this has been a fabulous discussion. my question is for you. how do we get the media to explain the story the senator has been telling us? and i understand you-all look for wanting to be the first whether you like the report on conflict, but i think you have to start demanding from congress that they talk together. i remember when conde rice was

sort of talking about all this, how can we sell democracy if we can't make it function here? >> well, the media's -- >> do you have a mike on? >> yes, i do. >> it's a strange beast. i i would argue generally and i ally haven't studied the press, broad coverage on afghanistan, recently. but i would argue that if you go back and look at major news organizations, they've probably done a reasonable job. the problem i think with press coverage often is that when the action stops or when american troops are gone, the press coverage goes with it. and i think that happened in

iraq and it happened in afghanistan as well. in iraq there was intense coverage and very heavy coverage and many, many reporters there. when the withdrawals began and u.s. casualties went way down, the coverage actually went way down, at least that's my recollection. one of the weaknesses of the press is perhaps when americans are not directly involved, especially when they're being killed or wounded in combat, there's less of a focus on these spots, about the aftermath. i think that's in part responsible because there are not enough foreign correspondents, because it's very expensive coverage. and so i think you'd find in almost any conflict that there's a very significant drop-off in daily press coverage. >> educating the public. >> well, they have to report, they're not teachers.

they're not there to educate. they're there to report what's going on. t the interest level drops both among i think editors and perhaps the public and they're tied together. when the u.s. involvement drops . yes? >> hi. thank you. i want to add my thanks to -- for your service and your leadership which have been so important. it sounds like you and the president agree that he has the authority to move as he's described. but it sounds like maybe for different reasons. you stated article ii. he i think has said he has authority under the 2001 uafm. while it might sound like an arcane legal question, i think one of the concerns that we've

had is that the open-endedness of the uafm which i think you have also shared concerns about, ultimately while it gives maximum flexibility might undermine support for the war effort. and one of the lessons may be we can learn -- maybe we can learn is building that support requires kind of an understanding and clarity about what our mission really is. for americans to support this for the long-term. can you talk a little bit more about what you think the risks might be for open-ended authorization for the use of military force, either how it's been used under the 2001 ausm or potentially -- aufm or potentially under article ii of the constitution? > we've seen the aufm that was adopted in 2002 and used in 2003, be used far afield from he area of interest. we get into these legal

arguments whether or not the groups we go after are pursuant to that authority, not pursuant technically, but with that authority are somehow or other connected adequately to the groups that we were going after. i mean, it's a legal document. and it's got to be done with some real care. by the way, it was not done in many of the conflicts that we've seen. we didn't have an aumf in kosovo, we didn't have an aumf in bosnia, we didn't have aumf in libya. now, so we've never had an aumf just using air power by the way. and we've not always had an aumf even where there was ground forces. so i believe the president should get bipartisan support. i think his policy is right. you can disagree as to how we get here, how we got here.

but i believe the policy that he has laid out is right. and for us to at this moment kind of disagree on technical wordings of an aumf, which is w, instead of coming up with perhaps a joint or concurrent resolution supporting what he's doing -- it's limits by the way. no ground troops. these are themes of this president which i happen to share. but i think it gets to the point about, are we going to ow try to overcome the complexities of an aumf which will be a divisive debate probably, a complex debate, maybe a partisan debate. it leads to that because it's such a legal document, which is binding law. instead of pulling together in

some way, supporting the title 10 funding and maybe having a resolution, a sense of the congress resolution supporting what 90% of us support on. leave out the parts where we disagree. just put in there the parts we agree, to show the world that we're supporting this policy. not everybody obviously supports the president. but i think 80%, 90% of us, i better stick to the 90% of us or i'll look inconsistent, i believe 90% of us believe this policy is right. some don't think it goes far enough. some might think it goes too far. 90% of us think it's pretty close to being on target. we have to go after these guys. they're a threat to us, to the region. we have to have a coalition to be effective. we have to get the people who live there to carry the brunt of the fight. the people whose country it is have to carry the brunt of the fight. it can't be us. carrying the fit to for --

carrying the fight for them it. has to be us assisting them. i think those themes, those principles have general support in the congress and in the american people. and we ought to focus on where we can agree right now, instead of trying to figure out in the next two weeks exactly what the parameters are of a law, which is permanent law, which is an aumf, which goes on forever unless there's a limit on it. ok, now, we can spend a week debating how long should the next aumf be in effect? that's a really good debate. that's an honest kind of debate we ought to have. before we adopt an aumf. how long should it be in exist snens what limits should be there -- existence? what limits should be in there. i think that's the wrong message for the world right now, is to have that kind of debate, which we may not be able to conclude in two weeks, without the foreign relations committee having hearings on it, trying to put together a legal document. instead, focus on where we can agree, which i think is the

case. the funding 500 million, training and equipment qup, and some -- $500 million, training and equip, and some kind of sense of congress resolution being supportive of a policy which is strong which is what the president laid out last night. >> unfortunately we don't have any more time for debate. [laughter] so at this point, a very good exchange. thank you, everybody. remind you it's all on the record. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> that was senator levin from this morning here on c-span live. outside one of the meeting rooms in the basement of the u.s. capitol, as members -- some republicans and democratic house members are heading to an all-member briefing on the administration's plan on isis. there's ileana ros-lehtinen

walking in now. this briefing getting under way now at this hour. the house has been delayed in gaveling in for legislative work today. also this morning, the house republican conference met to consider the way forward on the continuing resolution. that short-term funding bill to fund the federal government at least through december 11. no word yet on when they will take that up or if some consideration of a strategy on isis will be part of that package as well. again, members continuing to come through and we'll let you know when the house will gavel in and have live coverage of course here on c-span. on this 13th anniversary of the september 11 terrorist attacks we take you next to new york city. this is the reading of the names of the victims of the 9/11 attacks on the world trade centers. this is -- this has been going on since about 8:30 this morning. we'll continue on for another 40 minutes, an hour or so. you can continue to watch our live coverage here on -- over

on c-span3, i should say. a look at the u.s. capitol. the capitol flag is at half-staff. as are all of the flags across the city and across the country on this september 11. again, we're waiting for word on when the house will gavel back in. the senate is in session. you can follow that on c-span2. members of the house are getting a briefing on isis at this hour. on this 13th anniversary this morning at 9:37, they paused at the pentagon for a moment of silence and heard from the president and defense secretary, chuck hagel.

>> ladies and gentlemen, please direct your attention to the flag on the pentagon building. it hangs today from sun rise to sunset in remembrance of the 184 lives lost at the pentagon. ladies and gentlemen, the national anthem of the united states. performed by the united states navy brass quinn tet. -- quintet.

>> ladies and gentlemen, the united states army chief of chaplains, major general donald utherford.

>> let us pray together. lord of hope, we've endured over a decade of conflict. we've raised a generation that has never seen a sunrise without war on our national horizon. to look back on the advance that brought us to the present, it would be easy to despair. let us not forget that we have yet to write the ending of our national story. we take a moment to remember the day that it began. when we witnessed the flames of hatred that were distinguished by acts of valor. we heard the cries of the lost that were met with the prayers of the grateful. we lived every day with those memories of those who dreamed the darkness left unfulfilled. the concluding handshake, the last good-bye and a final kiss. remember those who we lost and we grieve for them, grieve for their families and for

ourselves. and we come to remember them as well as those who continue to fight on our frontiers and those who stand watch within our borders at home. it's time to remember that those who expected weakness have instead seen strength. those who wanted division have nstead seen unity. the seeds of violence and hatred have seen us harvest the fruits of grace and hope. 13 years ago the lights of darkness hopes to ex ting which are wish. they still shine today. in our hope and resolve, let the darkness cannot enter our lives. men. >> ladies and gentlemen, 13 years ago today at 9:37 a.m., the pentagon was attacked. please join us in observing a moment of silence to remember

hose who perished. ladies and gentlemen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general martin dempsey. >> mr. president, mrs. obama, mr. secretary, distinguished guest, thank you for being here this morning. i want to offer a special welcome to the families and friends of those we lost on these grounds 13 years ago. we know these memorial ceremonies and we know you've

been through many, are especially tough. emotion-filled moments for you. takes a great deal of courage to keep coming back here. so thanks for being here. not long ago i received a note from a mom whose daughter is buried just across the way at arlington cemetery. she said the pain of losing someone you love, even years later, never really goes away. at any instance a smell or color or song or date on the calendar like today can bring into stark relief that first raw moment when everything changed. she said, if there's any secret to grieving, it's that there can be room for sorrow and joy. sadness and pride. to exist in the same space at the same time. and she learned that grief is not a lack of faith nor a sign of weakness, it's just the price of love. today's foremost about reflecting and about remembering and about the love for the 14 lives that ended here at the pentagon and those that perished in new york and

in somerset county. today's also about strength and about resolve. we find strength in the children who lost parents on 9/11 and who have blossomed into fine young adults. and are now making their own mark on their world. we find resolve in the men and women that 9/11 roused to step forward to defend our country. a generation that has served in iraq and in afghanistan. and today offers us, all of us, the opportunity to rededicate our own lives to the causes of our great nation. and its great future. for as one of our nation's leaders said, we could easily allow our time and energy to be consumed by the crisis of the moment. of the day. but we must also lay the groundwork to help define our future. it's now my privilege to introduce the man who spoke those words and who strives to live them every day, our nation's secretary of defense, chuck hagel.

[applause] >> general dempsey, thank you. mr. president, mrs. obama, distinguished guests, family members, survivors. we will never forget what happened on? this day at this hour in this place. an act of terror that shook the world. and took the lives of 184 americans. today we remember those we lost on that day, this day. as we are surrounded by those who love them. we celebrate our nation's strength and resilience, surrounded by those who embody it. and we draw inspiration from the ways in which survivors and victims' families continue to honor their legacy. but thoughts also turn to others whose lives were forever changed that day. the first responders and survivors whose heroism and

resilience we celebrate. the pentagon personnel who came to work the next day with a greater sense of determination than ever before. and the men and women in uniform who have stepped forward to defebbed our country over -- defend our country over 13 long years of war, bearing incredible sacrifices along with their families. we live at a time of many complicated challenges. but america has always faced challenges. and we have always responded as a nation united in purpose, woven together in a fabric of strong character and resounding commitment to each other and to our country. to lead our nation at such a defining time requires not only the courage and the vision to lead, but the humility that recognizes this unique privilege. these traits are embodied in our commander in chief. ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. [applause]

>> good morning. scripture tells us we count as blessed those who have persevered. secretary hagel, general dempsey, members of our armed forces, and most of all, the survivors of that september day and the families of those we lost, michelle and i are humbled to be with you once again. it has now been 13 years, 13 years since the peace on the american morning was broken. 13 years since nearly 3,000 beautiful lives were taken from us. including 125 men and women serving here at the pentagon. 13 years of moments they would have shared with us, 13 years of memories they would have

made. here once more we pray for the souls of those we remember, for you, their families, who love them forever, and for our nation that has been inspired by this event, determination to carry on, the resolve to live lives worthy of their memories. as americans, we draw strength from you. your love is the ultimate rebuke to the hatred of thoses who attacked us that bright blue morning. they sought to do more than bring down buildings or murder our people. they sought to break our spirit and to prove to the world that their power to destroy was greater than our power to persevere and to build. but you and america proved them wrong.

america endures in the strength of your families who through your anguish kept living. you've kept alive a love that no act of terror can ever extinguish. you, sons and daughters, are growing into extraordinary young men and women they knew you could be. by your shining example your families have turned this day into something that those who attacked us could never abide and that is a tribute of hope over fear and love over hate. america endures in the tenacity of our survivors. after grievous wounds you've learned to walk again. and stand again. after terrible burns, you've smiled once more. for you, for our nation, these have been difficult years, but by your presence here today and the lives of service that you

have led, you embody the truth that no matter what comes our way, america will always come out stronger. america endures in the dedication of those who keep us safe. the firefighter, the officer, the e.m.t. who carries the memory of a fallen partner as they report to work each and every day prepared to make the same sacrifice for us all. because of these men and women, americans now work in a gleaming freedom tower. we visit our great cities, we fill our stadiums and cheer for our teams. we carry on because as americans we do not give in to fear. ever. america endures in the courage of the men and women who serve under our flag. over more than a decade of war

this 9/11 generation has answered our country's call and three months from now our combat mission in afghanistan will come to an end. today we honor all who have made the ultimate sacrifice these 13 years, more than 6,800 american patriots. and we give thanks to those who serve in harm's way to keep our country safe and meet the threats of our time. america endures in that perennial optimism that defines us as a people. beginning tomorrow, there will who enagers, young adults, were born after 9/11. it's remarkable. and while theses young americans did not know the horrors of that day, their lives have been shaped by all the days since.

the time that has brought us pain but also taught us endurance and strength, a time of rebuilding, of resilience and of renewal. what gives us hope, what gives me hope, is that it is these young americans who will shape all the days to come. 13 years after a small and hateful minds conspired to break us, america stands tall and america stands proud. and guided by the values that sustain us we will only grow stronger. generations from now americans will still fill our parks, our stadiums, our cities, generations from now americans will still build towers that reach toward the heavens, still serve in embassies that stand for freedom around the world, still wear the uniform and give meaning to those words written

two centuries ago. land of the free, home of the brave. generations from now, no matter the trial, no matter the challenge, america will always be america. we count as blessed those who have persevered. may god bless your families who continue to inspire us all, may god bless our armed forces and all who serve to keep us safe and may god continue to bless the united states of america. [applause]

♪

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> on this 13th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks, with he will show you all of today's ceremonies. the reading of the names in new york city is still under way. all that we'll rehair tonight beginning at 8:00 p.m. herein here on c-span. we're waiting to hear from members of the house. there's an all-members briefing under way. a live look with reporters gathered outside the meeting room where members of the house, republican and democratic, are hearing about the administration's plan announced last night by president obama on isis. some reporting on that from "the washington post." they write that house republican leaders moved quickly today to broadly support president obama's plan for an open-ended campaign to combat the islamic state. but the mechanics of how they will do so remain open for

debate. with the g.o.p. mulling exactly how to handle the president's request to explicitly authorize the training and arming of foreigners to combat the islamic militants. they write also, perhaps most significantly at a breakfast gathering of house republicans at the capitol, speaker boehner said he supports president obama's request to arm rebels in the war-torn region, according to several attendees. that meeting has wrapped up. this meeting with all of the members has really just gotten under way. speaker pelosi finished up her briefing and walked into that meeting about 15 minutes ago or so. we don't know when the house will gavel back in. we do know that speaker boehner has announced his briefing will be coming up in about a half an hour. we'll have live coverage of that. it's scheduled now for 12:15 eastern. we'll show that to you live here on c-span. in the meantime, we'll show you leader pelosi's briefing which wrapped up a short while ago on capitol hill.

go good morning, such a busy time. my apologies for running behind. as we all know, sadly, this rning we observed the sane rersry of the 9/11. yesterday proudly congress presented a congressional gold medal honoring the families, honoring the first responders, honoring those on the airplane. i mentioned then something i mention almost every year at this time. that president lincoln cagsed against the silent artillery of time wearing away our memories.

but we every year make sure the families know that we hope the time will dull their pain. t it will never, never dim the memory of the deeds, the courageous actions of those who tried to save others and those that we lost at that time. it seems sad that as we observe 9/11 today we are talking about another threat to our homeland and that is isis. last night the president was strong, formidable and clear in presenting his strategy to deal with isis. a large part of it diplomacy and leadership in terms of establishing a government, helping to establish a government in iraq that would be one of reconciliation of the

shi'a, sunni and the kurds. the coordination of our nato allies to assist in defeating isis. that also of the superpowers in the region, giving their support to that effort. efforts to disrupt the finances of isis as well as the flow of foreign fighters into the region. on the military side our house democratic caucus supports the president and the actions he has taken. the air strikes, the deployment of a few hundred more troops to rotect our interest there. the people ask, do we want to vote? right now we believe, as the president has stated, that he has the authority he needs to take the actions he described last night.

in his comprehensive strategy to defeat isis. as you know, recently we passed the mcgovern amendment that talked about a marker as to if we went beyond a certain point there may be a need for a vote. we do not believe we have eached that point. since we met last, the president made an announcement about deferring any action on immigration until later this year. i am confident meeting with our ucuses in the house, our -- all , the airborne of whom have a big interest in the immigration issue. we feel confident that there's a great deal the president can do that is at his administrative discretion and that we're confident that that will happen and we want people

who are concerned about this to be hopeful that by thanksgiving and christmas there will be more security in their lives because of some discretion that the president will execute. all of this is interesting and important and at the center of our attention. what is at the center of the attention of the american people is something we share with them as well and that is the concern about the economy. despite incredible progress under the president's administration, reducing the deficit by more than half, by having unemployment rate come from over 10% to 6.1% since he took office, having, what, 50 some months of sustained growth , of private sector job creation, 50-some months in a w, the stock market just

soaring. so many indicators of economic success. but nonetheless still great uncertainty among the american people. and that's why we've put forth our middle class jump-start, that in the first 100 days of the new congress we would pass legislation that would create good-paying jobs here in the united states, by growing infrastructure, build america bonds to grow the -- build the infrastructure of our country, paid for by closing loopholes, ax loopholes that are given to businesses to send jobs overseas, by reducing the cost of education, by allowing students to renegotiate their loans at a lower rate, and, third, our initiative about women when women succeed. america succeeds. that's not just the title of our economic agenda for equal pay, equal work, etc. it's a statement of fact. and so we really are

enthusiastic about how we move forward and i'm very proud of my members over the break. how they kept the drum beat going on this. they've done it electronically, they've done it traditionally, the communication, town halls, seminars, every kind of press event, but also electronically. and i think when one of our women's agenda issues, we have 54 million communications on the subject. not just what we put out but how it was transmitted beyond there. i'm proud of our caucus and the work they're doing for the middle class, which is the backbone of our democracy. and i'm proud of the president, i'm proud of his deliberate approach to this, the success of his leadership to make a big difference in iraq in terms of having a new government, i pay tribute to joe biden for his

work on that as well. for the work with our nato allies, working together on this issue and superpowers in the region to do their part. with that i'd be pleased to take any questions you may have. >> the lawyer in the bush administration who gave president bush some powers through a legal memo back then to combat terrorism as commander in chief without congressional approval said obama has adopted the same view of war powers as the bush administration. do you share that view? >> well, i do believe that when passed the authorization in 2001 following afghanistan, it was too narrow, the war powers act. when our country is -- when someone strikes our country, as was on 9/11, it enables -- it triggers any and all powers of the commander in chief.

what we did with that resolution was to narrow it to the purposes -- i don't have it right here, but if you read it, you'll see that it's a narrower interpretation. what the bush administration, how they interpreted and for how long is another issue. but he's not relevant right now. what we're talking about right now is isis is a threat. we have to work together to destroy them and that is the subject at hand. i didn't approve of anything he said or did when he was in office, much less care about his opinion right now. >> do you not think that president obama is following his opinion right now? >> i think the president is following the law. >> give the threat the president outlined that isis posed and you mentioning it, doesn't congress have a bigger role beyond just voting on the narrow authorization for final -- [inaudible] isn't it shirking its responsibility by just focusing on that issue alone? >> title 10 is really important

part of this and among the initiatives that the president talked about last night. he idea of our training syrian moderates who fight isis in syria is an important part of it and it's a very timely the. and that's why we're talking about that now. i would hope that it would be in this -- the c.r. because that's the train leaving the station. and the president needs this to happen now. others -- there's talk of people doing it separately but that takes longer than just putting it on, again, the c.r. that's leaving the station. but that is by no means to say that that is the limitation on our involvement myth. in fact, in the c.r. there's a presidential request for $2 billion for meeting needs in eastern europe, ukraine, iraq and other concerns in the middle east. so there's even another

provision in the bill to that end. but in terms of this authorization, this is a big debate, we're having a briefing right now, as i leave here i'll go to another briefing on the subject. and again, yes, i do believe congress has a role. while i i had -- what i did say though is what the president is doing now i think he has a legal authority to do. i know he does. i studied this issue for a very long time. >> you've been in the intelligence here for a very long time. how far do your concerns go as we take new steps to confront isis about the aftermath, potential aftermath of the saudis wering -- arming their assets, their sunni assets in iraq? the iran ans -- iranians arming the shy eat militias anew, us arming the syrians and eventually there will be a lot more armed people in iraq, not

only weapons, battle-hardened people, what's your vision of the aftermath after we do this? >> well, i started my comments in praise of the president about the establishment of a different government in iraq. which i think if that had not happened, the situation that you're describing i believe would be exacerbated although your concerns go beyond iraq. i understand. but so to have a government that understands its responsibilities, that it's not just about who the shi'a are in charge so the shi'a rule and we don't pay any attention to the needs of the sunnis or the kurds, that provides further territory for some, especially sunni, to be responsive to isis when they were originally coming through. when you're arming people you're always concerned and

mutating sis is a thing. what it becomes and what emerges out of all of this? so that's why it has to be comprehensive. the europeans are very interested because they have thousands, we may have up to 100 foreign fighters from the u.s. who have gone there, the europeans have thousands. more than 10,000 maybe. who have passports from the countries who are citizens of their country, who have joined the fighting force. so the concern goes beyond our concern about our homeland, that's our primary responsibility. but this is a very big deal and we have to deal with it in a way that is not just -- the use of violence. people think one more act of vie excellence is going to end it but it's just an endless wheel. we have to be smart about it as

to how we go forward. so that we are having not just military initiatives but political initiatives and diplomatic initiatives so that we reduce the fertile territory for more recruitment of terrorists. >> but what level confidence has been transmitted to you from the administration that iraqi coalition 2.0 or whatever we're on now is actually going to work this time? >> we have to support it and one other part that i didn't mention was continuing the humanitarian assistance in some of those regions. as you see, the -- what the u.s. did to help those people on the mountain was life saving t it was also helpful in having people understand that we're there to help people. we're not there to help the government. but to have a government that is there for all of the people is essential for us to be

putting in resources. because your question is exactly the right one. the government has to work or otherwise the investments that we're making otherwise diplomatically, politically, intelligence-wise, militarily falls into a day otic situation. so we can't have that -- a day otic situation. o we -- a chatoic situation. i think the president's deliberateness, how he has dealt with this, step by step, to put us in a place now where we can go to the next step because the first initials, not everything has been done as far as the government is concerned. ut a great deal has been done. >> how do you feel about setting the end dates for the re-authorization date for the

ex pim bank? separate from the -- ex-im bank? then the senate is trying to set that end date for the c.r. in the next year. how do you feel about those and how those affect the democratic support force? >> well, c.r.'s are never something to be very, very proud of because it means that we haven't been able to get all of our work done in a timely fashion. sometimes they are a convenience and sometimes they are an excuse not to -- let's just do a c.r. i say that as one who's had to use c.r.'s myself. but the c.r. end date for this year is very appropriate. that's what the c.r. is. just to get us passed the -- past the october 1 beginning of a new fiscal year. so the end date in december is an appropriate one so that we will pass something, an omnibus, a better bill, a more responsible way to advance our

appropriations for the next year. i don't think we should delay it any longer. what are the choices? i mean, we know what the decisions are that need to be made. if they don't think they can be made within the next 10 days, then they should be made within the next couple of months. in terms of the expiration date for the ex-im bank, i'm totally opposed to that. i think that the ex-im bank is a formidable instrument for competitiveness for the u.s. businesses, large and small. . i think it affects every region of the country in terms of job stability. i think it is already having an impact on contracts because there's uncertainty about the longevity of the bank and even its existence. and if you put the next date you're effectively putting a marker as to the demise of the

ex-im bank. so let's just go forward. i like the heck bill that has a long-term authorization for the ex-im bank, and i would hope that those forces outside the congress, communities that are affected, businesses that are affected and the rest, this is about job creation, it's about keeping america number one. it's about facilitating our this is play with really damaging because if you're dealing with a bank and talking about a few months and a few months and a few months, you're not talking about the stability and the certainty that businesses need. and some of these are very big contracts. so i just -- again, as far as the forces outside the congress, i don't know why they're not more active with their republican friends to say

this is not something to mess with. yes, sir. leader, there really has -- -- [inaudible] following the 9/11, foreign policy, etc. as we wind down the wars in iraq and afghanistan, some of your caucus members, though, worry that as this play against isis gets expanded there will be an awful lot of dollars from social programs that they may favor? >> some necessary its, honor the responsibilities to meet the needs of the american people. i do not think -- the evidence that i see before me, i judge what we're talking about is by no means of the scale of where we have been before. this is focused, targeted, discreet and it's not engaging in 100,000 -- hundreds of

thousands of troops being deployed. in fact, it's exactly the opposite of that. but certainly every time we talk about any initiative for the use of force or initiation of hostilities, it's a question of resources and we have so many unmet needs in our own country. it's really was more -- of concern to members when we were building roads and schools and hospitals and all the rest in iraq and afghanistan when we had unmet needs in our own country. but actually that part of diplomacy is important to security as well. to answer your question, yes, there is carney and it's been brought up at our meetings. but we have a first responsibility to protect and defend. that is the oath we take. i think i only have time for one more question. yes. >> has there been concerns raised in the democratic caucus

in moving for this authorization and ending up in the situation potentially in the future where you have sort of a political pushback, much like you did with the authorization for iraq? >> well, we didn't vote for the authorization for iraq. house democrats overwhelmingly voted against the iraq initiative in 2002, october. initialuation was 2003 hostilities. right now we're watching, observing and judging. the president -- we've been briefed. the president made his speech last night which was very strong and convincing. our members are proud and support the president. we're being briefed right now once again. and so the question is, what are the challenges, what are our resources, how do we engage

other countries, the country we're dealing with in terms of having a new government and what is -- you know, what is our definition of success? whether we about take a vote or not we are not at that point because we believe the president has the authority. it's deliberative. it's open to new information. that's what our caucus is about. and i'm very proud of the thoughtful way that they have approached it. i will back to where i began on this subject and that is a matter of a couple months ago we did vote for the mcgovern amendment on the floor. i think i have it right here what it says. the president shall not deploy or maintain united states armed forces in a sustained combat role in iraq without specific statutory authorization for such use enacted after the date -- after the date of enactment

of this concurrent resolution. hopefully we won't have to go beyond what the president said and have that vote. we stand ready to have that discussion. thank you, all, very much. i have to go back to work. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> democratic pelosi from within the hour. she headed to an all-members only briefing on isis and the president's plan laid out. that briefing is still under way, we understand. that's trent franks, on the armed services committee, just speaking to reporters. >> [inaudible] >> i think that this is my perspective that there is support to do that. i think while many of us an eve that this is insufficient response to at least we should make the response that he's asked for. while we may think there should

be more, at least we should do what he has asked for. the greatest difficulty, of course, that as we go forward we'll probably see tremendous gains in the air campaign. we are second to none in the world on that, but the president has made it difficult for us to do anything on the ground effectively and i think there's going to be a lot of ambiguity, a lot of awkwardness and it will be a protracted effort as it's presently presented. >> do you support that, do you see your colleagues supporting that strategy as well? >> i think that there are parts of the president's speech that we support, but those represent, as you know, a radically departure from his previous positions and i hope that they're sincere. i hope when we go forward recognize the danger that isis

represents to the united states and to the human family. all right. hank you, all. >> that's congressman trent franks of arizona, the first member that we've seen come to the microphones after this meeting, a all-members meeting on isis, the islamic militant group in iraq and syria. the president, of course, spoke about that last night. and the president's plan, the administration's plan and you can see that at c-span.org. house republicans met earlier this morning, both to discuss that and also to discuss the continuing resolution, the short-term funding bill that was to fund the federal government through december 11. by the way, we're waiting, once this wraps up, to take you to a briefing with speaker boehner. we understand that will happen at 12:15 eastern. any comments here outside the meeting room, we'll get those

for you too. here's where kind of things stand. this is an update from "the hill." the headline, the house punts on syria. they write that house republicans -- and let's stay here for -- to hear more from the congressman from california. >> [inaudible] will congress still approve the authority that the president asked for last night regarding arming the syrian rebels? >> it's still not clear. the continuing resolution was put down yesterday. this week we're going try to do it next week. in large part they want to see if it was possible, if there was support. i support it. i believe that speaker boehner said he supported it. it has a strong possibility. it's not at all clear yet whether or not it has the votes. >> do you think this briefing changed the minds of members that might have been cautious or skeptical of this plan? >> well, you have to ask them specifically. i think it was helpful. it gave us a broad outline what we're facing, how the mission

is integrated into that plan. i think this would have been very helpful and would have helped members who had questions get to the place where they were more supportive of the idea. >> many republicans this morning said they didn't -- they weren't convinced that the president had a broader plan to defeat isis, and they're talking about holding a vote potentially in november on a broader authorization that would spell out a sustained campaign. do you think that's needed? >> i think the president -- i think the president has a very clear plan and he laid it out. two questions contained in there. one, does he need authorization to do what he plans on doing? two, should he do even more? i think this is a delicate thing. it has to be driven by local populations. it has to be driven by iraqis. it has to be driven by syrians. we have to find sunni allies to push back against isis. that's the purpose of the

trained. we are a piece of helping the people in the region to determine their own fate. if we come in over the top, trying to force them in one direction or another, that will simply drive more people into the arms of isis as isis says, look, we're just holding off the western invaders. this has to be locally driven. it's not a matter of being overly cautious or timid or not committing u.s. forces. it's a matter of what's going to work to actually defeat isis. as far as the second question on the authorities, the president feels he has all the authority that he needs. whether if you agree with that or not, do i think congress should do an authorization for the use of military force on this. this is happening. if the legislative branch wants to speak it should speak. now, i do find it odd that some members of congress are complaining that the president is not asking for it. he doesn't run the legislative branch. the republican majority in particular has made that quite clear on a number of occasions.

we're the legislative branch. if you're standing there saying the president ought to ask, well, do it, put together an aumf and exercise legislative authority. we ought to do that. the president thinks he has the authority he needs to exercise the options he discussed last night in a variety of places. i still think congress should act. >> congressman, any sense of what this is going to cost, and will the armed services committee have to carve out part of overseas contingency operation? >> i don't know what it's going to cost and i don't know where it would come from other than the $500 million for the training and equipment they requested. i have to run. thank you. >> the ranking democrat on the armed services committee, adam smith of washington, speaking to reporters as the -- it appears -- the meeting with all members of the house is wrapping up in the capitol basement, in the meeting room

there. this is c-span, live coverage as we wait to hear from house speaker john boehner. his briefing scheduled to start shortly. we will have that live if we are able. can't tell you when the house is gaveling in. have not heard that yet. but we do expect them to come in and work this afternoon on a bill dealing with modifying the health care law of 2010, several other votes expected today, but they won't be taking up today the continuing resolution, the short-term funding bill for the federal government through december 11, which was to have been debated today but clearly they have not made a plan forward for that. writing about today's republican meeting, because that happened this morning about 9:00 eastern, "the hill" writes house republicans emerged from a closed door meeting today split over whether to give president obama authority to train, to arm and train syrian rebels fighting against islamic terrorists. they write, both intelligence chairmans, mike rogers, and foreign affairs chairman, ed royce, made the case of arming

fighters but others in the conference had grave reservations of who exactly these fighters are and whether arms could get into enemy hands. "the hill" reports given the division lawmakers said republican leaders won't make a decision only the syrian language until at least early next week. and since the administration has asked that the language be included in a stopgap funding bill meant to keep the government operating this fall, that bill is now in limbo too. that's the reporting of "the hill" from this morning on the republican meeting. also want to tell you about a story from kansas. this is from "business insider." they write, the kansas city authorities are investigating after a molotov cocktail, or molotov cocktails were allegedly thrown into the district office of representative emanuel cleaver, democrat from missouri. "business insider" writes the news outlook reported the makeshift bomb shattered one of the district office's glass windows earlier or did -- did not explode or cause injuries.

more details on that as we are able. again, live here on c-span waiting to hear from house speaker john boehner following the meeting this morning.

>> again, live here on c-span. we have been hearing from some members following an all-member briefing this morning on the administration's plan to deal with the islamic militant group, isis. we expect to hear from more members. in particular, we hope to hear from john boehner. his briefing should be coming up shortly. in the meantime we're going to take you to some of the events this morning in new york city with the reading of the names of the victims of the attacks on the world trade center.

>> we will show you all of this event today from new york city and all of the memorial ceremonies, both from the pentagon and the white house this evening at 8:00. we take you live to speaker boehner for his briefing. >> determined enemy. in order to be successful we will have a comprehensive strategy designed to destroy and to defeat it. i think last night the president made a compelling case for action, but as i said in my statement last night, there were still questions and concerns that remain. for example, i support the president's plan to train and equip iraqi security forces in the syrian opposition, but i remain concerned that those measures could take years to fully implement at a time when isil's momentum and territorial gains must be halted and reversed immediately. we stand ready to work with the

president to put in place a plan that would destroy and defeat isil. members are getting briefed as we speak on a range of options that the president is contemplating. those briefings and consultations will continue. we delayed action on the continuing resolution yesterday to consider the president's request for authorization to train and equip the syrian rebels that are fighting isil. we're doing our due diligence here and discussing all of this with our members and frankly it's the right thing to do. yesterday we came together to honor the fallen heroes of 9/11 with a congressional gold medal. the highest honor we can bestow. today we pay our respects to those -- their families. we never forgot them. we'll never forget our responsibility to confront evil and to defeat it. >> mr. speaker, you said

multiple times from that podium that the president goes alone too much, he doesn't respect the constitutional power of congress. so given that, why not be much more active and have a vote to give the president authority, to have a congressional marker on this if this is such an incredible threat? >> i do believe it would be in the nation's interest. i believe it's in the institution of the congress' interest to speak on this question. now, normally in such a case -- i've been through this a few times in the 24 years i've been here -- the president of the united states would request that support and would supply the wording of a resolution to authorize this force. and at this point in time we have not gotten that request. we have not seen that language. >> but if the congress is such an equal partner, as it is, why not write a resolution on your

own? >> typically in my time here in congress, that's not how this has happened. the president would make that request, and the president would supply the language for the resolution. >> do you believe support is there? do you believe a resolution will pass? >> i think we're at the beginning stages of building the kind of support that's necessary from the nation to carry out this plan and to carry it out successfully. we are at the beginning stages. >> will this be done this work period that the president requested? >> you're talking about two different things. the president's request was for title 10 authorization to train and equip syrian rebels. that's the only request that has come from the white house at this point. as i said, i support the president's request. >> mr. speaker, in your remarks last night, you alluded to this a moment ago, you said that a speech is not a strategy. that implies that maybe you don't think he has fully laid out a strategy and that you

think he is all in, is that the case? >> well, the briefings are continuing with the members. but i can tell you in our conversations this morning, a lot of our members don't feel like the campaign that was outlined last night will accomplish the mission that the president says and that is to destroy isil. and so frankly a lot of our members think a lot more needs to be done than what was laid out last night. but, again, the members -- they have been in a briefing since 11:00 a.m. this morning with the president's top people to outline more of the specifics of what this plan consists of. >> what was that skepticism that was reflected in your statement last night? >> pardon me? i'm not suring we're doing all we can do to defeat this terrorist threat. if our goal is to eliminate isil, there's a lot of doubt

whether the plan was outlined by the president last night is enough to accomplish that mission. >> mr. speaker, there seems to be a sense here on capitol hill this is being pushed through, that there's just about a week left before people go back to their mid term campaign, is this being rushed through too quickly? do you think there needs to be more debate? do you think this is something the congress will regret? >> the president on tuesday while at the white house made this request, the specific request to have the ability to train syrian rebels. i wanted to make sure that members have ample time to have the conversation about, started today and it will continue and we'll make a decision sometime next week on how we will proceed. >> chairman mckeon just told a group of reporters that the decision has been made for two votes, a vote on the authorization and then a vote

on the c.r., is that true? >> that's not true. >> the chairman has it wrong? >> look me in the eye. there is no decision to be made on how we're going to proceed. >> could you tell us what your preference is? do you believe it would be best to have a separate vote on the title 10 authorization apart from the c.r. or are you ok embedding title 10 authorization within a much larger piece? >> no decision has been made. while we had a conversation with members today, these are serious discussions. this is a very serious issue and ought to be handled that way. and that's why these conversations are going to continue over the weekend so that -- so that the congress has ample time to consider the president's decision and act on it. >> mr. speaker, do you think based on all the information that's been given that the syrian fighters will be a trustworthy and competent

approach? many americans are concerned about u.s. arms going to a force we don't know everything about. do you think they can be effective? >> based on all the information that i've looked at, the free syrian army has by and large been very well vetted by our intelligence officials. today they are in a fight against assad. they're in a fight against isil, and they are in a fight against another al qaeda affiliate in eastern syria. and they're about to get run over. an f-16 is not a strategy. and air strikes alone will not accomplish what we're trying to accomplish. and the president's made clear that he doesn't want u.s. boots on the ground. well, somebody's boots has to be on the ground. i believe what the president has asked for, as the commander

in chief, has the authority to train these syrian rebels. frankly, we ought to give the president what he's asking for. >> so if i'm hearing you correctly, it sounds like there will be at a minimum be a vote to give the authority -- narrow authority he's requesting. and the question of whether you go beyond that, the timing and if so the timing of that action . >> that would be correct. >> mr. speaker -- >> [inaudible] with the understanding that maybe you split that into that but at some point you have to decide to move the c.r. one way or another next week to make sure it would get done? >> i would hope so. there's no reason for it to last that much longer. >> do you think the president is wrong, then, to take u.s. combat troops on the ground in syria off the table right now? >> listen, we only have one

commander in chief. he laid out his plan. i would never tell the enemy what i was willing to do or unwilling to do. but he is the commander in chief. he made that decision. at this point in time, it's important na we give the president what he's asking for. and we've got to keep our eye on the ball. the issue here is about defeating a terrorist threat that is real and imminent. >> house speaker john boehner after the briefing on isis, republicans and democrats. the president -- speaker boehner -- rather -- saying no decision has been made whether to attach that syrian authorization to the funding bill, the short-term c.r. we've been -- we have our

cameras outside of the meeting room where they've been meeting this morning. democrats and republicans and a couple of members have come to the microphones to speak with reporters. so the issue is the continuing resolution that the house rules committee unveiled the other day which the house was to debate today but won't get around to -- by the way, the house will gavel in momentarily, we expect within the next five minutes or so -- and whether or not any language will be attached to that c.r. dealing with the president's request on isis. again, the speaker in his comments reiterating the white house request was to train and equip syrian rebels. john boehner saying a couple of other things saying air strikes alone weren't enough and that, quote, somebody's boots have to be on the ground. that's from the speaker's briefing this morning. "the washington post" writing this morning about the republican meeting. they had their conference meeting this morning at 9:00 eastern, and after that robert costa and ed o'keefe of "the washington post" wrote this.

they said that house republican leaders moved quickly today to broadly support president obama's plan for an open-ended campaign to combat the islamic state, but the mechanics of how they will do so remain open for debate with the g.o.p. mulling exactly how to handle the president's request to explicitly authorize the training and arming of foreigners to combat the islamic militants. they write, still the enthusiasm expressed by most house republicans to involve u.s. forces and coalition strikes underscores the growing bipartisan consensus to back the president's efforts regardless of how the authorization is eventually packaged by the house. again, from "the washington post," robert costa and ed o'keefe writing, perhaps at a breakfast gathering of house republicans, speaker boehner said he supports the president's request to arm rebels in the war-torn region, according to several attendees. again, the speaker moments ago telling that to reporters as well. so as things stand, the house gaveling in shortly to take up

legislative work. want to let you know, too, over in the senate at this hour, john mccain, senator from arizona, has just come to the senate floor. he'll be speak being his reaction to the president's speech and you can follow that on our companion network, c-span2. it is the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. we've shown you the memorial ceremonies this morning from the white house, the moment of silence at 8:46 a.m., the reading of the names of the -- of those killed in the terrorist attacks in new york city beginning also early this morning and the pentagon ceremony that happened at 9:37 a.m. eastern, the hour which flight 77 crashed into the pentagon on september 11, 2001. we'll show you all of these ceremonies, by the way, this evening on c-span beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern. you're watching live coverage as we wait to hear from -- possibly from more members. by the way, once the house gavels back in, we'll have our

cameras here in case any further comments come up. did hear from dutch ruppersberger who is the ranking democrat on the intelligence committee in the house and hope to be able to show that to you a bit later in our program schedule. just some more about reaction to the president's speech on the house side, "the hill" writes that house republicans emerged from a closed door meeting today split over whether to give the president the authority to arm and train syrian rebels fighting against islamic terrorists. they write that both intelligence chairman mike rogers and foreign affairs chairman ed royce made forceful cases for aiding the fighters but others in the conference had grave reservations about who exactly these fighters are and whether arms could get into enemy hands. certainly more debate ahead. we'll probably hear something during speeches on the house floor coming up shortly and certainly some more consideration by house and senate committees on the way forward in dealing with the islamic militant group.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the delerk received the following message -- the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on september 11, 2014, at 10:21 a.m. that the senate passed senate 2154, senate 2323, that the senate agreed to, without amendment, house joint resolution 120, that the snats passed, with amendments, h.r. 1233, signed, sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further consideration of h.r. 3522 will now resume. the clerk will report the title. the clerk: a bill to authorize

health insurance issuers to continue to offer for sale current group health insurance coverage and satisfaction of the minimum essential health insurance coverage requirement and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? >> i am in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman qualifies. the clerk: ms. brownly of california moves to recommit the bill, h.r. 3522, to the committee on energy and commerce, with instructions to report the same back to the house for thewith with the following amendment. >> mr. speaker, i reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the point of order is reserved. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the. the clerk: add at the end of the bill the following new section. section 3, prohibiting discrimination against women in health care coverage. nothing in this act shall result in discrimination based on gender, including higher premiums for women or loss of

contraception or pregnancy care. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from california is recognized for five minutes in support of her motion. ms. brownley: mr. speaker, this is the final amendment to h.r. 3522 which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted the bill will immediately proceed to final pass and as amended. my amendment would ensure that nothing in the underlying act would result in health care discrimination against women. it would prevent insurance companies from charging small businesses that employ women higher premiums and it would stop insurance companies from selling group plans that deny women contraception or critical maternity care coverage. i hope that we can all agree that women should never have to pay more for their health care than men would pay simply because of their gender.

being a woman is not and must never be treated as a pre-existing condition. health care reform has created many new and needed consumer protections which are helping women live healthier lives and build stronger families. health care costs are the number one cause of bankruptcy in the united states. allowing insurance companies to charge women more than men would hurt working women struggling to make ends meet. it would hurt families raising children who are trying to give them the healthy start they deserve. before this unfair practice was banned, the national women's law center reported that gender discrimination and premium prices alone cost women approximately $1 billion per year more than men. that's $1 billion that could have prevented many women and their children from living in

poverty or being homeless. that's $1 billion that women and their families could have spent on rent. that's $1 billion that women and their families could have spent on child care. that's $1 billion that women and their families could have used to pay for college. that's $1 billion that women and their families could have used to start a business. and that's $1 billion that could have been better used to strengthen the american economy. in a nation where women earn only 77 cents for every $1 that men earn, charging women more for health care compounds the financial strain on women and their families. stopping gender-based premium discrimination is just one example of health care reform that works and it is a new consumer protection that women and their families cannot afford to lose. my amendment will ensure that insurers continue to cover critical maternity care and

contraception coverage. until recently, many states did not require all health care plans to cover maternity care. today the law requires every new insurance policy to cover maternity care. we must ensure that women continue to have access to this critical coverage and access to contraception coverage that gives many women the economic and dependence to succeed because when women succeed, america succeeds. contraception coverage ensures women can prevent unplanned pregnancies and choose the best time to start a family. when surveyed by the institute, 63% of women said that access to contraception had enabled them to take better care of themselves and their families. over half said they were better able to support themselves

financially or complete their education. mr. speaker, the majority of americans support these policies. a kyser health poll found that americans support birth control verage by a 2-1 margin and 86% of americans support coverage of maternity care. a vote for my amendment is a vote to protect women from unfair discrimination. it is a vote promising our mothers, our sisters and our daughters that they will be treated fairly and equally. these are the values of my constituents in ventura county and they are the values of the american people. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the vote on -- on the motion to recommit. vote yes for equality for women and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition?

>> mr. speaker, i withdraw my point of order and claim the time in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the reservation is withdrawn. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this bill empowers female-owned small businesses and workers to keep the health care policies they prefer and make their own decisions regarding health care. women make 95% of the decisions regarding health insurance in families across the united states. i don't think we have to be patronizing and assume that they cannot make their own decisions. in fact, i am asking continually women who are 50 years and above why are they having to pay for maternity benefits? mr. cassidy: they're just flabbergasted by that. and this is important economically. the manhattan institute reports that the affordable care act, so called ironically, has increased insurance premiums by 41% on average for women as much as 62%. imagine that woman sitting at home lying awake at night

wondering how she's going it pay her bills, being forced to pay for benefits the opposite doesn't think she's smart enough to know she doesn't need and unable to afford her house. that has happened in an instance an i know of. today the house has the opportunity to help our americans to keep the health care plan of their choice. and how we vote comes down to two questions. first, do you think control over someone's health care plan should reside with a washington politician or bureaucrat? or do you trust that american woman to make the proper decision for herself, for her family? i'll tell you where i stand. i i think we should give power to the patient, not to a washington bureaucrat. secondly, do we think that oliticians should keep the

promises made to constituents? four years ago supporters of the health care law looked americans in the eye and said, if you like your health care plan you can keep it. period. i tell you where i stand. representatives in the people's house should honor their word and uphold the commitment to those who sent us here. period. let's protect the health care choices of america's workers, let's hold politicians accountable for the promises they made. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the motion to recommit, vote yes to protect the health care plans of america's middle class, vote yes to keep the promises made. i yield back. vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not -- ms. brownley: madam speaker, i demand the yeas and nays please. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking

this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on pass and of the bill if ordered and the motions to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5161, h.r. 5057, if ordered, and s. 276 if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 186. the nays are 220.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 187. the nays are 223. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask a recorded vote on this matter. the speaker pro tempore: recorded vote is kd. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is

ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 247. the nays are 167. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the house will be in order. the members will take their seats. he house will be in order. the house will be in order. members will take their seats. he house will be in order.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california, the majority leader, seek recognition? mr. mccarthy: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for purpose of an announcement. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mccarthy: yesterday i announced that we were delaying consideration of the continuing resolution so all members could be briefed on the president's request for additional authorities related to issel as part of the continuing resolution -- isil as part of the continuing resolution. many members received a bipartisan classified briefing this morning. i know many are still digesting that information and getting their questions answered regarding this threat and our response. in order to properly consider the president's request and act on the continuing resolution, members are advised that the house will now meet on monday at 2:00 p.m. for legislative business with votes at :30 p.m. on suspensions. -- 6:30 p.m. on suspensions.

members are advised that the house may consideration legislation related to the president's request and continuing resolution as early as tuesday. these are changes from the previous announcement announced house schedule. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the gentleman and i have discussed this and i think he's taken the appropriate action. the majority leader and i have discussed this. i believe he's taken the appropriate action in this instance and we certainly support his determination. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for the work together on this. the one thing we know this is a threat and this house will act as one, as americans, and i look forward to continuing to work on it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california, the majority leader, yields back the balance of his time. without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from ohio, mr. latta, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5161, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title

of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 426, h.r. 5161, a bill to promote the nonexclusive use of electronic labeling for devices, licensed by the federal communications commission. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 402. it the nays are zero. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is on the question of suspending the rules and passing h.r. 5057, as

amended. which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: h.r. 5057, a bill to amend the energy policy and conservation act to prevent exemptions for external power supplies from certain efficiency standards and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing s. 276 which the clerk will report by title. a clerk: senate 276, an act

bill to reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project involving the american falls reservoir. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the seek an from maryland recognition? mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute to ask the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mccarthy: mr. speaker, on monday the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on tuesday and wednesday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for

legislative business. on thursday, the house will convene at 9:00 a.m. and will welcome the president of ukraine for a joint meeting at 10:00 a.m. there will be no morning hour and the house will meet at noon for legislative business. on friday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. mr. speaker, the house will consider a few suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business tomorrow. in addition, as i previously announced, the house may consider the president's request and act on the continuing resolution as early as tuesday. the house will also consider a package of 14 bills designed to encourage an american energy revolution. this commonsense energy plan will be comprised of previously house-passed bills that received bipartisan support and focus on production, infrastructure, reliability and

efficiency. finally, mr. speaker, members are advised that the house will also consider a packages of jobs bills that will include 15 house-passed bills. this bipartisan jobs plan fosters an economic recovery and gets america back to work and create good-paying jobs and i thank the gentleman and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his information. before asking him questions about the schedule of the week to come, i want to commend the gentleman. we had a meeting just a few minutes ago at which we almost all the members of the house rose in a moment of silence, mr. speaker, to remember those not only who lost their lives n 9/11, 13 years ago, but also those who acted so heroically to save lives. we certainly remember those brave individuals that knew

what was going on and took that plane down in pennsylvania that we believe was undoubtedly directing towards the dome of the capitol to decapitate the symbol of the world's greatest democracy. i want to thank the majority leader for leading us in that time of silence to remember that horrific event and to say, as he said just a few moments ago, we are still threatened by those who would use terror and barbarism to attack their own people and others around the world. so i thank the gentleman for his leadership on that issue and i also thank him for his comments about the fact that we came together on 9/11, not as democrats and republicans, but as americans. we now are at a similar time where there is a great threat posed to us and to others, and

the gentleman's suggestion that we would meet that with the same kind of bipartisanship is welcomed on this side of the aisle as well, so i thank the gentleman for that. now, with respect to the schedule -- i yield to the gentleman if he wanted to say something. with respect to the schedule, mr. leader, mr. speaker, i'm wondering whether or not -- it may not have been decided whether or not the president's request to which the gentleman referred in his announcement and the c.r. would be considered together or separately and i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. there's been no decisions yet. as you know the president requested this week and that's why we postponed and we're continuing to work through, but i'll notify the gentleman as early as we get a decision. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. let me ask further -- and i know the answer to this question is we'll have to see,

but i've put our own caucus on notice, mr. leader, that we may well need to be here for the week after the break for the holy days. is that consistent with your thought and i yield to my friend? mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. currently on the schedule, we're scheduled to be here that last week. there has been no change to that schedule. as i know just a little earlier, the only change we made coming back this monday. want to make sure we have enough time and all members have enough time to digest and get their questions answered, but currently that schedule continues to hold and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. . mr. hoyer: with respect to the appropriations committee and the c.r., it's our expectation that the c.r. is scheduled to have a date of december 11 as the -- i

notice that senator cruz has made another discussion to clarify december 11 still the date that the majority is looking for to run the c.r.s through? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. yes, as of this time, we have posted it this week, december 11 is the duration that the continuing resolution would go through. i yield back. mr. hoyer: lastly, i would say, the majority leader and i have had discussions about this, so he knows our strong conviction on this side of the aisle, we are still very hopeful that we could have a longer term extension of re-authorization of the export-import bank because we believe that that is very important to give some stability and competence to the marketplace, both lenders and borrowers and manufacturers, large, medium, and small.

i hope the gentleman would continue to consider with his caucus the possibility of having a longer term re-authorization of the export-import bank, which, as the gentleman knows, expires on september 30. i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. we have had many discussions. as the gentleman knows in the last re-authorization it was a shorter time period with many reforms in there. many feel that those reforms have been ignored. many feel that the bank provides certain things the private sector is doing. knowing we are on a short time period, also knowing the threat before america today and the time that we want to make sure that we can have this debate and the expiration date, we felt it is best to end the c.r., extend that out to june, have that debate later moving forward, so you're not disrupting any time debating the threat of -- from the terrorists and also doing the work that needs to be done. but i do understand the

gentleman has talked to me many times about that. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mccarthy: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet on monday, september 15, 2014, when it shall convene at noon for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from california mr. mccarthy: i ask unanimous consent that it may be in order at any time on thursday, september 18, 2014, for the speaker to declare a recess subject to the call of the chair for the purpose of receiving in joint meeting his excellency, the president of the ukraine. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. speaker, i rise today to thank our veterans this weekend i will have the great honor to join the 2014 hometown heroes celebration in wayne township, in clinton county, pennsylvania. the focus for this year's celebration is honoring those from the vietnam war. who also include to pay tribute to our veterans from the korean war and world war ii eras. we will honor these local heroes for their service and their brothers in arms, including those who didn't make it home or gave that ultimate sacrifice. each day, especially on september 11, we are reminded of the many threats posed to

america and its citizens. we are also reminded of just how blessed we are to have such brave men and women who for generations have served our nation and laid their lives on the line in protection of our freedoms. mr. speaker, we owe those who have served and those who are serving in uniform our unwavering support and thanks. and today i offer my sincere praise for the veterans of wayne township and the surrounding areas. you are our hometown heroes. you deserve as much. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> today we remember those who lost their lives 13 years ago on a day that changed our nation forever. yesterday congress bestowed the highest civilian honor, the gongal gold medal, on the fallen heroes of 9/11. mr. hultgren: one of those was todd beamer, a high school friend of mine.

declaring, let's roll, and and the other brave americans on flight 93 helped to prevent further catastrophe while sacrificing their own lives in the process. this summer i had the privilege of touring the flight 93 national memorial and museum in shanksville, pennsylvania. there i presented a wheaton academy high school yearbook to be included in the archives. construction is still under way on this moving tribute to the 40 heroes. looking out over the crash site, i was reminded again that the world is still a dangerous place and our freedoms are only a generation away from extinction. freedom isn't inherited. it must be protected against those who destroy it. honoring the sacrifice of todd and all who parished -- perished on 9/11 requires we forever remain vigilant in defense of our nation's cherished values. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise?

without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, i don't believe there is one american that will forget where they were on 9/11, that crisp morning, bright, shining sun. for me i was here in the united states capitol. and the unimaginible occurred. we would not have fathomed at one time that the homeland would be attacked. i rise today to acknowledge the brave men and women who gave and risked their lives and those who lost their lives and the families that still mourn. it is particularly potent that we are now in the backdrop of another terrorist act and another president has to rise to defend america. this congress must also do so. but we must recognize that peace is as well and important value

that americans love. we are peace loving. and we must do it in the name of those who lost their lives, united airlines 93, american airlines flight 77, american airlines 11, united airlines 175. and we must recognize that we were unsuspecting. therefore our pledge to those who still mourn, who have lost their father, mother, husband, wife, child, or friend as we debate these serious times we will be reminded that there must be no terrorists that terrorizes us and causes us to not do the right thing. so whether we are republicans or democrats i ask us on this day to hold a moment of personal silence. one that will reflect our love for those who are lost. and then to take the words of george w. bush, president at that time, whether the terrorists are brought to justice or justice is brought to the terrorists, justice will be done.

a firm hand, yes. but as well we must be reminded of the humanitarian aspect of this. and realize as we stand with the president -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: we honor those who are in mourning. let's remember, 9/11 a tribute to the americans who sacrificed their life. i mourn this day. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise to pay tribute to the innocent victims who lost their lives on september 11, 2001. 13 years ago today, our homeland was attacked. evil manifested itself in the form of extremists who murdered 3,000 americans. our world and america was forever changed by the tragedy

that unfolded in new york, washington, d.c., and pennsylvania. mr. yoho: that evil that came out of the shadows in 2001 still exist today in 2014. if left unchecked, it will continue to grow for the foreseeable future and threaten us once more, now more than ever we must remain vigilant in the defense of our great country and against those who wish america harm. we can no longer afford to be divided as a nation into republicans and democrats, conservatives and liberals. we must come together today from this point forward as americans. today let us cause and pray in remembrance of those who fell on 9/11 and for all who continue to stand in harm's way at home and abroad. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise?

ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, i'd like to ask for a unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman will state her request. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, i was unavoidably detained in a security briefing on the issues dealing with the terrorist group issel -- isil and i missed the vote on the motion to recommit on h.r. 3522, the employee health care protection act. if i had been present, i would have voted aye. i ask that the aye be reflected in the appropriate place in the record on the account of my being unavoidably detained in a security briefing. i ask unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013,, the gentleman from texas, mr.

gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i yield to my dear friend from georgia, mr. westmoreland, for such time he may use. mr. westmoreland: i want to thank my friend from texas for yielding. mr. speaker, i come before you today to honor one of georgia's greatest, mr. s. pruitt kathy. truitt kathy was known across the globe as a successful businessman, author, and inventor of the chicken sandwich. he would also say that god created chicken. we created the chicken sandwich. most importantly he was a beloved great grandfather, grandfather, father, and husband . above all else, his strong christian faith could be seen in everything he did. didn't matter if it was his company, his employees, his generosity.

it was all embodied in the love and good news of jesus christ. truitt's whole life was about giving hope and opportunity to those who had none. his dedication to helping children who have been abused and lost in the foster system reflected how important family values were to him. and are only a fraction of what truitt, a man of such great integrity, was able to accomplish. having come from nothing himself, he wanted every child to have the same chance at success and happiness as he it. truitt established the wind shape foundation, which includes 11 long-term foster homes for 95 children. the foundation helped not only children in bad circumstances, but for all periods of an individual's life. truitt also used his foundation as an opportunity to show you that faith in god can help you through your journey by providing opportunities for young adults to reconnect with

their faith in the college program. offering retreats for married couples to renew their love for each other and their love for god. creating our next generation's leaders through christian wilderness camps. to learn how to be a better leader and a part of a team. truitt believed building christian leaders shouldn't be limited to our country's borders. it took wind shape international through missionary trips and projects in over 43 countries. his generous work and humble pirit of truitt cathy has touched more lives than we could ever imagine and many successful individuals today have him to thank. even in business, truitt treated his chick if i lay employees like family. endoug a scholarship foundation to help send them to college. it has been awarded more than $25 million in the last 35 years done through $1,000 scholarships

to 20 or 30 hardworking and deserving employees every year. through all his work, truitt gave the most important gift of all to many underprivileged children and teens, and that's hope. you can never put a price on having someone believe in you and give you a chance at success by giving you your first job and teaching you the value of respect and hard work. what the ethics of being employed was all about. . truett sums up his mission, nearly every moment every day we have the opportunity to give something to someone else, our time, our love, our resources and i have always found more joy in giving when i did not expect anything in return. having the opportunity to know truett and his wonderful family has been a privilege, and i thank him for all he's done for the people of georgia and

across this nation, for the hope and confidence that he's given so many youngs to continue on and to fight for what they believe. joan and i want to send our condolences and prayers to the cathy family during this time of great sorrow for us all, and with that i'll yield back to the gentleman from texas. mr. gohmert: thank you. i do appreciate that tribute to a truly great man. at this time i'd like to yield to my friend, mr. hultgren from illinois, for such time as he may consume. mr. hultgren: i want to thank my good friend from texas, mr. gohmert, for yielding today. i'd rise to highlight the complexities of our health care system on the eve of the first open season since obamacare was launched. i want to offer hope to the millions of american consumers who still need real solutions to help ensure that their families can obtain necessary and affordable health care. today our health care system in america has two faces. it can provide state-of-the-art

care while at the same time can be one of the most complex and frustrating systems in the world. americans feel the effects of these complexities every single day. they repeated lieu put health care near the top of their list of issues that concern them, and they should be concerned. the system today has so many conflicting incentives, rules and regulations that few americans have the ability to make sound and affordable decisions for themselves and their families. obamacare introduced a whole new level of fuzzyness to an already opaque system. families are increasingly worried that they will pay more and more for health insurance that covers less and less and lowers the quality of care. they search for long-term economic security but find unsustainable costs instead. even with the advent of the president's health care law, the patient protection and affordable care act, also known as obamacare, many middle-class families have not found their

health care to be more affordable, nor have they felt secure with the new system. americans have a right to feel frustrated with the affordable care act today. it's far from what they were promised. i've heard stories from too many of my constituents who receive letters terminating heir coverage, like julia from gurney, illinois, or others facing rising health care costs like one who said, i wonder if the administration thought about those of us who have to pay for our health care coverage with no extra help and how much more we would be paying. or of the employers who have had to eliminate health benefits. or of workers and teachers whose hours have been reduced because employers can't afford the higher premiums. or of families losing access to doctors they've known for decades. those doctors also face conflicting rules that result in adverse consequences. they want to continue to provide care but many are no longer accepting medicare patients and must now require upfront payments for care just to keep their practice open.

there aren't enough doctors and specialists to go around in the narrow networks. we've tried to address the long and sometimes life-threatening waits for veterans. now is the time to address those long lines for everyone else. surely this is not the health care system we were promised, nor does it paint a bright future for the health status of americans. that is why on august 28 i convened the third community leadership forum in illinois' 14th congressional district. our topic -- health care. our focus -- the consumer. i assembled three separate panels to discuss issues ranging from the a.c.a. and how it will continue to affect consumers in 2015 to how technology and innovation can improve health care outcomes to how best to increase consumer access to and quality of health care. it was clear that there was a thirst for the community to come together. in the weeks preceding the forum i was excited to hear of

the panelists inthuse yam. it included c.e.o.s of organizations and hospitals, c.m.o.'s and executive vice presidents of health insurance companies and most importantly my constituents. i heard about the issues directly affecting every level of our health care system. most importantly, our focus remained on offering consumer-oriented solutions. never before had i been confronted with such passion and desire to offer answers for our national health care system and work together to implement solutions. today i want to share just a selection of the great ideas that could help american consumers of health care. many of these will be available in a full report i plan to release on my website, hultgren.house.gov in the coming days. during the first panel, one of the primary challenges health care and small business insurance professionals discussed was how to ensure consumer choice and access to the broader market of providers. i heard numerous times about the need to reduce health care costs overall by pursuing a

market-based system with less regulation. surprisingly, the only subindustry in health care that is lowering costs and increasing the quality of care is elective procedures, an industry perpetuated by market control. insurance providers told me the difficulty they face operating within the a.c.a.'s demands and slim margins. certain insurance regulations like the medical loss ratio exs aer rates costs. these costs translate into higher premiums for constituents and businesses. instead of encouraging higher quality of care and lower costs with advancements in technology and economy, we find ourselves moving in the opposite direction. releaving these ineffective and inefficient mandates can be the first step to opening up more options for insurers and consumers. in the second and third panels i heard from hospital executives and university innovators about the biggest challenges facing technology

and innovators. within the biotechnology and medical technology at the table, i learned about the ever-present and insurmountable valley of death, the period of time between a potentially life-saving device or product discovery and its introduction to the broader market. this period is incurvered by regulation and bureaucracy. in europe, devices and medicines that show promise are approved and brought to market faster and more effectively. to help with technology transfer to quick innovation and its application, i learned about ways to fill the gap between discovery and investment. legislation like the transfer act, introduced by my colleague, representative chris collins from new york, will help reduce the strain caused by the valley of death in the innovation process. another method is the preservation of the bye-dole act of 1980. one recommended speeding the approval process to bring new devices to market in the united states.

the conversation went so far as to talk about the intersection of education policy and scientific research, highlighting the need to make sure that our kids received the best stem education our schools can provide. these conversations clarified that medical innovations are a vital component to strengthen treatments and reducing cost throughout the health care system. throughout the day it was confirmed again that the current health care landscape is rocky and uncertain, but there are many who are willing and eager to work together to tackle these challenges. the house is also eager to work hard to help fix our health care system. numerous times the house has said yes to fixes and alternatives that address our system's deep challenges. we don't need to wait for our health care system to get worse before it gets better. we can work to fix it now. americans have a right to feel frustrated with the a.c.a. today. it's far from what they were promised, but that should only spur us onward. we are only months from the

start of open enrollment, november 15. the question is, can all of us in congress, in health care and constituents work together to bring much-needed rfrpbl to our health care system -- reform to our health care system? can we raise the quality of care our country offers while lower costs across the country? i believe we can and i trust these solutions will help get us there. i want to thank my good friend from texas and i yield back the balance of my time to him. mr. gohmert: thank you. there's so much at risk right w in this country, and the president gave us a fine address last night, very interesting. i know some people say, you know, when in times of trouble

when the united states is threatened, we need to all get together behind our leader. as someone once said to me about republicans, he said, i just wish the republicans would all run are the same play together. and i responded, i agree. i wholeheartedly want for the republicans to all run the same play together at the same time, but i said, the trouble is, if my leader calls a play running into the wrong end zone, i'm not blocking for him. and that's also, i think, applicable with the president of the united states. i was blasted after statements on fox news saying that if the president wanted to go to war with isis i would support that.

so i was anticipating something last night that would unite us .nd not divide us to relate one of the problems with the president is, as he starts off early in his speech saying, as commander in chief, my highest priority is the security of the american people . ell, i've come to know friends , close friends with a number of the family members of ty woods, glen doherty, ambassador chris stevens, and they debate. they don't believe that the highest priority of this president is the security of the american people.

the actions of this president saying he cares so deeply about the security of the american people doesn't seem to resonate when you stand by weeping rents who've had -- who've watched their son's head be cut off by these enemies and you say it's the highest priority of the american people but they're wondering -- do you spend five or six hours that same day that you spend five or six hours playing golf, do you spend that much time figuring other y to protect foleys? tough tough sell -- sale. and he said, let's be clear, isis is not islamic. no one condones the killing of innocents. well, that's certainly got to

be a shock to the radical islamists who brutally killed, behead, maim innocent people in the name of what they say is their religion, and in fact the american people don't seem to be sold on what the president said. this story from cnn filed 8:15 a.m. this morning by ashley killow, quote, what the president said about isil is not islamic, no religion condones killing of innocents, then they have a number of tweets, according to the cnn ticle, twitter just lit up with responses from the president saying that. lots of retweets. let's see, from ron christie, isis isn't islamic? what kindergartener briefs the

president on terrorism? another. obama, quote, isil is not islamic? he just countermanted everything he said tonight as a fatal flaw. another, isil is not islamic? hello. this isil, islamic state of iraq and the lavant. isil is not islamic and lois lerner and the i.r.s. is not corrupt? obama is such a freakin -- well, mr. speaker, i can't say that word. joe wilson said that and was found not to be appropriate. another, isil is not islamic. is he kidding? i suppose those black flags are just for giggles then. another from the cnn article, isil is not islamic? a section aimed at motivating muslims around the world to

fight. sil and aid u.s. another from mohammed answr, isil is not islamic says primetime at barack obama and virtually every muslim and reasonably educated person on the face of our planet. michael, some folks on twitter didn't understand obama's isil is not islamic statement. study foreign affairs, folks, or religion or religion. well, it's interesting because president obama's statement there is apparently similar to the historic reaction that thomas jefferson had before he was president when he was negotiating when the -- with he radical islamics, barbary pirates in northern africa who had been capturing american ships, killing, enslaving, holding for ransom, and

jefferson was rather shocked that -- when he reportedly indicated, you know, i don't understand why you can't attacking us. we don't have a navy. we're not a threat to you. and it was explained to him that we believe that if we're killed attacking infidels like you then we go instantly to paradise. jefferson's perplexed. . ends up getting his own copy of the koran because he couldn't believe that any religion would ever promote going to paradise for being killed while killing innocent people. and read for himself and history can tell you exactly what his conclusion was. as president he ultimately decided the only way to deal with these radical islamists is

not to keep paying 10% to 20% of the american budget for ransom to get people back, the solution is to send this new group, this new group called the united states marines, to the shores of radical to fight the islamists with everything hey've got until they yell uncle or wiped out and they cease to come after americans. the president says, i have insisted that additional u.s. action dependent on -- upon iraqis forming an inclusive government. that strikes me as strange because if the commander in chief's highest priority, as he said at the start of the speech, is the security of the american people, then it begs the

question, then why is he so worried about what the iraq government does if he knows he has to do something to protect the american people? now, i recall, i remember, senator obama repeatedly, he came after the bush administration. seemed he thought little or nothing of the coalition that will president george h.w. bush put together with 43 countries to go in and liberate kuwait. that he thought even less of the 49 countries that put people and money on the line to support the effort in iraq, 49 countries. president obama thought that was not a real coalition. yet they put people, they put money. and now magically since he's president he thinks a coalition of nine countries that he won't

name or commit what they are going to put in to the coalition is somehow better than the 49 countries, coalition, that president bush put together before going into the middle east. president obama said in june, i deployed several hundred american service members to iraq. and he goes on to say, we'll send an additional 475 service members to iraq. well, he's made very clear he's not going to send boots -- not going to put boots on the ground, as he said, in iraq. so the only conclusion that you can make from the president saying on the one hand we are not going to put put boots on the ground in iraq -- to put boots on the ground in iraq, and he's already sent several hundred soldiers, sending 475

more, the only conclusion logically is that those thousand or so u.s. soldiers will be wearing sneakers. he said america will be joined by a broad coalition of partners . it's hard to believe that nine people that are a bit timid about being named and committed to what they'll do is really that broad of a coalition. he said that quote, mobilize partners wherever possible to address broader challenges. mr. speaker, as we have heard from general kelly testifying before the house and the senate, he's the commander of southcome, the southern -- south com, the southern command, he knows what threats are. to our south. as he testified the penetration

of our southern border by the criminal networks and radical islamists in his words is an exy tension -- existential threat to the united states. you got the man that is supposed to know the most about the southern border and protecting us, telling congress that the penetration going on of our southern border is a threat to the very existence of the united states of america. so i would urge the president, mr. speaker, when he says he'll mobilize partners wherever possible to address broader challenges, that he should change that word in his teleprompter to read border challenges so that we can protect ourselves from the criminal networks and the potential for radical islamists

who want to destroy us coming across our southern border. i truly hope that tom clancy, the late tom clancy, was not as clairvoyant in one of his last novels as he was in the early 1990's when he wrote about someone irritated with the united states flying a jet into the capitol to wipe out a joint session of congress. i love george w. bush, but when he said, who would have ever thought somebody would use a plane for a bomb and crash it into a building, i'm thinking tom clancy several years ago, that was in one of his novels. well, in one of his recent novels, one of his last, he wrote about a coalition beginning to form between radical islamists and drug

cartels in mexico, and ultimately a deal where they brought -- i can't remember 10 or 12 radical islamists with service-to-air missiles. they paid tremendously to the drug cartels to smuggle those into the united states so they areas and at the appropriate time across the country step out and shoot down american passenger planes. the e know that although really slamists are insane crazy when it comes to , e killing of innocent people but they are not stupid. when we give them an opening to come after us, they will take t.

as the president lost further credibility last night at a time when he really needed to be getting the world behind him, credibility was lost when he said, and i quote, it is america that has rallied the world against russian aggression and in support of the ukrainian people's right to determine their own destiny. mr. speaker, people around the world as i have traveled in west africa, north africa, middle east, moderate muslim countries in the middle east, afghanistan europe, they all understand that this president has done virtually nothing to help ukraine. they haven't rallied the peoples of the world. when the people around the world hear that, they have to think, does he think we are crazy ourselves?

you go back and see what this administration did in response to the invasion of ukraine by russia, and the response was a witter campaign. and they actually did try to put restrictions on, as i recall, 10 or 11 bank accounts that the russians laughed about. this president needs to to more rally the public, rally the world around us, with us, against radical islam, against imperialism like we have seen from putin, and we can all stand together. after the president seemed to indicate at that he wanted to , ie out isis -- he said isil

really felt that when the president had finished last night that i would be saying, that's something i got to support. i'm with him. isis has said they are a threat to us. we need to take them seriously. they are cutting off american heads. we have to take that seriously. and yet when i hear the president, he wants to give pport to the moderate vetted free syrian army, and we read the article from patrick poole where he quotes one of those vetted moderate free syrian army brigade commander saying that his forces were working with the slamic states and al qaeda's official syrian affiliate, both u.s. designated terrorist organizations, and in quotes, we are collaborating with the islamic state and the front by

attacking the syrian army's gatherings. and another quote from another free syrian army commander vetted moderate that this president's going to help, quote, we have reached a point where we have to collaborate with anyone against unfairness and injustice. let's face it, the front is the biggest power present right now in kumar, and we as f.s.a. should collaborate with any mission they launch as long as it coincides with our values. i really expected to be standing today and saying we need to get behind the president's activity. just as i said in the last couple of weeks immediately after the president's speech, i agree. let's go to war with isis. but with the president wanting

to continue what he's been doing for over a year, giving weapons to the free syrian army, who somehow magically keep having them taken away by the islamic state or isis, isil, and the president himself -- they finally suspended giving them ecause we in december b kept -- this president kept sending arms to the vetted moderate free syrians. they end up in the hands of isis every time, and so it was suspended in december. then in april for some reason they think they can now trust the free syrians so we start sending more weapons to the free syrians and magically they keep ending up in the isis, isil control, and now this president does his speech last night and we are supposed to get with him and send more weapons to the

people whose leaders are saying publicly we support isis, we support alnusra, we support the enemies of the united states. i yield to my friend from georgia. mr. westmoreland: i want to thank the gentleman from texas for doing this special order and for giving me an opportunity to come down and not only listen to him but share a little bit. i think we could have learned a lesson from libya. and the fact that we gave air support to the rebel groups that were overthrowing gaddafi. that wanted gaddafi gone. was gaddafi a good man? nope. but his enemies were the same as our enemies. and he had really turned over chemical arms, his

weapons, stocked with his nuclear enhancement and turned over his chemical weapons, and yet we saw it fit that we would help the rebels because humanitarian reasons on what was going on. . you know, different sides get blamed for different things saying, oh, we didn't do that, somebody else did that. it was interesting that after gaddafi was gone, all of a sudden it becomes a wild west in libya. as a result of that, we had four brave americans lose their life in benghazi because we were trying to play nice and be friends. some people don't want to be our friend.

in fact, as the gentleman from texas was talking about, the eal ambition of these jihadist groups, these radical islamic groups is really to have shahrya law control the world. they want all of us to be under the shahrya law. that's what their goal is. in fact, if you look at isil, the islamic state of iraq and levant, they want to go back in history and put together this caliphate that would include turkey and non, others. i mean, that is their goal. and you know, for people that might get confused, isis, isil, dash. there's a lot of different names that this group is

called. i think isil is the best because i think that describes their intent of gaining this area that was once held. so i think we have to really think about this as far as who train and arm. do we know these groups really are? as the gentleman from texas read about the article that patrick poole had and, you we'd we have -- we'd have had fighters that went to syria. i believe mr. mccain lived in minneapolis, went back and forth to san diego, finally ended up in syria. i think josh earnest used in

one of the press briefings that these moderate forces had they mr. mccain and that were fighting both isil and assad. now, the interesting thing about this moderate opposition group that killed mr. mccain is that they killed other isil fighters too. they beheaded six of them. now, i don't know how moderate that is, but according to american standards that's not moderate. so i think we really have to give some close scrutiny to these folks that we're going to arm, that we're going to give them different weapons that we really don't have a list of what those weapons would be yet . we're going to let the military train them and, you know, we

trained the iraqi military, their police, their defense for, what, seven years, i guess, or longer and then at e first sight of combat they fled. so i don't know what kind of training we're going to give these moderate groups but i know we haven't got seven years to stop isil. and so i agree with my friend, mr. gohmert, that i wish the president had used some different words rather than egrade, maybe destroy, maybe defeat would have been a great word to use, that we want to

defeat them. if you read the open source reports, there's 10,000. then you hear, well, now there's 15,000. then we got people in the military -- in the government saying, well, there could be up to 30,000. we don't know how many there are. but i promise you, whether it was 30,000 or 50,000, we've got the greatest military in the world, and we could control that situation if we just had the fortitude and the guts to do it. but because of the indecisiveness of this president, this thing has festered. if it we had gone, i think, into syria originally -- or at least arm the opposition forces then, we actually knew who they were because they were a small group, there's probably over 100 different opposition forces . and as the gentleman said, hey're fighting both asaid and

isil. now, to me it's real confusing over there who's fighting who. if you look at hamas and the lebanese army, teaming up with them to drive out the rebels that assad had driven into lebanon, it's real confusing about who's on whose side. need to be particularly aware of that and make sure that we have a vetting process if it's even possible, that we have a vetting process to make sure that these people are worthy of getting the assistance from the american taxpayer. with that i'll yield back. mr. gohmert: well, i'll like to ask the gentleman a question if he has time for one because i'm struggling a little bit. a good article out published ast night, 11:46, but he

points out that there are some real potential problems. he says five things that could horribly wrong with obama's action in iraq. one of them he mentions the lack of a status of forces agreement. we all know president bush had been working on a status of forces agreement. he thought he would leave it to the president to accomplish that great task and have instant international credibility for signing a document immediately like that coming into office, but for whatever reason, we hear a lot of different stories, but it blew up. the president says that, you know, we couldn't leave troops there without a status of forces agreement because you can't have troops in a country where you don't have, for example, an immunity agreement so that american soldiers, american contractors that are

there to help protect iraq from harm. sometimes bombs go off in the wrong place. sometimes people get killed that wasn't meant it. it becomes a war zone, and as the president points out -- pointed out before, we couldn't leave troops there because we have no immunity agreement. well, i haven't heard that there's any immunity agreement with iraq, and yet he announced last night he's already got several hundred american sneakers on the ground over there and going to add 475 more troops apparently wearing sneakers because there aren't boots on the ground, so i'm needing some help here. why is it safe to send in american troops now without the promise, the agreement of immunity from iraq when it was

not safe to do so when he took office? i'm struggling here. mr. westmoreland: well, and you should because it was all bush's fault. it was all the prior administration's fault that this happened. and by the withdrawal of our troops -- because i'm telling you. i think president bush laid it out pretty clear in 2007 when he made that speech about, you know, a lot of people in washington were clamoring about getting our troops out and he said, we're not going to get our troops out until our ground commanders in iraq tell us that we're ready to get our troops out. and he points out the dangers of that. that's exactly what happened. and i think if this administration had understood that and had actually listened to the former president that had been involved in all the

things that had recently gone on in the middle east, then they would have been persistent enough to persuade maliki to allow for some agreement. now, you know, i don't understand all the politics that has gone into this, but we certainly do. i think last night he authorized another 475 sneakers on the ground. i think there already was roughly, what, 900 and something over there. we have a lot of guys over there. i don't know what they're doing. i don't think they know what they're doing. what's the rules of engagement? are they carrying weapons, are they carrying notebooks, ipads, what are they doing? i mean, these are some of the most trained, well-trained people that we have in our military. these are -- these are valuable assets to us that are over there. just from the reports that i

read, i don't see that they operational ny plan that they're going with. so that's got to be really confusing, i would think, if i was over there as to what the rules of engagement were and if i was going to be sent out as an advisor or just the protection of security forces , r the americans that's there baghdad, whenever they're at, i think it's confusing to them too. d so i think that that's the reason. as you mentioned in one of your speeches today i heard about the resolution. so we can actually define what we think and what our committees think would be a good military plan for going in and what expectations was of any forces that we have over

there, whether it's air or some . these boots on the ground let's clarify that and make that a separate vote. mr. gohmert: i think it's worth pointing out what concerns many others in the world and that is the judgment of this administration. as we travel around the world, we have allies who talk to us privately. leaders in countries in the middle east, moderate muslims, people in israel and they keep asking about the judgment of this country, of the national leaders. this ody knows that president agreed to release ve taliban terrorists, and the with murder

tatement has come out now -- well, august 27. this is after the release of this -- of five taliban murderers -- by this administration, this statement has gone out and it's in their language but the translation ys in part, we consider isis and every other mujaheddin .roup as our brothers that's kind of important to understand when he released the taliban five that don't have a problem with cutting people's heads off or their friends cutting people's heads off, they support isis and he did so in violation of the law. it required that there could be

not one dime of american money spent to release someone from uantanamo unless the law was complied with, and the law required notice by 30 days to people in congress and that didn't happen. he broke the law in order to help the law breakers. so people around the world see that and they're puzzled. i hope to be standing there in the house floor with one of the two other people na went to the f.b.i. disclosure. they classified it, which i thought was ridiculous. we wanted to see the documents hat the f.b.i. and their visors on islam had purged from the f.b.i. training materials. now, these are the materials

that train f.b.i. agents, the kind of people that have to lk to people at the mosque and friends and have to know the questions and what to look for that might indicate this person has been radicalized. now, since they classified the materials they purged, we went through them but we don't get -- we don't get to disclose what's in them, but we can say -- i can say i was shocked at how ridiculous some of the purging was. . some things were purely -- some of them were so clearly important that people trying to learn about radical islam, it is important that they know and understand. so once you understand that there's been that kind of

purging of material, then you begin to understand how this administration could get two, not one, two heads up from a untry like russia that tsarnaev was radicalized. he could kill people. you better watch him. you better check on him. he's dangerous. he's going to hurt people. and they do nothing. -- nothing meaningful about it. as we found out through hearing in judiciary, a person said we did go to those mofpks tsh-mosques. it went on their outreach program. they never went out there to see whether they were radicalized. and then we knew at the time -- mr. speaker, i hold here the articles from the commonwealth of massachusetts, articles of organization, for the islamic

society of boston. and the islamic society of boston is the one that organized the two mosques. the organizing official is a man named alamoody, which was familiar to the f.b.i. director because on his watch, although he had helped the clinton administration hire what were thought to be moderate muslims in the clinton administration, and he originally had an agreement to be of assistance to the bush administration, the bush administration ultimately finds out he's supporting terrorism. they have him arrested out here at dulles airport, and he's now doing 23 years in prison for supporting terrorism. he's the one that organized the islamic society of boston that created the two mosques where the tsarnaevs went. and the f.b.i. didn't even know

that a guy they helped convict of supporting terrorism started the mosque that has terrorized -- that has created terrorists out of more than one person. there are others that we find out that have had relations with that mosque that may be a threat, but one of the things i want to mention before i yield to my friend, we have a chart, i have had a blowup of this used before, but it points out how many times, as this points out, terminology is important in defining our goals, the 9/11 commission identifies islamist terrorism as the threat the muslim public affairs council recommends that the u.s. government find other terminology. so in the 9/11 commission report, bipartisan, bicameral, people trying to take an

objective look, they use the term 322 times in the 9/11 commission report. however the last f.b.i. counterterrorism lexicon does not include the word islam of the the national intelligence strategic -- strategy of 2009 does not include the word islam. in the 9/11 commission report, it used the word muslim 145 times, but since then under this administration the f.b.i. counterterrorism lexicon doesn't use the word muslim. it doesn't use the word jihad. it doesn't use the word enemy. now, it does use the words violent extremism 29 times. in the 9/11 commission report it uses the word religious and its

normally referencing these radical islamists, it uses that word religious, 65 times, whereas the f.b.i. counterterrorism lexicon only uses it three times. and then the president basically the only time he used it last night was to say that people that called themselves islamists are not religious. the people that have had their heads cut off by these people in at name of islam are looking what we are doing, i believe, and wondering how can you say that was not in their minds a religious act to cut off my head? i think as a christian there are references in the bible, i think people know what goes on here. we know from scripture that there's rejoicing in heaven over one soul being saved. how could they rejoice unless they know what's going on?

so i think people that have had their heads cut off would have to be wondering about the president's assessment. al qaeda was used 36 times in the 9/11 commission report. but in the f.b.i. counterterrorism lexicon not used at all. in the national intelligence strategy of 2009 under this administration, used once. cal live, -- calive, that's not used at all. this administration in their f.b.i. counterterrorism lexicon. national intelligence strategy of 2009, 9/11 commission report used it seven times. and it's a little more understandable, too, when you find out that one of the advisors on the homeland security advisory council that janet napolitano put there and named ecret clearance,

muhammad al biari, there was an article from adam credo and he the a tweet sent out by homeland security advisory councilmember, and the tweet says, the caliphate will return. that is inevitable. we know now that the homeland security advisory councilmember's tweet has been used by isis as recruiting that even this president's close advisor on homeland security that he has secret access to our databases, given by this administration, that he's out there saying the caliphate's inevitable. and so it is being used to recruit people to kill

americans. the homeland security advisory ouncil has people helping with recruiting for terrorists to kill americans. i yield to my friend. mr. westmoreland: i just want to say, you know, when the five of s went in that 12 by 12 room tsh- mr. gohmert: i think there were three members of congress, but two f.b.i. agents sitting there. mr. westmoreland: there was one more member i know, trent. mr. gohmert: trent came. mr. westmoreland: there were four of us, 12 by 12, and two f.b.i. agents, and several boxes of paperwork, and they were nice enough to bring one copy so we could share. but f.b.i. is the greatest -- they are great crime fighters. they do great investigative work. i think it was probably under

great political pressure that to purged these documents take those words out of it. like you said even the 9/11 commission did that. i want to go back what you said about our allies and indecisiveness, if i could. we look at what's going on in the country. we all talk to small businesspeople every day, and they go, you know what, we are not going to expand our business, we are not going to grow because we don't know what our health insurance is going to do, we don't know what our energy costs is going to be, we don't know what the regulations are going to be. it's kind of a stalemate. and i think that's the way our allies look at us. they don't know what our next move is. with all this uncertainty, there are different elements that are coming in and filling that void

in us being the world leader. russia being one of them coming in to fill that void. and people like to know there's a leader somewhere that they can follow. i just don't think our allies in this world have seen that. and now we have actually got germany and france and others leading different parts of these charges where america should have been out in front of it. i know our time's just about up. i want to thank my friend from texas for allowing me to share with him. i look forward to doing some more of the special orders with him and make sure we can get the truth out. i thank you. mr. gohmert: i do thank my friend. i have another article here that accentuates what my friend from georgia was saying about our allies not being sure what we are going to do.

unfortunately our enemies seem to know very well what we are going to do. article published by al balaba published today says, and we have identified hezbollah as a terrorist organization. well, the deputy leader of quote, the said, flurry of international activity, which is sponsored by the u.s., is not serious in ending the threat. he said, obama spoke of, quote, containing, enquote, the threat, and not, quote, stopping it. and i'm quoting from him. comments made by barack obama are clear. the word contain means to identify risk and disable some of its objectives while

maintaining this terrorist organization's role to frighten certain countries in this region and to keep this risk as a scarecrow in appropriate places to make political gains, articularly in iraq and syria. our enemies know that this president's speech last need indicated he's not serious. we got to get serious. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. members are reminded not to engage in personalities toward the president. under the speaker's announced the of january 3, 2013, gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton, is recognized for 0 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. -- 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. speaker, i come

o the floor today as the house has adjourned because on monday a very important hearing, the rst of its kind in two decades, a hearing on statehood

for the district of columbia, will take place in the senate of the united states. the hearing is called by senator carper, the chair of the jurisdictional committee. at a earing takes place time and in a season when we have seen unusual progress for statehood for the district of columbia. and the senate, the majority leader himself became a co-sponsor of the bill, indeed announced it with great excitement, very unusual because the majority leader of the senate co-sponsors very few

bills. the top leadership of the senate are sponsors of the bill. the bill has more house and senate sponsors than it has ever had. that's what we call momentum, mr. speaker. it's not because we haven't tried to get a senate hearing or because a senate or house hearing on statehood was what was on the agenda for the immediate period, to be sure, the district of columbia residents have tried many ways to get their equal right to other american citizens. there's been a house voting rights act. i would have the vote on the

house floor as i speak. had an amendment not sought to wipe away all the gun laws of the district of columbia, there have been bills for house and senate votes. there have been bills for budget autonomy. and we still seek budget autonomy. through all of this we have always sought statehood for the district of columbia because, mr. speaker, there's no way for the district to get the same rights that every other american has without statehood. i will go into that a little later. the hearing is entitled equality for the district of columbia, discussing the implications of s. 132, the new columbia admissions act. that is the companion bill to

my bill here in the house, h.r. 292. i want to take a moment just to thank senator tom carper who is the new chair of the committee of jurisdiction. the senate homeland security and government affairs committee, as you might expect, that committee has a lot on its plate and yet in only his first term as chair, senator carper forward, ny strides always been very helpful to the district of columbia and now culminates the work he and i have done in the senate, a hearing that we of course requested but a hearing that he had to find time for on a very busy agenda. i cannot thank him enough in the name of the people of the district of columbia for

fording us the opportunity to be heard. we do not pretend that statehood is around the corner. we do know this that if you do not continue to use vehicles like hearings to put the matter before the house and the senate and before the people of the united states we cannot build to the point where we can achieve what we will achieve which is statehood for the 650,000 people who live in the . tion's capital i do want to say when i say this is the first hearing, i do want to say that senator joe lieberman who was the prior chairman of the senate homeland and government affairs committee was also a great champion for statehood and he actually -- while he didn't have a hearing, he did have a , and yet statehood

indeed there was a hearing for statehood, when my first bill, the bill when i first came to congress in the early 1990's came to the floor and we got the first and only vote for statehood for the district of columbia, there was a senate hearing. it was not a jurisdictional hearing. that's what this hearing is. therefore, it is a landmark hearing. it is a historic hearing. that's why i felt it merited my coming to the house floor today. on top of that momentum that we have now seen in the senate -- and i shupet leave this subject without -- shouldn't leave this subject without mentioning the momentum there's been in the house. we've had republican and democratic support for budget autonomy for the district of columbia, for example. that is a very essential element of statehood that it's

your own budget, your own local funds and nobody gets to look at it but you, your own jurisdiction, that's not what the district has now. that's what there are republicans and democrats who believe we should indeed have. there's not yet the kind of support for statehood that i expect to see in the house of representatives, but we will be glad to work with the senate and when the house when it lives up to its own principles that every american is entitled to be treated equally in the congress and in our country. quite aside from the progress we have seen in the house and the senate on statehood and on the elements, the particular lements of statehood, we now have the formal endorsement of the president of the united states for statehood and i'd like to quote what he said when he endorsed the bill.

i've long believed that d.c. -- folks in d.c. pay taxes like everybody else, they contribute to the overall well-being of the country like everybody else , they should be represented like everybody else. it's not as if washington is not big enough compared with other states, it's absolutely the right thing to do, end quote. i'll have something to say about the population of the district of columbia compared with other states in a few minutes. now, of course, i wasn't surprised that the president of the united states supported statehood. the reason i wasn't surprised is because he has long supported and been on record as supporting all of the elements of statehood. budget autonomy, the right of the people of the district of columbia who raised $8 billion

to spend their own money without coming to this chamber which has raised not one penny of it, he has long supported that and has put that in his own budget. legislative autonomy so that the congress doesn't have some say over the district of columbia's laws. the president has put that in his own budget. and the president, going back to the time he was in the senate of the united states, supported voting rights for the district of columbia. so there you have it, voting rights, legislative autonomy, budget autonomy, the elements of statehood. we have members of this house and of the senate who have long supported all of them. we want to bring it all together with support of statehood for the district of columbia. so there shall be an historic hearing, i believe it is 3:00 on monday afternoon with

witnesses who are particularly .ble to speak to the issues of ssor viet thien georgetown law school. he's a professor of constitutional law. a former u.s. assistant attorney for legal policy in the bush administration. that made him the highest policy official in the bush administration. he has previously testified here in the house about the constitutionality of the voting rights, the d.c. house voting rights act. he will testify as to the constitutionality of our tatehood bill. alice rivlin, who, of course, was vice chair of the federal reserve board, director of the

white house, office of management and budget and finally as a d.c. resident was called upon by the president to chair the financial control board of the district of columbia will testify at that hearing. ow, of course, dr. rivlin is an expert on the nation's economy and on the finances of the district of columbia. we're very pleased that wade henderson of the leadership conference on civil and human rights will also testify. longtime champion of statehood and equal rights for the district of columbia. the elected officials of the district of columbia will testify. of course the mayor the chair the security council and i, also the statehood delegation.

at the same time that we have been pressing on what amounts to two tracks, we have made progress on the elements of statehood, such as budget and legislative autonomy. in this house we got to work on what we need to work on all if he same time. there's no -- on all at the same time. there's no sequential matter on what it comes to the many rights of the residents of istrict of columbia are denied . with the many things on which we have struggled for equality, one at a time, sometimes two or threatt a time, statehood has residents, what the the american citizens who live in the district of columbia have needed and wanted, and it

is during this congress that statehood has gotten its great footing. i do want to thank the growing statehood movement and coalition. the many residents who struggle for statehood and have helped us in so many ways, including many in the statehood coalition who went around asking for co-sponsors. so i think one of the many reasons that statehood has gotten so much momentum this year is that, you know, the residents of the district of columbia are kind of fed up with paying such high federal taxes without equal representation in the congress of the united states. they have simply had it on second-class citizenship.

as if to dralm ties what it means -- drama ties what it means to be a second--- dramatize what it means to be a second-class citizen, there were violations of the rights of the people who live in the district of columbia as american citizens this year which highlighted the need for statehood. the house actually passed two provisions that would overturn laws passed by the residents of the district of columbia, laws that were local entirely in their nature. imagine what would happen if congress tried to pass a law to overturn some law in maryland or virginia or oklahoma or utah or california or new hampshire. people would think the congress had lost its mind. because of the anomaly of the

stature -- status -- rather -- of the district of columbia as a district and not a state, the congress can meddle in -- if you'll forgive me -- the local business of the district of columbia. so two members decided to and in fact got passed in this house bills that overturned our local laws. i'm pleased to say that as of now those bills have not seen nd will not be passed in the continuing resolution that is pending in the house or the senate. thus far we have been successful despite the passage of these two bills. one of them passed by representative tom massey, a republican who lives in kentucky, he lives in a county of 11,000 people, has sought

and actually got passed in the house, something that had to get taken out, a bill that would keep the district of columbia, which has 650,000 people from having any gun laws , none. all the local gun laws would be gone. this is a big city, people. the reason big cities have gun laws of the kind you will not find in kentucky is because of the difference, the differences we all respect in our country. moreover, public safety. think about it. is the quintessential local concern. you depend upon your own local officials who know you both, who know you best, who you've elected to deal first and foremost with public safety. nobody would try to tell somebody what to do about

public safety in its own district. and yet that's what representative massie tried to do. this in spite of the fact that in 1973 not for statehood the congress of the united states recognizing how un-american it was to try to pass laws, interfere with the laws of the local jurisdiction, devolved local lawmaking authority to the residents of the district of columbia and until this year, most members on both sides of the aisle had respected that. to be sure, we had to fight them off in prior years, but we had a long run where nobody tried to interfere with the local laws of the district of columbia. this was