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 this was surprising to us that

representative massie, who is a tea party republican, who stands first and foremost for localism, would forget those principles when it came to the district of columbia. and try to interfere with local matters in this city. we had the same thing happen to another colleague, a republican from maryland, who should have known better, who has a particular distaste for the decriminalization of marijuana laws that is going on all over the united states, 18 states so far, legalization in two states. so he tries to get a law, indeed got a law that we now have kept from getting through block te, that would the district's recently passed marijuana decriminalization

law. what this means is that there a ld be a fine rather than conviction for possessing marijuana. the district didn't do it by the way for the reasons that some states, the 1 states, perhaps some of them -- 18 states, perhaps some of them did it. although some of them may have done it for the same reason we did it. blacks and white use marijuana at the same rate in the united states. in the district, 90% of those who had criminal convictions for possessing small amounts of marijuana were black. you know, half the population's black, half is white. these laws have had an obvious racial effect. i'm not for smoking anything

but i'll tell you, i also don't believe that people ought to have a criminal conviction because they possessed it any more than have a criminal conviction for possessing alcohol. in any case, whatever you think , it's not your business, it's a local matter. and the district ought to have the same right when it comes to local matters as anybody else has. this was representative andy harris. what was ironic about his trying to block the district's marijuana decriminalization law is that his own -- he couldn't block it in his own state, maryland, which has decriminalized marijuana. points it out the most, when it almost got shut down not because of anything the city had done but

because this house and this enate shut down. the district was an innocent bystander but because the that s still requires the district's local budget pass through this house and senate, the budget was up here. 'm telling you, it is a budget , $8 billion raised by the people and the businesses i represent. not one dime of it federal money. a balanced budget, the likes of which the federal government has not seen since the clinton dministration. $1.5 billion in reserve and there is virtually no state in the union that has that kind of

reserve. and yet when the federal government shut down, the district of columbia was in jeopardy of shutting down. this despite the fact that i have a shutdown avoidance bill, that shutdown avoidance was in the president's budget but not passed. the mayor did the right thing for the first time in american history. he refused to shut down. what are you going to do to him? what he did instead was to keep the district open, but pay for our employees and our services out of contingency funds, those funledses were almost exhausted -- funds were almost exhausted before the federal government finally opened up and the district didn't have to worry about spending its contingency funds. you should face citizens with , over d of challenge

time you obviously -- they begin to feel that they have to find a remedy. yes, residents have been trying to find a remedy for 200 years. and there are interesting historical reasons why it hasn't happened. but whatever those reasons are, the time is at hand. when it is impossible to call yourself the united states of america who believes in equality in the way citizens are treated throughout the world and not begin to apply that same principle to the people who live in your own nation's capital. so we have been preparing for his hearing for some time. we took particular pains on

what is called d.c. emancipation day. d.c. celebrates this day, april 16, every year, because it's the day that abraham lincoln freed the slaves in the district of columbia. before the slaves were freed in other parts of the country. it's kind of the district's way of saying there's a kind of absence of freedom that still exists in your own nation's capital. as emancipation day came, by chance the u.n. human rights ommittee issued a report indicating that the denial of voting rights in the house and senate to the residents of the district of columbia was a violation of the international covenant on civil and political rights, a treaty which the united states signed in 1992.

so let's be clear. by not granting equal citizenship rights to the people who live in the nation's capital, the united states, this congress, is in violation f international law. on emancipation day i did not come to the floor to speak about the slaves. that was then. this is now. it's interesting because my great-grandfather was a runaway slave from virginia and was in the district of columbia on emancipation day. but emancipation day cannot be about nostalgia and residents of the district of columbia put it to good use and thought what i ought to do was, in preparation for what i knew senator carper wanted to do, to

come to the floor to speak about why we should have statehood, what is it, what is it about the residents of the district of columbia that merited statehood? well, first let's start with the most elementary of qualifications. nd that is the population. yes, this is a city, yes it's called a district, it's a district of columbia. but -- and yes we have a population equal to but in this case larger than the population of two states that have two senators and by the way a member, one member to represent the entire state, just like i

represent the residents of the district of columbia. vermont and wyoming. one in the west and one in the east. what does that say to you? it says the residents believed and the framers believed in equality. they wanted everybody to have representation in the house and the senate. and when there was a dispute between the large and the small states they made a compromise and gave the small states equal representation in the house and what amounts to per capita representation here. so there's no question that you have enough people here. now, i've mentioned these because we are larger than those states, but the half a dozen states which have population about equal to the district of columbia, that's the first qualification.

t let's take a look at the ones that would probably get the attention of more americans than any others and that is the taxes paid on our license plate . you will see the words taxation without representation. let's put that to dollars and cents. we're not just talking about paying taxes without representation. i'm talking about paying more axes per capita than any other jurisdiction without representation. of t $12,000 per resident

the district of columbia in taxes paid to support the federal government which does not reciprocate with voting representation in the house and the senate. i have the voting committee, i as the representive of the district of columbia have the same rights to come to this floor and do everything else that other members do, except that which is emblematic of my citizenship. and the citizenship of the people i represent. and that of course is the vote on -- the last vote on the house floor. $12,000. now, i have not -- this is simply a graph to show you the vast differences in taxes per capita paid throughout the united states. it goes from $12,000 down to mississippi which pays -- those

tizens pay $4,000 per capita to the federal government. with the same rights that those who pay more, as should be the case, and it should also be the case that those of us who live in the nation's capital, who pay more and more than all others, should have the same ights as all others. just to dig down into what this eans a little bit. vermont, which i indicated is a state smaller than the district , pays about half the taxes, .6,000 per resident

yoming pays $,000 per -- $8,000 per resident, these are . th compared to our $12,000 california, if you look at the large states of the union, pays $,000 per person -- $8,000 per person compared to the district per lumbia's $12,000 person. but perhaps of all of the -- for statehood

, none is more worthy than the sacrifices district of columbia residents have made throughout the more than 200 years of our existence as a nation's capital. and the wars of the united states, often suffering casualties above and beyond those of states that are considerably larger in population in the district of columbia. so let's look at just some of them for the major wars, the ig wars of the 20th century. world war i, more casualties han three states of the union.

orld war ii. more casualties than four states f the union. the korean war. more casualties than eight states of the union. the vietnam war. re casualties than 10 states f the union. a memorial the mall

residents who died in world war i. that we that sacrifice feel most dishonored as a jurisdiction. how could our country continue to send our residents to war without granting those who go to for ften to get rights other the same rights that we afford every citizen of our own country? so all of the elements, the essential elements, even the one

to endure ardest without full equality, all of havelements of citizenship long been made by the citizens -- by the residents of the district of columbia. and all of the elements of statehood system of why not statehood? that is a fair question. what was wrong with the framers? why didn't they make the district of columbia a state in the first place? well, nothing was wrong with the framers. the district of columbia is a historic anomaly. it's a figment of history and of an incident in history that ould not happen today. the reason the district of columbia is not a state is an accident of history and an

accident that must be corrected. the accident came out of the meeting of the continental congress in philadelphia in 1783. there were some angry revolutionary war soldiers, so they did what citizens do. they went not only to petition the continental congress they brought their guns with them and while -- it is not said that a shot was fired, they did point their guns at the windows where the continental congress was meeting. well the pennsylvania and the philadelphia authorities didn't know what to do, they didn't want to go out after the evolutionary war heroes.

so the continental congress said, we better get out of here system of they fled philadelphia. it struck in the framers' minds, oh, my goodness. states are not going to protect us, so i guess we must have a district that is controlled entirely by the federal government. well, when i say that it is an accident of history, do understand that that history is long gone. the way in which we protect the nation's capital today is the way it would be protected in the event of statehood. you know, the federal government, to be sure, and the district of columbia government, after all it's the same city, as far as we're all concerned, get together to protect the district, whether it's from 9/11 r from any other threat. you can't rest, then, on any

notion that the framers intended to have any residents who did not have equal rights. the existence of a jurisdiction that did not have full and equal rights was not in the capacity of the framers to envision. the who fought revolutionary war lived in the nation's capital, then parts of maryland and virginia, that became the nation's capital. the brilliant framers realized that they did not have all the answers. they had every reason to think that this would be fixed. and one reason we know that they understood that things could get fixed and shame on us that over

200 years we haven't fixed this moral outrage, one reason we know that they understood it could be fixed is what they did do to make the residents of the nation's capital equal in the first place. during the 10-year transition from the territory in maryland and virginia, which was to form the nation's capital they did not want those residents to be left without their equal rights for even one second, while they had jurisdiction, they saw to it that during that transition period, when they weren't really a part of maryland and virginia, and weren't really a part of the new capital they would retain their rights. those people who live in maryland and virginia on their way to becoming the nation's capital, still voted in those two states. and had every single right

preserved. until jurisdiction passed to the united states congress. and that's when tyranny set in. the terny of not having that representation carried over into and under the jurisdiction of the congress. the people of the district of columbia in 1801, when we became the nation's capital, went into the streets to demand their rights and they have been in the streets ever since, demanding their full rights as any red-blooded americans would be. mr. speaker, we have tried every route. some of it more yadge kuhl -- gradual than others, to pursue, to obtain our full rights as american citizens. voting ied to get

righters in house, voting righters in house and senate, other warkse budget autonomy, legislative autonomy. even if we'd gotten those, it would have been insufficient but it says everything about the shortcomings of the congress that even those insufficient routes to statehood are not yet a part of our law. so this year, there will be -- there will be a full jurisdictional hearing. that hearing will take place next monday. that hearing will set an important guide post. it will educate many in the senate and house and many in our country about what the people of

the district of columbia, the nation's capital, do not now have and what they are entitled to. no e can be no doubt that american would believe that those who pay taxes like they do should not have the same representation in the house and senate that they do. there isn't any american who would say that the funds that are locally raised in your local jurisdiction should come to the congress of the united states for any reason. i do not believe that our problem lies with the people of our country. i do believe that many of them are not fully aware that their own capital is less free than any part of our country. so that what we will hear on

next monday is not all the moral reasons, some of them, of course, but also the reasons that go to our creed as americans and go to practical matters such as whether the government should be able to close down the district of columbia when they have a disagreement at the federal level among themselves. we will hear the practical reasons, not only the moral reasons, for statehood. so mr. speaker in the name of the people i represent, perhaps the more so in the name of by now hundreds of thousands of american citizens who happen to live in the district of columbia

, went to war for their country, in germany, in vietnam, in afghanistan, and iraq, but never came home. in the name of those who will once again protect our country now that the president has indicated that we ourselves must ake on the fight against isis, on this 9/11, as we remember those innocents who died simply in se they happened to be new york and pennsylvania, i ask, mr. speaker, that the congress remember the 650,000

people who live in the nation's capital are proud of their residency in the district of columbia. many of whom, like me, a third generation washingtonian, are proud of her lineage in the nation's capital. in the name of all those i represent, i ask for statehood for the district of columbia so that our residents may have equal citizenship rights, those same rights which led the founders of our country to create the united states of america. i thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the entlelady yields back.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. sherman, for 30 minutes. mr. sherman: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for 30 minutes and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sherman: mr. speaker, i rise today to address the events in the mideast and with isis and i want to address three separate areas. the first is what should be the role of congress in deciding american policy to these horrific events? second is to respond to the unjustified attacks on the president of the united states by those who claim he doesn't

have a plan, doesn't have a detailed enough plan, doesn't have a perfect plan, or whatever. and the third is to discuss what should be our policy in the middle east and what dangers there are no matter which policy we pursue. as we try to protect our nation, we should also protect our constitution. article 1 of the constitution vests in congress the exclusive duty to decide when we declare war. when we go to war. article 2 makes the president of the united states commander in chief of our armed forces. these two provisions need to be reconciled so that both the congress and the president can make the decisions that the constitution encharges to them in our foreign and military policy. this is not a new issue.

president jefferson sent our marines, in the words of the song, to the shores of tripoli, in 1801. this was our first foreign military deployment. his was our first fighting and involvement in the middle east. and most relevant today, it was he first abuse of our military abroad in the sense of -- first use of our military abroad in the absence of a declaration of war. what did thomas jefferson think was the proper congressional role? he sought and obtained advanced authorization to put our marines ashore in north aver ka. . -- africa. . we still face the same constitutional provisions. but several decades ago we passed the war powers act.

reasonable statute that harmanizes the two provisions of the -- hamonizes the two provisions of the constitution that i've discussed. the war powers act makes it clear that the president can act for 60 or 90 days without the authorization of congress, but that's it. beyond those time limits, deployments require congressional authorization. now, we've heard from the president that he respects congress, likes us, consults with us and would welcome our support. but the president, i'm sure, consults with many academics and think tanks and foreign officials, not as a constitutional duty but just because it makes sense to

consult with them. and the president would welcome the support of the heritage foundation or "the new york times" editorial board for his policies. saying that you welcome the support of congress or that you consult with congress has nothing to do with the legal rights of congress and the american people. now, the president has taken a very unusual legal stance. he asserts broadly last night that he has the authority to conduct the bombing campaign. but he doesn't -- but he needs congress to approve training syrians and providing arms. this stands the constitution on its head. the president, the main decision to be made here is whether we put our pilots

and/or soldiers in harm's way, whether we wage war and cause casualties and perhaps incur casualties. the far less decision -- important decision is whether we train a few hundred or a few thousand syrians and provide them with weapons. keep in mind this training and arming of syrians has occurred for well over a year without congressional authorization. what's happening here is the president wants us to vote in favor of his plan but -- or to take a vote of congress and claim a it's a vote in favor of his plan when in fact we would only be voting on the smallest part of that plan and that is whether, without any risk of casualties to ourselves, without any risk that we'd be directly causing casualties in

the middle east, to provide training to syrian rebels. this is hardly what the constitution requires. today in response to my questions, the president's deputy national security advisor explained for the first time from this administration why they think they have authorization to bomb iraq and syria. without any further action from congress. he cited the authorization to use military force passed on this house 13 years ago in response to the tragic events which occurred 13 years ago to this day. when congress authorized going after al qaeda, we never envisioned that that authority

would be used in this manner. just as important, the president's plan is to go after isis which has been repudiated by al qaeda, which broke from al qaeda and which wages war against the front which is part of al qaeda. it is difficult to say that an authorization to use force against al qaeda is an authorization to use force against those who are fighting al qaeda. but it's a technical argument. on the president's side you can say that when -- that al qaeda splintered and that all the splinters constitute part of the organization that attacked us 13 years ago to this day. that is why congress needs to revise the authorization to use military force in 2001. we passed it for one purpose.

is it going to be there for 100 years? is it going to authorize things we never imagined? or shouldn't congress define what it is we are authorizing under today's circumstance? the other argument raised by the president's national -- deputy national security advisor is that the authorization to go to war against saddam hussein somehow applies to this situation. a reading of that resolution clearly shows that it is confined to iraq and would not justify that portion of the president's plan, a necessary portion that involves bombing syria. so again, congress should vote on authorization to use military force that is crafted to this situation at this time. but it's unlikely we will do so. because there's almost a silent

conspiracy here in washington. presidents want more power to act as they decide in the national interest, without ving to ask congress for authority. and members of congress sometimes just want to avoid a tough vote. and so the desire of the president to have all power and the desire of some members of this house to avoid responsibility coincide with the idea of the president just boldly saying he has the authority to enter a new conflict and to enter it for more than 60 or 90 days and congress never has to vote on the matter. and the president, of course, would like to say that he has a vote of congress in favor of his plan. and so we're going to end up with the sneakiest of all maneuvers. what is likely to occur, and i

hope it doesn't, is that we'll vote next week on whether to continue government operations, whether to fund the government for the next several months. whether to prevent our national parks from closing. and buried in there will be a provision authorizing and funding the training of syrian disdidn'ts. -- dissidents. and we'll pass that package, the president will claim that since we funded and authorized the training of syrian dissidents we voted for his entire plan, including the bombing, and members of congress can say they had no choice but to vote for the syrian provision but didn't actually like it, never voted for it, they just voted to keep the national parks open. a silent conspiracy of empowerment and shirking responsibility. what we should do next week is have three separate votes. one vote on whether to fund and authorize the arming of syrians, because the president has asked for that vote.

second, a vote on whether to authorize military force limited exclusively to air forces and not authorizing ground operations. and the third will be -- would be a vote to further -- go further and authorize ground operations. the exact contours of these resolutions should be subject to amendment, open amendment in this house, we would would have to deal with the dour -- we would have to deal with the duration and the exact limitations. but then we would be performing our constitutional duty. then we would be protecting the american constitution. fear that instead we will cleverly avoid responsibility and the president will be able to say, ah, but you voted for our -- for my plan. now, in defense of the president, i want to respond to the constant harping that the president doesn't have a plan.

doesn't have the detailed enough plan. doesn't have a strategy. first, the president put forward a plan last evening. while republicans have blasted it as insufficiently detailed, it is just as detailed as the plans put forward by the former president to invade afghanistan and to invade iraq. now, keep in mind, as we learned from those wars, whatever plan is put forward is going to be dramatically changed because once you engage in hostilities, things change. second, if the president were to provide as much detail as some hyperpartisan republicans are demanding, he would then be attacked for revealing our strategy, our tactics and classified information. the only thing that holds together this -- the -- creates consistency among certain extremist partisan republicans is that whatever the president does it's wrong.

then i've got to ask, where is the republican plan? have republicans coalesced around any plan? has any prominent republican even put forward a plan? where's your plan? vice president dick cheney has not put forward a plan. just an expression of anger and partisanship. speaker boehner has not put forward a plan. the republican-controlled house armed services committee majority has not put forward a plan. and there are a host of think tanks here in washington that could aid republicans in drafting a plan, yet the republicans have yet to even discuss their own plan, let alone coalesce around a republican plan. seems like the republicans do have a plan. their plan is to reap political advantage from this crisis in the middle east while avoiding

any responsibility for making decisions. the republicans are politically clever and when i say republicans in this speech i'm referring only to the hyperpartisan republicans who have engaged in the activities that i described. these republicans understand that no one can draft the plan the american people really want . americans want a plan that guarantees the immediate and total destruction of isis without significant american casualties. and so hyperpartisan republicans can constantly berate the president because he doesn't have a guarantee. he isn't offering immediate and total destruction. he does have a plan designed to avoid american casualties.

instead we get a suggestion that somehow this guaranteed no-cost, immediate, total victory would be achieved if only we had a different president. i think it's time for congress to stop harping about whether the president has a plan. he has put forth a plan. now congress must exercise its constitutional role in defining what authorizations the president is going to be granted and what portions of his plan are going to be authorized. i look forward, i hope, though doubt, to a serious debate on the floor of this house where we will discuss and vote on and amend and vote on the amendments of a resolution dealing with whether to arm syrians and train them, with a resolution as to whether to

perhaps g-term multiyear bombing campaign against isis, and whether the president is authorized to use ground forces. finally, i want to focus on the middle east itself and how complicated the situation is. and i want to praise the president not only for his decisive action but also for his wise caution. because the situation we face in the middle east is far more complicated than the president's detractors would let on. the natural reaction on seeing those horrific videos is to say, isis is the embodyment of all evil and its total and complete destruction is all we need to do, and should be our entire focus. but let's look at the situation. we look not only on the entity

we want to destroy, but also at who will be empowered by its destruction. who is on the ground in syria and the sunni areas of iraq that is fighting isis and stands to gain if isis is destroyed? if we make the list, we see entities that are nearly as evil as isis and are, if anything, more capable of hitting our homeland, hitting europe, hitting targets outside the middle east, than isis itself. first we see that isis is engaged in war with the al nusra front. al nusra is what is a dedicated branch of al qaeda, one of its more capable branches. andened -- and so the destruction of isis will, to some degree, empower al qaeda and al nusra. since they are both rivals in

fighting for support among extremist sunnis. second, on the list of isis foes -- second on the list of isis foes is the assad regime. the very people who are attacking the president for not acting precipitously today were attacking the president last year for not bombing the assad regime. so they attack him last year for not bombing assad and this year for not bombing assad's number one enemy. the only consistency here is, you're attacking the president for not bombing somebody. the fact is that assad has the blood of many tens of thousands of people on his hands and his empowerment, his success, removing the isis problem that he has will be one of the disadvantages of destroying isis. hird, is iran and hezbollah.

iran and hezbollah have -- are waging war against isis today and embody a greater long-term threat to the united states than isis. keep in mind hezbollah killed hundreds of marines during the reagan administration in lebanon. hezbollah and iran, working together, have conducted operations on a variety of different continents. there's all this talk about how there are members of -- numbers of people fighting with isis that have american passports and they might come back and conduct an operation. there are those fighting with isis who have european passports and could come back to europe and conduct operations. that's might. iran and hezbollah have been conducting operations in south america, europe, asia for decades. and iran came close to

effectuating an assassination right here in washington, d.c. just within the last decade. so yes, it would be good to destroy isis. but let's not kid ourselves. those who would be empowered by those -- by that destruction include entities nearly as evil and probably more dangerous than isis itself. i bring up this complexity to argue against those who wonder why we didn't just lash out immediately. why do we need caution? e need caution because the situation is not as simple as an old western movie where you have the good guy in a white hat and the bad guy in a black hat and if the bad guy gets killed, the good guy, peace and unity and wonderful, life is restored and the good cowboy in the white hat rides off into the sunset with

the school marm. al nusra is not a school marm. hezbollah is not a school marm. iran is developing nuclear weapons. the middle east is not near as simple as the president's destractor -- detractors pretend. so i look forward to doing something that members of congress don't necessarily look forward to doing. and that is taking responsibility and casting tough votes. but if we're going to be true to the constitution, we will not allow to stay on the books in its present form a 2001 resolution adopted in the immediate aftermath of the terrible events that occurred 13 years ago today and allow that statement to be twisted and stretched and applied to

situations well beyond its description. we will instead do what the constitution requires of us. and that is to define what is the president authorized to do under these circumstances for the goals that we have this decade and at this time. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. does the gentleman have a motion? r. sherman:

mr. sherman: i've been advised by the parliamentarian that if i move adjourn the house is legally committed to reconvene this coming monday and for that reason i move to adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. acordingly, the house stands adjourned

community they don't meet mandate under the 2010 health care law. closed-doord a meeting about the dangers of isis. liveouse returns monday, at 2:00 p.m. eastern for legislative work, 6:30 p.m. for votes. as can see it always, -- always, here on c-span. spoke ataker boehner the capitol. this is about 10 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. last night, the president family began to make the case that the nation has needed him to make for quite some time. that we must destroy and defeat this terrorist threat.

is a sophisticated and determined enemy. in order to be successful, we must have a conference of strategy designed to destroy and defeat it. i think last night, the president made a compelling case for action. but as i said in my statement last night, there are still and concerns that remain. for example, i support the president plan to train and equip iraqi security forces and in syria in opposition. but i remain concerned that those measures could take years to fully implement at a time momentum and territorial gains must be halted and reversed immediately. we stand ready to work with the president, and 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. there will be 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 are doing our due diligence here and is cussing all of this with our members. it is the right thing to do -- and discussing all of this with our members. it is the right thing to do. the congressional gold medal is the highest honor we can do so. their we pay our specs to families -- our respects to their families. and we never forget they gave all to confront evil and defeat it. why not be much more active and have a vote to give the president authority, a

congressional marker on this if it is such an incredible threat? >> i do believe it would be in the nations interest. i believe it is in the institution of the congresses interest -- congress's interest to speak on this question. normally, in such a case, i've been through this a few times in 24 years that i've been here -- the president of the united states would request that support and 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. if you see congress as an equal partner, as it is, then why not right a resolution on your own? >> typically, in my time in congress, that is not how this has happened. the president would make a request and supply the language for the resolution. >> do you believe a resolution

will pass? >> i think we are at the beginning stages of building the kind of support necessary from the nation to carry out this plan and to carry it out successfully. but we are at the beginning stages of this. will it be done as the president requested? >> you are talking about two different things. the president's request was for a title x authorization to train and equip syrian rebels. that is the only request that has come from the white house at this point. and as i said, i support the president's request. ago, youluded a moment said that a speech is not a strategy. that implies that you do not think he has laid out a strategy and that you think he is all in. are continuings with the members. but i can tie that in our conversations this morning, a lot of our members do not feel that the campaign that was outlined last night will

accomplish the mission the president says, and that is, to destroy isil. frankly, a lot of our members think a lot more needs to be done. members 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. skepticism that was reflected in your statement last night? >> i'm not sure that we are doing all that we can do to defeat this terrorist threat. and if our goal is to eliminate isil, there is a lot of doubt whether the plan was outlined by the president last night and it's enough to publish was missing. -- this mission. theree is about of -- >>

is about a week left before they will go back to their campaign. has this been rushed through too quickly echo should there be more of a debate? >> the president on tuesday while i was at the white house made this request, this specific request, to have the ability to train syrian rebels. at --ed to make sure that that members have ample time to have a conversation about this. it started today. and it will continue. and we will make a decision sometime next week on how we will proceed. >> karen mckeown just told a group of reporters that a decision has been made to vote on authorization. is that true? >> that is not true. x it is not true? >> look me in the eye. there is no decision that has been made on how we will proceed. >> could you tell us what your preference is?

do you believe it would be best to a separate vote on the title x authorization apart from the cr? are you ok with just embedding title x authorization within a much larger legislative piece? >> no decision has been made. we had a conversation with our members today. these are serious discussions and a very serious issue and ought to be handled that way. that's why these conversations will continue over the weekend, so that congress has ample time to consider the president's decision and act on it will stop >> do you think based on all the information you have given that the syrian fighters would be a trustworthy and competent approach? many u.s. citizens are concerned about going with a force we don't know everything about. do you think they can be effect? x aced on the information i have look that, the free syrian army has been i am large very well

that it by our intelligence officials. today, they are in a fight against assad and in a fight against i sold and a fight against another al qaeda affiliate in eastern serious. get run over. to an f-16 is not a strategy. airstrikes alone will not accomplish what we are trying to accomplish. the president has made clear he does not want u.s. and some ground. somebody's boot have to be on the ground. haslieve what the president asked for as commander in chief is this authority to train the syrian rebels and we ought to give the president what he's asking for. >> if i am hearing you correctly, it sounds like at a

minimum, you given the vote to give the authority. the question is whether you go beyond that and if so, the timing of that action. >> that would be correct. >> can you talk about how you let the resolutions sit out there with the understanding that maybe you can slip it into that. at some point, you have to decide to move the cr into next week. there's no point in letting it go that much longer. >> is the president wrong to take u.s. combat troops on the ground in syria off the table? >> we only have one commander-in-chief. you -- he laid out his plan. i would never tell the enemy what i was willing to do or unwilling to do. but he's the commander-in-chief and he made that decision. time, it ist in

important we give the president what he is asking for. we have got to keep our eye on the ball. ae issue is about defeating terrorist threat that is real and imminent will stop thank you. >> in her briefing today, house minority leader nancy pelosi also responded to questions about the president's speech last night on combating the ice is threat and the role congress will play in any further action. she discussed the economy, immigration reform, and humanitarian assistance to iraq -- to iraq.

>> as we all know, we observed the anniversary of 9/11. presented congress the congressional gold medal honoring their families and first responders and those on the airplane. i mentioned something i mention almost every year at this time -- that president lincoln cautioned against the silent artillery of time wearing away our memories. we every year make sure our families know that we hope time will dull their pain, but it will never dim the memory of the deed, the courageous actions of

those who tried to save others and those that we lost at that time. 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. diplomacyrt of it, and leadership in terms of establishing a government, helping to establish government that would be one of reconciliation of the shia and the kurds. defeating isis, it's also at the superpowers and the region. disrupt the finances

of isis as well as the low of foreign fighters into the region. side, our house democratic caucus supports the president in the actions he has taken. , the deployment of a few hundred troops to protect our interests there. people ask do we want to vote? 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. passedknow, recently we an amendment that talked about a marker as to if we went the on the certain point, there may be a need for a vote will stop

would you not believe we have reached that point? met last, the president made an announcement about deferring any action on immigration until later this year. confident meeting with our caucuses in the house, the hispanic caucus and the congressional black caucus, all of whom have a big interest in the immigration issue. i feel confident there's a great deal the president can do at his arenistrative and we confident that my thanksgiving and christmas, there will be more security in their lives because of some discretion the president will execute.

all of this is interesting and important and the center of our attention. we share the concern about the economy, despite incredible progress under the president's administration of reducing the deficit by more than half, by having the unemployment rate 6.1% and he% to took office by having 50 something months of sustained growth of private sector job creation, 50 some months in a the list with the stock market just soaring and so many indicators of economic success. nonetheless, still great uncertainty among the american people and that is why we put forth are middle-class jumpstart.

in the first 100 days of the new congress, we would pass legislation that would create and paying jobs in the united infrastructureng -- i don't thing the infrastructure and are country and closing tax loopholes that send jobs overseas, by reducing the cost of education, by allowing students to negotiate their loans at a lower rate and the initiative about women, when women succeed, america succeeds. if not just the title of our economic agenda, it is a wetement of fact will stop are enthusiastic about how we move forward and i'm proud of my members of a the break them how they kept the drumbeat going on -- they have done it electronically, they've done it

through traditional means of communication, town halls, seminars, every kind of residents, but also electronically. one of our women's agenda issues, we have 54 million communications on the subject, not just that we put out, but how it was transmitted be on there. i'm proud of our caucus than what we are doing in the middle class, which is the back of our democracy and i am proud of the president, proud of his deliberate approach to this and the success of his leadership to make a big difference in terms of having a new government in iraq. i pay tribute to joe biden as well to work with our nato allies to be working together on this issue and the superpowers in the region to do their law -- a do their part will stop >>

lawyer in the bush administration who gave president bush empowers to said obama hasm adopted the same view as world powers as the bush administration. do you share that view? >> i believe when we passed the authorization in 2001 halloween f estevan, it was to narrow the war powers act. when someone strikes our country as on 9/11, it triggers any and all powers of the commander-in-chief. what we did with that resolution i don't have it right here, but if you read it, you will see it is a narrower interpretation. how the bush administration interpreted it and for how long

is another issue. but he's not relevant right now. what we are talking about right now is isis is threat. we have to work together to destroy them, and that is these subject at hand. anything heove of did in office, much less care for his opinion right now. next you don't think the president is following him right now? >> i think the president is following the law. >> doesn't congress have a bigger role beyond just voting on the narrow authorization for title x? isn't it shirking its responsibility focusing on that issue alone? if them were part among the initiatives the president is talking about. training syrian moderates to fight isis in syria is an important part and it is very timely.

that is why we are talking about that now. in the hope it would the cr because that's the train leaving the station. the president needs this to happen now. there's talk of doing this that is by not means to say there is a limitation on our involvement in this. there is a presidential request for $2 billion for eastern europe or iraq and other concerns in the middle east, so there's another provision to terms ofwill stop in this authorization, it's a big debate and we are having a briefing right now, and to another briefing on the subject, i do believe congress has a role. what the president is doing now,

i believe he has the legal priority to do. i've studied this issue for a very long time. been in the intelligence sphere for a long time. how far does it go as we take new steps to confront isis about the potential aftermath of the saudi's arming their assets in iraq? all that come at isis have been a triangle here and eventually there will be a lot more armed people. have their incentives changed at all? what is your vision of the aftermath? with theted establishment of a different government in iraq. if that had not happened, the

situation you are describing would be exacerbated, although your concerns go beyond iraq. to have a government that understands its responsibility, that it not just about the shia are in charge and we don't pay thatttention or the kurds, provides fertile territory for some, especially sunni to be responsible to isis when they were originally coming through. when you are arming people, you are always concerned will stop isis is a mutating thing will what it becomes and what emerges out of all of this -- that's why it has to be comprehensive.

we may have up to a hundred foreign fighters in the u.s. will stop the europeans have thousands. more than 10,000. passports whoave are citizens of their country who have joined the fighting force. beyond our goes concern and that's the primary responsibility. this is a big heal and we have to deal with it in a way -- -- thatlked about the one more act of violence will end it and it's an endless why we'll. we have to be smart about it as to how we go forward so that we militaryg not just initiatives but political initiatives and diplomatic initiatives so we reduce the fertile territory for more recruitment of terrorists.

competence been transferred to you that it the coalition will now be going forward? >> one part i did not mention was continuing the humanitarian assistance and some of those regions. what the u.s. did to help those people on the mountain was life-saving. helpful in having people understand we are there to help the people. to have a government that is there for our look -- for all people is essential for us to be putting in resources. it is exactly the right one. the government has to work or otherwise the investments we are making diplomatically, politically, intelligence wise,

militarily falls into a chaotic situation. it is challenging and complicated. president the delivered miss with how he has dealt with this step-by-step to put us in a place where we can go to the next that because -- not everything has been done as -- as far as that is concerned. >> on the continuing resolution -- how do you feel about setting the and dates or the separatezation dates from the and dates of the cr? do you feel about those? they are never something to

be proud of because it means we haven't been able to get all of our work done in a timely fashion. sometimes a are a convenience and sometimes they are an excuse. i say that as one who has had to myself. but it's very appropriate to get the october 1 beginning of a new fiscal year. december is an appropriate one. we will pass something, and omnibus, better bill, a more responsible way to advance appropriations for the next year. i don't think we should delay it any longer. 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. date,ms of the expiration as far as the xm bank, i'm opposed to that. it's a formidable instrument for competitiveness of u.s. businesses large and small. i think it affects every region of the country in terms of job creation and stability. having an's already impact on the contract because there is uncertainty about the long jt of the bank and its existence. nextu put the date to june, you are putting a marker as to the demise of the xm bank. like the bill. it has a long-term authorization for the bank and i would hope those forces outside congress, communities that are affected,

businesses that are affected, this is about job creation and keeping america number one. exportsout facilitating and to play with this, it is damaging because if you are dealing with the bank talking about a few months and a few months, you are not talking about the stability and certainty and some of these are contracts, so as far as the forces outside congress, i don't know why they are not more active with their republican friends to say this is not something to mess with. >> there has never been much --e for the peace dividend

as we wound down in iraq and afghanistan, your caucus members -- are they worried as this will gets expanded that we -- that it will cost a lot of dollars for social programs they may favor. that honoressities our responsibilities to meet the needs of the american people. i don't think we are getting. i don't think the evidence i see before me -- i judge what we are talking about is by no means of the scale of where we have been before. focused, targeted and engagingstop it is not in hundreds of thousands of troops being deployed. it's exactly the opposite of that. certainly every time we talk about any initiative for the use of --ce or initiative initiation of hostilities, it's a question of forces that we have so many unmet needs in our

own country. to memberse concern when we were building roads and schools. afghanistan, we had needs in our own country. that part of diplomacy is important to security as well. but there is a concern and it has been brought up at our meeting will stop we have a first responsibility to protect and defend. that is the oath we take. i think we have time or one more question. there were concerns raised in the democratic caucus in the early part of this authorization -- essentially the future of where you have little pushback for the opposition -- the authorization in iraq. >> house democrats

overwhelmingly voted against the iraq initiative in 2002, the october initiation was in 2003 for the hostilities. now, we are watching, observing and judging. speechsident made his last night which was very strong and convincing. our members are strong and whatrt the president and is the challenge, what are our resources and how do we engage other countries? what is a country we are dealing with in terms of having a new government? what is our definition of success? whether we take a vote or not, we are not at that point because

we believe the president has the authority. is openliberative, it to new information. that's what our caucus is about, i will go back to where i began on the subject, which is a matter of a couple of months --, we voted on the floor you have it here -- the president shall not deploy or maintain armed forces a in sustained combat role in iraq without specific statutory off the session -- authorization enacted after the enactment of this concurrent resolution. hopefully we don't have to go beyond what the president is doing. but we stand ready to have that discussion. thank you all very much. i have to go back to work.

democratic leaders called on congress to give the president additional authorization to arm and train syrian moderate rebels. here are the comments from harry reid come in dick durbin, charles schumer and patty murray. >> last night, president obama outlined his strategy for eradicating isis without repeating the mistakes of the past. president made it clear we will not rush into another ground war in the middle east and we will not go it alone. instead, america will lead a coalition that includes european and arab nations and a's targeted mission to destroy isis.

american air strikes will be supported by local forces fighting on the ground to protect their own countries, their own families come homes and communities will stop but now it is up to congress to rally behind president obama in a decisive strategy. we will put our political differences aside and work together to give this administration the tools it needs to meet isis had on. the administration has consulted with congress and i expect operation will continue. senators will be briefed on the situation today and will proceed next week. continued consultation with congress and the administration as event of old, including the cr we expect to get from the house next week. the proposal the president has given to the american people requires immediate congressional action in granting the administration the authority to

help the rebels fight isis under title 10. the support for training under title 10 to train and equip rebels is equipment -- is important to building a coalition that is necessary. this proposal before congress next week. our colleagues in the house are discussing how they will proceed all stop i expect this proposal to pass congress with broad bipartisan support stop this is the time for americans to close ranks and engage our adversaries as one united nation. matters like this are no place for political posturing. it's a time to come together and speak with one voice and tell the terrorists that you cannot hide, you have committed horrific acts that threaten the security of the united states and our allies and we will i and you and destroy you. senator durbin. last night, president obama spelled out a clear strategy

dealing with this extraordinary terrorist threat and it is extraordinary. and rubber this day more than any other day of the year. we have faced terrorist threat in the past and this one is exceptional. ,xceptional in his organization structure, financing and pray the all stop i believe the president is right to speak out and single them out. it's a special threat to the stability of the middle east, our allies and to the interests of the united states. i heard from the president -- what i heard from the president was encouraging, that this would be an international effort and the troops on the ground would be coming from other countries and the president is going before the un security council to discuss this matter. he is engaging those who are freedom loving around the world to join the effort to stop the terrorist threat of stop we have a responsibility and it will begin this afternoon. they classified reefing will be

given more detailed information and perhaps hearings that will follow from >> this is our chance to ask specific questions but i will have to join in at this point and say the majority leader is 100% right. make no mistake, when we commit american servicemen and women in harm's way it is time to put partisanship aside and stand together as a congress and a nation. >> mr. schum an. >> thank you. last night the president laid out an a strategy. he made clear he would use aggressive air strikes. he will not put troops on the ground and will not be engaged in the type of nation building that weakened america in the last decade. this is exactly what the

american people want and exactly what the president intends to do. while the president made clear and we agree that he has the authorization of military force to conduct these strikes, he also asked for congress's support in passing title 10 authorization to train foreign troops. democrats and republicans can't come -- can't come together to keep us safe from terrorism, doint know what will bring us together. for far too many months washington has dealt with gridlock. when it comes to combating terrorism overseas, dysfunction must stop at the water's edge. that's how it used to be. democrats and republicans used to work together. we should go back to those old ways. democrats and republicans ought not fight with one another, but join together in the fight against isis.

today, september 11, is a stark reminder of the threat of terrorism and for the need for america to be ever vigilant and be strong against those who seek to do us harm. we can achieve these goals without boots on the ground, without nation building, without being pulled into a regional struggle. the president has set us on the right course to keep us safe from isis and we strongly support that idea. we are eager to work with our republican colleagues to support the president in his effort and ensure he has the tools to keep he country safe. >> on september 11 every american spends a little bit more time than usual thinking about the threat of terrorists to our homeland. we think about those who we lost on that day and our armed forces

who have done everything to protect our countries in the 13 years since. i thought about how we came together as a nation on september 12 and how we were united in our belief that america should fight terrorists. i thought about that last night after the president finished his speech. it has become clearer and clearer that isil is a brutally dangerous terrorist group that wants to hurt americans. they are murdering civilians, stealing destroying and raping and they have no signs that they plan to stop. while i continue to ask the administration tough questions as this strategy is implemented, i was glad to hear president obama huh lay out an aggressive comprehensive plan to fight isil across the region. now i appreciate the president's continued focus on forming a robust international coalition to take on the threat that would be absolutely critical. i know it's something american people are expecting.

i was very glad the president made it clear, he is not sending large numbers of combat troops back into the region and that the primary focus will be on strengthening our partners over there to fight isil themselves. well all have a full briefing scheduled later this afternoon. any time the administration talks about using force we in congress owe it to our constituents to press hard for clarity to make sure these operations will make our country truly safer over the lock term. this is not a time for partisanship and political posturing. i ask for bipartisan participation. -- so the president can have the tools to keep our country safe. >> we'll take a few questions. >> i have a question on -- nator durbin, your committee

-- in terms of long term -- since we don't have an end date on this per se, do you expect the administration to request more funding for the war or do you believe throughout -- 10 request is $500 million and at that stage that's the only request that we've had. senator durbin who is responsible for appropriation committee funding the defense department should -- because he has a lot of information than most all of us have. >> i just think it is too soon to speculate on the cost of this effort other than the title 10 aspect of it. we are talking about the most general terms in how much should be included with the

administration. we're not dealing with any specific request, to my knowledge, in terms of funding beyond what has been said about title 10. >> thank you. >> yes, you had your hand up. >> you said that you expect congress to vote on this title 150 by the end of next week? a number of them expressed a clear view this should be held as a stand-alone vote, separate from the c.r. and one of the reasons is to send a strong message. where do you stand -- >> that's a decision have to make --. we will -- i've spoken to the speaker on more than one occasion. we had a nice visit yesterday and he's moving forward trying to bring everybody together. and i appreciate very much what he's trying to do. >> senator reid. >> you've been very clear on

your position as far as authority goes, putting the title 10 aside, but just for the strikes the pezz has already authorized and any going forward. how do you find it in your caulk yuss like senator tim kaine says, no -- [indiscernible] >> i think this is what will happen. we had the address to the nation last night. we're going to have a briefing tonight. people who have questions will ask them. i will conduct that briefing and it will take a long time. there will be a lot of questions. next week as we've indicated there's going to be some congressional hearings on the situation in the middle east. that's important we do that. we have a new government in iraq that's been formed. they're still looking forward to having a defense minister and an interor minister which is extremely important. secretary kerry is in the middle

east. he's going to be there for a while. when he leaves there he's going to europe. we have a lot of things we are going it take a look at. this isn't the time to start speculating on what if. what we need to do is make sure we need to take care of what we need to do, and that is train and equip the rebels and make sure we don't do anything that calm and ve to be deliberate and have to pull together as a country. >> indiscernible] >> how much thought have you all ven -- are you ok with the president's mission if isis is indeed destroyed what happens -- >> i'm very satisfied. nd i think the nation was very moved by the president's remarks. they were deliberate.

they were directly to the point, and i just thought it was a good presentation to the nation. the middle east is a very difficult situation we have because of the invasion took place there a few years ago. but as i've indicated, there is -- it doesn't do us any good to -- as ack and talk about i did yesterday, vice president cheney coming up here giving advice. let's get away from that. we can talk about what's going on in the middle east. we are in ate situation where we have an evil force that is really trying to destroy much of what we believe in. that's why this coalition is so important. i just think that we have to focus on title 10 and move on next week and see what the house does. let's not be negating everything

that has been accomplished the last few days. yes. >> senator reid, for more than a year senator durbin and some of your other colleagues have been raising questions whether the scope of the war has been covered -- can any of you explain why that does apply to this, and if not what authority grants the president? >> the president said last night that he has authority to do bombing as he's doing in iraq and in syria. we, and we've said this several times, we're at the beginning of a little trek that's going to be taken and we have to do it right. we can't -- i repeat the word rush. we have to be deliberate in what we do. i don't need to run through all the things that are taking place. we have a briefing today. we have a hearing next week. we have the governor of iraq being formed.

we have senator kerry in the middle of all this. let's just not rush into things. we have a very short outline of things we must accomplish and that can only be accomplished if we work together as a nation. hank you very much, everybody. >> and today is the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the world trade senter and the pentagon and the crash of ight 93 in shanchingsville pennsylvania. remembrance ceremonies tonight tarting at 8:00 eastern on c-span. on c-span 2, campaign coverage.

appel and taci republican david young. waw re some of the ads residents are seeing from these campaigns. > i'm young and i approve this message. barack obama promises us hope. he shredded our economy and crumbled our national security but if we ban together and fight -- iowa's answer is not magic. it's david young. >> iowa just wants a good meal and a good governor. well, we get the good meal but r government overspends, overovertaxes and overregulates. he get it and you get it.

why can't they? offering a dose of iowa reality to washington, then maybe we can have a good meal and good government. i'm david young and i approve this message. >> when republican and tea party brokers went into the backroom saturday they chose t.c. insider david young. young one -- won the room by standing up for sst and ending medicare as we know it. what washington really needs is a healthy dose of iowa common sense. staciappel a mom of six, knows small business is key to job growth. as state senator she got results helping to make equal pay for equal work in iowa. she will fight to protect social security and medicare.

sciappel end the backroom deals and put iowa families there first. >> manufacture the ads -- some of the ads running. we'll have tonight's debate at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. tomorrow morning on "washington barone discussel s the future of the republican party. lee hamilton reacts to last night's speech. the president of university of iowa looks at issue affecting hire ed and the big 10, plus your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets all live on "washington journal" at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> this weekend on the c-span network, american history tv is live from baltimore fort mchenry

for the 200th anniversary of the star bangled banner. later, we'll tour fort mchenry and hear how war came to baltimore in 1814. saturday night at 8:00 on c-span, the presidential leaders ogram with former presidents -- sunday evening at 8:00, q and a on the evolution of the conservative movement in american politics. on c-span 2 on book tv's author ken silver steen on the secret world of oil. sunday night at 6:45 democratic senator from new york on her life and politics and her call for women to rise up and make a difference in the world. find our television schedule at

c-span.org. send us a treat. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> earlier today the council on foreign relations the chair of the senate armed services committee talked about u.s. foreign policy to congressional support for president obama's plans to deal with isis. he spoke for about an hour. >> the -- we certainly have a lot it talk about. and just so there's no confusion since we're about the same size and the 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. senator levin is the widely respected chairman of the senate

armed services committee, has served for 36 years when he retires in january. he literally needs no introduction to this group, and 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 the -- soup esh up esh timing, this of course the 13th anniversary of the terrible events of september 11, 2001. it's a week since the senator returned from a trip from iraq and ukraine. it's just hours since president obama spoke to the nation on the challenges now confronting us. senator levin, you have the floor, sir.

>> michael, thanks first of all for all your good work, for your introduction. it's great to be back to the council on foreign relationsful again, i think this is three years in hay row. i came up on the elevator, i was reminded that we're also here 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 he "washington post" sear riss to -- series to choice travel situations. current events in these countries are of direct consequence of two of the most

dramatic transformations in international environment that i've seen in my 36r years in the senate. first, the end of the cold war, and second the rise of islamic extremism. russia's actions in ukraine are a direct challenge to the post-cold war hopes for europe. in effect, putin has asserted a new 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 in eastern europe during the cold war. putin's actions have been a wake-up call to which the western democracies have began to respond in a way which we did not do in the case of russian occupation in territory of

georgia and moldova. russia's overwhelming military advantages in the area and putin's 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 leave the ukrainians to believe that we will. as we tragically did with the hundred garians in 19 after -- hundred garians in 1956. we should continue to find ways to make it clear to the russians post coldt reject the war in europe while continuing to purpose in the european economy at the same time. that's why sanctions should stay

in place until russia conforms its actions to the norms of international behavior. second, we should do more to help the ukrainians defend themselves. the ukrainians emfassersed to me on my visit that they are willing to fight for themselves and as long as they understand 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 non-lethal equipment that would otherwise be shredded or abandoned as we leave afghanistan. we should do that 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 ukrainians to raise the price the russians have to pay for their aggression and hopefully make putin think twice

about 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 imminent threat it impose -- poses to the international community. our military leaders and intelligence experts uniformly told us air strikes alone will not be sufficient to defeat isis. isis's rapid spread is possible in large part because it scomploided sunni discontent

with insifted on ruling on a narrow secretaryian basis. if the new prime minister chose that iraq will now be governored clusively isis will find few people to aid and abet their ways. 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 "occupation." for instance neither isis nor its predecessor al qaeda and iraq existed before the u.s. nvasion in 2003. instead, al qaeda and 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. t 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 oalition to respond to isis. urvings -- u.n. resolution endorsing the use of force against isis will help rally international support. the participation of key arab states in the region would 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 would 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 brutality of isis whose horrific actions may be a turning point in persuading mainstream islam of the need to expunge this poise yoon us offshoot. if mainstream muslims fail to join and the conflict can be success tpwhri 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 contest of a broad international alliance, i

believe that congress will support arab 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 dove stick d international law -- under both domestic and international law. under domestic law the president is under article 32. the beheading of two american -- alists, coupled with 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 s ungoffed -- ungovernored territories. third, we should train and assist those iraqis 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 kurds have proven willing to fight in their own defense and even to take the ght to isis in key strategic areas. moreover, the kurds have provided some defense by nearby areas and have taken in refugees fleeing from isis assaults. it is too often but not absent in that part of the world.

we should do all that we can to ensure that they have the equipment that they need and to help train them in the tactics that will succeed against isis. the training and equiping them 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 collusive manner. anything, -- in an clussive -- if anything the threat posed by the barbaric threats of isis should do it. as baghdad addresses the grievances of iraq's sunni communities should help give rise to the isis threat, western nations should increase the level of military assistance

provided. finally, we and our allies should take additional steps to train and assist 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 air power. 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. but we can and should provide

robust assistance for 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 -- national participation thank you. >> thanks very much. can we get started by asking what roles do you see actually being plaby