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 eing played by saudi arabia,

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

in those countries. and the second reason is that what the president is doing and king for us to openly fund training and equipment under title 10, he's asked for $500 million for training and equipment and he's asked for specific support and authority to train and equip. he already has the authority, by the way. the reason for asking for that open authority under title 10 which means 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 -- it will help them to do the same thing. none of those countries have provided support in 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 run but in terms politically to turn the strands of iran -- islam into a minority that has no political power there's got to be open support of this effort and 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 a effort which is -- which reflects the mainstream values of islam and it is for that purge this poison this strand has produced. >> why haven't muslim leaders in this country and elsewhere spoken out more publicly against

isis? >> i think they have spoken out publicly. i don't know that it's been covered adequately. but i think in other countries they have not. a number of countries have aided and abetted the extremists, put it that way. all the reasons they could either flow from the ideological agreement or monetary support. there's all kinds of motivation that can be there. but it needs to be done more because again this poison has ot to be purged by islam and it's totally anti islam. i won't go into that -- the conversation i had with sadaut, it einforced my belief that is totally -- >> just to get back to those

three countries, do you believe that their role in the coalition that sawedee -- saudi arabia, turkey will be visible to the american public and visible 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 to be open. it needs to be for it to be successful long term. it's obvious that isis is a threat to them that i think now they can do it openly without fear of retaliation in their own countries by minoritys that would take to the streets. >> i notice the president ouster didn't call the of assad but how do you attack isis without strengthening assad? >> because you go after both of

the problems by various ways inside of syria. but mainly by training and equiping the forces that oppose those two alternatives which are now in iraq holding open a third alternative. the two alternatives -- i misspoke. the two alternatives now with syria are either assad or isis. the mod rits have been weakened. so you've got two alternatives. the goal of the president is to have a third alternative that is fered in iraq, and it may be complicated 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 the recommendations that there had to be some kind of larger american military on the ground presence, not hay 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 something you would agree with? >> not combat forces on the ground, no. i think, number one, it is not necessary. number two, it works against us politically. it doesn't lay the responsibility where it must fall, which is on the people in iraq and syria to achieve these goals by themselves. a unified iraq and a syria which

purges itself hopefully of both assad and of isis. >> i mean 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 is going to perform better? >> the hope is that a new government which is not secretary arian will have the support of an army, unlike the previous army which was not willing to support a sec tearian government in baghdad. >> senator, do you believe that the president is actually being or into another conflict is intentionally being drawn into this conflict by isis and

related groups is something sort of they want for their strategy? >> they may want it but they won't want it after what they're going to face. i mean it's hard to psycho analyze people whose mentality is on a different planet from my perspective. so they may want it. they may want death. a lot of people 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 aanalysis, could you give us your overall sense of the president's ability, i don't mean his personal ability, but his ability to pull together a -- the congress, the coalition, the

public. he's taken a terrible beating among the chattering classes and the upon tiff indicators in the months.eral he would appear to be at a stage where his foreign policy presence has been weakened and yet he's got this huge challenge and how will among congress and your sense, how well is he able to pull this together at this time of his presidency? >> he is able to do it and i predict he will succeed 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 the beheadings

that the american people want a strong response. they'll support the strong response we saw from the president yesterday. this president really has had a in hisof kind of strange -- strains in his thinking which i think the american people support. number one is force is the 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 it the way it was in the iraq war. and so that is another strand in the president's thinking.

and 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 a broad base coalition, not just a western coalition. i think it is clear many western countries will participate in what the president has outlined. having visible arab support is what his goal is and that is something 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 violence 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 kind

of 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. but 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 ukrainians.

their president will be here next week. i've not met him but what i read about him, he's an impressive person in terms of being a ukrainian patriot but also someone who's got some kind of business sense which gives him a certain cache. also, he's been strong relative to his comments about putin. >> just two quick question brs we turn to the audience. e, at a time like this where there's so much -- so much emphasis on what the world is really like today, 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're doing it in a cautious way. hit that led by the ready -- readiness has taken through some budget cuts. there's been an effort to restore the readiness but we are going to have a somewhat smaller military but that is already ready. that's the key. and that's the decision. where we've also shorted ourselves is on modernization. i believe the whole seek west stration - seek wes looking bat db back at it -- it was never to be implemented. it was to force us to do something rational. it do d not succeed in that regard. i think we ought to find a way to repeal it. if you had a half-hour i would tell you how to do it. i won't be around to implement

it anyway. with the gradual reduction, i am. >> also, i know you've been to afghanistan many, many, many times and it's kind of gotten off the map a little bit, but ere is this sense, again critics talk about -- how the withdrawal from afghanistan and iraq has perhaps contributed to ascension of isis. just give us the quick look of the situation in afghanistan if you wouldn't mind. >> in afghanistan the glass is at least half full and i believe getting fuller. it's not the perception of the american people. i think the media coverage of afghanistan has been so overwhelmly negative focusing on the bad 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. .he opening of universities kabul is a totally different place in it tormep terms of businesses and people on the streets. i've 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 heir polls, believe -- believe we've had real success. we being a coalition. how is it that the person people over wellingly -- overwhelmingly think it's a failure? 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 put it well, he said this is the first war that he has ever seen the -- afghanistan is the first war that he's ever seen that the closer you get to it, the better it looks. >> well, ok. we will now get close to our audience. please wait for the microphone. speak directly into it. state your name, affiliation, stand up, of course and keep your comments to questions and brief ones, please. >> thanks. i'm with the atlantic council. 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. seems a huge it leap of faith now to think that we really can create an alternative in that country. and if i could tack on an associated question. if one assumes that 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 this? >> we are not going to work with the iranians to do that. their motivations are different from our motivations. they support assad. we don't. complex a complex -- situation? yes. is it achieveable? i believe it is achieveable. it's a huge challenge. there are going to be forces

trained and equipped to go after isis. we want to keep the heat on assad. it's a large country. the most -- most of the territory which is effectively governed by is isis is in a different part of iraq than the part that is essentially governed by assad. and there's also parts that are governor earned by the moderate. so it's complex but it has to be done. i don't know of any better alternative. i just don't know a better alternative than what the president laid out. i mean if we're sending in 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, they should say so. i heard some of the republican criticism has been -- even before the speech -- this isn't your question. it gives me the opportunity to pick a bone anyway with some of

the partisanship here. i have never seen, never seen some virulent partisan ship in 36 years, particularly in the area of international policy. i mean 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. but it was never continual. it was never just rat atat tat against bush. it was you agree with him, you disagree. if you disagree with him, you're civil and you move on. on the eve of the president's speech mitch mcconnell on the floor attacks the president on every single -- the president is to blame for everything in foreign policy he was focusing on. this is on the eve of a

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

that works and as you do that you obviously want a plan b, but i think plan a is being flushed out militarily and i -- the focus has got to be right now on flushing out plan a. you know, 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, and i haven't heard too many alternatives to this plan. i've heard a lot of criticism, but i haven't heard my alternatives. so the answer is 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 flushed plan a yet in terms of the coalition being put together and so it's got -- personally i have not.

do i think it's being thought of? i hope so, plan b. >> sir. 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 the need for congressional support. but in light of that current attitude preventing 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 bipartisan support. i think some of the voices hopefully now against the president are going to now cool it for a while why we try to see

if we can find a way to support the president, whether it's hrough a new aumf or whether it's through a resolution of support, whether it's through supporting the funding he's asked for for training and equiping this title 10, which sounds technical. that gets to the question of the openness of the support which is so critical. open support is critical to long-term success. i believe there will be bipartisan support. i don't know the form, because there's many ways you can express support here. the aumf approach has got some complexities to it as we saw in the last aumf which is still in effect 11 years later. so 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 equip money, which i surely hope we are going to do before we leave, whether it's an addition to that, some kind of a resolution of support, which is perhaps have less of a legal document which is what an authorization for the use of military force is because that is -- isn't law and it could be more possibly some kind of a sense of a 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. and i think both of those are possible. timeumf will take a longer to figure that out because again that is a legal binding document which has some implications in

terms of how long a period, what are the limits. of course you've got to work out some language, which you as a fant taftic lawyer knows take -- fantastic lawyer takes some time. >> 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 absolutely certain that iran is not willing to play a constructive role in dealing with assad in replacing him somehow? and is there 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 like in lyzed it seems deeling 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've been involved for 10 years in an outreach to iran. so it's totally passion for me in a pro bono project but i strongly believe senator? we don't believe with the others around them, god help us in dealing with iran over the next five to 10 years. i just want us to be as creative as we possibly can be in dealing with the situation. >> your question is are we paralyzed? >> also, are we certain that iran is not open to helping us

deal with a post-assad syria? >> i can't say i'm certain of anything in the middle east, first of all with those nations, with iran, with iraqi leadership. there are some things i am certain about in the middle east. that's not your question. you asked -- most of the things you asked about i can't say i am certain about. i don't see how you explore ealing with iran on this area. at the same time where i believe y and trying to explore with iran a way of making sure that they don't get to a nuke leer weapon. if you try both at the same time - the nuclear piece is

difficult without talking about adding another complex issue to it. so i just don't think it is practical. see t think it's wise to in to see if that is a possibility, what you described. at the same time, we are negotiating a way to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon. succeed, the't ramifications are huge. do anythingdn't that could upset or raise their expectations that something we that might mean maybe we won't be as tough on them in negotiations. >> this lady behind you. >> senator, thank you for your

service. senator warner, we had a democrat and republican traveling with republican secretary of state working for a democratic resident. >> the good old days. room hero foreign affairs professionals. can you give us any hope for some idea of what can be done? we are making people overseas very nervous. if we have trouble putting together this coalition -- because of what is going on in washington. cheney was on the hill testifying. him saying that obama supports the muslim brotherhood, it's a real problem. what can we do? >> we look for ways that can be bipartisan.

he was a giant, he was heroic. he helped truman succeed with nato. he had to change his position. he had been an isolationist before world war ii. it is really at the moment where if we are going to get muslim involved to openly get in this coalition, we have got to be bipartisan here. aboutu can start arguing if we should have made a greater effort. the iraqi government wants signed an agreement with us that our troops would be protected. there is so much history you can argue about and i am more than willing to argue that and a bunch of other issues.

right now, the issue is whether or not the body politic is going to pull together to go after a real threat for us and for the world. 95% of us think we ought to go after it. if we go after isis, the answer is 95% of us saying yes. given that, there is a pretty strong feeling on this issue. the public thinks we ought to do it, too. in this circumstance, can't we then pull together, drop some of that partisan stuff that we heard from o'connell on the eve of the president's speech? i don't understand why he thought that was somehow or other help this country or politically help his cause. i don't get it.

but just the way i believe that isis ought to be cement, glue, that brings together the muslim world, 99% of whom have got to hate isis. the way can be a mechanism to expelthe muslim world and that element of poison that is there an age to be expelled, i think isis can have that effect. a positive effect in the muslim world. the same point applies to us. >> jack goldstone, woodrow wilson center. it you have far more experience than we do. isis is already using american weapons that were captured from

moderates that we try to equip. >> that's not necessarily true. the weapons that they captured -- some is going to require , the of american advisers sunni coalition that is vital to the success of this effort may be perceived by iran as a threat to displace the government we are supporting. how can we be talking to her ran regime theyt a don't support. if they don't part of this effort, it may destroy the efforts.

>> they're already making an effort without being part of the coalition. that has got to be the filter. can't be direct conversations for practical reasons. i am someone that very strongly believes that we should be negotiating with iran on the nuclear side. there are strong oppositions and that to me is the number one goal. avoiding that catastrophe of a ran getting a nuclear weapon. it can muddy the water and confuse and complicate those negotiations if in another area we are relying on iran. it could raise their expectations somehow or other, affect what they calculate we

might be willing to do on the nuclear side. i don't want them to change their calculus, i want them to thathow serious we are they not get to a nuclear weapon in ahink that if we are different area that it could in any way change our position or weaken the resolve. >> this has been a fabulous discussion. my question is for you. to do we get the media explain the story the senator has been telling us? thederstand wanting to be first on conflict. to startou have demanding from congress that they talk together. i remember when condoleezza rice

was talking about this. how can we sell democracy if we can't make it function here? >> i'm not going to say anything though. it's a strange beast. senator comes at his views from where he sits. that i argue generally haven't really studied the press on coverage and afghanistan recently. i would argue that if you go back and look at major news organizations, they have done a reasonable job. the problem i think with press coverage often is when the action stops or when american troops are gone, the press coverage goes with it. iraqnk that happened in

and it happened in afghanistan as well. there was intense coverage and many reporters there. when the withdrawals began and u.s. casualties went way down, the coverage actually went way down. one of the weaknesses of the press is perhaps that when americans are not directly involved, when they're being killed or wounded, there is less of a focus on the aftermath. that is in part responsible because there are not enough foreign correspondents. i think that you find in almost any conflict that there is a very significant drop-off in daily press coverage. they have yet to report.

they are not teachers. they are there to report what is going on. drops witht level togethernd the public when the u.s. involvement drops. >> senator, i want to add my service and your leadership which have been so important. it sounds like you and the president agreed that he has the authority to move as he is described. it sounds like maybe for different reasons. think he has said he has authority under the 2001 aumf. question,cane legal ,ne of the concerns we have had

we have shared concerns about that. building that support requires what the mission really is. can you talk a little bit about what the risks might be for open-ended authorization for the use of military force? either how it has been used under the 2001 aumf or article two of the constitution. >> it is used for the field in the area of interest at the time. we get into these legal the groups we go

after our pursuant to that authority and with that , itority, somehow or other connected adequately to the group we were going after. and it legal document has to be done with some real care. it is not done in the conflicts we have seen. have aumf in lybia. we have never had an aumf using airpower. president should get bipartisan support. i think the policy is right.

i believe that the policy that he has laid out his right. for this moment to disagree on a concurrentdings or joint resolution doing with those limits, no ground troops relying on a coalition. these are themes of this president which i happen to share. of if weo the point are going to try to overcome the aumfexities of in an which might be a complex partisan debate. it leads to that because it is such a legal document that is binding law instead of

supporting the title x funding and having a sense of the congress resolution supporting what 90% of us support. just put in their the parts that we agree. it will stick with a 90%. some might think we go too far and 90% of us think that it is pretty close to being on target. i think people feel that. we have to carry the brunt of the fight. it has to be us assisting them.

i think those principles to have general support in the congress and the american people ought to focus on where we can agree right now. instead of trying to figure out exactly what the parameters are which goes on forever unless there is a limit. we can spend a week debating how will be inxt aumf effect. that is a really good debate. is an honest kind of debate we should have. i just think that is the wrong message for the world right now. focus on where we can agree, the

funding 500 million and some kind of sense of the resolution being supportive of a policy which is strong. >> unfortunately, we don't have any more time for debate. it has been a very good exchange. thank you, everybody. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> earlier today, house members passed a bill that would allow companies and employees to retain health policies until 2018 even if those policies don't meet federal requirements mandated by the health care law. a proposed door meeting about the dangers of isis. the day, last votes of kevin mccarthy and steny hoyer came to the floor to discuss

next week's schedule. >> it will meet for morning hour and legislative business. on tuesday and wednesday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. 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 >> house returns monday at 2:00 eastern for legislative work and you can watch it right here on c-span. today is the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the world trade center and the pentagon and the crash of flight 93 in pennsylvania. c-span will show events from the white house, the pentagon in arlington, virginia and in new york city. president obama took heart in the ceremony at the pentagon. here are some of his remarks. >> here once more we pray for the souls of those we remember. for you, their families, who

love them forever. and for a nation that has been inspired by your example, your determination to carry on, your resolve to live lives worthy of their memories. as americans, we draw strength from you. your love is deal to me rebuke to the hatred of those that attacked us that bright blue morning. they thought to do more than bring down buildings or murder our people. they sought to break our spirit. to prove that their power to destroy was greater than our power to persevere and build. but you and america proved them wrong. strength of families and in their anguish cap living. no act of terror can ever extinguish.

their sons and daughters are growing into extraordinary young man. by your shining example, it your families have turned this day and do something that those who attacked us could never abide. >> some of the president's remarks earlier on the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. tonight starting at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. ,nd on our companion network our campaign 2014 coverage with hosted by iowa public tv. the third district seat is theently occupied by

republicans and says he is retiring after 10 terms in office. liveebate, we will have it on c-span two. the washington examiner discusses a column on the republican party over the last 100 years. reacts tohair dealing. obama and his lusk, your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets. >> here are a few of the comments we have recently received from our viewers. owner andpontiac vibe i got a recall on the cable leading to my steering wheel.

it can affect the airbag to come and hit me. i am nervous about it. they even put my vin number on the letter. and no one at the dealership knows about it. i just watched the television .uestioning of mary barra it was very interesting. problem. mentioning my for help on this. >> it is pretty sad about how

many parts are out there. it is amazing how the ceo cannot answer a question and they dance around the question. they are doing a great job. >> i am switching the channels around. they had the representative from gm. and theyi came back were talking to the national highway traffic safety administrator and acting administrator. i am seeing two people that were basically set up. and as far as the representatives go asking these

questions, i feel sorry for them because they are not getting the answers that they need and it is simply because there is a cover-up. gm should be fined. they have proven that they are liars. they have proven that money was more important than people's lives. same with the highway traffic. it's unbelievable that these people are in charge of watching over us and making sure we are safe. >> continue to let us know about the programs you are watching. us, or you can a@cspana tweet #comments. >> earlier today, the chair of the house armed services committee outlined his plan to fight isis at an event hosted by

the american enterprise institute. he said president obama's legacy depends on how he addresses the isis threat. this is an hour. >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for coming today for what has been an extraordinarily timely discussion that i am very to. looking forward

he does not need introduction and i will save the time so we can hear from them. it is a terrific honor for me to be able to introduce him and to speak with him on this topic. the career in the house of and in all ofs, date his positions, he has been an ofomitable force in favor the u.s. military and the defense of this nation. it is entirely appropriate in that context. offering ideas to what needs to be done to defend the united .tates

i am going to stop right there so we can get into the discussion. >> thank you for the introduction. it was around this time at 9:30 a.m. 13 years ago that the second plane hit the world trade center. will you please join me in a moment of silence? thank you. here is what prime minister tony blair commented on that day.

this mass terrorism is the new evil in our world today. perpetrated by fanatics who are utterly indifferent to the sanctity of human life. the democracies of this world will have to come together and fight it together. he could have written that yesterday. the 9/11 commission report concluded the attacks were a shock but they should not have come as a surprise. mist extremists had given warnings that they meant to kill americans in large numbers. several have remarked that isil is more lethal than al qaeda was on september 11, 2001. yet the president has likened isil to the junior varsity team

and has argued that america is safer. nothing is further from the truth. faceds the same threat we september 10, 2011 -- 2001. if not worse. i listened to the president's remarks last night and i welcome them. there are several elements of the strategy that i support. acting through a willing coalition. stepping up intelligence collection, cutting off their sources of funds, curtailing the flow of foreign fighters. and moderate opposition forces in syria. i also have full respect for the president. i have a responsibility to share my views about what more can be done.

this perspective is based on my armed services committee and formed recently by a long trip i took in the middle east where i met with heads of state and multiple officials from the ministries of foreign affairs and defense. i listened and i asked questions. they gave me blunt answers and hard truths. our allies are from the hard lines. there is a genuine sense among the leaders that america is disengaging from the region and concerns about american credibility at a time when credibility counts. it is also notable that these allies are ready to bear the burden of the fight. they know their very existence depends on defeating isil.

they need the united states support and capabilities and it is in our best interest to be there. wait, ther we further these relationships will erode and more lives will be lost. none of the action brought out can wait another month. certainly not younger than them. what must be done? we need a conference a strategy down and isil knock them out. i believe the minimalist strategy will not get us there. i sense that he may have allowed politics to limit our chances for success. i will be brutally honest. the forcessugar coat that we need or the risks involved.

that, our strategy remarks tol is an immediate threat national security and treated as such. the threat is not imminent to the homeland, said the president. exactly when does the threat become eminent. ? we need a comprehensive strategy . i call for swift action with the strategically realistic plan to defeat isil before they gain more steam. it is the only option on the table.

this is planned as a success. there is no other option. we can channel that resolve. the go slow strategy gives them space to thrive and grow and blend with the population. every month, 500 more foreign fighters join their ranks. every month, they raise nearly $85 million in revenue just from oil. identifies and brutally executes the sunni moderates that might be convinced to work with us again. isil is a sunni movement. to rejecte sunnis them is key. while we wait to see what the newly formed government will do,

toare missing the chance truly speak for the people. they must have reason to believe that they could stick their necks out. this is not a sectarian fight against them. we have to get into the villages becausecial ops forces if they slip through the fingers, they are gone. the security forces capabilities that were lost when we left around. -- iraq.

they will all be needed to maintain postwar security and stability. we must take them -- kick isil hard in iraq and syria at the same time. an iraq only approach will not work. -- it will not be easy. it may sound difficult to do, that's because it is. defeated, weil need them and circled. it will only make the fight more

difficult. we need that territory to be held by friendly's. we need -- this is the only way to get this done. he has implied that it is congress that has been stalling on giving him this tool. he also implies this is the key syria.ating isil in there have been doubts about this proposal. the president said arming beenate levels has always a fantasy and that there wasn't as much capacity as you would hope. i recognize the risks.

arming surrogates is not a formula for success against isil. it is not timely enough or decisive enough. we learned that after the horn of africa in many years. the capabilities of the united states will be required. the u.s. must take the lead to build a coalition which the president has finally started. il isality of iso appalling. they all have military capability and they all want to back.isil on its

we owe them our help. wayring the plea is a quick to end up friendless and with little if any u.s. influence left in the region. let's not forget our allies around the world are watching and wondering if they can never trust the u.s. again. american leadership is not an option here. it is a necessity. we are the missing piece in the puzzle. there are certain capabilities we have invested in for decades. the ability to control air and put troops in difficult terrain in hostile territory. the ability to communicate on the battlefield. that is how we pulled these nations together. this is no light lift. the man that held together the most difficult alliance in history had it right when he

said only strength can cooperate. weakness can only beg. have strongallies doubts about the obama administration's willpower, we still carry weight in the middle east. i think we can bring sunnis and shia's and kurds and turks together. to make that happen, the president needs a team of diplomats. and soldiers on the ground assuring every player towards the same purpose. not just this week but on a sustained basis. good things from western allies at the nato summit. now is the time to match words to action. they have a stake in this fight. we are holding the starter pistol and the time to pull the trigger was yesterday. most of us cringe at the term boots on the ground. whate need to talk about

boots on the ground actually means. some have taken it to mean large occupying forces. that is a red herring. the best way to make sure we never have to drop an entire maneuver is to be smart about using the right boots on the ground today. the president may not admit it but he has made this distinction. inserted special forces, trainers, advisers, and security forces. this is the right decision. more can be done. it includes increasing our empoweringand moderate sunnis when and where we can. and bolstering the nonsectarian forces in the iraqi security forces. this will take troops but it will not take divisions. there is no way around it.

american boots will be standing on sand. americans will be shot at and they will be shooting back. is simply no other way to do this. this strategy is not without risk. neither is the president's. it would be wrong to sell it that way to the american people. this is a dangerous business. time we haveus any our sons and daughters take to the skies, the seas, or the shores to defeat an enemy. the only thing more dangerous is waiting. we must not rely solely on counterterrorism. wars are not won by counterterrorism alone. the 1990's proved as much. willresident has said he approach the problem with heavy emphasis on counterterrorism forces.

that is like trying to solve a problem, a puzzle, with a single piece. the spread of terrorist groups has not stopped. ae president wants to use light footprint now in hopes that he doesn't need a heavy footprint later. this approach was not terribly successful in libya that was fallen into chaos. it has short term benefits and will be cheaper for now. go allour coalition to in now so that we do not risk to use an enormously more blood and treasure later. i would rather fight in iraq and in iraq,n fight them jordan, syria, lebanon, and tristan tomorrow. fortune favors the bold.

il is a threat we all share. they are an enemy of the free world and they must be stopped. i believe the president is finally waking up to that and what must be done to stop this evil. that he commits to swiftly and decisively seeding this enemy, he will have my support. history punished us once. it is the responsibility of all of us to ensure that never happens again. thank you. [applause]

thank you, mr. chairman for those excellent remarks. in my haste to get the chairman before you, i neglected to introduce myself. i am fred kagan at the american enterprise institute. i, like the chairman, was disappointed with the president's speech last night. it was, at best, a partial plan. an idea sketch but inadequate.

i have also been working on an publishive that i will along with my co-authors at the that will be available tomorrow. focus on, among other things, the very issue that you raised, the need to focus on the sunni community. that is what i really didn't here in the president speech. i heard a lot working with the shia government in iraq, working with the kurds, not working with assad which i think is very good. but it really seemed like a strategy focused on the periphery. this is fundamentally a problem in the sunni arab community. one question i think is important to answer is, do you

think there is a risk the president's chatterjee will make things worse? risk by pursuing this approach that we may be encouraging the development of independent kurdistan that can be seen as threatening to sunni arabs? does the president seem to be ignoring the community? risk, myrategy holds getting out of bed in the morning holds risk. what you have to do is do what we can to mitigate the risk. history favors the bold. this is not a time to the piecemealing this. every day that goes by, they get stronger. and they are growing.

talking to king abdullah, he said they are ready to go. the threat is right on their borders and he is ready to fix bayonets and go today. get the sense of that same urgency. , in we say we are all in liked a lot of things that the president said. my concern is not what he says, it's what he does. what we really need to be is not last night speech. we need to be focused on what he is going to do today. what he's going to do next week. what he's going to do a few weeks from now. we have an election coming up and there is a 10 station to start talking about other things. and he needs to zero in on this.

his legacy is going to depend on this. president bush did not want to be involved in a war. he wanted to be the education president. on 9/11, he was in a school. and that was his big thing. i was called down to meet with in the texas statehouse before he was even sworn in as president. he invited a bunch of us down and that is what he wanted to work on. you don't get to always decide what you are doing. you have to take life as it is right now. focused on be protecting this nation and our interests around the world. it needs to be his sole overriding focus. time will tell, but history has shown that he doesn't stick with

anything for long enough to get it done. will ton generate the stick with this for the next two years, i think history will treat him better than if he leaves with all of these problems. for the same reason we have problems there, the leaders of these nations are concerned with what our resolve is. we need to prove that we can stick to something. our men and women in uniform will follow whatever orders are given. they will take the hill. they will do what is necessary. asking our military to do more and more.

at the same time, we are saying go do this and taking away their resources with the other hand. it doesn't make sense. has obviously been some immediate reaction to what the president said and what you have laid out. let me ask you a couple of hard questions about things that are on people's minds. the islamicng about state as a major threat to the united states. but it is a threat that is undertaking -- against the homeland according to the administration. such a bigwhy is it threat? why is it a bigger threat than al qaeda? hezbollah, for that matter. organizations that can attack

the united states but most of them are not currently attacking. is suches you feel isil a great threat to the united states that it should be our priority as compared to these other problems? >> it is a problem, no question. lead or bestt financed group that we have come into contact with. they were using extortion, bribery, many methods to gain money. money,ok all the banks they took these oil fields in syria and are deriving $1 billion a year. and they have adequate leadership to know how to use that money. it makes them a huge threat.

the reason i call them isil, -- this is one threat we're talking about. i use isil because their goal is to take us back to the way they between 600 and 650, they moved into the middle east region and held it until 1500 ad. almost 1,000 years. they want to go back to that and and itte the borders would give them tremendous area in which to breed and foster the terrorism you -- if we had hit

hittler a little earlier think of the lives we could have saved. but no. you wait until the threat is so overpowering, we wait until pearl harbor, we wait until poland falls, until france falls, until england is ready to fall. then we say, oh,. there's a threat. you know, leadership looks ahead. they see threats in the future. sometimes threats can be eliminated before they ever become a threat. that's true leadership. secondary leadership is one that perceives a threat right in front of your eyes and still marshals the forces to take care of it. lack of leadership sees a threat and says, somebody behind me will take care of it. we need to step up right now and take care of this threat. >> i think it's terrific and very well said. dd i think the point is often lost on people that you are

making. the region where these groups are operating matters. a group in the middle of the sahara desert is generally less than a threat than in the heart of the middle east. >> the whole time i've been in congress we've talked about becoming energy independent. 22 years. we haven't done it. we could do it. i mean, there are places in this country right now where we're really doing the job. we're really developing our resources. they're on public land, and they find ways around government stalling tactics, and they're working. but think if we really took the set a -- we really jfk. let's go to the moon. okay? let's become energy independent. if a leader steps up and really was sincere about that, really said, we're going to win this fight, we could become totally independent. we wouldn't need oil from that

region. we have a lot of allies that do. so it is important. it's very important. it's going to remain important for the foreseeable future. we need to be a part of that, because there is no other america in the world. who else -- who else is going to step up and take care of this if we don't? china? russia? how do we feel about what's happening in the ukraine? these people see opportunities because we've been trying to lead from behind. time. >> you have spoken eloquently about their willingness and eagerness to fight. one of the arguments the white house is making against sending u.s. ground forces in is that it would be much better to have indigenous ground forces, regional ground forces leading

the fight. there are some people even saying there are iranian forces on the ground and it would be better to let the regional countries solve this problem. people have gone so far to say it is counterproductive to send american forces in because it'll just encourage the regional states and iraqis not to do their jobs. what do you make of those arguments? >> it's not either/or. as i mentioned, we're not talking about sending in divisions that are going to do another iraqi freedom. what we're talking about is using the local forces there, iraqis, syrians, helping them rise to the capabilities that they have. there are short comings they have that we can fill. we can do the logistics and the communications. we can have -- provide the air support. and there's nobody that can plan and carry out missions like we can. i'm not saying we push the

iraqis aside, go full bore in and say, okay. we're here. that is the wrong thing because that would then give the arab world something to say, yeah. these guys are coming in trying to take over again. no. we want to help them win their fight, the iraqis want to do it, jarodanians want to do it, saudi arabians want to do it, but they need us. there are certain capabilities we have nobody else in the world has. that's what we need to do. not go in and take over and make their problem our problem. we need to help them solve their problem, which is also our problem. >> and you're arguing that our air power is not enough. we need to have forces on the ground to help them. >> i mentioned, we tried that it libya. it hasn't worked. i talked with the other day with the chief of our air

force, general wells. we have the most powerful -- there is nothing to stand up to our air support and those people on the ground when they see those planes coming, they don't want to be there. but after the bombs drop, somebody has to take the ground. somebody has to hold the ground. if you don't, they just come back. you know? >> so one of the things i think came out loud and clear from the president's speech is he really sees this as a counterterrorism problem and he wants to pursue a counterterrorism approach. he is basing that approach on a couple of specific models. he mentioned yemen and somalia as being the models of operation that he wants to -- in iraq rk and and syria. there has been a fair amount of this written as we follow yemen and somalia. what do you make of that notion? >> it doesn't -- it doesn't

work. you don't -- yemen and somalia are a good example. they are still very strong. even though -- >> pardon? >> the al qaeda franchise. >> right. right. and we've made gains there. we've killed a lot of their leaders. we've done things. we've made improvements. but that could go on foryears and years. in the meantime, they're getting stronger, also. ey're able to train and send out people that -- one of the top bomb makers is in that area. we haven't been able to get him yet. he's the one that did the underwear bomb and other things at he's able to do from that area. so that doesn't totally work. we need to clear ground and hold ground and deprive them of any places where they can train and foster and continue the

spread of their terrorism. >> right. and as we are tracking here, in fact, al qaeda in the arabian peninsula has established a new safe haven in yemen and eastern yemen and is pushing back into territory that was theoretically cleared earlier. although we killed the leader of al shabab, he is not the first leader we've killed, and the organization is very quick to replace him and continue operations. so i think it's interesting that the president should point to those cases as being the evidence that this is going to work in a much harder, as you pointed out, much harder situation against a much more lethal set of enemies. >> well, another example, too, that i wondered why he used it, saying that america was the leader that pulled the world together to fight russia in the ukraine. i was in a meeting in the white house a few weeks ago, and the president was giving us a synopsis of problems around the

world. i said, you didn't mention crimea. is that just gone? and the basic answer was, yeah. that's gone. well, since then we've also lost eastern ukraine. d to use that as an example, when the ukraine last week signed a cease-fire basically to keep from losing their whole nation. i don't think that's a good example of american leadership. i think we could probably find other things where we did a better job. that's like saying custer was a good guy and we should follow that example. no. custer might be a good guy but that was probably not a good example that we would want to use in going to war. >> certainly one wouldn't want to ignore the last battle in custer's career. >> right >> and only focus on other parts of it. i want to ask you a couple quick questions about the

congressional situation in response to a couple things and then turn it over to the audience for a few questions. one is we're talking about special forces a lot and you and i agree that this is primarily a special forces mission. and you also talked about the damage the sequester has done o to the military and so forth. i think the question of the relationship between special forces and the rest of the military and whether we need such a large military or can rely more heavily on special forces is one of the arguments the administration has sort of een relying on to defend its cuts. we have a terrific paper that actually just came out from aei talking about the history of the relationship between the special forces and conventional forces. let me ask you, you know, why is it not the case or is it not the case that we can have a smaller ground force that has a heavier -- special forces presence by sacrificing some of

the more expensive conventional units? >> well, i think if you talk to the commander of the special forces he'd be the first one to tell you the special forces provided a unique function, but they're working on the shoulders of a lot of people behind them. and i think if you don't have the conventional force to back them up, then they wouldn't -- they couldn't do the full job. they do great at what they do, but you need the air power. you need the navy to get people where they need to be. you need the army when you need a bigger, more forceful body. special forces come from all of those branches. and i think the idea that we have joined forces that work very well together is one of the things that makes us so strong. in visiting one of these

countries i find that their air force and their army don't work too well together. -- you know, during a football game it's okay to go at each other, but in war you better be working together. and we do such a fantastic job of that and they're all needed. i think one thing that -- the cuts that we've made on our defense are so devastating. if people really knew how much we've cut and what our readiness is and the abilities that we have right now, the ability to do things we could do just a few years ago are ne, the admiral was in a hearing in one of our hearings he a few weeks ago and

made the comment, if sequestration comes back, and i reminded him, sequestration is the law of the land. we took a little hiatus by getting a budget passed this year that hopefully was going to help, but it is the law of the land. when they work on the budget next year, if they don't fix that problem, his comment was it won't just hollow out the military. it will break the military. and to be talking about breaking our military right now when we're looking at all of these spots around the world, i mean, as bad as isol is and all of this we're talking about right now, when i was visiting with prime minister netanyahu, he said the most -- you know, they just finished oo days of war. and his comment was, the biggest threats facing the world right now are iran, their sprid of terrorism, and then this islamic terrorist threat that's facing us. i said, what about korea?

he doesn't have to worry about that. we have to worry about the whole world. i'm as serious as isol is i'm very concerned about korea. i went there again last month and hadn't been there for a while and visiting with the general, the problems that we see there, seoul extends out almost to the demilitarize -- dmz. millions of people under the threat of 41 batteries aimed right at them. i told mr. netanyahu, i said, you know, you finished 50 days of war and had 2s casualties. -- you had 2,000 casualties. it's phenomenal the job you did to avoid killing innocent people. in korea if things went bad

immediately we would have hundreds of thousands of lives. we have to look all the way around the world. we have to have our military stationed for that plus other areas and this is such a pressing threat, isol, because of their daily adding to their force and daily adding ground to their territory. nd that's a huge threat that we had other major problems, too, and like i said before, if not us, who? >> it's sort of hard to point to a part of the world where things are going well at this point, which is sobering. >> disneyland is still doing well. >> that's great to hear. i'm going to go to the audience and take two very quick questions. identify yourself scan a quick question, please. over here. then we'll go over here please.

sir? >> george nicholson, special operations command. first i want to thank you and your predecessors for everything you've done. people don't realize there contoday if cell it hadn't been for those who supported it. along those same lines i know one of the highest initiatives was to go ahead and replicate what we've done with nato special operations command in europe. he wanted to replicate that and replicate that and there's been a congressional pushback on that. any comments? >> the second question we'll take over here. >> could you just say that again just --. i lost my hearing aid --. >> one of the admiral's highest priorities was to replicate what we have in nato's special operations command in europe which has been extremely successful and doing the same

thing. if there's been a pushback just like the pushback on increasing , taking slots out of tampa and putting them up here in washington to the national capital interface, i know there's been a pushback on congress. can you talk about it? >> i think, as i mentioned, there are problems all around the world. we need friends all around the world. that's why i went to the pacific and visited and met with the leadership in taiwan and korea and japan, went to china. and then we got a briefing. i think wherever we can put together or could put together alliances that would help us, i don't know why the pushback, maybe the concern is that we may get drug into things. but we get drug into things anyway. we might as well have people that are ready, willing to join us in the effort.

i'm happy that japan has been able to work on their constitution to come up with more ability to defend themselves. that's been an issue for them obviously since world war 2. but now china keeps pushing closer and closer. and it just gets pretty testy. if we can have them do more to help their defense, that's less that we have to do. so i think those kind of think, would be good, i in -- we also took a trip to south america and visited those countries down there. i went there when i was fairly new in congress and we couldn't go to colombia because of the drug problems. well, now colombia is a strong

ally. we've had special forces in there helping them. we've had the navy cutting off the drug flow. their local people have pulled together the wherewithal, the ability, and they've pushed the drug people far back into the jungle. they're winning the fight. they love us because we really helped them. so i think if we put more effort into central america, south america, we could do a lot more than we're doing for a lot less money than we're spending in some other places. i think alliances are good. we should try to create them. not just when we need them. we should plan before and develop the bonds, develop the friendships and then when we get into problems like we've got in the middle east now with isol, they're already there with us. >> hi. i'm penny starr with cnn news.

you spoke about the threat all around the world, but what about right here in the united states? for example border security and also fighters who have joined isis abroad who hold u.s. passports? thank you. >> what did she say? >> what about the threat here, border security and isol fighters who have u.s. passports? >> that's a huge threat. we have -- we had two people from minnesota killed in a fire fight over there recently. one had worked for tsa for ten years. if he had decided to stay here and cause problems instead of going over there, what could he have done? and the problem -- the people of the area all understand -- foreign fighters, a real problem. we have probably a hundred americans over there fighting. they go. they learn. they come back. it's a big threat for us, for

the europeans, for other western nations. there's a number -- i've heard 15, 18,000 possible people i used the have, wrong number. aybe 10,000 people that have american or european passports that could come back into this country without a visa and that's a very, very serious problem. that's one of the reasons why we have to eliminate this threat over there, because it could happen here any day. that's the imminent danger in this threat. >> that's one of the things that obviously differentiates this threat from some of the other threat groups around the world that don't have anything like that, concentration of u.s. or european passport

holders involved in that conflict so the specificity of this really matters. >> yeah. it all comes back to the whole purpose of this thing is protecting our people. protecting our nation. they pointed out to me over there that the oceans won't protect you this time because you're just a few-hour plane flight away. you know, these people have become very, very sophisticated. they're using social media. you know, i read something the we saw y that as bad as the beheading of those two ournalists, there are people that actually thought it was a wonderful thing. about 28,000 tweets came in. i've heard they've already had one beheading in imitation of what they did. that's really scary. and they know how to psychologically take advantage of that.

probably what happened at fort hood. >> so to respect your time, i'm going to ask you a quick question and ask for any closing thoughts that you have. but i'd be remiss if i didn't put this question to you. about this time last year we were having a debate over whether congress would support unbelievably small air strikes in syria, and it looked very much like the president was headed toward defeat in his request for congressional support for that. so i think we have to ask the question, if the president went to congress now and asked for support for his operations in iraq and syria, do you think he would get that support? right now, e, american opinion is really -- as really switched from, don't

do anything to go after them. and i've heard it said that if the people will leave, the leaders will follow. so that's kind of what happens in congress. once this message hits home, that, hey, people want us to do something, then maybe they would be more supportive. frankly, i was happy to hear the president say that he would go after them in syria, that they wouldn't have the ability to, you know, hit and then run. that remains to be seen what he will do. that's not what he's talking about coming to congress for, though. we were going to pass a continuing resolution today to fund the government for the rest of the year, and he came to -- he called the chairman of the appropriations committee tuesday afternoon as he was getting ready to submit the bill that we were going to vote

on today and asked him if he would put in there authority to go into saudi arabia because they have offered to give us bases or places that we could use for training free syrians in there, to go back into the fight. o that kind of was a last-minute request and has caused us to not vote today. we pulled that back. in fact, right now we're in a - in a session that i missed talking about that, about what we do. and we will have another classified briefing in an hour to where we talk about more of it. so we're trying to see, what is the mood of the congress? will we be able to do this? i tend to think that given the

seriousness of the situation that e would give him authority to take advantage of saudi arabia's offer, but, you know, sometimes things happen in congress and people get mad about one thing or another so it's hard to predict until we actually get language and people have a chance to read it and then decide if they would vote for that or not. right now i would tend to think would support that. he has not talked about asking us for anything else. he says he has the authority to do everything he needs. there are some that think he doesn't and we should be moving toward a big debate and a vote and then there are others that don't want to do a thing before the election. so timeliness of all this is really important. but it's a day-to- day thing

right now. >> well, we are very grateful to you for having skipped out of the leadership session on this to be here today talking with us about it, presenting your plan. very grateful to you also for offering a plan. this has been something we've seen a lot of -- people criticizing, which is easier to do. so it is very remarkable when someone in your position comes out and offers something concrete in its place. i think it's a good plan that you've suggested and something that we can build on. i also want to take the opportunity to thank you for your many, many years of leadership on this issue and fighting to protect american national security and all you do. please join me in thanking the chairman. [applause] >> thank you. thank you.

dd >> today is the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the world trade center and the pentagon and the crash of flight 93 in shanksville, pennsylvania. tonight c-span will show events from the white house, the pentagon in arlington, virginia, and new york city. president obama took part in the ceremony at the pentagon. here are some of his remarks. >> here once more we pray for he souls of those we remember, for you, their families, who love them forever, and for a nation that has been inspired by your example, your determination to carry on, your resolve to live lives worthy of their memories. as americans, we draw strength from you. for your love is the ultimate

rebuke to the hatred of those 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 kept alive a love that no act of terror can ever extinguish. daughters, ns and 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. >> just some of the president's remarks from earlier today at the pentagon. we'll show that event and others from the white house and from new york city during the remembrance ceremonies tonight starting at 8:00 eastern on c-span. on c-span 2, campaign 2014 coverage with a debate between candidates for iowa's third congressional district. democrat staci appel and republican david young. here are some of the ads iowa residents are seeing from the campaigns. >> i'm david young and i approve this message. barack obama promss hope. then he ripped apart our health care system, shredded our economy, and crumbled our national security. but if we band together and fight for our conservative principles, we can put our economy and our country back together again.

>> iowa's answer is not magic. it's david young. s want a meal and good government. we get the good meal but our government over spends, over taxes and under regulated. it underperforms. i 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 am david young and i approved this message. and tea partyican brokers went into the back room, , 20 years david young on the payroll of a broken congress. i standing uproom for cutting social security and ending medicare as we know it, even raising the minimum retirement age. what washington really needs is