western africa. accordingly, we support the proposal put forth by the secretary-general to establish the united nations mission for ebola emergency response. brazil will be utterly in favor of that mission. mr. president, the united nations security council has had some faculty and promoting peaceful resolutions of these conflicts, and to overcome such a stalemate a true reform of the security council will be required, a process which has been dragging on for quite some time. the 70th anniversary of the 2015 appearss in to be a conducive occasion for achieving the progress the situation currently calls for. i am quite certain we understand

the serious risk rising from paralysis and in action at the united nations security counsel. a representative and more legitimate security council will also be more effective. i wish you underscore -- i wish to underscore that we cannot possibly remain indifferent to the israeli-palestinian crisis, especially after the dramatic events in gaza. we condemn the distant portion and use of force, which is victimized the civilian population -- which has victimized the civilian population, particularly women and children. this conflict cannot be precariously managed. effective negotiation between the parties must ultimately lead to a two-state solution, palestine and israel living side-by-side and insecurity within internationally recognized borders. amidst so many conflict

the caribbean and latin america seek to face the main problem. i am talking about social inequality. democratic roots have become stronger, and the quest for a more just, inclusive, sustainable growth has been triumph.ly strong integration efforts have made tremendous headway. mr. president, on which age is one of the key challenges of today's world. made acome the challenge sense of urgency, political courage, and a keen understanding that each person will have to contribute clinic ando the responsibility. the climate summit, which was timely convened on the secretary-general further

strengthens the framework agreement. the brazilian government will endeavor to ensure the results will leadestigation to a new, balanced, fair, and effective agreement. brazil has done its part to face up to the challenge of climate change. hagan9, during the open conference, we undertook to voluntarily reduce emissions between 36% and 39% as forecast for 2010 -- 2020. and 2014, we avoided committing -- emitting. havel of these years we achieved the lowest deforestation rate in our history. in the past 10 years we have reduced deforestation by 79%

without, however, giving up our agenda of economic development and social inclusion. we are therefore in shown it is possible -- therefore shown it is possible to grow, conserve, and protect. such an achievement is the result of firm, continuous commitment of the government, society, and public and private stakeholders. we'll developed country -- we hope that the countries, countries that have a legal and moral obligation to lead by example -- we hope that developed countries will show in an unmistakable and concrete fashion they are committed to tackle this evil that afflicts us all. we were very pleased to set a new agenda, one that is based on sustainable development goals that apply to both developed and developing countries. it will be critical to clearly

that are the means challenges wehe are committed to overcome. we must be ambitious on collaboration, national capacity building efforts, and technology transfer, particularly to the benefit of the least developed countries. in that context, i highlight the need to establish a mechanism that will prove conducive to properly develop, transfer, and disseminate clean and environmentally sustainable technologies. mr. president, in addition to sustainable development and peace, international order that we seek to build is alternately -- ultimately anchored on values including efforts to fight all forms of discrimination and exclusion. we have a clear-cut commitment to further raising the profile

and role of women in the market,e, the labor entrepreneurship, political opportunities, and access to education, among so many other fronts. my administration has tirelessly fought violence against women in all forms. we consider that the 21st century is the century of when and. -- women. likewise, in brazil, promotion of racial equality is about what -- we owe them a legacy of cultural, religious, and human values. for us, it is a matter of pride. [indiscernible] nots a scourge that we have

hesitated to fight, punish, and eradicate. commitment we have had to fight violence against women and african brazilians, we have had against homophobia. my country supreme court recognized same-sex unions thus ensuring all the civil rights arising thereof. we are strong believers in the dignity of every human being, and in the universal nature of their fundamental right as human beings. these rights must be protected from all selected approaches and all forms of politicization, both internationally and nationally. the fundamental value is about respect. [indiscernible] history has shown there is only one correct and efficient way to fight correction, and that is put an end to impunity, thereby

strengthening institutions that oversee, investigate, and punish acts of corruption, money laundering, and other financial crimes. this is a responsibility that is incumbent upon each government, irresponsibility that we have to fulfill biased -- a responsibility that we have to fulfill by strengthening our institutions. we have developed government transparency web ports which has all information on government spending within 24 hours and the law on access to information which allows citizens to have access to any government-related pieces of information except for those relating to the country's national sovereignty. we have strengthened and given autonomy to the investigating agencies as well as those in charge of internal government control.

we have passed laws that punish not only those who passively agree with acts of corruption, as well as those who actively engage in corruption, strengthening -- and strengthening these institutions is absolutely essential to enhance an open and democratic government. brazil's recent reelection for the executive committee of the open government partnership will also help contribute to establish more transparency worldwide. mr. president, it is absolutely key that measures be taken to effectively protect human rights, not only in the real, but also in the virtual world, as recommended in the resolution adopted by this assembly on privacy in the digital age. encouragedgermany this very important discussion wish to deepen that discussion during this session. for our review of the relevant matters, the report drafted by

the u.n.'s high commissioner on human rights will serve as a basis. 2013, i propose that a simple framework be developed regarding the governance and the use of the internet, a framework made from the principles of a freedom of expression, network neutrality, and cultural diversity. i take notice great satisfaction and pleasure that the international community has mobilized its efforts to enhance the current internet governance architecture. hold theinitiative to multi-central global meeting on the future of internet was annce last april important step in the process. the event brought together representatives from several

different regions of the world and from multiples but -- sectors. the principles to be followed and the actions to be taken were discussed in order to ensure that the internet will continue evolving in an open, democratic, free, multi-cultural, and multilateral manner. mr. president, the united nations has before it today challenges of a significant order of magnitude, and they should have such big part -- priority of this segment of the general assembly. 2013 emerges as a true turning point on the horizon. i am quite certain we will not shy away from filling with a sense of courage our response ability in building an international order that is firmly founded on the promotional piece of stable development, the reduction of poverty, and inequality. brazil stands ready and is fully

determined to give her conurbation. you are very much -- contribution. thank you very much, mr. president. [applause] >> on the behalf of the united states a, i wish to thank the unitednt -- of the nation's assembly, i wish to thank the president of the -- brazil. why -- may i wish that we remain seated while we greet the president.

here andbly will now address by his excellency, barack obama, president of the united states of america. [applause] on behalf of the united assembly, i have the honor to welcome to the united nations, his excellency, barack obama, president of the united states of america, and to invite him to address the assembly. >> mr. president, secretary general, fellow delegates,

ladies and gentlemen, we come together at a crossroads between war and peace. integrationrder and . between fear and hope. globe, there are signposts of progress. the shadow of world war that existed at the founding of this institution has been lifted. the prospect of war between major powers reduced. stakes --of member states has more than tripled and people live under governments that they elected. hundreds of millions of human beings have been freed from the prison of poverty with a proportion of those living in extreme poverty cut in half.

the world economy continues to strengthen after the worst financial crisis of our lives. today, whether you live in downtown manhattan, or in my grandmother's village more than 200 miles from nairobi, you can hold in your hand more information than the world's greatest libraries. together, we have learned how to cure disease, and harness the power of the wind and the sun. the very existence of this institution is a unique achievement. the people of the world committing to resolve their differences peacefully, and to solve their problems together. i often tell young people in the united states that despite the headlines, this is the best time in human history to be born because -- for you are more

likely than ever before to be literate, to be healthy, to be free to pursue your dreams, and yet there is a pervasive unease , a sense of the very forces that have brought us together have created new dangers, made it difficult for any single nation to insulate itself from global forces. as we gather here, an outbreak of ebola overwhelms public health systems in west africa and threatens to move rapidly across borders. russian aggression in a europe recalls the days when large nations trampled small ones in pursuit of territorial ambition. the brutality of terrorist in -- syria and iraq

forces us to look into the heart of darkness. each of these demand immediate attention from but they are also symptoms of a broader problem -- the failure of our international system to keep pace with an interconnected world. we, collectively, have not invested adequately in the public health opacity of developing countries. too often, we have failed to enforce international norms when it is inconvenient to do so, and we have not confronted forcefully enough the intolerance, sectarianism, and hopelessness that feeds violent extremism in to many parts of the globe. many parts of the globe. fellow delegates, we come together as united nations with a choice to make. we can renew the international system that has enabled so much

progress, or we can allow ourselves to be pulled back by an undertow of instability. we can reaffirm our collective response ability to confront global problems, or be swamped by more and more outbreaks of instability. and for america, the choice is clear error we choose hope -- clear. we choose hope over fear. we see the future not as something out of our control, but something we can shape for the better through concerted and collective efforts. we reject fatalism or cynicism when it comes to human affairs. for the worldork as it should be, as our children deserve it to be. there is much that must be done to meet the test of this moment, but today i would like to focus two defining questions at the

root of so many of our -- whether the nations here today will be able to renew the purpose of the founding, and whether we will come together to reject the cancer of violent extremism. us, big nations and small, must meet our responsibility to observe and enforce international norms. we are here because others realized that we gain more from cooperation than conquest. 100 years ago, a world war claimed the lives of many millions, proving that with the terrible power of modern weaponry, the cause of empire often leads to the graveyard. it would take another world war ii rollback the forces of fascism, the notions of racial

supremacy, and formed this united nations to ensure that no nation could subjugate its neighbors and claimed the territory -- claim their territory. recently, russia's actions in ukraine challenge this post-war order. your are the facts -- after the people of ukraine mobilize popular protest -- here are the facts -- after the people of the ukraine will bless popular protest, the corrupt president fled. crimea was annex. russia poured arms into eastern ukraine, fueling violent separatists in a conflict that has killed thousands. when a civilian airliner was shot down from areas that these proxies control, they refused to allow access to the crash for days. when ukraine started to reassert control over its territory, russia gave up the pretense of

merely supporting the separatists, and moved troops across the border. this is a vision of the world in makes right.- mite a world in which one's nation -- one nation's borders can be we drawn by another one. civilized people are not able to recover the remains of the loved ones because of the truth that might be revealed. america stands for something different. we believe that right makes might. bigger nations should not be able to bully smaller ones, and people should be able to choose their own future. they are simple truths, but they must be defended. america, and our allies, will support the people of ukraine as they develop their democracy and economy. we will reinforce our nato allies and uphold our

commitments to collective self-defense. we will impose a cost on russia for aggression and we will counter falsehoods with the truth. we call upon others to join us on the right side of history, for while small gains can be won at the barrel of a gun, they will ultimately be turned back if enough voices support the freedom of nations and people to make their own decisions. moreover, a different path is available, the path of diplomacy , and the ideals this institution is designed to uphold. the recent cease-fire agreement in ukraine offers an opening to achieve those objectives. if russia takes that path, a path that for stretches of the post-cold war period resulted in prosperity for the russian people, then we will lift our

sanctions and welcome russia's role in addressing common challenges. after all, that is what the united states and russia have been able to do in past years from reducing our nuclear stockpiles, to meeting our obligations under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, to cooperate to remove and destroy syria's declared chemical weapons. that is the kind of cooperation we are prepared to pursue again if russia changes course. this speaks to a central question of all global age -- whether we will solve our problems together in the spirit of mutual interest and mutual respect, or whether we defend into the destructive rivalries -- descend into the district of rivalries of the past -- destructors rivalries of the past.

we can make enormous progress. i stand before you today committed to investing american strength to working with all nations to address the problems we face in the 21st century. america is between our doctors and scientists, supported by our military to help contain the outbreak of ebola and pursue new treatments, but we need a broader effort to stop the disease that could kill hundreds of thousands, inflict horrific suffering, destabilize economies, and move rapidly across borders. it is easy to see this as a distant problem, until it is not, and that is why we will continue to mobilize other countries to join us in making concrete commitments, the significant commitments to fight this outbreak and enhance our

system of global health security for the long-term. america is pursuing a diplomatic resolution to the iranian nuclear issue as part of our commitment to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and pursue the peace and security of a world without them. if, this can only take place iran seizes this historic opportunity. leaders ando iran's people have been simple and consistent. do not let this opportunity pass. we can reach a solution that meets your energy needs while assuring the world that your program is peaceful. america is and will continue to be a pacific power promoting peace, stability, and the free

flow of commerce among nations, but we will insist that all nations abide by the rules of the road and resolve territorial disputes peacefully, consistent with international law. that is how the asia-pacific has grown, and that is the only way to protect this progress going forward. america is committed to a development agenda that eradicate extreme poverty by 2030. we will do our part to help people feed themselves, power their economies, and care for their sick. if the world acts together, we can make sure that all of our children enjoy lives of opportunity and dignity. ambitious pursuing reductions in our carbon emissions. we have increased our investments in clean energy. we will do our part and help developing nations do there's, but the signs tells us we can

only succeed -- scientists tell us we cannot succeed in combating climate change if we are joined in these efforts by every nation, every major power. that is how we can protect this planet for our children and our grandchildren. on other words, on issue after issue, we cannot rely on it will book written for a different century. beyond ourour eyes borders, think globally, and act cooperatively, we can shape the course of this century as our predecessors shaved the , but as wewar ii age look to the future, one issue risks a cycle of conflict that could derail so much progress. that is the cancer of violent extremism that has ravaged so many parts of the muslim world.

new.urse, terrorism is not speaking before this assembly, president kennedy put it well. "terror is not a new weapon," he said. "throughout history it has been used by those that cannot prevail either through persuasion or example." century, terror was used by all manner of groups who fail to come to power through public support, but in this century we have faced a more lethal and ideological brand of terrorists, who have perverted one of the world's great religions. when access to technology that -- with access to technology that allows small groups to do great harm, they have embraced a nightmarish vision that would divide the world into adherents and infidels, killing as many

civilians as possible, employing the most brutal methods to intimidate people within their communities. i have made it clear that america will not base our entire foreign policy on reacting to terrorism. instead we waged a focus campaign against al qaeda and associated forces, taking out their leaders, denying them the safe havens they rely on. at the same time, we have reaffirmed again and again that the notice states is not and never will be at war with -- that the united states is not and never will be at war with islam. islam teaches peace. muslims aspire to live to a sense of dignity and peace. there is no us and them -- there is only us. millions of muslim americans are part of the fabric of our country. suggestion ofany

a clash of civilizations. belief in prominent religious war is the misguided refuge of extremists who cannot build or create anything, and therefore federal fanaticism -- pedal fanaticism or hate. it is therefore no exaggeration to say that humanity's future depends on us standing against those who would divide us along the fault lines of tribes, sex, race, or religion, but this is not simply a matter of words. collectively, we must take concrete steps to address the danger opposed by religiously motivated fanatics and the trends that fueled their recruitment. moreover, this campaign against extremism goes beyond a narrow security challenge for while we have degraded methodically the

core of al qaeda and supported a transition to a sovereign afghan government, extremist ideology has shifted to other places, particularly in the middle east and north africa, where a quarter of young people have no jobs,, where food and water can grow scarce, where corruption is rampant, and sectarian conflicts have become increasingly hard to contain. as an international community, we must meet this challenge with a focus on four areas. first, the terrorist group known as isil must be degraded and ultimately destroyed. this group has terrorized all --ei, cross in iraq, and in terrorized all the, cross in iraq and syria. daughters,sters,

have been subjected to rape as an aspect of war. innocent children have been gunned down. bodies have been dumped in mass graves. religious minorities have been starved to death. in the most horrific climbs -- crimes imaginable, innocent human beings have been beheaded with videos of the atrocities distribute it to shock the conscience of the world. no god condones this terror. no grievance justifies these actions. , noe can be no reasoning negotiation with this brand of evil. the only language understood by killers like this is the language of force. the united states of america will work with a broad coalition to dismantle this network of death. in this effort, we do not act to sendor do we intend

u.s. troops to occupy foreign land. instead, we will support iraqis and syrians fighting to reclaim their communities. we will use our military might in a campaign of airstrikes to roll back isil. we will train and equip forces fighting against the terrorist on the ground. we will work to cut off their financing and to stop the flow of fighters into and out of the region, and already over 40 nations have offered to join this coalition. today i ask the world to join in this effort. those who have joined isil should leave the battlefield while they can. those who continue to fight for a hateful cause will find they are increasingly alone, for we will not succumb to threats, and we will demonstrate that the future belongs to those who

build, not those who destroy. ,hat is an immediate challenge a first challenge that we must meet. -- it is time for the world, especially in muslim communities, to explicitly, forcefully, and consistently reject the ideology of organizations like al qaeda and isil. one of the tasks of all great religions to accommodate devote faith with a modern, multicultural world. hating, andare born no children anywhere should be educated to hate other people. there should be no more tolerance of so-called clerics who call upon people to harm

innocent because they are jewish, or because they are christian, or because they are muslim. it is time for a new compact amongst civilized people of this world to eradicate war at its most fundamental source, and that is the corruption of its young minds by violence and ideology. that means cutting off funding that fuels this hate. it is time to end the hypocrisy of those that accumulate wealth through the global economy and in siphon funds to those who teach children to tear it down. that means contesting the space that terrorists occupy, including the internet and social media. their propaganda has coerced young people to travel abroad to fight their wars, and turn students, young people for potential, into suicide bombers. we must offer an alternative vision. that means bringing people of

different faiths together. all religions have been attacked by extremists from within at some point, and all people of faith have a responsibility to lift up the value at the heart of all great religions, due on to thy neighbor -- do to thy neighbor as you would have done unto yourself. or aleology of isil qaeda, or bo boko haram, we'll wilt -- will wilt and die if it is consistently confronted and refuted in the light of day. look at the new forum for promoting peace in muslim societies. its purpose was described -- we must declare war on war so that the outcome will be peace upon peace. look at the young british

muslims who responded to terrorist propaganda by starting the not in my name campaign, claiming that isis is fighting behind -- hiding behind a false islam. look at the christian and muslim leaders that came together in the central african republic to combat violence, and listen to the amount of said politics try to divide religion in our country, but religion should not be a cause of hate, or strife. later today, the security council will adopt a resolution that underscores the responsibility of states that counter violent extremism. resolutions must be followed by tangible commitments, so that we are accountable when we fall short. next year, we should all be prepared to announce the concrete steps that we have taken to counter extremist ideologies in our own countries.

by getting intolerance out of schools, stopping radicalization before it spreads, and promoting institutions and programs that build new bridges of understanding. must address the cycle of conflict, especially sectarian conflict, and that creates the conditions that terrorists prey upon. there is nothing new about wars within religions. christianity into her centuries centuries of vicious sectarian conflict. today it is violence within muslim communities that has become the source of so much human misery. it is time to acknowledge the destruction wrought by proxy wars and terror campaigns between sunni and shia across the middle east, and it is time

that political, civic, and religious leaders reject sectarian strife, for let's be clear -- this is a fight that no one is winning. a brutal civil war in syria has already killed nearly 200,000 people, displaced millions. iraq has come perilously close to plunging back into the abyss. the conflict has created a fertile recruiting ground for terrorists who inevitably export this violence. the good news is we also see signs that this tied could be reversed -- tide could be reversed. we have a new inclusive government in baghdad, a new iraqi prime minister welcomed by factionsbors, lebanese rejecting those who try to promote war. these steps must be followed by a broader truce.

nowhere is this more necessary .han syria together with our partners, america is training and equipping the syrian opposition to be a counterweight to the terrorists of isil and the brutality of the assad regime, but the only lasting solution is political, and inclusive solution that responds s regardless of ethnicity, creed. cynics may argue that such an outcome can never come to pass, that there is no other way for this madness to end, whether one .ear from now, or 10 it points to the fact that it is time for a broader negotiation in the region in which major powers address their differences directly, honestly, and

peacefully across the table from one another, rather than through gun-wheeling proxies. i can promise you a america will remain engaged in the region that we are prepared to engage in that effort. my fourth and final point is a simple one. arab andries of the muslim world must focus on the extraordinary potential of their .eople, especially the youths and here i would like to speak directly to young people across the muslim world. you come from a great tradition that stands for education, not innovation, not destruction, the dignity of life, not murder. those who call you away from this path are betraying this tradition, not defending it.

you have demonstrated that when young people have the tools to succeed, good schools, education in math and science, and economy that nurtures creativity and entrepreneurship, then society will flourish. so, america will partner with those that promote that vision. where women are full participants in a countries politics or economy, societies are more likely to succeed, and that is why we support the participation of women in parliaments, peace process, schools, and the economy. if young people lived in places where the only option is the dictates of the state or the lure of extremist underground, then no counterterrorism strategy can succeed, but were a genuine, civil society is allowed to flourish, where people can express their views

and organize peacefully for a better life, then you dramatically expand the alternatives to terror. such positive change need not come at the expense of tradition and faith. where ahis in iraq, young man started a library for his peers. to theirraq's heritage hearts, he said, and give them a reason to stay. we see it in tunisia where secretaries -- secretary in an islamist parties work together through political process to create a new constitution. where civil senegal society thrives along a strong democratic government. we see it in malaysia where vibrant entrepreneurship is propelling a former colony into the ranks of advanced economies. and we see it in indonesia,

where what began as a violent transition has evolved into a genuine democracy. now, ultimately, the task of rejecting sectarianism and extremism is a generational task, and a task for the people of the middle east themselves. can bringl power about a transformation of hearts and minds. be a respectful and constructive partner. we will neither tolerate terrorist safe havens nor act as an occupying power. we will take action against threats to our security and our allies, while building an architecture of counterterrorism operation. we will ash cooperation.

we will increase efforts -- cooperation. we will increase efforts to build up those who counter extremist violence and solve sectarian conflict and support efforts to expand entrepreneurship in civil society, education, and youth, because ultimately these investments are the best antidote to violence. we recognize as well that leadership will be necessary to address the conflict between palestinians and israelis. as bleak as the landscape appears, america will not give up on the pursuit of peace. iraqstand the situation in , syria, and libya, should cure anyone of the thought that the arab-israeli conflict is the

main problem of the region. for far too long that is man excused to distract people from problems at home. the violence engulfing the region today has made too many israelis ready to abandon the hard work of peace, and that is something worthy of reflection because let's be clear, the status quo in the west they and gaza -- west bank and gaza is not sustainable. we cannot afford to turn away from this effort, not when rockets are fired at innocent israelis or the lives of so many palestinian children are taken from us in gaza. so long as i am president, we will stand up for the principle that israelis, palestinians, the region, and the world, will be with two and more safe states living side-by-side in

peace and security. so, this is what america is prepared to do. taking action against immediate threats while pursuing a world in which the need for such action is diminished. the united states will never shy away from defending our interests, but we will also not shy away from the promise of this institution, and its universal declaration of human rights. the notion that peace is not merely the absence of war, but the presence of a at her life -- of a better life. i realize that america's critics will be like to point out that at times we, too, have failed to , thatp to our ideals america has plenty of problems within its own borders. this is true.

in a summer marked by instability in the middle east and eastern europe, i know the world also took notice of the small american city of ferguson, missouri, were a young man was killed, and a community was -- where a young man was killed, and a community was divided. so, yes, we have our own racial and ethnic tensions, and like every country we continually wrestle with how to reconcile the best changes brought by globalization and greater diversity with the traditions that we hold dear, but we welcome the scrutiny of the , because what you see in america is a country that has steadily worked to address our problems, to make our union more perfect. divides that existed at the founding of this nation.

america is not the same as it was 100 years ago, or 50 years ,go, or even a decade ago because we fight for our ideals, and we are willing to criticize ourselves when we fall short. because we hold our leaders accountable, and insist on a free press, independent judiciary. because we address our differences in the open space of democracy with respect for the place forw, with a people will effort -- of every race and every religion and a belief in the ability of each individual man in woman to change their circumstances, and their countries for the better. years asrly six

president, i believe that this promise can help light the world , because i have seen a longing for positive change, for peace and for freedom, and for opportunity, and for the end to bigotry in the eyes of young people that i have met around the globe. they remind me that no matter who you are, or where you come from, or what you look like, or what god you pray to, or who you love, there is something fundamental that we all share. eleanor roosevelt, champion of the u.n. and america's role in where after all, do human -- universal human rights begin? in small places, she said, close to home. so close and so small that they

cannot be seen on any maps of the world, yet they are the world of the individual person -- the neighborhood he lives in, the school or college she farm, orthe factory, office, where he works. peoplethe world young are moving forward, hungry for a better world. placesthe world in small they are overcoming hatred, , andry, and sectarianism they are learning to respect each other despite differences. the people of the world now look ,o us, here, to be as decent and as dignified, and as

courageous as they are trying to be in their daily lives. and at this crossroads, i can promise you that the united states of america will not be distracted or deterred from what must be done. legacyheirs to a proud of freedom, and we are prepared to do what is necessary to secure that legacy for generations to come. i ask that you join us in this common mission for today's children and tomorrow's. thank you very much. [applause] >> on behalf of the u.n.

assembly, i wish to thank the president of the united states of america for the statement just done. may i request revisited to remain seated while we greet the president -- representatives to remain seated while we greet the president. >> we will be back at the united nations this afternoon when president obama presides over a eating of the un security council to urge adoption of a resolution requiring countries to prosecute foreign fighters, individuals who leave their home to join extremist groups. we will have that alive at 3:00 p.m. eastern -- have that live at 3:00 p.m., and we want to hear from you today, with the

greatest threat the u.n. should address. already some responses -- stephanie writes on our facebook -- more at facebook.com/c-span. one of the topics being addressed this week is the ebola outbreak, which according to a new report from the cdc, could grow to 1.4 million cases in liberia and sierra leone if the outbreak cannot be controlled. the head of the cdc, dr. tom fr at an will give an update event hosted by the university of pittsburgh medical center. you can watch that live at noon eastern on c-span two. also today, a debate for the

house street in virginia's 10th district. they face-off to fill the seat wolf,d by 17-term frank who announced he would be retiring. we will have that live for you. now, a look at some of the as running in that race. >> barbara comstock wants to make abortion illegal, even in the case of rape and, just like the right wing the publicans in congress. i want to overturn roe versus wade, so to shake. >> i think roe versus wade should be overturned. --barbara contact said barbara comstock voting with republicans for transvaginal ultrasounds. that is all i need to know. >> trash talking politics from john faust.

the attacks, sexist, bizarre, insensitive, ignorant. do not be full. barbara comstock is an award-winning legislator who gets results. she wrote the law that protected women and children from human traffickers, restored millions of dollars in funding, brought better jobs to virginia. john faust talks trash. barbara comstock gets results. >> i am john faust come into balance seven budgets in fairfax get rid of ad to lot of waste. we replaced the computers, the cap the monitors. they still work fine. we discover the phone company overcharged us by $3 million. i approve this message because congress does not need another right-winger. they need someone that can balance the budget, oh, and we also did not need so many government studies. comstock is a devoted wife, mother, and public servant.

she was elected to the house of delegates where she wrote the law to protect women and children from human traffickers. barbara comstock gets results. her leadership created new jobs, saved taxpayers millions of jobs, and helped restore millions of dollars to her school. she was a trusted aide to me, and she'll be a great congressman. >> i am barbara comstock, and i approve this message. >> again, that virginia congressional debate coming up today at 12:30 p.m. eastern on c-span.org and c-span radio. virginia daktronics under tim kaine -- democratic senator tim kaine outline the role of congress to contain isis. he is urging other members of congress to fulfill constitutional responsibilities as a lesson -- legislation that would impose the actions of president outlined including a sunset provision of one year. [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> good afternoon. my name is ted strickland, the >> good afternoon. my name is ted strickland, the president of the center for american progress action fund, and on behalf of neera tanden, the president of the center for american progress and on behalf of our colleagues, we welcome you here. we thank you for joining us andwe thank you for joining us today and given what has happened over the last few hours, this event is a very timely event. we know that the islamic state of iraq, or isis, is a horrifically barbaric. they have been described as too violent for al qaeda. as they've engaged in near you genocide of yazidi minority and him group, and they have him conducted gruesome beheadings.

you and a the american people are now galvanized in support of action to counter this threat. and president obama has laid out his strategy to degrade and ultimately to defeat isis. you we here at c.a.p. and c.a.p. and action broadly support the will and will and in president's and plan but we are very eager or a for a robust congressional in a a a debate and new is in congressional action to authorize the specific mission. a a a the constitution divides the power to declare war and the power to conduct war between the legislative and in executive branches. congress decides whether to you are in fight and the an and president, as in a commander-in-chief, manages you the fight authorized by congress. over the past 100 years, the balance of war powers has a balance of war powers has shifted toward the president. is a a a presidents have often relied upon commander-in-chief is a authority for even

a a extensive military a campaigns. an example, the libyan air campaign of 2011. congress has periodically tried to reassert its prerogatives on more powers such as the 1973 war powers resolution. a a but really hasn't been able a a a a a to stop the trend. a print to stop the trend. the obama administration claims both the 2001 authorization to use military force, or aumf, directed at the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks and the 2002 and is a iraq war aumf which and provided existing you congressional authorization and him and him for its military campaign against isis. a and a however, many legal is scholars disagree with this claim, creating a rather weak and foundation for a military you foundation for a military operation.

is a turnoff and will it also appears to reverse earlier positions of the obama a positions of the obama administration advocating for a a an the narrowing or repeal of both the 2001 and 2002 a in aumf's. a aumf's. regardless of the merits of the you a you obama administration's claim, it would be far superior and claim, it would be far superior him to obtain specific congressional authorization for a call this military campaign. in and in him holding a vote would force the congress to commit to support the mission, especially important in this time of intense political polarization and obtaining specifically congressional authorization for this mission would establish a strong precedent for any future presidents to follow. and many in congress are calling for debate in action on

a new aumf directed at isil when they return from a lame duck session following the november a election. that is why we are thrilled today to have one of the strongest advocates in the senate of our congress to accept a a its responsibility to play a a its responsibility to play its congressional role, its a constitutional role in helping a a a healthy to define the strategy and authorize the a strategy and authorize the military campaign against isis a and that is our friend, a a senator tim kaine. a him before i specifically introduce the senator, i'd like a to say a few words about the format of today's event. a a senator kaine will be a delivering remarks from this podium. when he has concluded his speech, he will be joined by my colleague senior fellow ken a a a a a a a goode for a a a a a discussion of the critical issues and his remarks. then we will open it up for questions from the floor and that will conclude the program. senator tim kaine, he has served the people of virginia for the

past 20 years, first as the mayor of richmond, then as governor, and now as one of virginia's united states senators. senator kaine has been a leader on foreign and security policy, serving on both the armed services and foreign relations committees. he has been incredibly supportive of veterans of the iraq and afghanistan conflicts as they enter american life and adjust to being back home. he chairs the u.s.-mexican interparliamentary group and he a a chairs the subcommittee on the near east, south and central asia affairs. senator kaine has been an early and a courageous voice pushing his colleagues and the obama administration on the need for congressional authorization for the conflict with isis.

he has introduced legislation that would authorize the conflict but oppose or impose appropriate limits on the use of force against isis. now, this is not a new issue for the senator. he has been working for a long time on updating and improving the war powers resolution. and, senator, we are honored, we are honored to have you with us today and i ask each of you to join me in welcoming the senator to the podium. [applause] >> thank you so much and i want to begin with they go my good friend governor strickland for his kind words and for the invitation of c.a.p. to be here today.

there are few people in public life who i've come to know in 20 years in elected office that i feel as warmly toward both as a public servant and as a person than ted strickland. he sets a great example of public service that stems from a moral compass that is undeniable. if you know ted for five minutes, you detect that. that's one of the reasons i am happy to be with you to talk about the issue that is sadly topical. the war on isil, the phrase used by secretary hagel at the armed services hearing last week, has been going since the middle part of august when it moved from a defensive mission to protect american personnel at the embassy and consulate to an a offensive mission against isil. a by my quick calculations, including the events announced this morning by the president, there have now been thousands of virginians who have been a directly involved in the air strikes and other activities since that time and i know we have people here from all over the country and there are hundreds or thousands of folks from your states involved, as well. what i want to do is talk, as governor strickland mentioned, briefly about the threat, which is a very real threat.

i take it seriously and i know many -- all who are here would take it seriously, as well, and that threat is why i support the a basic pillars of the a president's four-point initiative announced two wednesdays ago and i'm going to talk about that, the president's four points, briefly. but what i really want to dig into with, i hope you'll see my a passion coming through my a wonkiness because i'm going to dig into this in a signature way or i'md him him going to dig into this in a significant way. is a series of six reasons why i think it is absolutely critical legally, for precedent reasons, for the reputation of our institution, and especially for the servicemen and women we're asking to risk their lives, i think it's absolutely critical that congress complete the authorization that it began last week when it voted on the arming of moderate elements in syria. it is critical that congress do that. if we're going to engage this

mission, we got to do it right or not do it and if we don't get congress on board with it, we're not doing it right, and if congress won't get on board, we should stop doing what we're doing. and finally i want to talk about not just what congress should do generally that congress should be involved, i want to talk about specifically what i'm doing with my colleagues as we're tackling this issue legislatively. first in terms of the threat, the isil threat -- and i use the phrase "isil." there's different terms. i use isil because their geographic ambitions extend beyond iraq and syria to encompass a broader area of the levant so i like the isil phrase better because they're engaged in activities that could be destabilizing in lebanon right now. the campaign that they are engaged in violates basically international norms of human rights -- the subjugation of women, crimes that could be considered genocide, violations of sovereignty, a series of significant violations of the most basically norms of human

rights and they have carried out vast atrocities against individuals. for them to claim to be the islamic state of anything is a profanation of an important religion and that is a significant matter. they pose significant threat not only to iraq and syria but other nations in the region that we work closely with allies. they pose significant threat to allies in europe and africa. i traveled recently with members of the house and senate armed services committee in intel and foreign relations committee to tunisia and morocco, two nations we're working with closely in different ways. they expressed huge concern about the foreign fighter issue. tunisian and foreign fighters have joined the battle with isil, often coming from europe, but the destabilizing possibility of those foreign fighters to european and african allies are significant and i am convinced they pose a very

significant threat, isil does, to the united states. it's a significant threat. it's a growing threat. recently testimony of counterterrorism officials in the united states have not said that there is any credible evidence of imminent attack of the united states by isil but that does not mean that they are not a significant and growing threat and clearly they have been stating in words and demonstrating in actions whether it's the beheading of american journalists in such a grisly way, the recruiting of american foreign fighters or pledges to take action against the united states, that this threat is one we have to take very seriously. in addition to having a desire to do harm and doing current harm in the region, they have significant sources of funding so they have what the military guys would say, are a desire plus a capacity because of the power they've been able to amass, the weapons they've been able to amass so that's the reason that threat that isil poses, that's the reason that i believe the united states needs to take action as part of a multinational coalition to

include military action against isil. i believe that strongly and i frankly think that the steps that the president has taken as he outlined, are all steps that can be reasonably justified. now, we need to get into a debate in congress and i'm sure some sand paper will be taken to the mission and it will be changed as we do but the four basic pillars to the president's proposal i do not find controversial. the first one, humanitarian assistance. the u.s. is the largest provider of humanitarian aid to syrian refugees in the world. being the largest provider of humanitarian aid in the world is not by accident. it doesn't happen out of the ether. it's an intentional strategy the u.s. has chosen and has often chosen, the complete destruction of the syrian chemical weapons stockpile did not happen by accident. it was a huge victory in the

destruction of the ship involved with chemical weapons returned to virginia last wednesday. that's a strategy. so in the humanitarian area that is a pillar we can all support but we shouldn't be bashful about talking about what is being done in that area but the three military points of the president's presentation two wednesdays ago were counterterrorism operations against isil leadership. i detect broad support for that among members of congress. a targeted air strike campaign in iraq and syria to blunt the momentum of isil and move them back. and to support ground forces battling isil on the ground. and then finally, that pillar, the training and equipping of the ground forces that will carry that battle to isil on the ground. now, the piece of it that's gotten the attention is the training and equipping of syrian moderates but that's not the entire pillar. this is about the training and equipping of the iraqi security forces, the training and equipping of the pesh merga, allies in the kurdish region and

also, the more difficult task of the training and equipping of opposition forces that will battle isil in syria. i think those four points -- humanitarian, air strikes, the training and equip mission and counterterrorism operation against isil leadership, are all very reasonable. and worthy of support with some amendations that i'll get to in a bit but the point that i think is so critical is the president shouldn't be doing this without congress and maybe more to the point, frankly, if we're going to assess culpability, congress shouldn't be allowing it to happen without congress. so let me get into the reasons why i think it is so important that this mission as enunciated by the president, has to be done right and what that means as congress has to be on board with all of it. i want to talk about six things. the constitution. the authorizations that congress passed in the early 2000's that are being used by this administration as justification.

this president's own words and actions as a candidate and as a president. the reputation of this current congress. the precedent it sets for future presidents and future congress. and finally, the most important thing, an underlying value that really kind of is spread throughout all of the points that i'll talk about, especially the constitutional allocation of power. governor strickland stated it right with respect to the constitution. the constitution is extremely clear. the constitution is an interesting document composed of both complete precision -- you can't be president if you're not 35 years old -- and very carefully worded ambiguity, you can't take somebody's property without due process of law. nobody can be subject to cruel and unusual punishment. what does that mean? the framers chose often to be specific and then they chose in other instances to be vague. along the spectrum from specific to vague, the war powers piece is among the most specifically and ted, you did a great job.

it's congress to declare and president to carry out the mission. that's how they decided to do it. president has article 2 powers as commander-in-chief to execute a mission once initiated because the last thing you need is 535 commanders in chief but the initiation of military action is for congress to do. not only is the language of the constitutional provision clear, the purpose is also clear. the principal drafter of the constitution, james madison -- you'll forgive me, i use a lot of virginia references -- the principal drafter, madison, made very plain why the provision was drafted to have congress as the declarer of war. madison wrote a letter to thomas jefferson a few years after the constitution was finalized and basically said this -- our constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates, that it is the executive that is the branch of power most interested in war and most prone to it. it is for this reason that we have with studied care vested

the question of war in the legislature. madison was familiar with executives, frankly, monarchs, that had had the power of the declaration of war and so in drafting the constitution, madison and the other drafters were very careful to pull that power away from where it had traditionally been placed and to put it in the legislative branch. the framers understood clearly that the president as commander-in-chief would have a solemn obligation to defend vigorously. there would be a need for immediate action to defend the nation and congress intended that the president should do it but they had a very clear understanding of what that article 2 commander-in-chief power was and that was to defend against imminent attack. the first real test of this came when thomas jefferson was president and jefferson was seeing american ships both merchant and military subject to repeated attack by the barbary coast pirates in the

mediterranean and jefferson knew, i can order my commanders to repel attacks all day long. i'm the commander-in-chief, i can defend our shipping interests but at some point he said what are we going to do? keep repelling one attack after the next? we need to go -- and it was almost the exact phrase that president obama used on "meet the press" two weeks ago. we need to go on offense against the barbary pirates. not just repel attacks but go on offense to eliminate the attacks. when jefferson made the decision it was time for an offensive mission, he said without sanction of congress, i cannot go beyond the line of defense and he had to come to congress to get authority for the action against the barbary pirates that were offensive in nature. that was the understanding when the constitution was drafted but to give everybody their appropriate credit, beginning with wigs and federalists and on to democrats and republicans, the initial understanding has often been violated. as the governor said, the executive overreach into powers

has been maybe particularly acute in the last 100 years but there's never been a really long-standing period of american history where we did it exactly according to hoyle. executive overreach is what madison saw but what madison maybe didn't see is that legislators like to abdicate and the symbiotic relationship between legislative abdication and executive overreach is the source of this problem up to today. but constitutionally the matter is clear. the president does not have article 2 power to go on offense against isil unless they are involved in an actual ongoing or imminent threat against the united states and there's no evidence that they are as indicated by other administrative testimony. that's the constitution. the president and his team indicate that this mission, the four pillars, are justified by the 2001 and 2002 authorizations passed by congress. let me get into that for a minute.

i think that argument is an extremely creative stretch by extremely creative lawyers that even, hey, i made creative arguments when i was a lawyer that even giving the ability to lawyers to make creative arguments doesn't stand up. in the hours after the attack of 9/11, president bush brought an authorization to congress and the authorization said give me, the president, the ability to go after groups in order to prevent terrorist attacks on the united states. that was what the original authorization said essentially. even in the aftermath of the attack on the pentagon and world trade center, when emotions were high and we had a righteous desire to even the scales, congress overwhelmingly rejected that authorization. that was the cheney preemptive war doctrine, give the president the unilateral power to wage war against terrorist organizations

he sees fit to wage war against. congress wouldn't give that power. congress insisted that the authorization are narrowed to those who perpetrated the attacks on 9/11. isil did not perpetrate the attacks on 9/11. isil was not formed until a few years after 9/11 so calling isil is a perpetrator of the 9/11 attack is torture of the english language and i would view it's essentially falling back into the preemptive war doctrine that congress rejected. the '01 authorization doesn't just go after the perpetrators of 9/11 because the bush and obama administrations have said you can go after the perpetrators of al qaeda but you can also go after groups associated with al qaeda, associated forces. that definition by both the bush and obama administrations has been made so vast as to sweep in virtually anybody so i asked administration witnesses at a hearing before the armed

services committee in may of 2013, ok, associated with al qaeda, so, what if a youngster is born in 2010, 2011, 10 years after 9/11, and in 2035 joins an organization in nigeria that claims to have a splinter relationship with al qaeda and that organization has just formed and that organization has no intent to do any harm to the united states. does the '01 authorization cover it? and the administration official said, oh, yeah, absolutely. no sense of irony, very blithe, absolutely, it covers it. even in that instance to call isil an associated force with al qaeda when they have separated from al qaeda, when in parts of syria they are battling with al qaeda, again, is such i torturous read of the language that i don't believe a clear

reading of even the original language or even the broadening law put on it by the administration would allow isil to be encompassed by the aumf. secondly, there was an aumf to authorize the war in iraq to topple the regime of saddam hussein. that regime is long gone. there have been a number of governments since. the administration has claimed this '02 authorization justifies this action against isil at least in iraq but again, i think that argument is specious. the purpose of that 2002 authorization was not to engage in open-ended war in the zip codes that happened to be in limitation in terms of time. it was directed at the toppling of a particular regime. both of the opera -- authorizations cited by the white house for statutory review in our view is that they do not provide support at all.

let me go to my third argument. the president's own words and actions. the president understands precisely the constitutional argument i made when he was running for president in 2007. he said, the president doesn't have a unilateral power to wage war without congress. imminent attack on the united states. those were his exact words. he knows the article to power. presidente understands the limitations of the 2001 a ums. --aumf. he gave a speech that said we should not be broadening that limit with no geographical limitation. we should be read -- be narrowing it, refining it, ultimately on the path to repeal it. and with respect to the 2002 iraq authorization that the administration now claims give support to the mission, just a few months ago we had a hearing on it before the foreign

relations committee. administration witnesses came prepared to be asked about it and when they were, they said it is the position of the administration that the 2002aumf is now obsolete and should be repealed. i would argue that the president's own words demonstrates he understands the narrow scope of the article one -- article two powers, and that the authorizations are not to be stretched further, but instead to be narrowed in the one instance, and the repealed in the next. i know lawyers make rod arguments. that is what lawyers do. but i don't think you serve this reticular president well by advancing in open-ended interpretation of these authorizations when the president's own words and actions have suggested what he wants to do is narrow and repeal them. let me go to my fourth argument.

there are a million reasons why our approval rating is so low. in big picture, the major reason that the approval rating of congress is low is the belief that we too easily advocate. it is too complicated to come up with funding models. let's do a patch job. it is hard to grapple with this or that program. let's just do a patch job. it is too hard to do a budget so let's just do a cr for a couple of months. the overall view that people have about congress is -- i don't usually agree with vice president cheney but he had a good line. he says congress likes to kick the can down the road. the problem is they don't kick very well and they don't kick very far. i like that line. acknowledge looking in the mirror that that is a challenge we have.

this particular congress has a real opportunity as well as an obligation to start fixing some of what ails us, fixing some of what is appropriately precise -- criticized about our behavior by taking seriously this most somber responsibility. this is ultimately about a precedent for the future. if congress allows the president to begin this campaign against isil and go on offense without congress authorizing it, we will have created a horrible precedent that future presidents i have no doubt will used to suggest i can take unilateral action against groups that made post terrorist threats in the united states. we will have created by precedent exactly what congress refused to do when they voted the bush administration down in the initial 2001 you imf hearing

after -- 2001 uimf. -- the 2000 aumf. the administration says it may justify war for another 25 or 30 years, why possibly would we want to even further the precedent that would suggest, you know what, congress should have voted for the doctrine in 2000 one and handed it all over to the executive to make these decisions. congress was right then and they did it in serious emotion. congress could easily have gone along with the emotionally difficult definition. congress was smart enough not to do it. if we do not weigh in on this mission and have an up or down vote on it, we will basically be handing back to the executive what the 2001 congress refused

to do area the last reason we -- refused to do, and that would be very unwise. the last reason we need to tackle this is the value reason. i am not a constitutional law scholar. it is enough to do this to vindicate the constitution but that is not really why i am doing it. the constitutional allocation of power that was put into the constitution and it has its expression in statute as well was put in in my view for a very important reason. don't ask service members to risk their lives if there's not a political consensus that the mission is worth it. it is the most somber thing we do. when we initiate military action, we are asking young men and women to risk their lives and some will be killed and some will be injured and some will be captured and some will see those things happen to their comrades

and some who none of those happen to because of what they do to others will come back with challenges of mental health that may follow them for the rest of their lives. that is what we are asking these thousands of virginians who are already involved -- that is what we not ask what order them to do when we initiate military action. what right do we have to ask that sacrifice of anyone if we are not willing to have that tough debate, contentious though it may be, and stand before our public and vote yes or no? is that sacrifice having to be accountable in voting yes or no one one millionth of the sacrifice we ask men and women in uniform to make? no, it isn't and we volunteered to do it here it and it is not a sacrifice. this history of congressional abdication of saying, you know, boy, mr. resident, you go ahead

and do this and i'm if it works out well, we'll say we were all with you. and if not, we will write and -- we will gripe complain about and complain about it and it is the height of public immorality, to command people to risk their lives if we are not willing to do the simple and straightforward and clear thing that is on our shoulders to do. that is what has driven me. i got deeply interested in this issue in the aftermath of the 2002 vote. i thought putting up the iraq mission to a vote where time was manufactured but requiring the vote in october 2002 was almost just a profane politicization of what should be the most somber decision that we ought to make in american government. as i started to get into this challenge about the executive and congressional allocation of responsibility, and started reading about it.

maybe it is because i am in virginia and we are so connected to the military. i feel this issue of not asking people to sacrifice on we don't do our jobs, when the president went in in 2011, i thought he did the right decision. the president was censured by the house of representatives in 2011 for doing what he did without congress. but it is ultimately about this value, the constitutional argument, the statutory argument, this residence legacy, congress's reputation. it funnels down to this basic value of we can't ask people to sacrifice their lives if we won't do the basic job that is entrusted to us, to make a decision. if we make a decision this mission is worth it, that does not mean it will all go well. that doesn't mean that we won't make a mistake. human institutions make mistakes.

but the chances that it will go well or better if we debate it up front rather than wait and get in the middle of it, imagine how feels to be in service and be in harms way overseas and then suddenly you see the sniping break out between the legislative and executive branch that never received a consensus at the front end. i've had people stopping me in the halls of the capitol, the security guards and the cafeteria workers and the people who work on the grounds crew and other staff talking to me and say thank you. we have a huge percentage of ex military workers in the capital or family who do. they understand this point very well. let's do our job if we are going to ask others to do their job. so what is the job? i think there are three things we ought to do right now. the first is we ought to craft a narrow authorization with respect to this mission against isil along the lines that the president has proposed. i drafted one last weekend there have been two others that have been introduced.

my proposal and those three will go into the committee and chairman menendez said we will take this up and vote on an authorization. my authorization basically supports the president's pillars but with four caveats. first, a year sunset to require review and reauthorization. second, a limitation on ground troops, depending on the interests. i will get into why that is strategically and militarily exactly what we should do. third, a drastic limitation on this notion of who is an associated force so an authorization watch drafted does not going to anything. number three, a repeal of the 2002 iraq aumf. take this up as soon as we get

back. we've got between november 12 and the 11th of december when the syrian piece that was authorized last week expires. we ought to take it up. we ought to vote on it. we need to revise the 2001 aumf. that is a more complicated thing. crafting a specific named group, but a broad legal framework for dealing with the perpetrators of 9/11 and their associated groups, as even was evidenced by some of the strikes yesterday, that is probably going to take a little more time to get that right. the white house is engaged in bipartisan discussion with congress now about the way to refine that. that is a second thing we need to do. the white house is deeply engaged in that discussion with bipartisan members. the third thing we need to do is for the long-term. we have to have a better process for making the most important decision that we make in

congress, whether or not to initiate war. senator mccain and i have introduced a bill that looks at the infirmities that made the war powers resolution in 1973 null after it was enacted to -- congress had a proved via budget the vietnam war, but he did not ruth nixon going into approve nixon going into cambodia which he did secretly. so the war powers resolution was enacted after that. it was vetoed by president nixon and it was overridden. there are some problems with the bill that most scholars would say would make pieces of it unconstitutional. we put together a repeal and replace of that resolution that basically does three things. it tries to define what is war.

anymore. state v state is nonstate actors, cyberattacks, what would trigger the executive interaction. trying to find systematize consultation. i am on the armed services and foreign relations committee. i read that the president was consulting on congress with something. i am the chairman of the subcommittee and nobody has called me. so consultation can be as much or as little as the resident -- the president calling a few people he thinks will agree with him or talking to the leadership or talking to the meaningful committees. we ought to have a meaningful understanding of of what consultation is. in the third piece is the proposal that senator mccain and i have is to systematize and require an up or down vote by members of congress and not allow the abdication of

responsibility that has been too common a theme in congress. that is a lot. you can cim passion about it. -- you can say i am passionate about it. i think we will take a few questions. thanks for being here. i wish it wasn't so topical. [applause] >> that was remarkably cogent and right on point. i will give you an opportunity to have a drink. i am the senior fellow. i have been with the center since 2003. a lot of our work on the national security team was on the iraq war. certainly now that we are still talking about iraq and debating iraq and going back into iraq, something we have really wrestled with for a long time. one of the things that struck me over this debate is a general weariness by the american people combined with a sense that what

is going in iraq in -- and syria now is you have to combat the threat hearing a low-level sense -- combat the threat. but a low-level sense that what we can do is actually going to work. when we talk about the constitutional these, when you talk about the value piece, i think there is another role that congress can play, which is helping to bring along the american people and have them understand the mission. do you think that the lack of congressional debate has made it more difficult to do that? >> certainly. you laid it out very well. when the president and congress debate about matters like this, that is how the american public gets into the discussion. him gets into the discussion. you have to bring in the american public into the discussion, too. we started to have this discussion last week with voting on the syrian piece of the

president's proposal. but if we don't have the discussion and vote, we run the risk that the american people do not understand the magnitude of the challenge and may not be as supportive as we would want them to be. what our servicemen and women deserve is not just a vote of congress, but they'd observed the -- they deserve the maximum degree of support are the american public for the risk they are taking. >> you mention the ground troops. i think there is a lot of confusion about putting boots on the ground and what is it we exactly mean. we know that there are american forces already in iraq, but we hear no ground troops. what does this mean and what is your proposal? >> my proposal is no ground troops with the exception of, if we need ground troops to rescue american personnel or save american lives.

and if we need ground troops for the counterterrorism mission that i mentioned, that would be acceptable as well. those would be the only two instances where we would use actual roundtrips. let me just say quiet think the no ground troop rule is important. first, it is important because that is what the president said when he laid out the mission. that was by way of a commitment to the amerco public. -- the american public. this is what the mission will be an what it is not going to be. it is important to put in that limitation so we are good to his word. but general dempsey gave really good temps is -- a testimony about this last week. the nugget people said dempsey will not take out recommendation off the table. no military commander will ever say i will take off the table as . recommendation in if he does, he should not be

president. what he really said, if you listen to his entire testimony, he laid out the rationale for why we don't want american ground troops in this battle. we cannot defeat i still if it -- we cannot defeat i still if -- we cannot defeat isil if it is the west against isil. we can't. there is no amount of american ground troops and european ground troops that can win this thing in iraq and syria. what we can do is battle isil, if the region is willing to police itself and stand up against extremism and violence and say this is not islam, if the region is willing to do that, we ought to be a partner with the region and there is something healthy about regional self policing. but if we have to put ground troops and, it is because the region itself is not fighting isil. if the region is not fighting isil, there is no amount of troops we can put into iraq and syria that can win. -- that will do the job.

so the limitation of ground troops not only matches the president's word, but it means we will provide a put together this multinational coalition to provide air support, to enable the kurds, resistance fighters in syria, maybe ground forces from regional rations -- regional nations. we will put in air support to help you to defeat i stilisil. but if you are not willing to stand up against isil and do that, there are not there is no amount -- there is no amount of american ground troops that can do that. general dempsey said it. i believe strongly in that. >> we certainly know the 2001 a aumf is 13 years old. the longest continuously used information of use of force. there is no way to wrap it up unless the president declares it is over and that is fraught with political risk. i certainly applaud the intention of having a sunset provision. how do you respond to push back

from the military or others who would say one year is not enough for this mission and recognizing the challenges that you described with your body, congress, going back to them every year to reauthorize this would be difficult? >> i think that is a good critique of my proposal. this is a balancing. i really believe that the 2001 aumf with no geographic limitation and no temporal limitation was a serious mistake. i can see why it was made. it was in the aftermath of this .orrible attack but we should learn some lessons from the last 13 years. i think geographic and temporal limitations is one of the lessons we should learn. some of the other aumf's that have come in have sunsets. i fully expect come up we get into foreign relations and we are comparing and try to put

together the us version, that will be a significant debate. i am not wedded to the one year but i am wedded to the notion of a sunset area i think that is the way you avoid this open-ended authorization that ends up being applied to all kinds of things that it was never applied to. you didn't think when you voted that it would be used in syria in 2014. that was beyond the contemplation of the members of can't -- of congress. that is why sunsetting is so important very the president should have to come back and make that case and congress should have to engage in that dialogue in full view of the american public and decide how long the next chapter will be. >> one more question before we open it to the audience. you mentioned a couple of the other aumf's that have been introduced.

some of your other colleagues who have been in this issue, senator corker, have the opposite view you have on the limitations and one to expand the 2001 aumf. how are we going to find a cohesive congressional majority behind a particular proposal that we can get in the lame-duck? >> let me talk about the isil aumf and in the broader 2001 aumf issue. if we can just had this up for debate in a vote last week or this week, the hardest piece of it, the piece i think is the most controversial in congress is arming the syrian opposition because there are russians over -- there are questions over do we know who to arm and will it come back to bite us in another direction.

some of my colleagues will vote for the u.s. strike campaign. i think we could have produced a margin of support for the president, much like last week. it was divided but it was not partisan here it is ok for there to be a divided vote. it is a hard question. but it would have been bad if it were a partisan vote. instead, you saw democrats and republicans vote yes i know. we could have gotten there but democrats and republicans vote yes and no. we could have gotten there but for a variety of reasons. election's and maybe some legitimate concerns. senator menendez said, look, as we have seen, drafting an authorization that is well drafted is not as easy as we would think so let's take the time to get it right. some members i think their vote may be dependent upon the success of the resident in really pulling together a multinational coalition. i can see some members, maybe saying i support work

these four pillars if there is a coalition, not if we are alone. so there may be some nonpolitical virtuous reasons we did not do it last week and we will do it in november. i detect strong support and the vote in both houses on the toughest part of it, the syrian peace demonstrated strong support. will we debate the sunset? sure, we will. there will be some other pieces that we will debate. i think we will get there on the isil very on the 2001 aumf, it is more challenging. there are some degrees to which it may need to be broadened. right now, it only applies to al qaeda, the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack. possibly, there should be an aumf not just toward the perpetrators but groups who have a target on the u.s.

it should probably also should narrow the definition of associated forces. the absence of a sunset, then he limitation on geography or time -- in the absence of any limitation on geography or time is way too broad. you can see the drafting of the 2001 aumf needs to be a little bit broader. i think it needs to be narrowed here and he may agree with me. that will take some time but the white house is really engaged in these discussions with the democrats and republicans ram. -- democrats and republicans right now. >> let's turn to honest questions. please wait for the microphone. we will ask that you identify yourself clearly and the organization you're with. we will take three questions at a time and see if we can get through as many as we possibly can. try to be as respectful to your follow audience members and keep them short and refrain from commentary. we will do when here in the front row and then we will go here to the front row and then

back. >> thank you. i am molly hooper with "the hill newspaper." how is president obama going to pay for these airstrikes? he has not asked for any money. quite a few tomahawks were fired yesterday and those things are not too cheap. i am wondering where president obama is getting the money to pay for these airstrikes. >> martin frost, former member of congress. i was in congress in both 1991 and in 2002 when congress authorized president bush 41 and bush 43 to act against iraq. both of them maintained that they had the inheritance as commander-in-chief. -- the inherent authority as commander-in-chief. so far, president obama has not embraced congress specifically passing an authorization. he sought a very limited action

with training syrian troops but he did not seek a broader authorization last week during do you think the resident openly will embrace and support a specific authorization by congress? >> i am old enough to remember back when they -- was raised. there was a rush to war then bang. only two senators were willing to stand up. and stop and asked the question, is it really worth doing this. it doesn't seem that today we have any in our political leadership willing to raise that question. it is all about the tactics of war, not whether we should go to war at all. >> let me tackle the story. -- let me tackle those three. i will take them in reverse order. why the rush?

sometimes there is a circumstance where you're under attack or imminent attack. but generally you should avoid rushing if you can't to do this the right way. i have been interested in this topic for a long time. what galvanized me recently was when the congressional leadership met with the president over the summer to talk about this issue and they went to the microphone and said the president has all the authority he needs. and i am, like, you've got to be kidding me. you're not a king for me when you said that. -- you've got to be kidding me. and members saying that you have all of the authority you need to ask your as the same time you are suing the president for taking unilateral action? hold on a second. i started getting angry when that happened and had been trying to avoid the rush by putting congress into the place that they should be. during the debates about

article i and article ii, the way we draw up this power is to make congress the clobber of and not the facilitator of war. so we don't need to rush but we do need to ask the questions and we need to have the debate. i couldn't agree with you more. i think -- your wording is why hasn't the president embraced and will he? the president will very much embrace congressional authorization. i think they wanted. -- want it. the way he said it may have been the most part he said his parced piece he said his speech. i need congressional authorization for this arm and equipment mission in syria and i would welcome congressional involvement -- i would welcome it. i think that is very sincere. the thing to general dempsey, secretary hagel, i think they will commit.

i don't have an intuition -- they will welcome it. i don't have an intuition. i have a hunch that the white house felt, when they went to congress last year on syria and congress was left and full throated in support a left-hand skittish. -- it left him skittish. the let me offer the counter view on syria. i know some who view of the president not using military force, let me make the argument. the president had a salvatori outcome. it should teach us something about the way something should be done. the president said use chemical weapons, there needs to be a consequence including military consequence very bashar al-assad used chemical weapons and it was proven. the president said, ok, i draw a redline. we need to use military force. britain would not do it very the u.s. would not do it.

-- britain would not do it. the u.n. would not do it. this was a policy put in place since 1929. the president came to the senate. we voted 10-8 to use military force. it might have one in the senate. but the fact that the president saying that we need to use military force and i'm coming to congress and the senate or in and the relations made russia changes calculations. syria had not even admitted it had chemical weapons. it said we will give up their weapons. it has been a huge diplomatic achievement of this administration that only happened because of a credible threat of the use of force. one of the biggest chemical weapons stockpile in the world has been destroyed. i was talking to the israeli leadership say they don't know what a huge game changer this is. bad guys with out mass --

weapons of mass destruction we can deal with. bad guys with weapons of mass destruction, we can't hear we ended up getting something out of it that was very positive for the long-term, the safety of -- the long-term safety of the people of that region. so far, president had done it two ways. libya, did not go to congress. syria, went to congress. the syrian several war -- civil war is still going on. there is no easy and insight. but a major stockpile of weapons of mass destruction is off the earth because the president did it the right way a year ago. it is my hope -- i know the president would welcome us. i hope their team will realize that it is not just a matter of welcoming.

they should realize it is more likely to work out better if they do it with congress. the pay for, very tough question. we have a cr as well as a syrian authorization on the training of equipment, but we will have to grapple with a longer-term appropriations, not another cr. i am fully expecting, as part of that for there to be funding requests. but that is another reason why congress should debate the stuff up front. we ought to be asking the question, how much will it cost and how are we going to pay for it. iraq and afghanistan were the first words -- the first wars that united states decides to do it all on a credit card.

we taxed ourselves for some of it. but iraq was the first time we said, we can kind of do this, members of congress' kids won't get drafted now. we can get blackwater or a third-party to do stuff we don't want to ask troops to do. i worry there has been a progressive executive overreach by putting it on the credit card and our kids don't have to serve. we will hire third-party contractors to do it during we ought to have questions about cost up front. and that we will be able to do when we return and tackle the authorization. >> one more round here it we are short on time. keep them as brief as possible. i will try to reach into the back.

>> thank you, senator kaine. i wanted to ask you about the consequences of having the vote that i agree is -- was constitutionally required not before the start of the war but after the war had already started. in particular whether or not, if there were no congressional vote now, whether or not that lack of specific congressional authorization would in fact act to constraining this president from expanding the current nor terry war without a vote in the -- the current military war without a vote in the future? >> you seem very confident and senator menendez has said he will work up a new aumf. how confident are you though, in a lame duck, an aumf will get a

vote in the senate and the house? >> we have been discussing a lot about getting authorization through congress fractions in iraq and getting domestic approval. getting domestic approval. how would you address the question of international herbal for these strikes in syria. there have been concerns and statements we have heard in the news. >> the consequences of no vote, i think it would be disastrous if it persists. if we get a vote, even though -- the airstrike campaign i am convinced in the defensive posture.

it started in a defensive posture. but about the time the president did airstrikes to protect the dam in mosul, and it would not cause harm to american life, it moved to an offensive mission. the president even said we will go on offense against sisal. having an air -- against isil. so having under strict campaign in a situation where the united states is not in imminent threat creates a significant challenge. i think we can apply a little bit of the catholic absolution principle to preevent if we can come in and have the debate and vote on it, especially since some members votes are depending on the extent of the coalition. i can see some wisdom to it. but if there is no vote, i think it will have a very negative consequence. there is an article in the new york times in the last couple of

days about, if there is no congressional vote, it really is essentially congress giving tacit acceptance to the notion that the president can do this. he does not argue but i would argue that accepting this is essentially accepting the cheney preemptive war doctrine that commerce would not accept even right after 2001. they mean us harm and we should go after them. there is no imminent threat. they mean us harm and we should go after them. i support the limited mission but i do not want to give the president the unilateral ability to make that determination. so i think the constitutional principle -- i think the absence of a vote would be a very dangerous thing. how confident with respect to the aumf? i am pretty confident but i am still new here. i think a lot of things are going to happen and they don't. i often tell people around here that things are going to be here