perpetrators of 9/11 and their associated groups, i mean, as even evidence bid some of the strikes yesterday against an al qaeda affiliate in syria is 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. so that's the second thing we need to do and the white house is deeply engaged in that iscussion. the third thing is have a bipartisan discussion whether or not to initiate war. senator mccain and i have introduced a bill that looks at the infirmties that have made that war powers resolution in 1973 kind of a nullty since it was enacted. t was enacted after nixon -- congress had approved the vietnam war but they didn't approve of nixon going into

cambodia and louse. the resolution was passed after that. it was vetoed by the president nixon the veto was overridden but no president has concede it had constitutionality of it for a series of reasons and there are probably some problems of the bill that make it unconstitutional. so we have put forward a repeal and replace of that resolution that basically does three things. it tries to define -- and this is pretty tough -- what is war. it's not state v. state any more of nonstate actors, cyber attacks, drone attacks, what is war that would trigger the executive legislative interaction. second tries to define and system ties consultation. you've heard president's say i've consulted with congress on this. i read in the paper the president was consulting with congress. i know i'm 95th in seniority but i'm on these can hes and

know's called me. so it can be as much or as little as the president calling a few people that he thinks will agree with him or talking to the leadership or talking to the meaningful committees. we ought to have a clear understanding of what it is and is not. finally the third piece of the proposal that senator mccain and i have would be to system ties and require up or down votes and not allow the advocation of responsibility that has been too common of theme as how congress has addressed these questions. that's a lot. you can see i'm passionate about it. but i would love to open it and take a few questions. thanks for being here. wish it wasn't so topcal. u >> thanks very much, senator mccain. remarkably cogent.

i'll give you an opportunity to ave a drink. one of the thing that is has struck me over this debate is just a general war wearieness of the american people combined with a sense that what's going on in iraq and syria now we have to do something to combat the threat. ut a low-level sense that what we can do is actually going to work. here's where i think when we talk about the constitutional peace, when we talk about the value peace, i think there's another role 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 somehow made it more difficult to do that? >> certainly you've laid it out very well. when the president and congress debate about matters like this, hat is how the mubble -- american public gets in. you've got to bring the american public into the discussion too. and that process is the way that it happens. you're right, if we don't have this discussion -- and obviously we started to last week with voting on the syrian piece of the president's proposal. but if we don't, the american people don't understand, maybe the magnitude of the challenge and may not be as supportive as we would want them to be. because what our service men and women deserve is not just a vote of congress but they deserve the maximum degree of support that they can from the american public for the risk they're undertaking. >> into the details of your proposal, you mentioned about the ground troops.

i think there's a lot of confusion about the phrase boots on the ground. what is it that we 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? >> so my proposal is no ground troops with the exception of if we need ground troops to rescue american personnel or save american life then we can use ground troops for that capacity. and if we need ground troops for the counter terrorism mission that would be acceptable as well but those are the only two instances where we would use actual ground troops. let me say why i think the no ground troop rule is important to include as a limitation, first it's important because that's what the president said when he laid out the mission. and that was kind of by way of a commitment to the american public. this is what the mission is going to be and what it's not going to be. and i think it's important to put that limitation in so that we're good to his word.

but general dempsey gave really good testimony about this last week. it was funny, i was at the hearing and the nugget people pulled away is general dempsey said he won't take off the table recommending ground troops to the president. no military commander will ever say i will take something off the table as a recommendation. in fact if he had said he would take something off the table as a recommendation, he shouldn't be commander in chief. but what he really said if you listen to his entire testimony, he really laid out the rationale for why we don't want american ground troops on this battle and here is the rationale. we cannot defeat isil if it is the west against isil. we can't. there is no amount of american ground troops, there's no amount of american plus 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 stand up against violence and say this is not islam, if the region is willing to do that then we

ought to be a partner with the region and there's something healthy about some regional self-policing in a region where often folks will decry behavior privately but not publicly. but if we have to put ground troops in it's because the region itself is not fighting isil. and if the region is not going to fight isil there's no amount of ground troops we can put into iraq and syria that will do the job. so i think the limitation on american ground troops not only matches the president's word but what it means is we'll provide and we'll pull together this multinational coalition to provide air support to enable the isaf, to enable the kurds, to enable resistance fighters in syria, maybe to enable ground forces from regional nations, we'll pull together air support to enable you to defeat isil. but if you're not willing to stand up against isil and do that there's no amount of ground troops that will do the job. and i really think that's what general dempsey said as he walked through the ground troop issue last week. and i believe strongly in that.

>> talk about the sun set provision. certainly as you laid out and as we certainly know, the 2001 aumf is 13 years old the longest continuously used authorization of force p, there's no way that wrap it up that we can see unless the president declares it's over. that type of decision is apparently fraught with political risk. so i certainly applaud the intention of having a sunset provision. how would you respond though to a criticism or maybe a pushback from the military or other whose would say one year is just simply not enough for this mission and recognizing the challenges that you have described with your body, congress, and going back to them every year to reauthorize it could be difficult. how would you respond to that? >> i think that's a good critique of my proposal. o this is a balancing. i really believe that the 2001

aumf was a serious mistake with no limitation. i can see why it was made. it was in the aftermath of this horrible attack so i might have done the same thing. but we should have learned some lessons from the last 1 years and i think a limitation is one of the lessons we should learn. some of the others that have come in have had sunsets. there's one that's 18, maybe three years, there's some on the house side too. i fully expect when we get into foreign relations and we are comparing these and trying to put together the best version is going to be an area of significant debate. and i am not wed to the one-year, but i am weded to the notion of a sun set. i think that's how you avoid this open-ended authorization that ends up being applied to all kinds of things that it never was applied to. ted and i were talking about he voted against the iraq authorization in 2002, voting for the authorization in 2001. but you didn't think when you voted that it was going to be

used in syria in 2014. that was beyond the contemplation of the members of congress casting that vote. that's why a sunset is so important. and 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 what, how long the next chapter will be. >> one more question before we open it up to the audience, and we kind of got into it a little bit there with your back and forth about the give and take that's going to have to go on here. you mentioned a couple of the other aumfs that have been introduced. some of your other colleagues in this een involved issue have an option opposite view on the limitations. so where we go from here, how are we going to find a cohesive congressional majority behind a particular proposal that we can luck? the

-- lame duck? >> i almost wish, if we could have just had this up for debate and a vote last week or this week, the hardest piece of it, the piece that i think is the most controversial in congress is the arming the syrian opposition because of questions do we know who to arm and will the arms come back to bite us in another direction? as i listen to colleagues, some of my colleagues who voted against that they're going to vote for the air strike campaign. so i wish that we could have done it, i think we could have produced a margin of support for the president much like the margin you saw last week. which was an interesting vote. it was divided but it wasn't partisan. and it's ok for there to be a divided vote. it's a hard question. it's a hard question. so it's divided. but it would have been bad if it were a partisan vote. instead you saw democrats and republicans voted yes and no. i think we could have gotten there but for a variety of reasons, elections, concern about it. but also maybe some legitimate ones. senator menendez said, look, as

we've seen drafting an authorization that is well drafted is not maybe as easy as we would think, so let's take the time to get it right. some members i think are, their vote may be dependent upon the success of the the president pulling together a national coalition. i could see members, maybe me, saying i support these if it's a coalition. i don't support the four pillars if we're just alone. in that sense it was very sal tri the announcement by the president today of the announcement of the others in the region. there may be some nonpolitical virttuss reasons, we didn't do it last week, we'll do it in november. but i detected around the table in both committees last week strong support. and i think the vote in both houses on the toughest part of it, the syrian piece of it, demonstrates strong support. will we have debates about the sunset and how long?

sure. maybe some other pieces but i think we'll get there on the isil one. on the other trgs a little more challenging. there are some degrees to which the aumf may need to be broadened because right now it only applies to al qaeda. the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack, possibly there should be an aumf that is not just limited to perpetrators but to groups that have a terrorist intent on the united states once the threat level reaches some degree of capacity and some degree of imnens so it may have to broaden. but it should also probably narrow the definition of associated forces as way too broad. the absence of a sunset, the absence of any limitation on geography or time, way too broad. so you can see the drafting of that 2001 aumf, senator corker may think it needs to be broader, and he may agree with me. but the white house is pretty engaged in those discussions with both democrats and

republicans. >> let's turn to audience questions now. please wait for the microphone. we do have the microphone and we're going to ask that you both identify yourself clearly and the organization that you're with. we're going to take three questions at a time to see if we can get through as many as we possibly can. and please try and be as respectful to your fellow audience members as possible and keep them short and refrain from commentary. we'll do one here in the front row and then we'll go here and back on the aisle. >> thank you, senator. i'm with the hill newspaper. i'm wondering how is president obama going to pay for these air strikes? he hasn't asked for any money. and from what i understand, quite a few tomahawks were fired yesterday and those things are not too cheap. i'm wondering where is president obama going to get the money to pay for this? these air strikes? >> martin frost, former member of congress. i'll be as brief as i can.

i was in congress in both 91 and 2002 when congress authorized president bush 41 and 43 to act against iraq. so far, -- and both of them maintained that they had the inherent authority as commander in chief but embraced congress acting. so far president obama has not embraced congress specifically passing an authorization. he sought a very limited action, this one with the training the syrian troops but he did not seek a brother authorization last week. -- broader authorization last week. do you think the president will embrace and support a specific authorization by congress? >> i'm old enough to remember back when the gulf of tonighten was raised and there was the rush to war then. only two senators were willing to stand up, and stop and ask the question, is it really worth doing this?

and it doesn't seem that today we have any of our political leadership willing to raise that question. it's all about the tactics of war rather than should we go to war at all. >> well, let me tackle those three. and i'm going to take them in reverse order. why the rush. sometimes there's a circumstance that you're under attack or imminent attack where you ought to rush. but generally you should avoid rushing if you can to do this the right way. and what really i've been interested in this topic for a long time but what really a gavel niesed me recently is when the leadership met with the president over the summer and they exited the white house and went to the mike and said the president has all the authority he needs, and i'm like you've got to be kidding me. i mean, you're not speaking for me when you say that. and especially members saying that the president, you have all the authority you need to act here at the same time

you're suing the president for taking unilateral action? hold on a second. i started to get 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 the article 1 and article 2 language george mason, another virginians, said the way we have drawn up the power is to make congress the clogger not the facilitator of war, and hopefully the facilitator of peace. and that was how it was originally designed. 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. so congressman frost, martin, good friend. i think the president -- your wording is why hasn't the president embraced and will he. the president will very much embrace congressional authorization and i think they want it. the way he said it might have been the most partisan piece of

the sentence. i need congressional authorization for this arm and equip mission in syria and i would welcome congressional authorization. i believe i have the power but i would welcome it. i think the i would welcome it is very sincere. listening to general dempsey, secretary hagel, secretary carol last week i think they welcome it. i don't have an intuition about why they didn't say we need it except executives pretty have a definition of their own power. i have a hunch. i have a hutch that the white house felt when they went to congress last year on syria and congress was less than full-throated in support, that made him skittish about coming back and saying we need you again on this. but let me offer the counter view on syria. i know there are some who feel like the president not using military force in syria hurt our credibility. let me make the reverse argument that the president doing what the constitution

requires in syria actually had a sal tri outcome and should teach us something about the way this should be done. the president said use chemical weapons there needs to be a consequence. assad used chemical weapons in a major way and it was proven. the president said i draw a red line we need to use military force. britain wouldn't do it. the u.n. wouldn't do it. this was an enforcement of an international norm. others wouldn't do it. but this president said we need to do it and we came to the senate. we voted 10- we'll use military force. that was going to be a tough vote in the house, it probably would have lost. might have won in the senate. but the fact that the president saying we need to use military force and i'm coming to congress and the fact of the senate foreign relations committee voting to use military force made syria and russia change. they hadn't even admitted.

but what they said is don't use military force from deterring. we will give up our chemical weapons. so one of the -- it's a huge diplomatic achievement of this administration that only happened because of a credible threat of the use of force. that one of the largest chemical weapons stockpiles in the world has now been destroyed. i was in israel, they said you don't know what a game changer is for us. they're still bad guys but bad guys without chemicals of mass destruction we can deal with. i've heard from others. the president did it according to the rule book, this is what we ought to do. i'll come to congress. congress had a debate in front of the american people. it was a tough vote divided but not partisan and we ended up getting something that was very positive for the long term safety of people in that region. so up to now the president had done it two ways. libya, didn't go to congress.

syria, went to congress. the syrian civil war is still going on. assad is still a brutor ctator with no easy end in sight. but the president did it the right way a year ago. so it is my hope as we are having this discussion i know the president would welcome us. i would hope he and his team to the extent they're kind of backing and forthing on this would realize it's not a matter of welcome, it's they should -- they should realize it's more likely to work out better if they do it with congress. the pay-for. very tough question. my sense is we have a cr as well as the syrian authorization on the train and equip we're going to have to grapple with longer term appropriations or hopefully appropriations not another cr. and i'm fully expecting as part of that in the oco area for

there to be funding requests. but that's another reason why congress should debate this stuff up front, because we ought to be asking the question up front, what is this going to cost and how are we going to pay for it? iraq and afghanistan were the first wars were the u.s. decided we could do it all on the credit card. even in vietnam for as unpopular, we did tax ourselves for some of it. we incurred debt, too. but iraq and afghanistan were the first two where we said wait a minute, we can kind of do it. members of congress' kids won't get drafted now. we can put it on the credit card. we can hire like blackwater a third party to do stuff that we don't want to ask troops to do. i worry that there's been not only a progressive executive overreach and a congressional abdication but even a diff fusion of responsibility by putting it on the credit cards our kids don't have to serve,

we'll hire third-party contractors to do it. so we ought to have the question about cost up front and that we will be able to do when we return and tackle the authorization. >> we're going to do one more round and we are certainly short on time. so please keep them as brief as possible. i'm going to try to reach into the back to give them a chance. so in the back there the woman with the hand up. and then back up into here, the woman in blue. and over here also blue. >> thank you, senator cane. i wanted to ask about your view of the consequences of having the vote which i agree is constitutionally -- was constitutionally required. not before the start of the war but after the war has already started. and 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 constrain

this the president from expanding the current military the ithout a vote in uture. you seem very confident and obviously senator menendez has said that he will mark up an aumf. how confident are you though that in a lame duck an aumf will actually get a vote in both the senate and the house? discussing a been lot about getting authorization through congress for actions in iraq and syria, getting domestic approval. but how would you address the question of international approval for the strikes in syria? there have been concerns and

statements i know we've heard in the news. >> i'm very glad you asked that. to tackle them in order. the consequences of no vote, i think it would be disastrous if it persists. i think if we get a vote, even though the air strike -- the air strike campaign started, i'm convinced, in the defensive posture. the president started on the th of august. isil had momentum. it started in defensive posture. but about the time the president did air strikes to protect the dam in mosul where there wasn't any likelihood that -- i don't think there was necessarily a chance the dam was going to be blown up but even the destruction of the dam wouldn't cause destruction to the embassy. about the time it moved to an offensive mission. the president said we're going to go on offensive against isil. so having ab air strike campaign occur without an authorization in a situation where the united states is not under imminent threat i think

creates a significant challenge. but i do think we can apply a little bit of the catholic absolution principal to pre-events if we can come in and have the debate and vote on it. and especially since some members' votes are depending upon the extent of the coalition, i can even see there may be some wisdom to it. but, if there is no vote, i think it's going to have a very negative consequence. and there's ab article -- charlie wrote an article in the "new york times" within the last couple of days about if there is no congressional vote it really is a essentially congress giving tacit acceptance to the notion that the president can do this. and he doesn't argue but i would argue that accepting this is essentially accepting the chainy-preemptive war doctrine that congress wouldn't accept even right after 2001, the notion that a president can say this group means us harm. we should go after them.

this is a group that does mean us harm. and i support the limited mission but i do not want to give the president the unilateral ability to make that determination. i think it violates all principles. so i think the constitutional principles. so i think the absence of a vote will be a very, very dangerous thing. how confident with respect to the aumf. i'm pretty confident but i'm still new here. right? so i think a lot of things are going happen and they don't. but i tell people things are going to happen and i end up being right. what made me start to feel confident -- because frankly when the leadership came out of the meeting with the president and said you've got all the authority you need, i was dreamly worried from that moment forward that we wouldn't even get a vote on this. when the president started in august and i called the team to ask what's going on, are you going to bring this to a vote and it was unclear, i didn't think we would get a vote. but beginning in the last -- after the president's speech on the two wednesdays ago, senator menendez, for example, he had

been asked does the president need authority he would say let me hear what he has to say and i will tell you. when he heard the president's speech he said this is clearly open-ended kind of a long-term thing. he definitely needs authority. so with senator menendez, with senator doiben who has been public that we need to have an authorization vote both in leadership, senator mcconnell has been saying we've got to have it, i've had other discussions with members of leadership i would rather not get into parsing those two carefully. but i really feel like now in both houses and in both parties there's a strong belief that we have to. and what the december 11, is kind of a termination date on the first piece of it, it kind of creates a natural window for that discussion. and while in one sense having it before the election would have been better because people can be accountable for it, nobody is going to be able to hide. nobody running for office is going to be able to hide. their electorate is going to

ask them between now and election day, what are you going to do about isil? every member running for congress, every senator running for reelection is going to have do declare where they were on this. so there is in this process an opportunity for citizens to kind of understand where their candidates are. and that also can provide some accountability and we then get up to having the vote. the international -- i am not an international law guy but i think it raises an interesting question. for example, i have asserted that i don't think the president can count on article 2 or either the aumf to justify the current actions in iraq domestically but he's fine on international law because iraq, the government of iraq has said come in and help us. so the international law side of the on the iraq side is a question, i think pretty straightforward, while the domestic one we have to make straightford by the vote. to the flip on the other side, on syria we just voted yes on syria at least for the piece of it. so that solves the domestic issue with the train and equip

mission. but the issue of international law, is it an incursion into sovereignty? and look at what various actors in the world have said. iran says it's illegal. russia says it's an incursion into sovereignty. syria apparently isn't complaining about it. so russia and iran are making the argument and syria's comments have been a little bit murky but they obviously don't like isil either. so i think the international questions are pretty straightforward in iraq. they're complicated in syria and not being an expert on that i don't know exactly how that one will ultimately get answered. but my sense is if we can get the domestic side of it pinned down with a congressional authorization as we go through that process and the process of working with allies and the president talking at the nufment about more allies on board, we may. because there are u.n. security council resolutions against some of the things that are

going on with isil. so that one will probably sort itself out but it is a thorny little question. >> i'm sure we could go on in talking about this and you and i certainly would love to but i think that's all the time we have today. so let me conclude by thanking you very much for coming. >> [applause] >> next, president obama's remarks at last night's congressional black caucus foundation dinner. then live at 7:00 a.m. your calls and comments on "washington journal." today our campaign 2014 coverage continues with a live debate between the iowa senate candidates, democratic congressman bruce brailley and republican state senator joni

earns t. seeking the seat held by retiring tom harkin. here's a look at some of the campaign ads running in iowa. >> i'm bruce brailley and i approve this message. is joani earns t too extreme for iowa? on the minimum wage. >> i do not support a federal minimum wage. she doesn't think there should be a national minimum wage. and what does she think is ight for iowa? that's right she believes iowans can survive on $15,000 a year. extreme ideas, wrong for iowa. >> want to know what i really care about? i care about protecting social security for seniors like my mom and dad. about good schools. good paying jobs. and health care we can afford when we need it. i approve this message. because i'll go to washington

as a mom, a soldier, and as someone who really cares about the iowa we leave our children. and i can't think of anything more important than that. >> shouldn't we have a right to make our own choiceses or should politicians make those for you? i'm talking about your right to self-defense. you should be able to choose the firearm that's right for you. it should be your choice. your rights. but congressman brailley voted against your rights. defend your right to self- defense. she promises to shut down the department of education hurting iowa students. abolish the e.p.a. giving polluters a pass. that's why extremist sara palin and koch brothers want her in

ashington. promises to them too extreme for us. >> a debate in the iowa senate race live today at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span.

>> thank you so much. everybody have a seat. if it wasn't black tie i would have worn my tan suit. thought it looked good. thank you for that introduction. thanks to all of you for having me here this evening. i want to acknowledge the members of the congressional black caucus and chairwoman mar sh fudge for their outstanding ork. thank you cbc foundation for doing so much to help our young people aim high and reach their potential.

tonight i want to begin by paying special tribute to a man with whom all of you have worked closely with, someone who served his country for nearly 40 years as a and as r, as a judge, attorney general of the united states. mr. eric holder. [applause] throughout his lodge career in public service, eric has built a powerful legacy of making sure that equal justice under the law actually means

something. that it applies to everybody regardless of race, gender, religion or color, creed, disability, sexual orientation. he has been a great friend of mine. he has been a faithful servant of the american people. e will miss him badly. this year we've been marking the 50th anniversary of the civil rights act. we honor giants like john lewis. unsung heroines -- [applause] -- like evelyn lowry, we honor the countless americans some who are in this room, black, white, students, scholars, preachers, house keepers

patriots all. who with their bare hands reached into the well of our nation's founding ideals and lped to nurture a more perfect union. we reminded ourselves that progress is not just absorbing what has been done. it's advancing what's left undone. even before president johnson signed the civil rights act into law, even as the debate dragged on in the senate, he was already challenging americans to do more and march further to build a great society. one, johnson said, where no child will go unfed and no youngster will go unschooled, where no man who wants to work will fail to find it. where no citizen will be barred from any door because of his birthplace or his color or his church. where peace and security is

common among neighbors and possible among nations. this is the world that waits for you, he said. reach out for it now, join the fight to finish the unfinished work. to finish the unfinished work. americans made stunning progress since that time. over the past 50 years even though the past five years but it is the unfinished work that drives us forward. some of our unfinished work lies beyond our borders. america is leading the effort to rally the world against russian aggression in ukraine, americans leading the fight to contain and combat ebola in africa, america building and leading the coalition that will degrade and destroy the terrorist group known as isil. as americans we lead and don't

shy away. we welcome them. that's what america does. we are grateful to the men and women in uniform who put themselves in harm's way and serve the country we all love. [applause] we've got unfin yirked work overseas, but we have unfinished work here at home. after the worst economic crisis since the great depression our businesses have now created 10 million new jobs over the last 54 months. this is the longest uninterrupted stretch of job growth in our history. in our history. [applause] but we understand our work is not done until we get the kind of job creation that means everybody who wants to work can find a job.

we've done some work on health care, too. i don't know if you've noticed, thanks to the affordable care act we've seen a 26% decline in the uninsured rate in america, african americans have seen a .0% decline and by the way, the cost of health care isn't going up as fast any more, either. everybody was predicting it was going to be so expensive. we've sade $800 billion in medicare because of the work that we've done. slowing the cost, improving quality, improving access. espite unyielding opposition this change has happened just in the last couple of years. but we know our work is not yet done until we get into more communities, help more uninsured folks get covered, especially in those states

where the governors aren't being quite as cooperative as we would leak them to be. we know who you are. -- we would like them to be. we know who you are. what always puzzles me, where you decide to take a stand to make sure poor folks in your state can't get health insurance even though it doesn't cost you a dime, that doesn't make much sense to me but i won't go on, on that topic. we've got more work to do. it is easy to take a stand when you've got health insurance. i'm going off script now but -- hat's what happens at the cbc.

high school graduation rate is at a record high. the dropout rate is falling. more young people are earning college degrees than ever before. last year the number of children living in poverty fell by 1.4 million, the largest ecline since 1966. since i took office the overall crime rate and the overall incarceration rate has gone down by about 10%. that's the first time they've declined at the same time in more than 40 years. fewer folks in jail, crime till going down. but our work is not done. when too many children live in crumbling neighborhoods, cycling through substandard schools, traumatized by daily violence, our work is not done when working americans of all races have seen their wages and income stagnate even as

corporate profits soar. when african american unemployment is still twice as high as white unemployment, when income inequality on the rise for decades continues to hold back hard-working communities especially communities of color, we've got unfinished work. and we know what to do. that's the worst part. we know what to do. we know we've got to invest in infrastructure and manufacturing and research and development that creates new jobs. we've got to keep rebuilding a middle class economy with ladders of opportunity so hard work pays off and you see higher wages and higher incomes and fair pay for women doing the same work as men and workplace flexibility for parents in case a child gets sick or a parent needs some help. we've got to build more partnerships to support revitalization of hard-hit

communities, we've got to keep supporting high school education. we want every child to have an excellent teacher. and we want to invest in our community colleges and expand pell grants for more students. and i'm going to keep working with you to make college more affordable, because every child in america no who she is no matter where born no matter how much money parents have ought to be able to fulfill her god-given potential. that's what wible. -- we believe. that is why -- i want everybody to understand we have made enormous progress. there's almost no economic measure by which we are not better off than when i took office. unemployment down, deficits poverty nsured down, , wn, energy production up

manufacturing back, auto -- and i ack, but just list these things so if you have a discussion with one of your friends and they're onfused. corporate up, balance sheets. in fact the folks who are doing the best, they're the ones who complain the most. so you can just point these things out. but we still have to close these opportunity gaps. and we have to close the justice gap. how justice is applied. but also how it is perceived, how it is experienced. ric holder understands this.

that's what we saw in ferguson this summer when michael brown was killed and the community was divided. we know that the unrest continues. and eric spent some times with the residents and police of ferguson and the department of justice has indicated that its civil rights investigation is ongoing. now, i won't comment on the investigation. i know that michael's family is ere tonight. i know that nothing any of us can say can ease the grief of losing a child so soon. but the anger and the emotion that followed his death awakened our nation once again to the reality that people in this room have long understood, which is in too many communities around the country,

a gulf of mistrust exists between local residents and law enforcement. too many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement. guilty of walking while black or driving while black, judged by stereo types that fuel fear and resentment and hopelessness. we know that statsically in everything from enforcing drug policy to applying the debt penalty to pulling people over there are significant racial disparities. that's just the stat sticks. one recent poll showed the majority of people think the criminal justice system doesn't treat people of all races equally. think about that. not just blacks latino or american asians saying that might not be fair. that's most americans. and that has a corosive effect. not just on the black community. it has a corrosive effect on america. it harms the communities that need law enforcement the most.

it makes folks who are victimized by crime and need strong policing reluctant to go to the police because they may not trust them. and the worst part of it is it scars the hearts of our children. it scars the hearts of white children who grow unnecessarily fearful of somebody who doesn't look like them. stains the heart of black children who feel as if no matter what he does he will always be under suspicion. that is not the society we want. it is not the society that our children deserve. whether you're black or white e don't want that for america. it is interesting, ferguson was used by some of america's enemies and critics to deflect attention from their own short comings overseas to undermine our efforts to promote justice around the world. they said, well, look at what's

happened to you back home. but as i said this week at the united nations, america is special not because we're perfect, america is special because we work to address our problems, to make our union more perfect. we fight for more justice. we fight to cure what aisle us. we fight for our ideals. and we're willing to criticize ourselves when we fall short. and we address our differences in the open space of democracy with respect to the rule of law. with a place for people of every race and religion. and with ab unyielding belief that people who love their country can change it. that's what makes us special. not because we don't have problems but because we work to fix them. and we will continue to work to fix this. and to that end we need to help communities and law enforcement

build trust, build understanding so that our neighborhoods stay safe and our young people stay on track. and under the leadership of eric holder the justice department has launched a national effort to do just that. he's also been working to make the criminal justice system smarter and more effective by addressing unfair sentencing disparities, changing the department's policies on charging mandatory minmums, promoting stronger reentry programs for those who have aid their debt to society. and we need to address the unique challenges that make it hard for some of our young people to thrive. for all the success stories that exist in a room like this one, we all know relatives, classmates, neighbors who are just as smart as we were, just as capable as we were, born with the same light behind their ice, the same joy, the same curiosity. but somehow they didn't get the

support or encouragement or they mad a mistake or -- made a mistake or missed an opportunity. they weren't able to overcome the obstacles that they faced. so in february we launched my brother's keeper. i am the first one to acknowledge government can't play the only or even primary role in the lives of our children. but what we can do is bring folks together. that's what we're doing. leaders, mayors, educators, athletes, and the youth themselves to examine how can we ensure that our young men have the tools they need to achieve their if you will potential. and next week i'm launching my brother's keeper community challenge asking every community in the country, big cities and small towns, rural counties, tribal nations, publicly commit to implementing strategies to ensure all young people can succeed starting

from cradle to college and a career. it's a challenge to local leaders to follow the evidence and use the resources on what works for our kids. and we've already got 100 mayors, county officials, tribal leaders, democrats, republicans, signed on and we're going to keep signing them up in the coming weeks and months. but they're going to need you. elected lards a, community leaders, to make this successful. we need all of us to come together to help all of our young people address the variety of challenges they face. and we're not forgetting about the girls, by the way. i have two daughters. i don't know if you noticed. african american girls are more likely than their white peers also to be suspended, incarcerated, physically harassed, black women struggling every day with biases that perpetuate oppressive standards for how they're supposed to look and act.

too off they're either left under the hard light of scrutiny or cloked into kind of invizzibility. to in addition to the new efforts, the white house council for women and girls has for years been working on issues affecting women and girls of color from violence against women to pay equity to access to health care. and you know michelle's been working on that. because she doesn't think our daughters should be treated differently than anybody else's sons. i've got a vested interest in making sure that our daughters have the same opportunities as boys do. so that's the world we've got to reach for. the world where every single one of our children has the opportunity to pursue their measure of happiness. that's our unfinished work. and we're going to have to fight for it. we've got to stand up for it. and we have to vote for it. . have to vote for it

all around the country wherever i see folks they always say we're praying for you. you're so gray. you have gray hair. you're looking tired. we're praying for you. which i appreciate. but i tell them after president johnson signed the civil rights act he immediately moved on to what he called the meat in the coconut, a voting rights act bill. and some of in this administration argued that's too much, that's too soon. but the movement knew that if we rested after the civil rights act, then all we could do was pray that somebody would enforce those rights. so whenever i hear somebody say they're praying for me, i say thank you. thank you. i believe in the power of prayer. but we need more than prayer.

we need to vote. prayer will be helpful. it will not relieve me of my gray hair but it will help me pass some bills. because people refuse to give in when it was hard, we get to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the voting rights act next year. until then we've got to protect it. we can't just celebrate it we've got to protect it because there are still people trying to pass voter id laws to make it harder for people to vote. we've got to get back to our schools, offices, churches, beauty shops, barber shops. make sure folks know there's an election coming up. they need to know how to register and they need to know how and when to vote. we've got to tell them to push back against the cynics, prove

everybody wrong who says that change is impossible. cynicism does not fix anything. cynicism is very popular in america sometimes. it's prop gated in the media. but cynicism doesn't put anybody on the moon. cynicism didn't pass the voting rights act. hope is what packed buses full of freedom riders. hope is what let thousands of folks march from selma to montgomery. hope is what got john lewis back after being beaten within an inch of his life. cynicism is a choice. but hope is a better choice. and our job is to convince the people we're privileged to represent to join us in finishing that fight that folks like john started. give those to the folks. exercise their right to vote. and if we do i guarantee we've got a brighter future ahead.

thank you, god bless you. eep praying. now go up there and vote. god bless america.

>> c-span's 2015 student cam competition is under way. this nationwide competition for middle and high school students ll award 150 prizes toteling $100,000. create a 5-7 minute documentary on the topic, the three branches and you. videos need to include c-span programming, show varying points of view, and must be submitted by january 15, go to student cam.org for more information. grab a camera and get started today. host: good morning.

wednesday, president obama will sit down with benjamin netanyahu. he will head to chicago this week to raise money for democrats. with just a month before the midterm elections, a new whole joni ernst ahead. this could give