authorization tomorrow. that is according to a democratic official. the associate press also reporting that the parents of an american woman held by islamic state militants say they have been notified of her death. the white house also issuing a statement confirming the death of her. they said friday that the 20 six-year-old was from prescott arizona, died in a jordanian airstrike during the government of jordan has dismissed the statement as propaganda. live to the floor of the u.s. house here on c-span. the house will be in order. i hereby appoint down -- dan newhouse on this date.

speaker of the house of representatives the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6 2016, the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and majority whip limited to five minutes but in no event shall debate continue beyond 1:15 p.m. -- 1 clop 50 p.m. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. roybal-allard, for five minutes. ms. roybal-allard: i ask unanimous consent to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. roybal-allard: mr. speaker, the primary responsibility of

congress is to keep our nation safe. however, we are 133 days into the 25th fiscal year and the department of homeland security is without a budget. the department is trying to fulfill its mission under the uncertainty of a continuing resolution set to expire in 18 days. last week the department of homeland security submitted its fiscal year 2016 budget but unlike every department and agency, d.h.s. was at the disadvantage of not having a current funding level for its essential security functions. there's a mistaken impression that the department of homeland security is doing just fine under the continuing resolution. some feel if d.h.s. funding expires, no problem exists since approximately 85% of d.h.s. personnel are deemed essential and required to work.

well, it is true frontline agents and officers like those at c.b.p., i.c.e. coast guard, and social security would continue working, they would do so without being paid. is this fair to expect these dedicated americans to put their lives on the line without pay and the ability to care for their families? i think not. and i believe the american people would agree on the unfairness of this proposal. of greater concern is that the secretary of homeland security has warned us that not having an appropriation for 2015 is threatening our national security. without a full-year budget the department is limited in its ability to advance the secretary's unity of effort initiative to improve interagency coordination, making more effective in achieving its security missions. it limits the secretary's ability to implement aggressively his southern border and approaches campaign.

and it creates uncertainty regarding the ability to transfer unaccompanied children to h.h.s. for humane treatment and its capacity to detain and deport dangerous criminals. operating under the lower allocations and certainty of a continuing resolution also has the potential of delaying and ultimately increasing the costs of needed procurement. including the acquisition of the coast guard's eight national security cutter and badly needed security upgrades at the white house complex to prevent fence jumper intrusions. the refusal of the republican leadership to bring a clean homeland security appropriations bill for a vote delays the hiring of secret service personnel and the issuing of terrorism preparedness response grants for state and local governments. this jeopardizes our first

responders and other public safety personnel from being fully prepared when responding to a terrorist attack or natural disaster. while i do not question the priororization of my colleagues on protecting our country i do worry some fail to appreciate fully the negative impact of inappropriately using the 2015 d.h.s. appropriations bill as leverage to reverse the president's executive actions on immigration policy. if my republican colleagues believe the president has overreached then the constitution provides them a path of action through the authorizing committees rather than an appropriations bill. mr. speaker when we are increasingly faced with the possibility of terrorist threats, i urge the republican leadership to let this house vote on the clean, bipartisan bicameral 2015 homeland

security appropriations bill negotiated in good faith last november. this bill will pass the house and the senate and will be signed by the president enabling our department of homeland security to continue to protect our country from harm. to do otherwise is a failure in our most basic responsibility as members of congress. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, in the last couple of weeks the effort to declassify the 28 pages of the joint inquiry report into the 9/11 attacks has received a lot of media attention. mainly because of matsui, recent comments exposing the financial link between the saudi royal family and al qaeda. in 2002, the senate select

committee on intelligence chaired by senator bob graham, and the house committee on intelligence chaired by congressman porter goss, released the joint inquiry report into the 9/11 attacks. in a political move, the bush administration then classified 28 pages of the report even though the contents of those 28 pages posed no national security risk to the united states. rather, the contents of those 28 pages are probably embarrassing for the bush administration. senator graham has repeatedly called for the 28 pages to be declassified as a result. i have read the 28 pages and cannot divulge what's in them, but i can say that the contents deal with relationships. senator graham has openly said the 28 pages dealt with the bush administration's relationships with the saudis. my colleague, congressman stephen lynch from mass marks and congressman thomas massie

from kentucky who have also read the 28 pages, have joined me in introducing house resolution 14 to urge the president to keep his word to the 9/11 families and declassify the 28 pages which he can do with the stroke of a pen. the movement to declassify the 28 pages is picking up momentum. just last week, the former speaker of the house of representatives, newt gingrich, tweeted his support for declassifying the 28 pages to 1.5 million of his followers. all of the principal players in producing the reports on the 9/11 attacks have called for the declassification of the 28 pages. senator bob graham, senator richard shelby, congressman porter goss, congressman tom keen, and also congressman lee hamilton. i urge my colleagues to submit a request to the house intelligence committee, a request to read the 28 pages

and join me congressman lynch, and congressman massey, in supporting h.r. resolution 14 as a co-sponsor. mr. speaker, it is time that the 28 pages are declassified. the 9/11 families have a right to this information in the 28 pages, and the american people deserve to know the truth about what caused the 9/11 attacks. for more information on this effort to declassify the 28 pages, visit 28pages.org. may god continue to bless america and may god continue to bless our men and women in uniform. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for five minutes. mr. mcgotsche: i ask unanimous consent to -- mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous consent to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i rise today to highlight two

important new reports released today by the food research and action center, or frac, on the school breakfast program. it reports the school breakfast report card and school breakfast making it work in large district show that we have made progress in expanding access to school breakfast but work remains to be done. during the 2013 and 2014 school year 11.2 million students received a healthy school breakfast on the average school day. that's an average of 320,000 more students per day who receive school breakfast than the year before. the report shows that more students than ever are participating in the school breakfast program and receiving a healthy breakfast on school days. we have made real progress in making sure that students who are eligible receive breakfast. the school breakfast program along with the national school lunch program are critically important anti-hunger programs that ensure that our most

vulnerable children don't go hungry. mr. speaker there is truth to the old adage that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. research shows that students who eat a healthy breakfast have improved test scores, miss fewer days of school, and make fewer trips to the nurse's office. but for many students they begin their school day on an empty stomach with the last meal they ate having been yesterday's school lunch. monday mornings are especially difficult for students with families struggling to put food on their stables at home. they may have gone the entire weekend without eating a full or balanced meal. recent data from the census bureau show that one in five children receive snap, or food stamp benefits last year. too many of our children don't know where their next meal will come from, making the meals they count on in school all the more important. our economy is still recovering from the great recession and economic gains are uneven, especially among low-income families.

too many families are sell operating with tight family budgets -- still operating with tight family budgets and struggling to pay the bills and put enough nutritious food on the table. i'm sure we can all relate to the hectic morning rush to get kids and parents out the door in the mornings wheps both parents are working to make ends meet. one of the best atry beauties of the school breakfast program, is the flexibility the schools have to design programs that work for their own students and schools. the frac report highlights a number of ways the school districts have successfully made the school breakfast program work for them. some schools have breakfast in the classroom where the students can eat a healthy breakfast at their desk while getting ready for the day. school districts with a high proportion of low-income students can qualify for a community eligibility provision where all students in the school can receive free breakfast and lunch. still, other schools serve traditional breakfast in the cafeteria at the start of the day. regardless of the model used

the school breakfast program ensures that students, especially low-income students, are ready to learn and aren't distracted by hunger. the healthy hunger free kids act of 2010 provided many important updates to the school breakfast program, including improving nutrition standards. last year was the first year that the new nutrition standards were in place. despite some of the buzz about students not liking the new meals, more students are participating in the school breakfast program than ever before. not only are more students eating breakfast, but they are eating a healthier breakfast. mr. speaker investing in our children by making sure they don't go hungry and providing them with a world class education is the best bound payment we can -- down payment we can make for our future economic success. as this congress begins the process of re-authorizing the school nutrition programs we must continue to build upon the gains and participation and improvements in nutrition standards we have in the made

school breakfast program. it would be foolish to roll back 23450u terrorist standards because special interests or some students don't like them. today's frac report shows that we are doing a better job making sure that kids start their day with a healthy breakfast, but there's more work to be done. for every 100 kids who receive free school lunch, only 53 receive school breakfast. we must do more to expand the school breakfast program and increase participation so that all students who qualify for free and reduced price lunches have the opportunity to receive a healthy school breakfast. mr. speaker, we can and we should do more to end hunger now. and expanding anti-strengthening the school breakfast program is an important step in that direction. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana, mr. abraham, for five minutes. mr. abraham: mr. speaker, i rise today to celebrate the life of earl headards blarnham, a man -- edwards barnham, a man

who was dedicated to louisiana. he passed away in october. his memory will carry on with his family and friends and the agriculture community will honor him in march as the newest inductee to the louisiana agriculture hall of distinction. . if you look at his life's work it's easy to see why. edwards grew up in oak ridge and holds degrees from university state louisiana and university of louisiana at monroe. he grew soybeans and cotton in louisiana sewing the seeds as a great agriculture leader. his contributions to the agriculture community includes part of the rice growers association. he founded flying tiger aviation, one of the nation's premiere agriculture flight

schools that provides an invaluable service to my district, one of the largest row crop districts in the nation. edwards left his mark on history, in louisiana as well. in 1975 he became the first republican in modern times to be elected to the state senate a position he pursued so he could create a better life for all of louisianaians. edwards valid education. he served on the louisiana board of regents, the louisiana board of supervise orlings and the louisiana community and technical board of supervisors. he and his wife were married for 56 years. they had four children. the late earl west barm and amy barm westbrook. edwards was loved by a number of grandchildren nieces and nephews. mr. speaker, louisiana is a

better place today because of the contributions that edwards barm made to our community. i am honored to have called him a friend and i know he will be greatly missed. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, for five minutes. mr. thompson: thank you so much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to address on wednesday the house of representatives is expected to vote on senate-passed legislation, something's passed out of the house that will immediately authorize the construction and the operation of the keystone x.l. pipeline. for the past six years, president obama has hidden behind political motives to delay a decision on the pipeline. while this administration has continued to engage in partisan politics, the american people have missed out on lower energy

costs, thousands of new jobs billions of new tax revenue and a heightened level of energy security that would have been created by the pipeline's approval. as a father of an army soldier that was wounded in the middle east, i believe that we should do everything we can to end our dependence on middle east energy. now, this isn't about whether president obama wins or loses. this is about doing what's right for the american people. the keystone project is about ensuring a reliable energy source from our allies to the north, canada, while creating tens of thousands of american jobs in the process. approving the keystone x.l. will also help to substantially reduce our imports from overseas. now, later this week the president will have an opportunity to put politics aside, show real leadership and

sign the keystone x.l. pipeline into law. unfortunately, a veto threat still looms. mr. speaker, this country needs a responsible, affordable and reliable energy supply. the american people deserve as much. the approval of the keystone x.l. pipeline is a great first step. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 2:00 p.m. today. >> the white house is about to

release its plan to seek authority for the use of military force against isis. it would be the first congressional war vote in 13 years. joshua keating says today in his blog, more than six months since the u.s. began air strikes against isis, congress may finally vote on it in the next few weeks. the white house is reportedly formally going to ask congress today to use force against the group. further down in the story, minority leader nancy pelosi said the new authorization will only last for three years, meaning if we are still in the isis fighting business in 2018, the next president will have to reflue it. as the associated press reports that the 26-year-old american woman held by islamic state militants has been confirmed dead. her parents and the obama administration said today. the white house says that her family received a private message from her captors over the weekend. the information contained in that communication was authenticated by the u.s. intelligence community. it was not immediately clear how and when she died.

president obama released a statement on her death. it says in part no matter how long it takes, the united states will find and bring to justice the terrorists who are responsible for kayla's captivity and death. isil is a hateful and abhorrent terrorist group. that is from president obama. tomorrow, join us when the house homeland security committee looks into home-grown terrorists and domestic terror movementses. that will be live at 10:00 eastern in the morning, 10:00 eastern on our companion network, c-span3. >> the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress. not only are there 43 new republicans and 15 new democrats in the house, and 12 new republicans and one new democrat in the senate, there's also 108 women in congress, including the first african-american republican in the house and the first woman veteran in the senate. keep track of the members of congress using congressional chronicle on c-span.org. the congressional chronicle page has lots of useful information

there, including voting results and statistics about each session of congress. new congress, best access on c-span c-span2, c-span radio and c-span.org. today's white house briefing set to begin at 12:30 eastern. we are planning live coverage with spokesman josh ernest as soon as it getsunder way. the international response to the tension in eastern europe between russia and ukraine. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome jerry connolly, democrat who sits on the foreign relations committee. this issue of ukraine, do you believe that the united should be helping out the ukrainians and sending weapons. why you -- why?

guest: the ukrainians clearly need defense, and i think the u.s. should be providing equipment and training to the ukrainian military to fend off an illegal incursion that is rather extensive on their sovereign territory. not doing that from my point of view, it sends a clear message to that amir -- two vladimir putin that he can change the borders of post-world war ii europe that had been set for 60 years f with impunity, and that is a dangerous message to send to a kgb thug. host: as you know, angela merkel disagrees and she was urging the president not to make this decision. i want to show you her reaction and then get yours. [video clip] >> the question of certain measures has actually been dealt with.

the president has not yet made a decision. what is important for me is that we stand very closely together. the question on renewed dramatic effort -- renewed diplomatic effort, we keep each other informed and are in close touch, and no one wishes more for success than the two of us that sandy are side-by-side. host: -- than the two of us standing here side-by-side. host: congressman, what you make of her response? guest: i certainly respect angela merkel and i think we need to be cognizant of and respect the views of our allies. but i will point out that in the post-world war ii era the europeans have often been very reluctant to deal with real threat in our midst. it took u.s. leadership on kosovo. it took u.s. leadership to end serbian aggression in the continent. it was not european leg.

and thank goodness we did. it ended the conflict by a firm read solve -- firm resolve by the united states, bringing along our nato partners, and we were able to end the conflict. showing weakness in the face of really, naked aggression -- in this case, russia -- i think is an unwise course. with all due respect, i think angela merkel is wrong. if you can do it diplomatically, that of course, is the desired option. but i believe that part of diplomacy needs to have a military element as a backup that we will strengthen defensive posture incapability of ukraine, and that is something that couldn't has to calculate. right now, he doesn't. and right now, frankly, angela merkel is signaling to him he need not worry about it. i think he should worry about it. host: on wednesday in europe,

putin will be meeting with angela merkel and france's leader as well as others to try to broker some sort of peace deal. you don't think that can happen unless the military option is on the table. guest: i think it is highly unlikely to happen, and quite friendly, the behavior of the last year and a half proved that. in the face of tough sanctions in the face of a collapse of oil prices, and in the face of a really serious blow to his economy, it has not deterred him at all. in fact, fighting has flared up in the eastern ukraine. and he has illegally annexed crimea. what is it he's going to understand it seems to me -- what is it he's going to understand? it seems to me part of what is missing from the equation is power. the diplomacy not backed up by

the military threat of the ukrainian military, i think, is a mistake. host: president obama said he will wait for a diplomatic solution. does he look weak to vladimir putin? guest: i don't know how he looks to vladimir putin. i guess, probably everybody looks weak to vladimir putin. we have to figure out what vladimir putin respects and understand, and that his assertion and power. that is what he understands. senator gray had that wonderful expression, "always be bold" and that is what we need to be in the face of russian aggression right now. host: i want to get your reaction to the president's press conference yesterday. he was asked about a redline. take a look. [video clip] >> we have been providing assistance to the ukrainian

generals as part of a long-standing relationship between nato and ukraine. our goal has not been for ukraine to be equipped to carry on our offensive operations, but simply to defend itself. and president poroshenko has been very clear. he's not interested in escalating violence. he's interested in having his country path tanneries -- his country's boundaries respected by his neighbor. there will not be in a specific point in which i say, oh clearly lethal defensive weapons would be appropriate here. it is an ongoing analysis of what we can do to dissuade russia from encroaching further and further on ukrainian territory. our hope is that it's done through diplomatic means. host: congressman? guest: well, with due respect to

the president, i think the failure by the western alliance to respond to the illegal annexation, blinged illegal annexation of the crimea -- blatant illegal annexation of the crimea, which resembled something of our past -- you know, it looked a lot like the phony sudeten lands push in a different era. it should have been responded to. that was my redline. and it still is. we can never acknowledge the illegal annexation of crimea. it is the sovereign territory of the ukraine and changing those boundaries cannot be done at the barrel at the gun. if we acquiesce to that, then we are quibbling over the price in eastern ukraine. what moral standing have you got to object to "here, but no

further"? i think ours should have been a much more forceful response. and i favor and across the board more forceful response, healthy ukrainians in a much more aggressive way -- help the ukrainians in a much more aggressive way. certainly, the goal is to restore sovereign territory and remake those borders and get the russians to respect that. but how will you do that? moral persuasion alone is not going to frankly, bring you the restyle -- the desired results with someone like vladimir putin. host: we are talking to democrat gerry connolly who sits on the foreign affairs committee. we are discussing whether or not to send lethal aid ukraine. the "washington times" this morning with a story, the pentagon is prepping to send troops to ukraine.

and the u.s. government has committed three her $20 million for assistance to ukraine, of which -- $320 million for assistance ukraine.

caller: if the republicans want to send weapons and you and me want to send weapons to ukraine let's pay for it. the republicans pass things they don't get paid for. the democrats pass things, they have to be paid for. can we put their feet to the fire for this? can we goat disability reinstated? if i have to take a 19% cut next year, i am seriously going to hurt. guest: are you on social security disability? caller: i'm on social security disability. i on earned disability. i'm 57 years old. i was hurt when i was 42 years old in an industrial accident. i ate twice the amount of electricity it takes to fry somebody in the electric chair. a frightening experience. i just don't want to see it cut. i took a cut from what i would

have earned in retirement to get disability. when you become disabled and you're under 65, you automatically take the cut in benefits. because i'm under 65, my supplemental insurance that goes along with my medicare, which i earned, cost me an additional $140 a month because i'm not 65. host: i'm going to have the congressman weigh in. guest: first of all, matt, thank you. i'm sorry for your suffering. i think your story is a very importanting one to remember. some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have highlighted the abuse of the social security disability program. fairly so. certainly we want to weed out abuse. we want to weed out people cheating the system. who otherwise most certainly would not qualify. we have to understand social security disability is people like you, matt it is there for

people who no longer can work through no fault of their own because of industrial accidents or other problems on the job. i had a great grandfather who was killed in an industrial accident in massachusetts. the only social security disability available to his family, my grandfather, and his mother and his siblings, was they gave a storefront to my great grandmother. she was allowed to run a little sundry store. storefront store. it was company property. that's how she made do. that's how she took care of our family. there was no program for people like her. that's why social security disability was created. the overwhelming majority of people on it deserve it. qualify for it. and it is helping them lead productive lives. after something terrible, such as what happened to you, matt, has happened. i absolutely agree.

reform is fine. but let's not use it as an excuse to basically just disenroll people who otherwise most certainly qualify. with respect to the ukraine, i want to emphasize, the issue isn't the narrow one of let's send weapons to the ukrainian military. the issue is, how best do we resolve and restore peace and stability of borders in europe with respect to the ukraine? and part of piece, i believe, is providing the ukrainian military with the necessary equipment and training to deter the military threat from russia. to regain control over their sovereign territory. it isn't a narrow issue of sending weapons or not. it is a broader context including, of course the diplomatic initiative which we support, of angela merkel and francois holland of france.

host: arlington, virginia jay. republican, next. caller: good morning, representative connolly and c-span listeners. a quick question for you. actually two part. constant points that you make about how the russians are making incursions into ukraine, things like that. just give me a moment. piggyback on the caller from new hampshire, how is it that we annually heed to the huge cattle call here nbc actually, and what gets me is the fact we give them money annually, every representative every congressman most people who are interested in being future presidents of america will go to the apec meeting and will not recognize a regime that is an

essential threat to americans, if you think about it. host: ok. congressman. guest: well, every country has contradictions and problems and obviously the united states has issues even with the most intimate of friends. i think that is the natural state of things, diplomatically, and in a global context. obviously there are problems, including our alliance with israel. i would not characterize israeli behavior as a latter day apartheid. there are important internal issues in israel that are going to have to be addressed especially longer term given the demographic trends in israel. that includes what happens with the occupied territories. that's why the administration has pursued and maybe

reluctantly the netanyahu government has agreed to a two-state solution. that's a very complicated and difficult and challenging set of issues that we hope will be resolved so that there is more of a resolution of the issues the caller identified. host: will you attend the joint significance of congress where benjamin netanyahu, the israeli prime minister, will be speaking? guest: i don't know. i don't know whether i'll do that yet or not. look bibi netanyahu has spoken to congress before. he's always welcomed as a friend and ally. but i think he made a terrible mistake, frankly, in accepting this invitation at this time on those terms. it is clearly designed by speaker boehner and shamefully so, as a thumb in the eye of the president. that is a terrible breach of protocol, more importantly, it

drives a wedge where none existed before on a partisan basis with a key ally on a key set of foreign policy issues. that's very unwelcomed. i think we would all be better served if different time and set of circumstances were found to have this important speech. host: pittsburgh steven. democratic caller, hi. caller: good morning. good to see you guys. my comment is about the ukraine and how we stick our toes in the -- all kind of waters. i think that we should aggressively pursue a confrontation with russia. i think we need to get the borders squared away in ukraine and i do believe that we need to get boots on the ground and equipment to them. i think we should also be able to pay for it. host: steven, do you see providing weapons to ukraine as

the first step of a conflict with russia? caller: yes. host: congressman. guest: i don't think we want to see conflict with russia, but i think we need to learn from our history. while aggression was going on in europe in the 1930's, the united states was profoundly isolationist. no matter what happened. even the sinking of u.s. ships by german uboats prior to the declaration of war was not enough to precipitate us into a response. had we responded early to naked aggression, it would have set some limits and some clear stakes for hitler and his band of thugs. now, here we are in europe and we are seeing naked aggression,

we are seeing deliberate incursion of borders. we are seeing military action, military action by the russian military claiming to be, i don't know rogue elements crossing the border from russia because they are not always wearing russian military uniforms. we have to end that fiction and we have to set limits. those limits are sovereign boundaries, sovereign borders will be respected by the international community. if we let this go, if we kind of slide on this, there will be a price to be paid but it will be a much bigger price down the road. remember people like putin are very pab lobian. what's rewarded and what's punished? all the rhetoric in the world is not punishment. is he getting away with his desire to create an erra -- era russia a resurgent czarist

expansionist regime that re claims satellite territory or is he not? i want to make sure the answer to that question is, you will not only not be rewarded for that, you will be punished severely for that. part of that punishment has to be a military calculation. that ain't the only part of the answer, but it's got to be part of it. host: does the military calculation include u.s. troops, boots on the ground? guest: no. i think we are nowhere near that discussion. host: would you go there if it would mean preventing, as you say, a price to pay? guest: i believe what i'm supporting would preclude the need for that. that's what i'm trying to make sure we don't get into as the caller was saying, let's have that confrontation with russia now. i'm saying we can avoid that confrontation by a clear unambiguous statement of support for the ukranians and a statement to putin he will clearly understand.

host: minnesota, independent caller next. caller: hi. i have been listening to this conversation because i was in eastern slovakia a year ago, and looking at the situation over there it's not the best and i do very strongly believe that the only way we can resolve this situation, sort of like president carter did with president i never -- brezhnev when he wanted to invade poland because i was 1968 chechnya so -- czechoslovakia. i believe that merkel, i respect her very much, she speaks russian. the old k.g.b. guy speaks german. we need to have very, very strong political situation diplomatic situation. and, yes, we have poland right

next door, but we can put more nato troops. and that will show putin that we really mean business. host: congressman. guest: i agree with the caller. i think that is kind of the bottom line. we have to show putin that we mean business. we have to create a situation where the cost for him outweigh any conceivable benefits. right now i is paid very little other than some economic price and, frankly, the plummeting oil price, or barrel of oil, is hurting him a lot more than sanctions. we need to up that cost factor so that he recalibrates the overall cost of this reckless enterprise. host: bradenton, florida. you're on the air with congressman gerry connolly, democrat of virginia. caller: good morning. i agree there should be a

military backup in the ukraine but i wonder, do you also think that there should be a military threat, heavier sanctions when the u.s. is dealing with isis and iran? it appears that obama -- >> good afternoon, everybody. i don't have any announcements to make at the start here. julie, you want to get started with questions? >> i wanted to ask a couple questions about kayla mueller. is there anything can you tell us specifically about what kind of evidence her family and the administration received over the weekend from the islamic state and what you know about when and how she died? >> let me begin by restating something that the president indicated in the written statement we issued earlier today. which is simply that the thoughts and prayers of everybody who works here at the white house and with the mueller family at this time. that includes kayla's parents, carl and marsha, includes her

brother and his family, and all those who worked with kayla in her all too short life. she's somebody who dedicated her life to serving others. and not just serving other people, but serving those who were in crisis situations, who faced dire circumstances, and were relying on the generosity and kindness of fellow human beings to try to meet their needs. and kayla was a young woman who is willing to put herself in harm's way to try to offer that relief. she saw this as a way to honor the god that she wore shpped. i will indicate that -- worshiped. i will indicate i was personally moved by her comments that she saw god in the eyes of people who were dealing with terrible crisis. that is a particularly profound, wise statement from such a young woman. i think it does go to the character and generosity of

spirit that she embodied. over the weekend kayla's parents received a private message from her isil captors. with additional information about her death. that information was shared with the intelligence community. they conducted a review and analysis, and after that analysis was completed they concluded that kayla has, in fact, died. and the information they reviewed did not allow them to arrive at a conclusion about her precise cause of death. but it did allow them to conclude that she had, in fact, died. >> was there any information about when she died? >> that's a good question. i do not believe they were able to arrive at any conclusion about the timing, precise timing of her death.

>> do you know if they were able to rule out whether she was killed in a jordanian bombing on friday? >> i have seen those claims. again, the intelligence community did not have a specific assessment about the cause of death. there are some things, however, that i can share with you about this air strike that i know that isil has referenced. this is something that military officials have indicated as well. the air strike that was carried out by the royal jordanian air force on february 6, but was against an isil weapons compound that maintained near syria. this is a facility that had been struck on previous occasions and it's not usual for targets like this to be hit more than once. in previous strikes this facility had been damaged like i said it's not unusual for strikes like this to be cared out once again. the information that we have is that -- we have this information

because this air strike was coordinated with the united states military. and the information that we have is that there's no evidence of civilians in the target area prior to the coalition strike taking place. that certainly would call into question the claims made by isil. what is not possible to call into question is that isil, regardless of her cause of death, is responsible for it. this afternoon is -- after all is the organization that was holding her against her will. a that means they are responsible for her safety and well-being. they are therefore, responsible for her dth. >> the president has held up the counterterrorism campaign in yemen as a model for what he's trying to do with the islamic state. can you give us realistically hold that up as a model for whatterer you're trying do with yemen given what's happening with the government there and having to close the american embassy? >> i don't -- at this point i

don't have enough data on the status of the embassy. we have indicated for a number of weeks now that we have been closing monitoring the security situation on the ground in sana'a and throughout yemen with an eye towards taking necessary steps to protect the safety and security of american pesh nell in yemen -- personnel in yemen. there have been personnel that have been drawndown in the facility in ain a. but for a status update, i refer to the state department. if there is an announcement to make in the change of that facility status, it will come from the state department. the president has indicated that the counterterrorism strategy that we have successfully pursued in yemen is consistent with the kind of strategy we are pursuing against isil. the reason for that is that it's consistent with our broader national security interests. what we have done in yemen is

sought to work with local officials in yemen. we have sought to support ground forces in yemen who can take the fight to the extremists in their own country, and we have backed up those ground forces with intelligence and with air strike capabilities that have succeeded in applying significant pressure to extremists operating in that country and curtail their ability to strike american targets. this is a threat that we remain very vigilant about. this is a dangerous organization that's operating in yemen. and we continue to be very focused on taking the steps that are necessary to mitigate that threat. but the point the president has made on previous occasions and one you have heard me talk about a little bit, too, is that is consistent with the kind of strategy we are employing against isil. this administration is working closely with the iraqi government to build up the capacity of local forces in iraq to take the fight on the ground to isil.

they are being backed by coalition military airpower and with intelligence capabilities and some training capability to make -- maximize their effectiveness. they have succeeded in blunting the advance of isil and even rolling back some of the progress they have made. stwhrs an aal gus -- there is an analagous strategy in syria. it means we have to draw on different resources to coordinate with ground fighters in syria. you have seen this administration try to work with the moderate syrian opposition and some of our partners in the region to train and quip those fighters that they can take the -- equip those fighters that they can take the fight on the ground in their own country. they will be backed by coalition aircraft as well. and in the example of could he banny -- co-banny, a border town previously seized by isil, that local fighters in this case peshmerga kurdish fighters, have succeeded with the backing of coalition air strikes in driving

isil out of that town. that is one isolated example. it's an indication that this strategy the president's pursued can work. >> josh, could you give us an update on the president's plans for seeking authorization of force against isil with congress? >> i don't have timing update for you, jeff. if you recall, even the day after the midterm elections back in november, the president convened a news conference in which somebody in this room asked the president about authorization to use military force. and at that point he indicated very clearly that he would like congress to act in a bipartisan fashion to pass an authorization to use military force. the president at that time has been -- and has been clear ever since he wanted congress to take that action not because he believed its legally necessary, the president and his lawyers have concluded that he already has the authority that he needs to order military action against isil, but he does believe it would be a powerful symbol for

the congress to send to the american people, to our allies, and even our enemies that the united states of america is united behind the strategy that the president laid out to degrade and ultimately destroy isil. we are hopeful congress will act on authorization to use military force relatively soon. i should say that in the intervening period since the president first discussed this back in november, and even before the president made this announcement back in november administration officials had been engaged in conversations with democrats and republicans in both the house and senate to try to arrive at language that could be supported by democrats and republicans in the house and senate. the president does believe that this message is even more powerful if it has bipartisan support. certainly in recent days we have stepped up our engagement to -- with democrats and republicans on the hill to try to find language that could be submitted by the administration to congress. we are hopeful that we can provide that information relatively soon.

that language relatively soon. and hopefully there will not be a significant delay in congress acting on that legislative language. >> i believe you said last week language would be coming this week. others said it would arrive by wednesday s that no longer the case? >> relatively soon would include any of the days remaining in this week. >> it could also be the following week or week thereafter. can you give us a time window for when we should expect this to happen? >> i'm not aware of any delay. this is something that has been part of continuous effort here on the part of the administration. there have been senior -- national security officials involved. certain members of the counsel's office who have been involved in these discussions. there have also been other senior members who have participated in these discussions. officials at the department of defense, department of state, and other places. this is a broad effort. there are a number of conversations that have taken place. i think -- the fact some of

these details have been leaked by congressional sources i think is an indication of the large number of conversations ongoing between administration officials and officials in congress. but i don't have more detailed timing estimate to offer you other than relatively soon and acknowledge that could include any of the days remaining in this week. >> separate issue, "newsweek" magazine twitter account has been hacked and the hackers issued a threat against the president and his family. how concerned are you about the hacking and how seriously are you taking that threat? >> i don't have any response to the claims that are made by these hackers. i can tell you that we have seen a number of high profile incidents in recent months where media organizations and other important institutions have been compromised in some way, or their computer systems have been compromised in some way. this particular intrusion is one that is already being

investigated by the f.b.i. refer to them for specific questions on that matter. i can tell you as a general matter it is a good reminder how important it is for congress to act on the spiber security legislation the president put forward just last month. there are some commonsense things that we can do to better protect the american people and their data and bert respond to these incidents when they occur. >> getting back to the aumf, it is fair to say the president wants this to be tailored to the war against isis. is that right? >> well, i don't want to get into the contents of the lg language that will be produced shall-contents of the legislative language that will be produced by the contents of this. the president is seeking a right sized aumf, i believe is the way he described it, is because of his desire to see congress act in support or at least demonstrate their support for the strategy to degrade and

ultimately destroy isil. >> will isis be defeated while the president is in office? >> i think we have been pretty clear, the president's been pretty clear about the fact that this -- what we are looking at here is a longer term challenge. and the president's been pretty forthright about that. a couple of reasons for that. the most important reason for that is that ultimately this is not a situation where it's the united states alone that's at war against isil. this is a broader effort that involves the entire international community. and focused on ensuring that there are local capabilities that are built up to take the fight to isil on the ground. the president does not believe it is any longer in our national security interest for us to put a large deployment of american military personnel on the ground in a combat role in iraq and syria. what we need to do -- >> we hear that from the administration this large deployment of ground forces in iraq or in syria to go after

isis, who is recommending that? >> i have seen a number of people who imagine themselves sitting in that office in 2017 who have advocated at least keeping on the table sending a large number of combat troops to iraq and syria. they are certainly welcomed to make that case. that is not a view that the president believes is in the best interest of the united states. >> can i ask you about an ask you about an interview that the president did. during that interview assad says that communications has been occurring between the united states and syria through third parties such as iraq, when it comes to the telegraphing or communicating about air strikes that might be taking place in syria so as to avoid any confrontation between the u.s. and syria, is that going on? >> jim, i can tell you -- and we have said from the very first day that air strikes had against isil, that we're not

coordinating with the syrian government and we're not going to. the simple fact of the matter is prior to initiating strikes in syria, we did inform the syrian regime through the ambassador to the united nations and to the -- through our ambassador to the united nations to the permanent representative of syria to the united nations we were clear that we were planning military action against isil in syria but what was made clear in that communication is that it's the responsibility of the syrian government to put it bluntly stay out of the way. >> and that occurred prior to the air strikes beginning? >> that's correct, earlier this fall. >> and those communications have not happened sense, is that what you're saying? >> what i'm suggesting is to the extent that that can be counted as coordination, there has been no coordination as it relates to the specific details of our military operations in syria. >> and let me ask you one final thing.

in that interview with v.o.x., that the president had -- it was put out yesterday, there was one comment that raised some eyebrows and i want to ask you about. you may have response to it. the president said at one point, my first job is to protect the american people it's entirely legitimate for the american people to be deeply concerned when you have violent, vicious zealous who kill folks in a deli in paris. just to be clear that shooting that -- was not random at the deli? >> those individuals were not targeted. they were random people that happened to be shot. >> the people who randomly shot them -- >> if you want to question the president's placing thed a verb in the sentence, the case being randomly, but that's the case

that president wanted to make. richard. >> thank you, josh. [inaudible] what do you say to americans and westerners who decide to go on the ground, even for humanitarian reasons, go on the ground there and doesn't it -- so what do you tell them and does it complicate the u.s. and the coalition operations when they are all over the place, they might be -- cannot and then [inaudible] >> well, richard, the state department has given very specific guidance to american citizens that they should not travel to syria and that is guidance that they vishude and we urge people to take it very seriously. certainly that's what we would recommend that they do. at the same time that in no way justifies the kind of hostage taking activities that we see isil engaged in and the president has been very clear that he will use significant resources of the united states

government and commit significant resources to the united states government to secure safe returns by u.s. hostages being taken by aisles. >> will you stop them from going there or discourage them from going over? >> know, richard, very clear guidance has been shared by the state department to american citizens and we urge them to heed that advice. john. >> back to the president's interview with v.o.x., he was asked directly if he believes the media overstates the level of alarm that people should have about terrorism and he answered absolutely. in this interview, i guess was done a couple weeks ago before the latest news of kayla muler. does the president believe that the -- mueller. does the president believe that the state of terrorism is overstated? >> the threat from terror that is faced by the american people in the united states is much different than it has been before.

that the kind of terror act that we saw that was carried out on september 1 2001, was carried out by an organization that operated for quite sometime with impunity in the region between afghanistan and pakistan, that they had the time and space and plan to carry out this terribly tragic conspiracy to wreak havoc in the lives of thousands, if not millions of americans. because of actions that have been taken by the previous administration and this administration, terrorist organizations no longer have that same capacity and that means that the risk that is facing the american people is different. now, the president and his team continue to be vigilant because there are dangerous organizations that continue to exist and to operate. we were talking just earlier about yemen, that the al qaeda in the arabian peninsula is an organization that operates in yemen and is a dangerous organization.

this is probably the most dangerous of the al qaeda affiliates and we take very serious the threat that they pose and there are a number of steps that this administration take on a daily basis to protect the american people. what people should be mindful is that terror risks that faces the american people is much different than it used to be. >> so he said -- and let me read the second part of the question. asks if the media overstates the alarm as opposed to longer term problems of climate change and epidemic disease, he said absolutely. let me clarify. is the president saying, as he seems to be complying here, that the threat of climate change is greater than the threat of terrorism? >> i think john, the point that president is making is that there are many more people on an annual basis who have to confront the impact, the direct impact on their lives of climate change or on the spread of a disease than on terrorism. >> so the answer is, yes, the

president thinks that climate change is a greater threat than terrorism? >> the point that president is making when you're talking about the direct daily impact of these kinds of challenges on the daily lives of americans, particularly americans living in this country, that that direct impact is more -- that more people are directly affected by those things than by terrorism. >> so climate change is more of a clear and present danger to the united states than terrorism? >> well, i think even the department of defense has spoken to the significant threat that climate change poses to our national security interests. principally because of the impact it can have on countries with less well-developed infrastructure than we have. >> i'm asking if it's a greater threat? >> i wouldn't have a whole lot more to say what the president said in that interview. >> well, back to the question jim was asking about his description of the shooting at the kosher deli in paris as being a bunch of -- randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a

deli in paris, i mean, this was not a random shooting of a bunch of folks in a deli in paris. this was an attack in a kosher in paris. they attacked that dele because there would be jews in that dele -- deli? >> the writings they put out afterwards we know what their motivation was. the adverb that the president chose was used to indicate that the individuals who were killed in there terrible tragic incident were killed, not because of who they were, but because of where they randomly happened to be. >> they weren't killed because they were in a jewish deli, though a kosher deli? >> they were not targeted by name. this was the point. >> not by name but religion, were they not? >> well, john, there were people other than just jews who were in that deli. >> that deli was attacked because it was a kosher deli? >> no, john. i answered the question once. ed.

>> why didn't the president acknowledge that? if he knows that and it's obvious, why didn't he say that? >> the president acknowledged it on many occasions when he had opportunity to speak about this incident. >> but he didn't there. and in terms of the media hype, do you think jordanian pilot being burned alive is the media hyping something? >> ed, we talked on a number of occasions and certainly i had the opportunity as recently at the end of last week to talk about how the united states of america stand shoulder to shoulder with our partners in jordan as they confront the terrible tragedy of seeing one of their military pilots who was serving and defending their country be killed in such a brutal, inhumane way. i do think it exposes the bankrupt ideology of isil and i think it is a pretty clear illustration of how the international community has been galvanized to take on this threat a threat that the president has led the creation of this international coalition to confront the great and -- degrade and ultimately destroy. >> the international coalition is confronting, why did the

president compare himself to a big city mayor confronting crime? >> ed, what the president is talking about is the necessity of assuming some leadership. and the president has stepped forward. again, we got 60 members of this broader coalition and those people are -- those countries are members of this coalition because the leadership of this president. and the president has succeeded in leveraging the influence of the united states of america, to build this coalition and even to get countries in the region to fly alongside american military air pilots as carrying out air strikes against isil targets. >> because he wasn't talking about the coalition. he said i'm sort of like a big city mayor. is the president trying to downplay the threat? >> the president devotes significant periods of his day on a regular basis to confronting the threat that is posed by isil, by al qaeda affiliates and by other organizations around the globe that seek to do harm to the american people. the point that president made

and i will restate, is that the president certainly has a responsibility to take these threats seriously and there are significant resources that are dedicated to protecting the american people. but when it comes to the american people's level of concern and the amount of risk that they face it is clearly different than the kind of risk that american people faced in the days before 9/11. >> in terms of that risk, the prayer breakfast last week, we didn't get a chance to ask you about this. what did he mean when he talked about horrible deeds of christians during the crew sides? was he trying to make a moral equivalence of misdeeds by christians and radical islam, what was happening today? >> i urge you to take a careful look at the president's remarks. those interested in this should take a careful look at the president's remarks. i think what is unquestionably true is throughout history we have seen individuals perpetrate terrible acts of violence in the name of religion. and regardless what religion you are trying to use to justify your terrible act of

violence it's the responsibility of people of faith, of all faiths, to step forward and say that it's wrong. >> you put all these statements torget doesn't it sound like this has been going on for a long time, i'm like a mayor in dealing with this kind of thing? terrorism is not just a big deal? >> ed, i don't think the president's record of fighting terrorism reflects that. >> last thing on icity overnight there was a top recruiter in eye is killed by an american drone -- isis killed by an american drone act. "60 minutes" asked a commander in afghanistan this is not iraq i don't see isis coming into afghanistan like they did into iraq. how could he have been so wrong if one month later you now have someone who's let out of gitmo who's now a commander for isis in afghanistan? doesn't that suggest that contrary to what general campbell said within a month isis spread to afghanistan? >> ed, the analysis i've seen of this particular scenario is that the -- this one individual

claiming ties to isis says much more about the divisiveness and the dissension within the ranks of the taliban than it says about the spread of isis. >> isis is not in afghanistan? >> i think what it does indicate is a commitment of the united states, the commander in chief and our military to take the steps that are necessary to protect american military personnel that are operating in afghanistan right now. tamara. >> back to kayla mueller. her family put together to help pay a ransom. what does the administration make of that? >> well, tamara, our policy on this -- has been really clear. >> can you tell me a little bit more than that. i think the family felt like they were willing to face possible legal consequences from the united states to try to save their daughter.

>> well, tamara, i think as difficult as it is to imagine being in the situation that was faced by the mulers. it's certainly not surprise -- muellers. it's certainly not surprising to try to secure the safe release of their daughter and that's why our thoughts and prayers at this moment and the days and weeks ahead will be to be with the mueller family. >> and the u.s. policy remains that that is not ok? >> that is consistent with the policy that's been pursued by previous administrations. isil relies on hostage taking and ransom paying as a source of funding their operations. and one of the goals and one of the elements of the strategy that we have pursued against isil is to shut off sources of funding. the other impact of paying ransom to secure the release of american hostages is it only makes americans an even greater target than they already are. and if isil knows they can

financially benefit from taking american hostages, then it makes those american hostages or americans around the world -- it puts them in an even more vulnerable position because in the eyes of isil they become even more valuable. >> former hostage that my colleagues have interview says there's a feeling that the u.s. policy is putting americans in danger, that people who were with mueller from european countries were free because of ransoms and she was not. the idea being this policy is a death sentence for some americans being held captive. >> well, tamara, there are a couple of things i'd say about that. the president has demonstrated a willingness to commit a significant amount of resources to secure the safe return of american hostages. over the summer the president ordered a military raid involving a large number of u.s. personnel into syria to

try to secure the release of americans who were being held. that is an indication that president takes is seriously and, again, is willing to commit significant resources to trying to secure their safe return. i also think that the reasoning behind the policy that this administration and previous administrations have followed when it comes to ransom paying is not difficult to explain, that it doesn't require a significant cognitive leap to conclude by refusing to pay ransom it sends a clear signal to potential hostage takers that they will not be able to financially benefit from taking americans hostage. and if we were to send the opposite signal, by paying them ransom it would only increase the danger that is faced by -- i guess it would only increase the likelihood that americans would be targeted in this way.

ok. annie. >> i have a question about the fast track authority. i'm wondering if you can give us a sense for whether that is something we should expect taken up next week and if the president will send his report for that? >> well, the president is meeting with the congressional black caucus here at the white house. i know it's been a year or two since he had an opportunity to meet specifically with this group of members. the president is looking forward to the meeting. the president does have a wide range of issues that he wants to discuss with them. they certainly -- at the risk of speaking on their behalf, i know they are very interested in talking to the president about some of the policies that he intends to pursue. with his, you know, focus on middle class economics that he discussed in his state of the union address. i know that the vast majority members of that group like his middle class economics.

he will try to advance some of the elements of his agenda. the president continues to believe that there should be able -- that there should be some bipartisan common ground around trade promotion authority and the idea we can make it easier for the president to negotiate an agreement that he clearly believes would be in the best interest of workers american middle-class families and american businesses is something that congress should support. he's certainly going to be part of making that case to democrats and republicans on the hill and there certainly will be the responsibility of members of the republican leadership who share the president's view, the benefit of some of these policies. that they're going to have to spend some time making utt case to their own member on trade promotion authority as well. >> are you expecting something next week? we're hearing a possibility. >> there are members of congress who are working on legislation but you should contact their offices to get a better sense of the timing. andrew. >> regarding ukraine, what is

the position on the essential elements of any deal between any multiparty deals? for example, would you consider changing the demarcation line? >> well, that's a good question. let me just state generally that obviously the united states is closely engaged with our partners in germany and france as they try to pursue a diplomatic solution to deescalate the conflict in ukraine. i know that representatives from russia, ukraine, germany and france are scheduled to meet in europe later this week to discuss these ongoing diplomatic efforts. the united states, as the president independent -- indicated to chancellor merkel, we'll support this. the president has also encouraged both sides of the agreement to live up to the commitments they made in the context of those talks.

and we've been particularly disappointed by the fact that the russians have failed on just about every measure to live up to the commitments they made in those talks. we've refused to live up to the commitment they made to withdrawal all troops and weapons from eastern ukraine. they've refused to live up to their commitment to allow effective international monitoring of the internoll border. they refused to live up to their commitment to return ukraine's side of that border to that government in kiev. and live up to the commitment to free all the hostages and it's apparent from all that activity that they refused to live up to their commitment to work toward a peaceful resolution to the conflict in ukraine. while we're supportive of continuing diplomatic conversations, what's most important is for both sides to come to the table ready to not just make commitments but live up to them. >> [inaudible] everybody goes away and does exactly the same thing they did since it was signed?

>> i think any impartial observer would acknowledge that the impact of the sanctions regime on the russian economy means that the russian regime has paid significant costs for their destabilizing activities in ukraine. there is a clear financial interest for the russians to start living up to their -- commitments they made to deescalate the situation in ukraine. the reason for that simply, as the president indicated once russia does begin to live up to those commitments, he's preparing to roll back some of the sanctions that have been so effective when it comes to imposing costs on the russian regime. so there is a -- the story in the paper today about the central bank -- you know the governor of the central bank of russia that noted that the russian ruble in recent months has the value of the currency has been cut in half. that i guess is just another indication of the substanding toll that sanctions regime has taken on their economy.

and so it means there is a clear economic incentive for the russians to start living up to their diplomatic commitments and deescalating the conflicts in ukraine. >> [inaudible] how do you know the sanctions have been effective? how do you decouple this from the oil prices? >> well, i'm certainly not an economic analyst so there may be a more authoritative source you can consult but based on my own observation, it is -- we do know that, for example, the value of the russian currency has been cut in half in recent months. the decly in their currency saw before we saw this precipitous decline in oil costs. we saw similar impact on projects of economic growth in russia. they started out positive. after the imposition of sanctions, we saw that most observers downgraded those projections and actually put them into negative territory.

we've seen a lot of capital flight out of russia, and i think that reflects the broader international community's concern about the way in which russia is isolated. so there's no question that the fall in energy price has not been good for an economy that is overly reliant on energy exports. but there's no doubt that some of the weakness that we've seen in the russian economy is directly attributable to the broad international sanctions regime, that this administration has worked in painstaking fashion with our allies in europe to implement. >> chris. >> we know that economic impact in russia, but what we haven't seen is any accompanying impact in terms of the aggression and that's why critics are arguing -- part of reason why they're arguing. given that fact, given that there's a plan out there by

russia and france, how much is the clock ticking should we expect a decision from the president quickly? >> well, chris, i think the president was -- had the opportunity to speak about this in the context of his news conference with chancellor merkel yesterday. i think the president was pretty clear that this diplomatic opening that france and germany is pursuing alongside the ukrainians at the negotiating table with the russians is one that's worth pursuing, that ultimately this is a conflict that will be resolved diplomatically, that any sort of military support that could be provided by the united states doesn't change our calculation, that diplomatic negotiations will be required to end this conflict. and -- so that's what the international community is focused on and certainly what the president is focused on at this point. >> so you're not suggesting that the outcome of whether there is an agreement reached does not influence his decision or are you? >> well, i guess what i'm saying is that certainly the

decision about offering military -- additional military assistance to the ukrainian military will be affected how bad seriously russia participates in these negotiations and how committed they are to actually living up to their end of the bargain. so we'll evaluate that moving forward. >> within a short timeline, is that the expectation? >> again, the president i think has been clear, that this diplomatic opening is one that's worth pursuing because no matter what happens, this is going to be resolved diplomatically. the addition of additional military assistance to the ukrainian military only increases the likelihood of more widespread violence and that's exactly the thing we're trying to avoid here. >> yesterday, also at that news conference, the president made what some people are analyzing as sort of a direct hit as benjamin netanyahu --

chancellor merkel, maybe the amusement but certainly not that she would not have done this to him, referencing of course, the decision to come and speak before congress. today, netanyahu tweeted and in english, which isn't typical for him -- [inaudible] i'm determined to speak before congress to stop iran. do you consider that a response to what the president said yesterday, and is there a back and forth going on between the president and benjamin netanyahu? >> if it is it certainly won't continue from here. [laughter] >> an editorial, they see this as a deepening rift between the united states and israel, would you respond to that? >> this administration has demonstrated over this president's six years in office an unwavering commitment to the national security of israel and of the citizens of israel. that our ongoing security

cooperation is to use a word that was chosen by prime minister netanyahu himself unprecedented. and, you know there are a variety of ways to illustrate that. the best of which last summer when israeli citizens were racing a bradge of rockets by extremists in gaza that there was a significant infusion of american resources into the iron dome program there. the president received a request from the israeli government to help them replenish their stockpile of iron dome rockets. the prime minister worked closely -- the president worked closely with the congress and that shows he's willing to act decisively to protect the national security of our allies in israel. now, the president does that because he believes it's in the national security interest of the united states for us to continue to have a strong relationship with our allies in israel and the president is determined to make sure that

party politics don't somehow trump how critically important this relationship is. that for generations, american and israeli political leaders have succeeded in putting aside their partisan affiliation to focus on the best interests and the best national security interests of the citizens of their country. and that is why the president has said he's not going to meelt with the prime minister when he's in washington in early march. his visit comes just a couple of weeks before the prime minister is on the ballot. and the president does not want to be in a position of even appearing to interfere with the outcome of an israeli election. and the reason for that is the relationship between the united states and israel and certainly between leaders in israel and leaders in the united states shouldn't just be reduced to the relationship between political parties. it's actually a relationship between two allies. >> would you disagree with the characterization in that editorial that there is a

deepening rift? >> well, i think what i would --ry didn't see their whole editorial. i don't know i would characterize it as a disagreement. i think i would restate something that is evident from the policy decisiones that this president has made which is this administration continues to be committed to coordinating closely with the -- with our national security counterparts in israel to protect the security of the nation and the people of israel. the president's determined to ensure that coordination continues to be as prime minister netanyahu himself described it, unprecedented. >> and one thing on kayla mueller, has the president may have received any calls since confirming her death, particularly from coalition leaders and -- >> you mean, other countries? >> yes leaders of other countries. and does this at all change the strategy or calculus in this

u.s.-led coalition? >> well, the president did have the opportunity earlier today to telephone the president in ukraine but they were principally focused on the conflict in ukraine. you know the president's strategy for degrading ultimately destroying isil is one that continues, that we continue to work closely with the members of this coalition to take the fight to isil and that takes a variety of forms. it means continuing air strikes in syria and in iraq. it means that effort to train and equip the moderate syrian opposition is something that continues. it means we'll continue to work with countries in the region and around the world to try to shut off financing for isil's operations. we can do that in a variety of ways including cracking down on the black market for oil and trying shut off the revenue that isil derives from hostage taking. we're also working with leaders

in the muslim world to try to counter some of the radical messaging that we're seeing isil use. you know, they are relying on social media to try to radicalize people around the globe and we're working in a coordinated fashion with leaders around the globe, including people in the muslim world, to counter that radical message. colleen. >> what's the status of the white house's review of hostage policies? and how will the circumstances of kayla mueller's death inform that review? >> well, colleen, let me make one -- one thing i want to make clear. the white house has been engaged in an interagency review of the way in which the federal government interacts with families that find themselves in this terrible, virtually unthinkable position. that review does not include a reconsideration of our policy not to pay ransom. but it does cover the way in

which government resources are integrated and coordinated to try to meet the needs of individual families. and what we have found is that individual families oftentimes, because there is a broad interagency effort under way, to try to secure the release of their loved ones that oftentimes that means these families are hearing from a large number of federal officials. so one day they'll be getting phone calls from the f.b.i. another day somebody from the military, somebody from the white house, in some situations from the state department and we want to make sure those communications are coordinating their efforts and providing as much information as possible to the families. the hope is that we'll be able to complete this review sometime later this spring. >> the office of brazil has agreed to come to a visit in september.

is there anything you can tell us about that? >> i am not aware of that but aisle ill' check with those at the national security council. >> i want to quote from david axelrod's book. >> did you make it through? >> no. but -- >> congratulations to him for that. >> he pulled out a passage where david axelrod essentially said the president believed all the way back in 2008 that gay marriage should be a right but continued the support of civil union because it was advantageousous. i'm wondering, is david axelrod's recollection correct? >> well, what i can tell you i have not had an opportunity to read all 525 pages of david axelrod's book. i hope to get a chance to do so. the firsthand account that he provides in the book is not one

i would disagree with or quibble with. he's obviously sharing his views as he remembers them. sometimes his perspective is informed by his upclose, you know, front row seat to history. and that's i guess one of the reasons i'm interested in reading the book. the -- you know, as it relates to the president's views on gay marriage, we spent a lot of time talking about the president's evolution on these issues. i think it's consistent with the kind of evolution that people all across the country have gone as it relates to their views on this topic. and, you know frankly, i don't think i have a whole lot more to contribute to that. >> that's really the question, right? if the president did undergo an evolution, depending what he said, what you said, or if he sort of intentionally misrepresented his position because he didn't think that the country had caught up to it. the republicans are seizing on the line we heard from the president time and time again,

don't be cynical. choose hope instead of cynicism. to say, why doesn't the president practice what he preaches here? isn't that important to clarify at this point? >> you can take a look at the president's comments and actions to indicate that president has chosen hope as it relates to this specific issue. when the president indicated his support for gay couples to marry, that was viewed as a pretty controversial political stance there were all kinds of questions that many in this room wondered whether the president would pay a political price months before an election he was willing to support gays who wanted to marry. i think that's an indication that president was not at the -- was not the first person to articulate this position but certainly was at the beginning of a broader change that we saw all across the country. i think that reflects the kind of poll -- the record that the

president has amassed in office including lgbt americans ending don't-ask, don't-tell banning federal contractors from discriminating against their employees regardless who they love -- or for who they love or for speaking out so boldly in support of gay marriage that president has time and again been somebody who's been fighting for justice and equality. that i think will be part of -- one of the most important legacies of this presidency. >> there's no cynicism -- civil rights issues that i think is confronting the nation now? >> i think the president's record speaks to this than i possibly could. >> one last thing on the aumf. back when the menendez bill was going through congress last fall you said you didn't want restrictions on boots on the ground even though the president has repeatedly said that's not the intention -- as we're getting close and

relative -- next few days of seeing that legislation, do you still feel there shouldn't be any restrictions on that? >> well, once we have had an opportunity to put forward the legislative language that, again, will reflect the painstaking effort to coordinate with democrats and republicans in both the house and the senate on this, we'll have an opportunity to discuss why certain things are included or why other phrases may not be included. that said, i'm not sure that we have weighted in with a lot of detail about what we would like to see or what we'd not like to see in an eventual to use military force. we thought that would be a product of democrats and republicans and members of the senate, the house and the administration. so we'll have an opportunity to sort of evaluate what eventually result fathers this process. mark. >> josh, can you now say there

are no other americans held by isil? >> sadly, mark, i cannot say that. there is at least one other hostage that is held in the region but you ask me specifically about isil. what i can tell you is that we are aware. we have avoided discussing the individual cases of americans who are being held hostage, but we are aware of other american hostages being held in the region. >> who is the other americans? >> well, again, i'm not going to get into the specific discussions of the cases of individuals who are being held hostage principles plea because we don't think it's in the best interest for me to discuss them publicly. there is public reports of one american hostage that's been held in syria. >> one or more? you said one and then you said plural? >> i think i said is at least one public report. >> earlier you mentioned that

the war on isil is a long-term challenge. can you say if the president is satisfied with the pace of the war on isil? >> mark, i think it is fair for you to assume that as we continue to see bloodshed in this region of the world that is carried out by isil that the president is impatient about it, there is no doubt. that said, he acknowledges that this is something that's going to take time. and it's certainly going to de mand patience from the american people. but it's trying, particularly on a day like today when we're learning of a death of this american hostage. so the president is constantly pushing his team to do more and to do it faster, but he does that with the recognition that this is a longer term endeavor that we're confronting here. >> thank you josh. some organization here in

washington [inaudible] two days ago regarding an american hostage. they gave us the name. the family was speaking. what's your reaction to that? because you're saying you don't want us to know, but some families now want us to know. >> i don't think i didn't say i didn't want you to know. i think what i tried to articulate is that the conclusion of our national security professionals here, that it is not beneficial to their case for me to highlight the circumstances of individual citizens. so i know that there are -- that families, again, who are in this unthinkably tragic situation who have different strategies for talking about this publicly, and i certainly -- because of the sympathy that i feel for them and because of how difficult it must be to

deal with this situation, i'm not going to stand up here and second guess or judge the way that individual families are talking about this publicly or not talking about it publicly. but what i will say is that our national security professionals have concluded that it's not helpful for me in this context to be discussing the cases or the -- even the names of individuals who are being held against their will in that region of the world. >> and with the emotion created all over the world with the death of kayla, do you think it's challenging for america in the fight against isis? >> laura i think the american people understand what's at stake. i do think that american people understand why the president has worked hard and lended the credibility of the united states of america to build this broader international coalition to degrade and ultimately destroy isil. they understand why the

president has committed military airpower to taking strikes against isil targets against iraq and against syria. i think they understand why the president has declined to commit ground troops in a combat role, american ground troops in a combat role to iraq and in syria, that they recognize that president is trying to appropriately calibrate our national security interests along with the broader need of the international community to speak up speak out and to take action against extremists like this. so this is a complicated situation but i think the american people understand what they face. i think they have an understanding of the president's strategy and this is -- this is a, again, longer term endeavor that we are kwon fronted with here. but the president is committed to making sure that tactics that we employ and the strategy that we employ against isil reflect the national security equities that we have at stake here.

>> two quick followups. did the president speak to the mueller family or does he intend to speak to the mueller's family? and jim asked this question too. if the report is that the president's preference on the aumf language is to produce a new legislative initiative that would sunset in 2018, in three years, so in response to mark's question and jim's question, is that three years significant because the president thinks that's how long it will take to defeat isil or is that timing something that reflects another thought? >> we'll get into the language that's included in the aumf legislation once it's been submitted and made public. it will reflect consultation that's occurred with democrats and republicans on the hill so i don't want to get ahead of that at this point. i'm just not in position to talk about any speculation about what sort of time frame may be included in that language. you asked about something else. the mueller family.

the president did on two occasions have the opportunity to call the mueller family, specifically kayla's parents. in the most recent conversation that he had to her family is to offer condolences on behalf of the american people for the death of her daughter. it was sometime in recent days. i don't have a specific day. >> there's been a gap of some days between the time that the administration understood her to be deceased and the time that the president put out his statement today. >> well, i'll just say that the administration did believe it was appropriate for us to abide by the wishes of the family and allow them to make the first statement and to deliver the news that their father -- that their daughter had been killed. steve, you had your hand up earlier. >> the ruling on the -- malaysia and has the administration brought this up to the malaysian leaders that president played golf with in

hawaii and where do things go from here in terms of consequences? >> i do have a statement that many of you may have received from my colleague, bernadette meehan. the united states is disappointed with mr. anwar's conviction of the original verdict finding him not guilty. the prosecution of mr. anwar has raised a number of concerns about rule of law and in fairness of the judicial system in malaysia. this is government's intent to expand the law which the prime minister pledged to repeal to prosecute government critics. when national security advisor susan rice met with opposition leaders last april, she reiterated the president's message that countries who uphold the human rights of all their citizens, regardless of their political affiliation, ethnicity, race, relgon or sexual orientation are ultimately more prosperous and more stable. the united states and malaysia have built a strong, comprehensive partnership and we remain committed to expanding our cooperation on

shared opportunities to countries like asia and around the world. we urge the government of malaysia to apply the rule fairly and apolitically in order to promote democracy in malaysia's democracy and economy. thanks, everybody. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> as this news briefing is come to cleese we are close to the start of the house session. the house gaveling back at 2:00 eastern for short speeches but members will recess again before starting legislative work at 4:30. four bills including one providing $18 billion for nasa. any requested votes will be held after 6:30 eastern. quick reminder that tomorrow the house is expected to take up the keystone x.l. oil pipeline bill that was passed in the senate last week. you can see live coverage of the house here on c-span. well, the white house is about to release its plan to seek

authority for the use of military force against isis. it would be the first congressional war vote in 13 years. and from reuters, the final text of the president's request to congress for new authority to use force against islamic state fighters is in the works as continued talks continues. the united states is leading an international coalition fighting islamic state militants in iraq and syria, but the president has said he would ask congress for a formal authorization to use military force, or aumf, for the fight. quote, the final text of the aumf and timing for delivery will not be locked until we're able to complete these robust consultations and receive all the feedback we received, said the source. extensive discussions between the president and lawmakers over the past month. also reports confirm the death of the hostage held by isis. from "the daily beast," family members of kayla mueller taken

captive by isis in 2013, confirmed today that she has died. but american officials tell them there is no evidence to say she was killed in a jordanian air strike last week. we're heart broken that we received confirmation that kayla jean mueller's lost her life. her parents said she was a compassionate and devoted humanitarian. she dedicated to the whole of her young life to help those for freedom, justice and peace. president obama has released a statement on the death of kayla muller. it says -- be with us tomorrow when the homeland security looks into homegrown thrifts and foreign fighters. that is tomorrow morning at 10:00 eastern. you can watch it on our companion network c-span3.

again, the u.s. coming back in for legislative business. brief speeches. they'll be gaveling in at 2:00 p.m. while we wait a discussion on the fight against isis and the international response in eastern europe between russia and ukraine. -- and c-span.org. washington journal continues. host: back at our table, congressman luke messer, republican of indiana. thank you for being here. let's begin with isis. the president could as early as today send up to capitol hill some language that would grant him new authority to fight isis. is that something you could support when it comes to the floor? guest: certainly, i could support it. i do think it is important we have a debate. it has been 13 years. the nature of the threat is very different than it was in the times immediately following 9/11. we have obviously got the rising threat of isil or isis, something not talked about her

teen years ago. i think it is time we had the debate. i also believe isil was a serious threat to america. i believe it is the cold war of our time and the president has a lot of work to do to help the american people understand the true depth of the challenges we face and i think the president then needs to articulate to the american people what the strategy is for defeating isis and there is a lot afford to do, but i certainly could support it . >> do you think it would get strong support from republicans? guest: i believe a lot of republicans understand we have to stand up to isil and want to be supportive of the lee terry efforts to do so there nothing in american people, frankly have been skeptical of this president's leadership on the issue. he needs to define the nature of the threat, articulate a strategy for defeating isil. it can be done but it will take

heavy work and i think very few people on my side of the aisle believe we could just drop a few bombs here and there and this thing will be solved. it will take a real, consistent military effort over time. host: what should be included in a.m. u.s., the language that grants him authority to go after isis? should the option of boots on the ground be included in the authority? guest: once the president articulates the nature and danger of the threat and articulates, we need to give the commander-in-chief the tools we make to be successful. it would be a mistake to limit it only two airstrikes, or example. what would that mean? you think when osama bin laden had been defeated with special forces, well, if we do not crash this correctly, could we end up in a situation where the

president could not call it federal forces if that is what is deemed appropriate at the time? the commander-in-chief will have to make the argument as to why he needs to have that kind of latitude. i could support it was the case is made. host: when will it come to the floor? and will that debate happened? guest: it could be soon. is our urgent matters. we all turn on the television set and see the attached. once it is made, you will see the debate promptly. host: another issue is what to do about the ukraine. president obama in a conference yesterday said he will wait and let it die out in hopes that tomorrow and europe, france cost is leaders and germany's leader vladimir putin and others will come to some sort of agreement a peaceful solution. >> we are certainly all rooting for a peaceful solution. the problem is when you look at

what has happened in the ukraine in the last several months, it has been anything but useful. president poroshenko came to his beak to congress a few months back, it was an incredibly compelling case and he made the point we do not have to build a democracy in the ukraine. we just need to defend it. i believe we need to take stronger action there. i had an opportunity to be not in the ukraine, but lithuania, poland, and i can tell you they are unambiguous and the fact that russia will not rest on to ambiguity. if you want to do with russia, they need to understand strength and we have taken steps with economic sanctions. russia has not yet responded to those in anyway that has changed their behavior. i believe we need to look at providing at least military equipment that ukraine would need to defend itself cared i know russia claims otherwise

but it sees if have been helping the russian rebels in that area of ukraine. host: let's listen to president obama and what he had to say at that news conference yesterday. his hand whether or not to arm ukraine helped him out and i'll get your reaction. guest:[video clip] >> issue you raise about whether we can be certain the weapons to fall into the wrong hands, the -- do not lead to over aggressive actions that cannot be stained by the ukrainians, the kinds of reactions does it prompt simply from the russians. those are all issues that have to be considered. the measure by which i make these decisions is, is it more

likely to be effective than not? that is what our deliberations will be about. host: congressman? guest: this is a judgment call but to me, the best to make those judgments are the ukrainians on the ground. they would like to have the weapons and i believe we should provide them with them. there are risks associated with this. i am less concerned about what russia's reaction might be. we know what the reaction might be. it will be aggression. we will -- the real thing is will we support those who deserve to be supported? the rourke -- the ukrainians trying to preserve their democracy and freedom? >> bob is our first phone call a republican. go ahead. you're on the air. go ahead.

>> he s. thank you, c-span. i wanted to say crap. host: i guess he lost his train of thought. don in texas, independent caller. caller: how are you this morning? how much would it cost a taxpayer to do this? you see how much it cost tax payers to lose the money. to borrow the money to fight overseas. that should be put in front of american citizens -- host: ok. guest: there is no question we have limited resources.

in many of these count -- these challenges, in dealing with isil or frankly russian aggression in eastern europe, the question is what is the cost of not acting? often, by sitting back and not acting, we encourage further aggression. both our allies and enemies are watching. there are times, of course, out of moral authority and doing what is right, america steps i -- steps up. but the on that, it is important to understand the world has never been smaller. we have to be mindful and where we do not act, others will and it costs a lot more over time. host: stephen, shelbyville, indiana, independent caller. guest: that is where i am from. great to have you on. caller: i called your office quite a bit could i have not for

a while. things are all right. i have a question about arming ukraine. i think it scares me, on the we. i do not know if they could turn against us. i don't know nothing about ukraine. i'm also scared about that war. that is what i do not want to see. guest: i certainly appreciate your question and as we talked about, it is a judgment call and not an easy one year the responsibility of the in these kinds of battles. russia is clearly acting out of aggression in that region of the world. they have no claim to the parts of ukraine that russian separatists are staking claim to. i think there are of course risks to give the ukraine further arms to fight that fight, but all the best intelligence that russia is in small ways and big engaged in that region and i think it is the right thing to do for a democracy china to defend itself . if you get a chance, go back and

try to find on the internet president poroshenko's speech he gave to congress a few months back. incredibly compelling case in a request for support. while i do recognize and appreciate the risk you are concerned about i think we need to be supportive of the ukraine. host: madison, west virginia. democratic caller. caller: they talk about democracy, but every time there is a situation going on, they talk about war. i think putin is in a debt situation in this crisis, and a good thing that we have got some good friends with saudi arabia driving the crisis down. >> just a couple of moments left in this segment from this morning's "washington journal." we'll leave it here as the u.s. house is about to gavel back in at 2:00 eastern.

they'll begin with short speeches. there are four bills on the agenda including one providing $18 billion for nasa. members will recess again before starting legislative work on those bills. that will happen around 4:30 eastern today. any requested votes will be held after 6:30 today. tomorrow we expect the house to take up the keystone x.l. oil pipeline bill that was passed in the senate last week. and now to live coverage of the u.s. house here on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house is in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. loving and gracious god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. help us this day to draw closer to you so that with your spirit and aware of your presence among us we may all face the tasks of this day with grace