muslim students or individuals in north carolina, none of this should be tolerated and however we can disrupt and interrupt this, i think it requires ault of our resources, working together in bipartisan, funding the dhs to be able to make a difference and i, for one, would like to be engaged in the writing of legislation and/or to find out more in an instructive matter how do we stop our young people from something as heinous as what isis represents and i would like to thank king abdullah and jordan for their committed work along with our allies on this effort and my sympathy to them for the losses they have experienced throughout the mideast and throughout europe. with that, i yield back my time. >> your time is experienced. and from arizona, mrs. mcsally is recognized. >> thank you gentlemen, for your testimony to you. to look at you while i'm talking to you with my colleague on my

right. i appreciate the work you've been doing. i was 26 years in the military and worked especially, dr. rasmussen with your organization and my last assignment at u.s. africa command running current operations there to include our counterterrorism operations. and i'm aware of y'all dealing with the foreign fighting issue before people paying attention to it but we were watching it even back then, 2007-2010 where we had foreign fighters flowing from many places but into areas for al shabab training camps and aqap and north africa and ungoverned spaces as you know. and someone in the military, it caused great frustration as much as what we've been talking about today on the defense as you've been talking. but it needs to be a come comprehensive government approach but i would prefer to be on the offense primarily and

that includes going after to these people that have decided to become combatants in a struggle against us like going after the core ideology. and you know this, we watched thousands of foreign fighters graduate from the training camps because we didn't have the political will to do anything about it on the offense at the time not thinking it was within our interest or wasn't a threat to our country and god knows where those thousands of jihadists who graduated from the training camps all over africa where they are now. who knows where they are today. we watched them and let them go and did nothing about it where we had tremendous opportunity to do some things and we just didn't do it. so we've been focusing on the foreign fighter problem with isis but i do want you to comment on your perspective of the foreign fighter problem in other ungoverned areas that we can't forget about to include many of them in africa just like your perspectives on what we're seeing through there.

>> thank you. and as i talked about in my testimony, the thing that is an order of magnitude different about the foreign fighters phenomenon in this conflict is the scale. but you are right. this is not a phenomenon started yesterday. those flowing to conflict zones to participate in conflict there is something we've been watching through a series of conflicts in the middle east and north africa. and they have a unifying theme in this area is a lack of governance and so we are trying to intervene using all of the tools available but no one tool being adequate to the task of reaching into a north africa whether that is a mally, or libya or somalia and reaching in to effect to what those fighters are reaching into. we are particularly challenged because of an intelligence deficit and that gives us a really good picture of who the

individuals of greatest concern are. as you know, that is where we try to spend most of our effort is trying to determine who most of the individuals are that are try to spend most of our effort engaged in plotting against our interests. because there is obviously a huge population of individuals who are there to participate in localized conflict so we can't devote all of our resources to

that picture. and the last thing i would say that particularly concerning about the isil phenomenon is that isil has decided it needs to move beyond syria and iraq and so you have extremist organizations in africa, algeria, egypt and in libya who have raised the flag of isil and claimed affiliate status. and again that creates a sense of momentum and competition among extremist jihad groups that has added to our threat concerns and doesn't subtract. you like to see your enemies fighting amongst each other and it creates competition against each other as they try to one-up each other in efforts to go after us. >> and the next question i have just a little bit of time here left. and you talked about community engagement, but this is an islamic extremist problem so what particular is the engagement with the muslim community in america and their leaders and where is there an obstacles to admitting them in acknowledging this is a problem of their religion and where do you see them getting on board to stop it. >> the muslim communities around our country, they are concerned , as are all americans about this kind of behavior among people within their community and they want to address it,

they want to understand it better and to have the tools to address it. and i've noted, i've been out with the secretary on a couple of these. there are concerns about discrimination on the part of those communities and how they are treated and certain other ways but there is no lack of commitment in those communities to get at extremism among their children, among people in those communities because they see that as inconsistent with their responsibilities of being americans and living the american dream in our country. so i've noted, i don't think we've noted a major lack of effort among those communities to recognize this phenomenon and how it impacts those communities and not wanting the tools to help them address them proactively. >> great, thanks. my time is expired. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we recognize mrs. torres from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i apologize for giving you

my back but for the unfortunate circumstances of seating arrangements. and i would like to go back to the questions of secretary thompson, without a full year of funding bill, the department of homeland security cannot award it is my understanding, $2.6 million, is that correct? billion dollars? >> billion. >> much of which goes to state and local departments. having served both at the local level as a council member, mayor and served as a state senator in the state of california, these agencies are just beginning to recover from this great recession that we have had. they certainly do not have the funding to back-bill what we do not send to them and they are dependent on this funding in order to help protect our communities.

so what -- what do you think is the risk assessment as it relates to these agencies not being able to pick up the phone and have someone on the other side answer to get feedback on a potential threat risk? >> ma'am, i can't speak to the specific risk. what i can speak to is the fact that grant funding and our investment in state and local community engagement efforts is a linchpin for how we have structured our country to do homeland security. we have believe everyone needs to be in the game. everyone needs to be in power to

information what the risk is what the tactics, techniques and procedures are to be looking for and share that information with the fbi, with the i.c. so we can engage before the act happens. so the extent to which these grants make those agencies less effective and in meeting that responsibility, presents a risk for us. >> would you consider that a low risk, a high risk and as it relates to not just the agencies, but -- i'm sorry, not just as it relates to the local agencies, but the inability of the fbi or the inability of other departments to be able to coordinate and communicate with these agencies? >> as i said, ma'am, we had built our homeland security enterprise based on a state, local, federal model and any capability that is taken away from that, and in some way diminishes our capacity to face the risks we are concerned with in our country. >> thank you, i yield my time back. >> the chair recognized the gentleman from texas, mr.

radcliff. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, i have very much enjoyed and appreciated your testimony today. as a former terrorism prosecutor and as a former united states attorney, i've had the good fortune to work with each of your agencies on a number of occasions and i very much look forward to the opportunity to do so again as a member of this committee. mr. steinbach, i would like to work with you, the director of the fbi jim comby expressed concern about technology companies using encorruption meth -- encryption methods on mobile devices with apple saying it would no longer be able to unlock phones and directing toward child kidnappers, like opening a closet that could never be opening and even if it involved a court order, to me that does not make any sense. as a former terrorism prosecutor, i share the directors concern and can

certainly see how the inability to access encrypted devices so my question is what is the fbi's plan to deal with this and have you engaged the technology industry to address these concerns? >> first of all, sir, i'm not going to argue with director comby, so he is of course right. and it is a concern. and quite frankly it is irresponsible for companies to build products and have software updates that allow for no lawful capability to unlock their devices. and so to make the argument it is on the cloud and you don't need to have access to the device itself is disingenuous because not all of the information is on the cloud.

we have to have the ability, whether we are talking about gangster or authorized crime or terrorists, with lawful ability, court orders to look into and take contact, store communications, whether it is a child pedophile, somebody involved in narcotics trade or trying to conduct a terrorist act, we have to have that ability. so we have put this message out. i know that the director and his staff have gone out and relayed this message on numerous

occasions. we've pushed it out. we've had interaction with the state, local and federal levels of law enforcement as well as had direct contact with those companies and tried to explain through use of examples this is a dangerous precedent to go down, to not have the ability at any means, whether it is an ongoing kidnapping or some other event, not to have the ability to get in there and look at that content or stored communication. >> terrific. thank you very much. i'll throw this out to anyone on the pam that wants to take it. there are numerous reports out there that ask.fm is one of the common recruitment channels through which a number of american foreign fighters have formed relations with recruiters and we talked about the teenage girls from colorado. since they are operating out of lap via, i want to know if there is any interaction between the state department or law enforcement with the government regarding this? >> so i can't speak to specific interaction between the state department and the lappian government. i would tell you that ask.fm.com is one of the companies that we

have seen in our intelligence collection efforts that is being used. that is just one. there are many platforms that reside overseas, like i said earlier, that have shown an unwillingness to work with our government or the host governments. >> terrific. last question. and i apologize if this has been covered earlier. i've been in and out of other hearings today. but when isis specific material is posted on facebook, twitter tumblr, you tube, what are the existing line of communication between law enforcement and those entities to provide notice or to facilitate the removal of that material? >> so the companies themselves have service agreements that in many cases violence, criminal acts, if they violate the terms of service, once they are violated, they can take that down. we are looking at it from a different threat. so when we see the radical pieces being used, we look to exploit that and do that through a lawful means, whether it is

collecting the information to see what they are communicating about or to look at ongoing communication. so we have an overlapping, i guess, mission, when compared to some of the companies, but at the end of the day, the result is the same, we want to stop the communication through social media platforms. >> my time is expired. again, i appreciate you being here. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> we thank the witnesses for being here today. this is a very important topic to our national security. and i want to thank all three of you for your service to the american people to keep americans safe. and i want to thank also the rank and file within the department of homeland security and ctc and the fbi for the job they do day in and day out without much recognition but they are truly the patriots of this country and on behalf of this committee we want to say thank you.

the hearing will be open for ten days for additional questioning and without objection, the committee stands adjourned. >> iranian president hassan rouhani spoke today. the goal of the negotiations is a win-win outcome. the house passed a the definitive keystone pipeline bill today. we'll hear from congressional republicans later. president obama asked congress for authorization to use military force against isis. >> on the next "washington

journal," we spoke to congressman dana rohrabacher of california. he will discuss the president's request for use of military force against isis. then representative jerry mcnerney of california is here to talk about combating isis the keystone pipeline, net neutrality and cyber security issues. later our tour of historically black colleges continues in atlanta. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. next, iranian president hassan rouhani addresses his country on the anniversary of the islamic revolution. this is courtesy of the state run press tv.

>> the anniversary of the glorious islamic resolution, of iran, i would like to offer congratulations to the great nation of iran. we are happy that this year it is been held even more gloriously across the nation and the people that have participated in the great rally of february 11. so i would like to thank all the iranian people for the glorious dissipation. -- participation and my

appreciation for that. 36 years past since our people raised their demand for independence freed them and the islamic republic of iran. the aspirations of our people is still independence, freedom and the islamic republic system. islamic republic as two aspirations and values. one is democracy and the other is religious establishment. the islamic republic of iran is a crystallization of the sharia

within the context of a great nation. the islamic republic is a manifestation of god's rule and governance, and bodied in a great nation -- embodied in a great nation. the islamic republic of iran is the translation of god's will through a vigilant and awakened nation. it has the roots of the revolution, or the aspirations and goals and principles which will remain unchangeable and implementation, if there is

something to be considered, that still will be within the framework of the islamic republic of iran and that will be conducted through the ballot boxes and the elections where people vote. in the great way that the great imam said, the republic -- the islamic republic, absolutely. the islamic nation translates into the islamic republic and vice a versa. for us to see a man of the people fulfill, the best way to do that is the implementation of the islamic resets and teaching -- precepts and teachings.

for the establishment, the best way is the rule of the people, the will of the people who wit hin islamic rules, the late imam gave legitimacy to the vote of the people and the islamic revolution leader said the vote is the right of the people. so, the islamic republic of iran is an election based system based on economical and religious jurisprudential services, all of this will respect the establishment and will continue to respect that. in addition to the islamic establishment, was gaining

independence. our people in the course of decades and maybe beyond that throughout centuries are people that fought for independence since the tobacco fatwa, up until the time of fighting against foreigners and cutting off their hands regarding the oil monopoly and regarding the fight against capitulation, all through independence, has been a lofty aspiration of our people and we managed to gain independence. we have not gained independence easily so we cannot let go of it easily.

independence means fighting, it does not mean xenophobia or fighting strangers. independence means that we stand on our own feet. that is the will of the people. to not allow any superpower when it comes to national interests will not allow anything to affect that will. so the battlefront, we went to the defense of independence. at the negotiating table we protected and defended our independence and will continue to do so. during the days when our

confidants used to fight at the battle fronts, behind our battle fronts, the entire people supported our fighters on the battlefront. no treason goes beyond the treason admitted behind the battlefront. those who are fighting in the arena of diplomacy, the entire iranian nation as well as the great islamic revolution, they all support that front. the front of negotiation. the enemies of the nation who are opposed are the zionists -- they are trying their utmost and have done whatever they could but the world today has realized the treason on the part of the

zionists, especially after the crimes committed in for the past month in gaza. so the criminals stay criminals in the region. the third demand of the iranian nation has been freedom. a republic system without freedom is meaningless. islam, also goes together with freedom. national unity, we see an array of different opinions and we're still standing united. we have a variety of opinions, but that is no problem. when it comes to national

interests, and expediency, all of us are standing united. so today like 36 years ago we still raise the cry of independence, freedom and the islamic republic. the islamic revolution belongs to the entire iranian nation. it does not belong to a certain ethnic group, nor does it belong to any certain walk of life or any faction. people stood up altogether and

rose altogether and saw the victory of this revolution. today all of us need to stand united and support the interests of the people and those of the islamic republic of islam. the revolution did not mean a change in names and labels. it came to change up some norms the ones that ignored the religious and humanitarian values. today, the demand of our yout hs, is the same demand they have had the past 36 years.

last year, our people through casting their votes on the basis of the guidelines that the islamic revolution leader people attend the polling stations and also voted to pick the government of hope and prudence. the people rely on the vote of the people and is faithful to the promises made to the very end. the path will be continued and the promises will be fulfilled one after another. in all fronts, the economic front, cultural, social

culture, social welfare, the message of strength, the message of prudence and wisdom and support with the support of the people, through the cooperation of the people, this has been heard. through the government on behalf of the people. so last year, in the same venue i was addressing you, great people, i made a promise that this government will, by next year go through stagnation, and leave it behind. and today, i have the honor to announce the iranian nation that the first six months of the year, we had a growth of 4%. so all the world should know that the people of iran is powerful is efficient and is moving toward the path, on the path of progress.

so the calendar 1391 and 92, we listed negative growth and year 93 with the blessing of god we will end the year with a positive growth. in industry, we had 6.5% growth. our mines, we had 10.5%. and the commerce sector we had a 5.4% growth. in the first six months of the iranian calendar year. when it comes to oil and other economic issues, we have had substantial growth. so we did some things sort of economic bloom, will take off in this country so the first thing to do is facilitating transaction and doing business and removing the obstacles for

economic. you know, in the course of the past year, we want to rank 22 in terms of business. there were 22 ranks that we ascended in our ranking. today, for facilitating exports and imports in iranian calendar 93, we had clearance of goods and customs for the purpose of export from seven days, it just went down to one day for all the basic goods, for the import, that took 26 days, it just takes three days now. so credit mines also for businesses industry and commerce this year we have seen a 40% of growth when it comes to

offering of credit lines compared to past year. the government of prudence and hope we have had seven thousands of half finished projects that were completed. now they are working on it and this is indicative of the fact that our people has been on the path of resistance economy. you're aware that in the first 10 months of the year, our exports, compared to the same period last year, has seen more than 24% increase. i meant non-oil exports last year, in the first 10 months of the year, we have 34.3 billion, but the first 10 months we have

42.6 has been the figure for export of our commodities in the oil and gas sector despite all the sanctions and the pressure, we have made substantial progress. our oil production in the past year from 2.7 million a day, went up to 2.9 million barrels a day. the production of gas, as you're also aware, there are five phases that have come to fruition in the south and today compared to last year we have daily 100 million cubic meters of gas more than what we produced last year. and hopefully by next year we'll

have another 100 million cubic meters of increased production next year so in the field of agriculture, despite the water shortage and all the problems, when it comes to wheat, we have had two million tons in production of wheat, and in the year that past we had 6.8 million tons of wheat that we've purchased. when it comes to mechanization of agriculture, we have also managed to pull off some great success in that sector. the number this year compared to past year has seen an increase of 250%. the number of agricultural

combine mission has seen 300% increase 550 hectacres of land we have started working, revival of land, also greenhouse agriculture has been increased. last year in the same place i just promised you that the inflation of 35% that we just talked about last year, i said that next year, that is now, this year, we will take it down to 25%. with the blessing of god, his assistance, our inflation rate today is below 17%. so the government has been able, with the support of the people, our youths, our entrepreneurs

the government has been able to take strife in line with the growth and progress of the country when it comes to size and technology as well as culture. well today, you are witness to a very substantial increase in all the universities, research centers and scientific centers. incidentally, our universities today are much calmer, of higher quality and standards pursuing activities and you know that this government, after a few years, you know, we had the law supporting the science based corporations and companies. this government is trying to implement that law. during that period that the law has been, being implemented, the

science based companies and corporations, the number has come to 1,300 companies. that means, in course of one year and a few months, the growth in the science based companies has been more than 22 times as many. we have established the innovation fund and the capital for next year will be 2 thousand billion. we've increased that amount. in terms of scientific rank, our country, compared to last year, we have gone up two tiers. we are now standing, we are now ranking 14 in the world. so in nanotechnology we have acquired the seventh ranking. that means we have gone one step

further up compared to last year in biotechnology, we are standing 14, that means two steps higher. the leader of the islamic revolution has always played great stress on the growth of science and technology and today, on the anniversary of the islamic revolution victory, we are proud to say that our respected youths, boys and girls, in universities, economic centers and research centers they have been pursuing their scientific operations activities more actively, and the government has been supporting, will continue to do that. so it comes to social welfare the judicial security, the government has 14 million as

members of the low income families being covered by the government. since the beginning of the year, commodities basket has been distributed among the 14 million low-income people. also the health insurance, as was promised during the electoral campaign that insurance coverage was also spread out to the entire nation and this year more than eight million people who have had no insurance, they're now all covered by health insurance this year. in terms of health and development therein, the government has done -- just started a great thing and that

is the people, the money people are being charged at medical centers. it was 27% last year. it's now gone down to 6% is what people are paying to hospitals this year. all the entire equipment and paraphernalia and the tools that are being used, consumed at a high rate they have been provided to the people foreign equipment has had a 22% decrease in price to the public. people's access to medicine has increased to 750 medicines. that means there has been 134%, the consumables from 1,800 has

reached more than 2,100, that means an increase of 44%. so the government this year was determined to have 1,945 health centers in villages across the nation that will try to establish. we have managed to open 1,100 of such centers and the rest will be launched in the spring, that's around the corner. now, regarding the war handicapped, we highly respect and we respect goes to their families, too. for the first time this government has this comprehensive law for war veterans and the handicapped and to all the what the government

had as its debt, they were all paid to them. a big issue of ours today is the issue of the environment the ecosystem, both in mega-cities and smaller towns. we have the problem of air pollution and particles. we have taken measured steps in the past year. we have distributed gasoline and also gas, which is higher in standards, and we have tried to reduce the amount of pollution in cities. this year, the liquid fuel and power lines, 46%, their share was reduced to 30%. and this was actually, this contributes to the reduction of air pollution in large cities. 200,000 old cars have been put

out of service. with these polluting particles. we need to do something especially in our western province, but you know this is a great task and it's time consuming. they usually find this way into iran from our neighboring countries through the seasonal winds. they start coming our way and they find a way in our cities. so the government has done whatever it can in that connection but we still need the help of our western neighboring countries to be able to have this long-term project in order to do something about bringing you under control these polluting air particles. also regarding the utilization

of new dams. there are seven new dams that this government has launched and also more than 53,000 hectacres of water and distribution system has been put into operation. when it comes to foreign policy, the government has acted upon and is sticking to its slogan and that is constructive interaction with the world while at the same time maintaining our interests, principles and revolutionary goals and aspirations. the government managed to get out of the deadlock and break the deadlock on nuclear talks and through a you in approach, the government managed to continue with negotiations so what we were -- we are seeking to gain in the course of the

negotiations is coming up with a win-win agreement. that would mean that transparency in peaceful nuclear activities would end international law. this is what iran has been doing. and the other side should also do something about the anti-human and illegal sanctions that need come to an end. this would be in the interest of two sides. where the sanctions are lifted, it would benefit iran and the other side because they, too are in need when they say that for the sake of sanctions that iran has -- that's because of sanctions that iran has come to the negotiating table.

what they are lying, it's not been because of the pressure of the sanctions. iran has been going to the negotiating table because of wisdom in order to create peace and stability in the region, in the world is why iran has come to the negotiating table. if the way you claim it's been the sanctions that have forced iranian people to surrender, so why did you keep imposing more sanctions? why have you kept the negotiating table so that the sanctions are lifted? so you better do away with lying. top lying and talk to your people honestly, honestly. tell them that, in the face of the great nation of iran, there is no way for the world except interaction. so you should let -- so with a

loud voice, for the whole world to hear, you should say that in the middle east region if there is going to be any peace and stability restored, if there's going to be any uprooting of terrorism, there is no way other than the presence of the islamic republic of iran. so you have seen in iraq and syria, in lebanon in yemen the power that managed to stand against terrorist groups and to help the people of iraq, syria and lebanon. it was the islamic republic of iran who went to their help. so today you are witness to the fact that with the continuation of the sanctions your consensus has been now shattered. you're divided so you should

come to terms with the facts, a lot of people know that these negotiations would benefit the entire world on condition that a path -- that the islamic republic of iran has been offering, has shown you, will be treaded in the right way. you better make best chance of this opportunity. you should not think that people of iran are scared of pressure. you should not imagine that a great nation of iran are scared of sanctions. the islamic republic of iran is seeking to create progress, development and global stability. as the great leader of the islamic revolution has announced, we want to have a deal that would compromise, or that would comprise dignity and progress of the great iranian

nation. in the course of the past year, we have managed to see parts of the sanctions go away. some of the brutal and, you know erroneous sanctions have been lifted, you know, that all those 12 billion dollars of iranian asset that is have been frozen, they have been unblocked and you know that circumventing the sanctions, this is what we have facilitiated in one year and you're also aware that we have stopped the continued oil sanctions that america was brutally following. and we've stopped that and you're also aware that when it comes to international banking affairs we have taken steps to facilitate things. our better chemical exports, the

airplane equipment and parts shipping insurance car manufacturing, the sanctions have been removed on those sectors. import of basic commodities food medicine, trade of gold and metals, so their business has been facilitiated so the islamic republic of iran has fulfilled its commitment and obligations regarding the iranian people in the direction of progress and also adhering to the aspirations of the revolution. as this government, since the very beginning has announced both our centrifuges will continue spending and the wills so will the wills of our economy and the government will continue to stick to its promise and

commitments, you know, that the government in the past year through the steps taken with the support and the will of the people. so iranophobia and islamophobia has kind of mitigated and it has clarified to the world that iran's logic regarding the west was the logic of the leaders gorbachev and the revolution leaders' message to western youths. we will follow on the same path with the same logic and reasoning as we are on the path of progress. we are on the path of perfection of the countries as you have witnessed, when it comes to regional stability we have taken effective steps the

islamic republic of iran has successfully conducted the meeting of foreign ministers and movement in order to support palestine. the meeting was convened in tehran. the islamic republic of iran strongly wanted to support the people of palestine and gaza in the face of the brutal aggression of israel. we stood against it. the islamic republic of iran will continue on the same path. of course, whatever we have done including the revolution, the success and the imposed war and today, what we have done against the plots and schemes they have all been on the basis of reliance on almighty god and

the support of our nation. so our main capital is actually righteousness, god members of the province household and also imam medhi. with their support we will continue our path toward final victory and today, that's the day of the victory of the triumph of the nation, february 11. so once again, we raise our hands toward god and ask him to help our people, to support our people on the path to success and make them victorious and also let us have a shower of his

blessings of our nation, his blessings and affection. so we also ask, seek the almighty god to maintain and preserve the independence and freedom, dignity of our great nation peace and blessings. >> israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu who has been critical of the negotiations of iran over its nuclear program is scheduled to speak over a joint meeting of congress in washington on march 3. we'll have live coverage of prime minister netanyahu's address here on c-span. >> february is black history month and the c-span bus is on the road visiting the top historically black colleges and

universities to speak with their faculty and discuss public policy issues and highlight their role in america's education system. on "washington journal," thursday we'll visit spell -- spelman college in atlanta. >> the house passed the senate keystone xl pipeline bill on a mostly party vote which the president has said he will veto. after the vote, members of the house g.o.p. leadership and senator john hovan spoke to reporters. >> way to go. >> good job. >> where's your ticket? >> you guys are all ready to go?

ok. good afternoon. we stand here very proud to have just voted for the 11th time in the house of representatives to approve the keystone pipeline project. we voted to approve more than 40,000 american jobs. we voted for energy, innovation, energy independence. we voted to say yes to american energy. so tonight we come together. we come from both chambers. from the house, from the senate, to celebrate the passage of the bipartisan keystone xl pipeline project. americans are ready for energy independence, but the president is saying no. americans are ready to get back to work. but the president is saying no. and americans are ready for their leaders to say yes to

american energy innovation. tonight, we join and urge the president to say yes. say yes to american energy. >> it's very clear with this new american congress, we now pass bipartisan bills where we have an open debate. what unusual inside the senate that people could offer amendments but you know what happens at the end of the day republicans and democrats alike came together, passed the keystone pipeline bill and moved it to the house. what did the house do? we passed it with 270 votes a bipartisan vote with 29 democrats joining. there's only one question. will the president pick people before politics? will he look in the faces of the pipe fitters in little rock that have the pipe sitting there

ready to move forward? would he look in the faces of those 40,000 that could have a new job. or will he play politics? the question is simple, mr. president, join with the republicans and democrats in the senate and the house and put america before politics. [applause] >> i'm senator john hovan and i want to thank all of these members of the house and so many others to voting the pass the keystone bill. and for passing the senate version, it took us a month. again, a big thank you for passing this bill on a bipartisan basis. this is about energy, this is about jobs, this is about economic growth and this is about national security through energy security. now, the congress has passed it on a bipartisan basis, all six states on the route have said yes. they've had plenty of time to do it.

it's been six years in the process.most importantly, the american people overwhelmingly supported. 65 percent-70 5% approval in the polls. i think it is remarkable. it is america will that we are passing this keystone pipeline approval on the same day the president has asked us to work with on an authorization for use of military force. the president is sending us and a umf to use military force in the middle east. he wants us to work with him and we are going to work with him. today we are sending you the keystone pipeline approval bill, and we're asking him to work with us. that is how it works. but most importantly, work with us to build energy, energy security, for this country so that we don't have to import oil from opec, or from the middle

east. that is what the american people want. he called the president today to work with us on this important legislation. let's build the right kind of future for this country, to secure energy future. thanks. [applause] >> thank you all. thank you, senator hoven. we had the opportunity to work together on in north dakota. we cited the original keystone pipeline. not one into that had to be condemned. 216 miles through our state nine counties, several pumping stations two rivers. we know how to get energy infrastructure dealt in a way that protects the environment, protects people, and acts as energy security. create good paying jobs, jobs that pay three to four times

more than the average job in the united states. we saw how it revitalized small towns along the route and how it provided rural electric cooperatives. we saw firsthand how small town retailers, hotel owners, cap is, hardware stores, local aggregate companies, workers, truck drivers, railroads -- good paying jobs. people in the middle class live for that, the very thing our president says he wants to do. this project does. my appeal today is to the president of the united states. we know there has been a lot of rhetoric. i evening knowledge that politics is a part of it. we are all creatures of politics and we understand that we have to make changes and compromise. the fact is that this bill is an illustration of that very compromise.

the president can now join the bipartisan group of members of the people's house in the united states and it can do this thing together. the thing he could do unilaterally he now has political muscle behind. i really hope the president reconsiders his threat to veto this bill and instead stands with the american public and the congress of the united states and signs the bill into law. [applause] >> last week, the president was in indianapolis. he made a crack about republicans and democrats that working together. the proves that we could. we just have to do in overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. two weeks ago he said, "i will do anything to create american jobs." that is our focus. that is what we did. his own state department says 45,000 jobs.

that is not something we can throw away -- that is something that we have to do. that is one of the reasons why republicans and democrats came together not only today but in previous days when we have had this vote, and were delighted that the senate finally took the action needed to send this bill to the president, where we hope you will reconsider and sign it into law rather than veto it. thank you. [applause] >> i am proud of the action a house took today in a strong bipartisan vote, to pass the keystone pipeline bill onto president obama's desk. if you look at this bill, for the six years it has been studied and debated, the coalition has grown -- not just in congress, but all across the nation. for people who are hungry to see these 40,000+ jobs. if you look at the whole idea of

having a trading partner in canada for energy, the fact that canada wants to do business with the united states, said 700,000 barrels a day to the united states that we don't have to get from countries that don't like us. not only is a good politics for our national security, but you were talking about something that will generate even more economic activity. when we trade with canada, $.80 on the dollar comes back. when we trade with middle eastern countries, less than $.50 on the dollar comes back. everything about this proposal make sense. when you look across the political spectrum, anyone who has looked at this objectively says it makes sense and it's the right thing to do. it is time for the president to take action. the president didn't cite environmental concerns -- the president cited an issue in the state of nebraska. since the president issue that veto threat, that issue has been

resolved. that no longer stands out as a problem. the president has got every reason to sign this bill. all across the country people want president to sign this. labor unions have joined with republicans and democrats in congress to say that's get this done. mr. president, sign this bill. let's create these 40,000 jobs. [applause] >> president obama formally asked congress for permission to use military force against the military group isis today. we will hear from the president next on c-span, followed by remarks from mitch mcconnell and

senator tim kaine and congressman adam schiff wayeig hi n. >> here's some of our featured programs. on c-span2's book tv, saturday morning at 9:00, live coverage of the savannah book festival with nonfiction authors of books on topics like the disappearance of michael rockefeller and fourr women spies during the civil war. afterwards, david axelrod on his 40 years in politics. and on american history tv on c-span3, saturday morning beginning any: 30, 100 anniversary of the release of the film "the birth of a nation." the showing of the entire film, followed by a live call-in program.

sunday 8:00, george washington portraits, focusing on how artists capture the spirit of the first president and what we can learn about him. find our complete television schedule and c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us, e-mail us, or send us a tweet @cspan #comments. >> president obama urged congress to authorize military action against the militant group isis in syria and iraq. a 2002 authorization that preceded the us-led invasion is still in place but would be repealed under this white house proposal. the president is joined by vice president biden.

president obama: good afternoon. today, as part of an international coalition of some 60 nations, including arab countries, our men and women in uniform continue to fight against isil iraq and in syria. more than 2000 coalition airstrikes of how did these terrorist, we are disrupting their command and controls making it harder for them to move. we are destroying their fighting positions, their tanks, their vehicles, their barracks, their training camps, and the oil and gas facilities and infrastructure they fund or operate. in iraq, some places have pushed isil back. it failed in its attack.

we have seen reports of sinking morale among isil fighters. make no mistake, this is a difficult mission, and it will remain difficult for some time. it is going to take time to dislodge these terrorists, especially from urban areas. our coalition is on the offensive. isil is on the defensive and they are going to lose. these barbaric murders of so many people, including american hostages, is a desperate and revolting attempt to strike the hearts of people and can never possibly win over, because it offers nothing but misery and death and destruction. with violent groups like this there is only one option -- with our allies and partners, we are going to degrade and destroy this terrorist group. when i announced our fight in

september, i said we are strongest as a nation when the president and congress work together. today, my administration has committed a grand resolution to congress to authorized the use of force. i want to be clear about what it does and does not do. this resolution reflects our core objective to destroy isil. it supports the comprehensive strategy. a systemic and sustained campaign of airstrikes against isil, support and training for local forces on the ground including the moderate syrian opposition, preventing attacks in the region and beyond including by foreign terrorist fighters threatening our country, regional and international inclusion of the iraqi government, humanitarian

assistance for the innocent civilians of iraq and syria who are suffering so terribly. i want to thank ice president biden, secretary kerry and hagel and general martin dempsy for their leadership. even as we meet this challenge in iraq we all agree that one of our weapons against terrorists a critical part of our strategy, is that we live here at home. we are the best antidote to the hateful ideology that radicalized people to violent extremism. tolerant societies that welcome the contributions of all people. the resolution we have submitted today does not call for the deployment of u.s. ground combat forces to iraq or syria. it is not reauthorize another ground rule.

the 2600 american troops in iraq today serve on bases, but they do not have a combat mission. they are focused on training iraqi forces, including kurdish forces. i am convinced that the united states should not get dragged back into another prolonged ground war in the middle east. that is not in our interest and it is not necessary or us to beat isil. local forces on their grown to know their country best our best positioned to take the fight to isil. at the same time, this resolution strikes the necessary balance by giving us the flexibility we need. if we had actionable intelligence about a gathering of leaders, and our partners didn't have the strategy to get

them, i would be prepared to order our special forces to take action, because i will not allow these terrorists to have a safe haven. we need flexibility, but we also have to be careful. there is no heavier decision than allowing our men and women until risk their lives on our behalf. as commander-in-chief, i will only send our troops into harm's way when it is absolutely nothing very for our national security. finally, this resolution repeals the 2002 authorization of force in the invasion of iraq and limits this new authorization to three years. i do not believe america's interests are served by endless war, or by remaining on a perpetual war setting. as a nation we need to ask the difficult and necessary questions about when, why, and how we use military. it is our troops who bear the costs of our decision, and we

own them a clear strategy of what we need. this resolution will give our armed forces and coalition the continuity we need for the next three years. it is not a timetable. it is not announcing that the mission is completed at any given period. it is saying that congress should revisit the issue at the beginning of the next president's term. it is conceivable that the mission is completed earlier. it is conceivable that after deliberation into debate that there are additional tasks to be carried out. the people's representatives, with a new president, should be able to have that discussion. in closing, i want to say that enacting this resolution, we have to focus went and listened to both republican and democrat.

we made a sincere effort to address their issues that we discussed together, and in the days and weeks ahead we will work closely with leaders on both sides of the aisle. i believe this resolution can grow even stronger with a dignified debate that it demands. i've optimistic it can win bipartisan support, and we can show our troops and the world that americans are united. today our men and women in uniform continue to fight against isil and we salute them for their courageous service. we pray for their safety. we stand with their families. know this -- our coalition is strong and our mission will succeed. long after the terrorists we face are destroyed and forgotten, america will continue to stand free and tall and strong. may god bless our troops and may god bless the united states.

thank you very much, everybody. >> senate majority leader mitch mcconnell spoke about the president's request for the use of military horse against isis. sen. mitch mcconnell: this morning, we received the president's proposed authorization for the use of military force against isil and its affiliates. it is clear that a successful military campaign would require a multiyear effort, so it is certainly in order for congress to debate an authorization like this. because congress must meet its responsibilities decide whether our military should use force, the senate will review the

request thoughtfully. we will listen closely to the advice of military commanders as they consider the best strategy. because the demand for such serious consideration, i want our members to have an early opportunity to discuss the request. later today, our conference will be for discussion led by senators corker and mccain. i yield the floor. >> this statement from house speaker john boehner on president obama's military reaction request. "any authorization for the use of military force must give our military commanders the flexibility and authorities they need to succeed and protect our people. well i believe an aumf against isolate is important i have

concerns that the request does not meet the standard. now we will begin hearings and rigorous oversights so lawmakers in the public can provide their input. ultimately our objective is to show the world that the united states is resolute in our commitment to destroy isil." now to democrats who are weighing in on the president possibly request to use military force against isis. senator tim kaine and representative adam schiff spoke to reporters for about 35 minutes. >> the president submission to congress of the draft authorization today makes me basically have three things to tell you. point one, thank goodness, three

months into a war that is necessary, thousands of airstrikes, death of service members, long after any timeline under the war powers resolution of 1973 have expired, we will take seriously our most solemn obligation. the most somber and great responsibility congress have is having the debate and authorizing it. those who serve know they are serving with the support of america's political leadership. here we are today, finally trying to put the horse before the cart. i am sad that it has taken us along but it is good we are here and i think the white house for sending this proposal to congress, as the president indicated he would. point two, i see some things i like.

congressmen should and i both introduce resolutions in september shortly after the president spoke to the nation on the evening of september 10 proposing the authorization. my september resolution version of which was passed in december, included a sunset -- that is a really important piece. we have learned an authorization that if you do something like this it can be used beyond what congress originally intended. i also really appreciate the president in this draft, repealing the 2002 aumf. the sightings of the early aumf have seen way too much of a stretch and what they suggest is that authorizations that are not repealed can float around in space and being grabbed onto and

used in ways that are not within the contemplation of the congress. i think the repeal of the 2002 aumf is appropriate and i appreciate the president putting it in. i think the white house and i see some things i like but i also have some concerns. concerns that will be hashed out in the committee process. i am sure everybody has concerns and everybody has questions, some about the draft of the proposal. some words about the complicated nature of the mission. we will use the procedure and the floor debate to get to those concerns. i am concerned about the breadth and vagueness. it suggests that all defensive ground combat operations -- allowing defensive actions without any additional explanation is pretty broad. enduring is also a term that is not defined. that raises some concerns for me, the fact that the language

is different than what he used on september 10. we just need to dig into why that is and ask questions and provide clarification. i think we will work to do that. second, this is a very complicated military mission. it is even more complicated on the syria side of the border. i think everybody acknowledges it. we want to look at the different challenges. we will get into that. finally, just a concern about the mission -- what are the roles that regional partners are playing in this? i returned recently from a visit with a number of senators, saudi

arabia, qatar, and israel will dive into what our regional partners are doing. last week we had a really sad visit -- he just happened to be here on the day when the jordanian pilot was killed in such a horrible thing which demonstrated by isil is a threat. the king was very blunt. he said, this is not your fight, it is ours. it is a terrorism that was born and bred in this region, that is justified by people who are not practicing islam but who claim that as the mantle. it is up to us to speak out strongly and defeat this terrorist threat. if we are in it and then the u.s. should help and help vigorously. he said it is not primarily the united states's fight. they are not just saying they are part of a coalition but demonstrating to the most extensively can that they are going to battle this terrorist threat defeat it. who is participating, and who should be asked to do more.

we cannot police a region that will not police itself. adam schiff is a longtime member of congress and the ranking democrat on the house intelligence committee. his leadership on this in the house has been critical to getting to this day.

he's offered me a lot of good advice and for that i thank him. >> thank you very much. i share the mixed emotion. this is something i have been pushing for for a year and is long overdue but we are happy this moment has come. we are no longer in the wilderness but we still have a very hard job ahead. similarly i am grateful to the white house that they took this step to propose to us -- we were in this long dilemma where the leadership here in the congress wanted the president to go first and meanwhile our troops had already gone and congress was sitting on the sidelines. it is the congress that lost in that stalemate because it is our responsibility to declare war to authorize or not authorized warfare.

the absence of congressional action we set a precedent for future administration that they can move without congress. we are a historical anachronism. i'm hoping we can reassert ourselves. i similarly appreciate some of the language in the authorization which very much tracks with a senator and i have been working on in terms of the three-year statute of limitations that will take it beyond this presidency and give the next president a year. if we are, that will give the new administration they responsible. of time to determine what it wants to ask from the congress. on that, i think there is a significant omission from the draft -- there is no limitation, no statute of limitation, on the original 2001 authorization, and i think that is a key problem.

in the absence of that, women do authorization expires three years from now, the next president can simply fall back on reliance in the old authorization. in that respect, the new sunset date will have very little impact. the next president can rightly say i am going to ride on the 2001, it gives me every authority i need. i know that is not the intention. the intention was that this new authorization should serve not to broaden its authority that as a limiting force, that it is without a sunset and doesn't limit this administration or the next in any appreciable manner. i think that is a key issue in the democratic caucus in the house, judging from the conversation we had this morning. the other major issue is the language pertaining to ground troops which is very broad, very ambiguous. none of us know what and enduring offensive combat

operation mean. deliberately drafted to be ambiguous. for one thing i guess the only thing we can safely assume is that whenever mission might be authorized it won't be called enduring freedom or enduring anything, but that is not much of a limitation. as a practical matter the president to decide 100,000 troops in syria for 18 months and claim this is not enduring. it doesn't put much constraint on the administration. one thing we need to keep in mind is that this authorization need not and won't be the end of the word in terms of the president's responsibility. if it turns out conditions change and -- one other issue is there is no geographic limit --

libya or go after boko haram there is nothing saying he can come back to congress. i think there is more risk associated with an overly broad authorization in one that is too narrow. these are the key issues. narrowing the language on ground forces, and i think the good news on that front is when the president and administration describes what they want the authority to do, we want to be able to do search and rescue, to provide intelligence, those are things i think the congress all support. if we are able to drafted in a way that provides the president with the or anyone spent doesn't open the door for doing things unintended, than we can find the common ground we need. the last thing i would say is what puts this in context for us is how these old authorizations have been interpreted. they have been interpreted very broadly and i think many of us are very conscious of wanting to make sure this new authorization

doesn't take on a life of its own the way the old ones have, and that will guide a lot of our thinking in terms of the policy debate that follows. >> the authorization you crafted earlier did not have a repeal. could you support an authorization that does not repeal 2001, and subsequently take care of that? >> adam and i are in complete agreement that we need to work on a significant revision of the 2001 aumf. the version i introduced in september and the version i voted for -- it did not include a provision. the one i voted for in committee did include the provision. i strongly support the notion that we have got to do an additional reassignment.

the president called for in may, 2013. there has been some consultation on the senate about that, but we need to approach it with a sense of urgency. whether it is expressed by including it in the authorization, or whether it is expressed by ramping up the effort to revise that authorization, we need to do one of those things. as long as there is a commitment to focusing on this i think this is something the president should do. >> you said that -- how much time has been lost year, do you think, over the past six months of the realization of getting through this congress, when you are saying it is too broad and senator kaine says it ties his hands? how long of a debate do you

think we are looking at here? is there a spirit of urgency that is needed? >> i think there is now a spirit of urgency. more than speed, getting it right is important. i want to do it asap, but it is important to air concerns and find common ground. the good news is that the white house has an overwhelming bipartisan consensus. we need to be engaged in military action. i could recite the atrocities in reverse order since september -- it has become more apparent that we need to do it. we need to approach it with a sense of urgency but put a premium on getting it right. i regret that it has taken us this long. the right way to do this is for congress to have the debate upfront. absent an imminent threat, the right way to do it is for the

president to presented to congress. this is not the first time this has happened -- we have seen presidents overreach. i comes down to -- it is not just constitutional, it is a value proposition. if we are going to ask people to risk their lives, we ought to do our job. to make people risk their lives and say -- there is a midterm coming up, it strikes me as the height of public immorality. >> just to add on that -- congress is the branch that has lost over the last six months. now that the president has been put before a specific proposal there is no excuse for congressional inaction. i hope we bring all urgency to this. we are talking weeks, and not months. but congress can no longer shirk its responsibility.

>> to that end, in terms of congress's responsibility, the political consequences are unmistakable. obama didn't vote for and hillary did. shockwaves even now. what is going to prevent your colleagues from doing what you don't want them to do -- shirk on a real policy when they are going to have political concerns if the war goes wrong? they have seen examples of what happens if they do. so many of your republican colleagues think this goes not far enough. they are concerned that there is not an aspect that confronts assad. where is the consensus on that?

>> there are still going to be members that we would rather not have to vote on this. these are the most consequential decisions we make but i think the pressure is too great for us to act. i am counting on the rest of our country holding our feet to the fire. it should be an issue for any officeholder, not just on how they vote but whether they are willing to vote. i think the die is cast, all of us will have to live with that final language, which is why we are going to give it great care and why when it comes to issues like ground forces we are going to be very careful about what we are prepared to authorize. the only other point i would want to make on the language is that these are discreet issues

but there is an overlap to the issues in the sense that if you get a geographic limitation you might be more comfortable with a broader description of the ground forces, if you know that doesn't authorize ground forces and other nations, for example. if you get a limitation on some of the old aumf that they give you more comfort on some of the other issues. there are enough variables here where we should be able to get an agreement. i think the pressure is going to be too great on the congress. >> how do you manage the pressure from the administration to pass something like what they sent up today? considering what republicans are saying, that it doesn't go far enough, how do you manage the pressure from what the administration wants? >> i am still new enough to have

faith that the process is going to lead us into the right place. there is going to be all kinds of statements today, obviously and people are going to talk about the things they don't like. when we get into these hearings -- i saw it when we had the syrian debate -- we really dig into it. we ask penetrating questions. we find our way to an outcome. in that instance it was a 10-8 vote and what we voted on was different than what the white house proposed. we did some adjustments and amendments, and i think they are expecting it. political pressure -- that is important but we have servicemen and women risking their lives, and i hope it is that pressure that is on our shoulders.

>> it seems right now that we could be stuck for a while, at least on the house side, between ultra-liberals and ultra libertarians. >> they are going to be very strange bedfellows. i think there are substantial more amount of libertarian republicans who will be uncomfortable with a broad authorization. i find it deeply ironic to begin with that some of these members who are so critical of the imperial president are ready to make human imperial president when it comes to warmaking. i do want to address one other point you make -- the argument that by defining when we would use ground forces we are somehow telling the enemy what we are prepared to do. the reality is we have already expressed what our strategy is

and what military operations we will take, what we want iraqi forces to do, what our goals are, in providing language doesn't change that. i would be more concerned about having either this president or the next embark on a campaign that has not achieved the buy-in of the american people through the congress using an authorization that was wholly unintended. that i think is the graver risk, than telling what our intentions are. >> it is very connected to my concern about the regional partners. if it ends up that we have to go out in tells me that the regional partners who have ground forces, who have equipment, is they are not in then we have to use ground troops and they are not standing up against the threat to narrow

region. that is something we need to be wary about, taking on the burden for those who want to stand back. >> hi. i have a question regarding -- what is there to guarantee that, given how difficult it has been for congress to get anything done at all, now that we are talking about one of the greatest duties congress has what is there to guarantee that anything we passed, in particular since the white house has the fallback measure that they said they have been relying on all along. they don't actually need congress to back anything at all. why do you think the white house has left that in their? is it because it is a failsafe to congress not acting? >> there is no guarantee. the white house had the votes in september. the votes were there in this body in september to authorize

this military action. i know that because we did cast a vote on the hardest piece of it -- the syria side, in a resolution before the midterm recess. that is the toughest piece. it was wrapped up as part of a larger spending bill, so possibly people would say -- that didn't mean anything -- but i was watching people confront this in september. the bipartisan support was there. if anything, the events since september have demonstrated to all of us the danger of isil unchecked and the ability of the united states to make a difference. you made a difference with the airstrike campaign. there is no guarantee, but the votes were there and i think that those are still there. >> [speaking spanish] >> [speaking spanish]

>> the one thing i can't do is translate.

>> i wanted to follow-up on an earlier question. in your talks yesterday with the administration officials, how much sense did you get that there is a give and take? how far as the administration willing to go when you talk about adding restrictions, adding parameters, adding conditions? >> i think there is a real willingness to negotiate. a strongly wanted authorization. i think the administration feels that it is important that congress have a buy-in, that the american people have a high through congress. i think they very much want an

authorization and they are trying to gauge what can navigate through this process. one thing i think the administration doesn't want, to to want an authorization that is so narrowly drawn that if they find it necessary to go outside the confines of the authorization and rely on the old authorization, they don't want to be perceived as acting unlawfully, and i think that is a legitimate concern for the administration. they are going to want to be bound by what we come up to. i have a little less sympathy for where the white house -- i don't feel this is a constraining document as it is written. i think it is quite carte blanche in terms of geography. therefore i think we are going to have to have a lot of work on that.

the other part is i think they want this to be broadly bipartisan. i don't think they would like to see a resolution that has overwhelmingly support from the democrats and they are not likely to get the opposite if congress is controlled by the gop. >> you have been asked this for six months -- clearly the administration didn't come to this quickly. what did they tell you about what has changed now? what is different now? >> that is a question to ask the white house, but i do know this. i wrote my first op-ed about this in june, 2013, that isil was moving unchecked. i said, mr. president, you have all the authority you need. that offended my sensibilities. i don't feel bound by an earlier administration. i look at the words that congress passed, and i did not think either authorization justified this.

i wrote and said, if you are going to do this and it looks like we will have to, come to us. as i look at why it took so long, i am frankly adamant -- i think more of the timing delay goes on congress postural or's. what i have liked it if they had had a draft authorization the morning after the president spoke to the nation on the 10th of september? absolutely. that they were definitely hearing from congressional leadership. that is the way it has been since 1787. james madison drafted this part of the constitution. the constitution is an array of provisions from the super specific to the super vague. and the constitution, the war powers pieces on the specific

side. congress declares war, congress funds war, the president is the commander-in-chief. we have ratings from others -- madison explained why they did it that way and what he said is the world today, war is an executive function, for a king or a sultan or a monarch. we are altering the course of human history and making the beginning of war not for the monarch, but for the people's elected representatives. a debt that because madison knew that executives overreach. but madison was naive because he didn't also realize that legislatures -- there has been a symbiotic pathology of executive overreach and legislative edification since the ink was dry. it is bipartisan -- the matter

who was in president or who is in congress, it has been bipartisan. the right answer is not just the one that is constitutional. the constitutional allocation of powers was based on a value judgment that you don't send people to risk their lives unless there is a political consensus that the mission was worth it. even when the mission was worth it asking people to risk their lives a big ask. but when there isn't a debate isn't a discussion, it is the height of public immorality to put people in a situation where they have to risk their lives when there is an unclear consensus. we haven't made that ask because we haven't been willing to have the debate and that has been viscerally upsetting to me about this lengthy delay. i have so appreciated people who didn't just say, let us be

bystanders, see that takes care of itself -- we have to be in the middle of it. >> you like to talk about redlines -- where is your line on this? where with the administration lose your support for this? >> we haven't talked so much about this. syria is going to be a challenging issue in the committee, not because of the draft but because it is tough. in iraq, we have a government, that after the removal of maliki, is trying to be a government by and for all iraqis. it is nascent, it is early, we have to see how it develops. but there is a government that is intended to be a government for all iraqis. there is a well tested militia that fights on behalf of the kurds. there are assets to work with.

i think what you will see is that will be where the initial phases of this will likely concentrate. you have got a brutal civil war, probably the worst humanitarian crisis since world war ii. you have that civil war, the iranian force and hezbollah, al qaeda of other players -- that is going to make it more difficult to define what the mission is. the way i put it in my head is like this. we got into world war ii against germany and we didn't invade germany. who went to north africa, italy, western europe -- and eventually we got to germany, but it was phased. the iraqi phase is where you will see the most action. the serious phase will take some training. i think it is going to take more

aggressive delivery, now that people are closing off their borders, we are going to have to do that in a vigorous way. all those things will take place against the backdrop of the civil war. you are going to see is engaging in a whole lot of tough question when we get into the q&a. >> i don't know whether you were referring to the much broader issues in terms of the war itself or whether there are redlines in terms of the authorization. i think there are a lot of movable pieces and i don't think any of us ought to start with a redline. in order to get this through when you have everything from the mccain and graham on the one hand, to those who don't want

any authorization, there will have to be some compromise. for my own point of view that compromise will have to be more limited on ground forces and i feel very strongly about taking steps on the original authorization. i want to say how far we are from the ideal so we can put things in perspective. the ideal would be a sunset, but rather an authorization that dealt with both al qaeda and isil, that repealed the old authorizations which described a different conflict, replaced with something new that pertains to both. i don't think there is an expectation we could accomplish that and if we can the next best thing is to do one that is focused on isil. >> thank you very much.

>> following the president's authorization request on the use of or's against isis, a house panel will hold a panel on combating the militant group. we will hear from the former u.s. ambassador to iraq. i live coverage starts tomorrow at 10:00 eastern on c-span3. in the afternoon, national counterterrorism center director will testify about the u.s. counterterrorism efforts. it is live from the senate intelligence committee at 2:30 eastern, also on c-span3. >> house speaker john boehner said the senate democrats should pass the bill to fund the homeland security department.

it would also restrict president barack obama possible executive action on immigration. speaker boehner made the remarks at a house gop news conference. >> good morning, everyone. new lighting effect here. this week the house will continue to focus on the people's priorities, passing another three bills that will increase a number of jobs available in america. we'll advance tax relief for small business that will help create some 200,000 new jobs. we're going to continue to keep our promise to the people by finishing our work on the keystone pipeline. you've all heard me say this before, we build pipelines all around america every single day. keystone has been reviewed and

approved numerous times. even our president's own state department will say it creates 42,000 new jobs, but instead of listening to the people, the president is standing with a bunch of left-fringe extremists and anarchists. the president needs to listen to the american people and say, yes, let's build the keystone pipeline. >> hear, hear. >> i'll pause for a moment so you can keep writing that down. as the speaker said, this is actually a big week and we're taking up three bills. three bipartisan bills. keystone pipeline. taking the version that came directly out of the senate. charitable donations. and small business tax relief act. yesterday, cathy and i and jason smith, nonprofit -- toured the nonprofit d.c. central kitchen. it was created by an individual

who happened to be a small business owner. he was a promoter. he watched individuals that were hungry and thought i could do something about it. in 1989 he took that excess food and created the d.c. central kitchen. in doing so he fed people. did he more than just feed people. he created jobs and went beyond. we met an individual there by the name of dwayne. dwayne had served in prison for a number of decades. came out, went to cullnear school. -- culinary school. he's now been manager for eight years. he has a 5-year-old daughter and he talks about her college fund and her future. that -- a simple individual somewhere in america decided to do something and create something better, that's what our bill continues to enhance. too many times in washington they put these cliffs out and continue, can you get the

donations. we enhance that to make it permanent and we do it long and before this sunset begins. small business, everywhere we go, we know that's the lifeblood of creation. the expensing is the greatest part of where they look for investment. so three bipartisan bills. you're going to see republicans and democrats vote for them. but you know what else they have in common? three veto threats by this president. i don't think the president should veto energy security throughout north america. i don't think the president should veto charitable giving across the country. i do not think the president should veto small business growth. this is an opportunity with this new american congress that president can rethink what he's prioritizing, because in this congress we care about growing america's economy, not washington.

>> the house has been focused on creating jobs and we started right out the box passing the keystone pipeline bill. the senate made some changes sent it back and today we're going to take that bill up and send it to the president's desk to create over 40,000 american jobs. i urge the president to sign this bill. in his veto threat, the only thing he cited were issues in the state of nebraska. those issues have now been resolved. there are no issues that the president has stated with that bill that shouldn't be able to overcome and the president shouldn't stand in the way of creating those good american jobs and that important energy security. so as we send that i over i hope he takes it up and signs it. something we sent over to the senate deals with funding the department of homeland security. in that bill we also put in language that prevents the president from moving forward on illegal actions on executive amnesty. the senate's got that bill. there are some people saying well, how are we going to get the department of homeland security funded?

the way to do it is for the senate to do the job that the house already did. it's time for the senate to take up the house-passed bill and send it either back to the house if there's something they don't like about it or send it to the president's desk. there are a number of senators who are voting against bringing this bill up to fund the department of homeland security who months ago made statements in support of the house bill. actually said that the president doesn't have the authority to do what they do and now they're voting against the bill to fund the department. it's time for those senators to put their money where their mouth is, to actually vote to take the bill up. if there's something they don't like about it, the legislative process actually allows them to put an amendment at the desk and go and fight to make that change. that's how this legislative process works. so we passed a bill to f