>> senator, i'd like to say, i don't think the iraqi shia are the problem. and there are elements in the popular mobilization forces and so forth that i think are not pro-iranian and do not desire to be governed by iran. dr. kagan: and of course this is the view of the grand ayatollah and the people who follow him, that iraq is arab country and they don't want to be dominated by persians. however the most effective they are part of the iranian military, the corps reports to the commander of the kurds' force. there are reports to the force. and we have seen this repeatedly.

it's not a shia problem but a specific problem of iranian -- they are no longer proxies but extensions of the iranian irregular military forces and those are the militants that are leading the charge into ramadi, which is unacceptable. and they help get us off track by launching the attack on tikrit on their own which then failed and we had to bail them out, which was an enormous positive turning point for us because it demon stated the limitations of the ability of the iraqiey-controlled fight to the enemy. the benefit we gain from that, we move many steps back. if these groups are successful in taking part of ramadi when the troops we backed, failed, it will demonstrate the viability in a catastrophic way that will

undermine the independence that the i.s.s. might have and be a significant extension of iranian military power not just military influence in the region. senator ernst: my time is way over. senator mccain: i hope you will have them over to your house for dinner. before i turn to the senator, and i apologize for the disjoinedness of the votes on the floor, maybe you can respond to this. i don't know if there's a real logical argument that would counter what has been said here today as far as the assessment of the overall situation is concerned, because i think the facts on the ground would indicate that there's strong support for the argument or the

position that you have stated, but yet we have members of the military who have many years of experience, who have fought in iraq and afghanistan and yet as military spokesmen make statement that are totally divorced, if not reality, but certainly directly counter to the testimony that you have given here today. i do not understand it. maybe colonel harvey, could i begin with you? >> what i find is quite often our commanders and leaders are misreading the operational environment that they're dealing with. they don't understand the well enough. and part of the problem there is the intelligence that they get is reporting of information and not being put in context in a

deep way to understand how they are organized, how they think operationally and strategicically. it is reporting history rather than thinking who they are and what the enemy is doing. senator mccain: does that mean we are winning? >> they are looking at the wrong metrics as i said in my opening statement. in order to get the context, you need to have the deep dive and focus in on this and quick looking at this on a day-to-day basis. you have to understand who the enemy is and how they're going to win and probably we need better alternative analysis about this and be truthful to ourselves on how we are doing on our lines of operation. senator mccain: this is argument for team b? >> we had group think. in may of 2006, we were being told everything is on track.

senator mccain: i remember it well. >> they are focusing on what their mission set is. where is the order to actually impose our will and defeat the enemy. how are we going to align our force structure and national capabilities in partnership with allies and folks on the ground that we can count on to build momentum to impose our will, to establish security? we don't think in those terms anymore, we talk about management rather than breaking the will of the enemy. general keane: i share your frustration. i know we all share it and talk it among ourselves quite a bit. we had a person last week who made a report to the american people at large that we, in fact, were succeeding in against isis and pushing back against

them and only conducting small attacks against us. that hasn't been true since we started. and certainly isn't true now. so one, this committee members when i provided testimony in 2006 and we were pushing against the narrative at that time by senior generals and secretaries of defense, et cetera, we were asked the same question, how could that be, how could capable people well intentioned be so wrong. and once we make up our minds once we are going to do something inside this military culture, we drive towards it. and we have a pendency to a fault to see those who contribute to what that mission's success is and to

disregard and to minimize those things that are pushing against it. that's inside our culture. how do you fix that? one way and one way only. competent leadership fixes that. you don't permit that to happen. because you are driving honest, deep dive assessments of what is taking place. these are the four things we are going to do. how could you ever come to the conclusion that isis is losing if it enjoys freedom of maneuver, a principle of warfare and it can attack at will any place of its choosing and any time of its choosing. if a force has the capability to do that and get results as a manifestation of that, then that force, in fact by definition is winning and so the leaders should say to those below him, say, what are you talking about?

none of that makes any sense. this is what this force is doing and this is what they are capable of. we have got this wrong and how we are going to fix it. that is about competent leadership. senator mccain: senator contain. -- kaine. senator kaine: dr. kagan you said something that i wrote down, we shouldn't be spectators. you were going through the atrocities i saw they were committing and how dangerous they are. we are spectators. congress, congress has been a spectator since august 8, we have been a spectator. absent the one vote in september that we took to arm syrian moderates, there is no evidence that congress is concerned at all about isil, none.

our allies have no evidence that congress is concerned. as an institution, not individuals. our allies has no evidence that congress is concerned about isil. but most tragically, the thousands of people, u.s. men and women who are deployed and fighting this battle every day they have no evidence that congress is concerned about isil in the least. we have been at war since august 8. everybody calls it a war. the president calls it a war. within two weeks, the article 2 mission were pretty safe and said we have to go on the offense. and presidents since jefferson said that was the dividing line between article 2 power and article 1 where the president has to declare war authorizing military action. now for 9 1/2 months we have

failed to do what is our fundamental job. there has not been a declaration of war thrfment has not been an authorization for use of military force. there has been no house committee action. there has been no house floor debate or vote. there was one committee vote in the senate foreign relations committee. but no meaningful floor debate or floor action. we are in a congress that loves to punch this president as an imperial president and does stuff without congressional approval under the most solemn duty under article 1, we have been silent. when we have all these people overseas who are risking their lives. congress is the spectators. we have opinions. we call the play differently, but we're spectators when we ought to be decision makers. this is now a war into the tenth

month without a basis. the president has in his own words acknowledged that he has gone past the article 2 power of imminent defense. to claim that the 2001 or 2002 authorizations cover, doesn't make any sense. doesn't make any sense. and congress has come up with one excuse after another to avoid taking action. the first excuse was this, the leaders, both parties, both houses, went to the white house in june and said do not make us take action in congress before the midterm elections. and congress adjourned with an ongoing war six weeks before a midterm election. the earliest adjournment since 1960 with an ongoing war, and haven't done anything about it. after the midterm election, then

it was well, now the senate's going to change hands and shouldn't do anything as a lame duck senate. so we waited until january. then we came in and folks said, we shouldn't do article 1 because the president hasn't sent us a draft authorization. i harshly criticize the administration not sending over an authorization. it doesn't excuse congress for not doing the job we are supposed to do. there is an authorization pending before congress since the 17th of february, and still haven't done anything. and i don't know what the excuse is now. i think you can only conclude that we don't want to take it up because he we are either indifferent to this threat, i think we don't have the backbone to take up the job and do what congress is supposed to. there are others who are doing their job. we deploy thousands into the

theater of battle. two folks who were pilots off the deck of the theodore roosevelt crashed a plane on takeoff the other day. and deploying thousands and risking their lives. we have had deaths of american servicemen. we have had deaths of american civilians who were held hostage. isil didn't start executing american hostage until we started bombing them on the -- 8th of august. we still haven't done anything. and now the cost past the $2 billion mark and still haven't done anything. i would have never contemplated before i came to this body that there would be a situation in which congress would tolerate an ongoing war and just stand back and say, well, i guess the

president can do whatever the president wants to do. it's not supposed to be that way. i'm hoping that the challenging events of last weekend not only the fall of ramadi, but if you go into the details of that special forces operation in syria, very, very serious. we were lucky we didn't lose u.s. lives in that operation. it was very well done. but this is complicated and detailed and going to go on for a long time and i wonder how much longer congress is going to be a spectator. we can criticize the white house stray -- strategy, but we haven't earned the right, we haven't earned the right to be critics as long as we stand back and don't do the one thing that congress is supposed to do. thank you, mr. chair. senator mccain: i know there's a question somewhere.

senator graham. senator graham: does the current strategy in iraq and syria have any chance to succeed? general keane: and respect you asking the question quite frankly. the answer is no. senator graham: does everybody agree the answer is no? does everybody agree that under current configuration that the problems in iraq and syria present a direct threat to the homeland? >> yes. yes. senator graham: i had a conversation with the director of the c.i.a. echoed that sentment. failure in iraq and syria is putting the homeland at risk because so many foreign fighters are flowing in and they have the ability to hit us here at home, is that all correct?

>> yes. senator graham: general keane, you described the strategy as not enough? general keane: it is far from it and we laid out details to support that. senator graham: do you see any way to defeat isil in syria without a substantial army involved? general keane: i don't know how you get there. if we deployed tens of thousands of troops ourselves we could defeat isil in syria. i don't think anybody here would recommend such an event. i think the people would get involved. you know they have said as much but we have to do something to change the momentum of the assad regime. senator graham: is it fair to say that no arab army is going into syria unless one of the objectives is to take assad down? dr. kagan: absolutely. senator graham: they aren't

going to fight isil and leave assad in power, is that correct -- i mean iran? dr. kagan: what we're seeing is increasing levels of support of various varieties. senator graham: i want people to understand that our strategy is to empower islamic groups to fight assad rather than having an army on the ground made up of allies is that fairly accurate? the arabs are choosing to work with the terrorists because there is a vacuum cre indicated. dr. kagan: i don't think that's the intent of our policy. senator graham: but that's the effect. dr. kagan: yes. senator graham: we find ourselves or allies in the region supporting a terrorist group as a last resort prop sayings because american is awol.

do you see a scenario of dislodging isil taking assad out that doesn't require sustained effort by the world to put syria together? >> i do not see. senator graham: we are talking years and billions of dollars? >> i believe so, yes. senator graham: i don't want to butcher your last name, if this war keeps going on, do you worry about jordan and lebanon being affected? cat mr. katulis: i do. we are doing important things to help strengthen that government. senator graham: if we lost the king of jordan, we would be losing one of the most trustworth allies in the region? mr. katulis: yes. senator graham: there are more syrian children in school than lebanese children? mr. katulis: it should shock

everybody. senator graham: more kids in elementary school in lebanon from syria than lebanese kids. if this war continues in its current fashion it will create unending chaos in the middle east that will change the map for generations to come, do you agree with that? >> yes. senator graham: no way to get iraq right until you deal with syria, is that correct? >> that's correct. senator graham: iran is all in when it comes to syria. assad wouldn't last 15 minutes, would you agree? >> it is critical. senator graham: if we give them $50 million to iran, it is highly likely that money would go to assad? >> and the rest of his proxies. senator graham: have you seen anything to suggest that the iranians are changing the behavior for the better when it comes to the region?

>> on the contrary, they are becoming more aggressive. senator graham: are they the most aggressive they have been in modern times? would you say the iranians are directly responsible for toppling a pro-american government in yemen? >> they contributed to it for sure. senator graham: would you agree that now we have lost our eyes and ears, al qaeda is growing as a threat to the homeland? >> isis is imagining position. senator graham: syria is now a perfect forum to launch an attack against the united states because there are so many fighters with western passports? >> yes. senator graham: do you agree that the shia militia on the ground are controlled i by the iranians? >> yes. senator graham: we are doing permanent damage if we allow them to have dominance on the battlefield? >> yes. senator graham: do you see any good thing coming from this

strategy being continued? >> no. destined to fail. senator graham: there is a better way we just have to choose that way? there is a better way, do you all agree? >> yes, sir. senator mccain: senator cruise -- senator cruz. senator cruz: thank you for your service and your leadership. i would like to ask the panel first for your assessment of the current level of success we are seeing in the military campaign against isis. >> it is failing, senator. that's our assessment across the board that it is failing in iraq failing in syria and failing across the board in the region. senator cruz: why is it failing? >> in my view it was ill

conceived to begin with, because it focused on iraq. it was badly underresourced and excessive restraints and constraints were put on the limited resources we were willing to deploy. senator cruz: could you please elaborate on the excessive constraints that have been placed on our military? dr. kagan: we have forces in theater that could have made a significant difference i believe in the fight for ramadi had they been allowed to embed at lower levels and had they been allowed to perform functions and bring in air support and have some of the rotary wing aviation that we have in theater being used indirect support of that fight. had the forces that we have in theater been able to go out to the tribes and reach out to them directly rather than relying on the tribes to come to them there were a number of things

that even this limited force could have done that would have made a difference, but the force was probably too limited to be decisive in any event. >> just to add on to that. general keane: there are components of the president's strategy and you see problems with them as well. but the military component is clearly underresourced and not enough advisers and the role of the advisers is fundamentally flawed itself. the advisers have to be down where the units are fighting. what reason is that? because they help them plan and execute and contribute to their success and have the capability to call in air strikes. they have the capability to use drones in support of those ground forces to help acquire intelligence for them and they

can use attack helicopters as well. and therefore, the air strikes that we currently have, which are excellent in taking out command and control, other low gist particular infrastructures and facilities, it starts to fall off very rapidly when you are dealing with mobile targets and then the overwhelming amount of combat that takes place to use military terms, is close combat in urban centers that are populated and where we get -- we, our forces, iraqi forces get very close to the enemy. to be able to do that, you have to guide the bombs from that airplane take control of them and that's called close air support. that's what we need the forward air controllers for. so the effectiveness of our air power is this, 75% of the missions that are flown come back with their bombs because they cannot acquire the target

or properly identify the target so they have some assurances that they aren't going to hurt somebody with those bombs. that changes dramatically if we put those forward air controllers on the ground. i tell you what, if you're fighting as the fighting took place in ramadi and as that fight unfolded. they have prepared for weeks to get to ramadi. this was not due to a sandstorm. this is taking out supporting towns, other attacks that led to finally an assault using suicide bombers' vehicles to do that. if that force had anti-tank weapons, they could have killed those vehicles or apache helicopters, they could have killed those vehicles. they destroyed entire blocks and entire units because the explosives were so heavy. after that came the fighting forces themselves.

again, if we had close air support, we could have dealt with the fighting forces before they actually closed the iraqi military helicopters would vr impacted them and we have a close fight and assuming the iraqi forces could deal with that. but i would tell you this many of those iraqiy -- iraqi forces did fight in ramadi and a lot of them fled as they watched suicide bombers get blown out and watch the caravans coming down the road get blome up because we have proper surveillance and we have resources that can deal with that. anti-tank guided missiles and the like. we start to change the dimension on the battlefield very significantly as a result of providing them with the proper

resources. these are the constraints that are out there that are manifested itself in the behavior of the iraqi security forces. they have their own problems. leadership, discipline morale and competence. but there is a lot we can do to make a difference. senator cruz: let me ask, the administration is currently declining tore arm the kurds. the peshmerga are fighting isis and they are effective allies. the judgment, the policy of not arming the kurds makes very little sense. i would be interested in the panel's assessment that should we be arming the kurds and is the current policy reasonable and effective in defeating isis? dr. kagan: i think it's a consensus on the panel we should be helping the kurds defend themselves, but the kurds will not be able to be effective partners in retaking the

portions of arab iraq that they control but we should be helping the kurds defend themselves, i think. senator mccain: could i point out that we are not refusing to arm the kurds. the problem is as it goes through baghdad and the kurds continue to complain that there is not the kind of facilitation of the delivery of those weapons. but the senator's point is for all practical purposes i think correct. senator king. senator king: one of the phrases struck a cord with me. raises the question of intelligence. and general keen, would you comment, do we have adequate intelligence, do we have any intelligence and have we become too reliable on signal intelligence and therefore don't

have human beings giving us the information? general keane: it is put to the military leaders when they come in here because they have the details of it. but this much i do know. my sensing from talking to my sources is the intelligence function is not robust enough. and yes, we are relying on national intelligence sources and some regional intelligence sources. some of that is surveillance and some of that is signals intelligence as well. but there's a lot more that we can do to assist them. we use surveillance a lot to assist the use of air power because it's not controlled by forward air controllers. we need different kinds of surveillance in there to assist grouped forces. when we were fighting in iraq

and now finishing up in afghanistan, our maneuver units used different kinds of drones. they are much smaller. they don't stay up necessarily as long as those that assist the air function and assist the ground commanders. that kind of capability there controlled by u.s. would dramatically make a difference for the ground forces that are in the fight because that would give them the ability to see the preparations the enemy is making and see the execution before it impacts on them and most importantly to do something about it. i think the entire intelligence function has got to be put on the review. we have a tendency to focus on other things that are kinetic, but the intelligence function in this kind of warfare is significant in terms of its enhancing ground forces and air forces to be able to use their capabilities to the fullest.

mr. king: -- senator king: we continue to be surprised. >> i'm at the university of south florida and we drafted a paper that ramadi was going to fall last week and looking at data through open source information. but understanding the enemy, their intent trying to get inside how they are orchestrating the fight. it's knowing what to do with the information and how to think about it. the warnings were there. the indicators were there. if we could see it at the university of south florida and institutes of warsaw that, we shouldn't be making statements saying ramadi wasn't going to fall and wasn't under threat because that creates another problem of its own and then you have a collapse and looks like

there is a real problem in our communication at the most highest levels of our government. senator king: and makes them look invincible and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. you made a strong case for things like close air support, forward controllers, all of those kinds of things. but isn't one of the fundamental problems, we could have all of those assets, but if the iraqi security forces don't have the will to fight and if the local population doesn't have any confidence in this government in baghdad, it's still a very difficult if not impossible proposition. can you give me some thoughts on that. dr. kagan: i agree with the statement that you made if those two conditions are true, then it's difficult to impossible. i don't think it's not true that the iraqi forces don't have the will to fight.

as we have seen repeatedly will to fight is one thing, belief in your ability to succeed is another critical component in the will to fight and we have provided it historically to our allies in iraq and afghanistan and nato allies who rely on our overmatching military capabilities just as much as the iraqis would. we can make it so that the iraqis don't have to worry about being overrun. that's what we used to do. we are allowing them to be overrun in these circumstances and that erodes their will to fight significantly. your point about the political accommodation is incredibly important, we need to have an iraqi government that is able to reach out to sunnis. the more we try to subcontract these conflicts to local forces in preference to our own -- senator king: a shia militia and

exascerbates the sectarian conflict and makes isis look good to the sunni chiefs in anbar. i don't think they look good to anybody. but if they don't have confidence and isn't that one of the fundamental problems here is that isis has been swimming if not in a friendly sea but a neutral sea? dr. kagan: it is a fearful sea and terrorism works both ways and these guys are incredibly brutal in dealing with the populations they control. so people are going to require a certain amount of assurance that if they rise up, that they will win. the alternative is they would be completely destroyed as communities. general keane: the other thing is that the force that we had in iraq, the iraqi security force that took us a while to get them

to be effective, to be frank about it. and one of the things that made them very effective during a surge period where general petraeus changed the changes on the battlefield. platoons side by side and that dimension increased the capability of the force because they could see what right looked like. a sergeant could see a u.s. sergeant's performance, how he acted under stress, soldiers could see it and other leaders could see their counterparts. that force grew rather dramatically and we were there multiple weeks throughout 2007 and 2008, the three of us on this side of the table. and that was an effective force. and i can tell you for a fact because i saw it with my own eyes i saw battalion

commanders, brigade commanders and division commanders distinguish themselves in combat and under significant stress. and we felt good about that force. we were saying wow. they finally got it together. what happened to that force? so much attention has been placed on malaki's malice and what he did to underminimum the political opponents, he destroyed that force. he saw the distinguished leaders who were accomplished as a result of their performance on the battlefield and people devoted to them, he saw them as threats to him politically. and he underpalestined that force and purged that force. so that force is not there, the one we used to have. he put in his political cronies and pranks who didn't have the military experience.

getting that leadership back and others who are willing to have that kind of commitment and confidence, that takes time to fix. but the fact we did have it at one time and it was pretty good, tells you that there is something there that we can work with and get it back there. whether that can be done in time is another issue. senator king: in 2007, 2008, how many americans were in iraq. general keane: we had somewhere in the neighborhood about 130,000 in iraq. and that's how that force -- but what i'm saying to you is when we finished, when we had completed our involvement in iraq, the force that we left there was a capable force, iraqi security force. senator king: what do we have to do to rebuild it?

i'm out of time. >> i want to talk about the issue of correct and there has been discussion about how we have lost correct with our allies in places like syria. and i want to talk about the importance of the issue of correct with the american people. and there has been i think a narrative in the administration that has not been helpful in that there has been an emphasis on the fact that we are now -- our combat role in the middle east is now fin issued. well of course it isn't finished. just tell that to the pilots who are flying daily missions. we think combat in terms of the infantry soldiers, but we forget the brave men and women who are flying these missions daily. that's combat.

and also with the recent delta force mission by some very brave americans, that is boots on the ground. we are in bottom combat and have boots on the ground and there is this narrative. do you think that this narrative, which is a false one in my view, has inhibitted our ability to develop a robust strategy? do we need other forces on the ground? and yet, we are competing with the narrative from the house that says, no, no, we are done. and that would be a limiting factor to developing a strategy that ultimately would do what we want it to do which is protect america's national security interests? general keane: when i look at it and try to speculate about what is driving some of our decisions , what is driving our narrative one of the things i have

observed since i have been closer to it in recent years than when i was when i was a younger officer is that most administrations, democratic or republican, have a tendency to overreact of what took place in the previous administration. and this one is no exception to that. making it a principle of the administration to a guarantor that we will not be involved in any military activity in the middle east or in south asia that could lead to another protracted war. and i think that's probably a good principle. but the issue is, that should not trump what's necessary to do given the fact that isis represents a new organization with new leadership, a new vision in terms of its global and regional strategy and that

it is a barbaric organization committing genocide, assassination, enlavement and raping of women, as we all know and that it is fully intent on conducting a religious war based on their ideology. and we cannot let the rearview mirror of iraq and afghanistan so disincentivize us to deal with the reality of what this is. and i'm convinced that the american people, when we inform them and we educate them and we take them through this, i mean, i dealt with the bush administration they never truly explained what radical islam is and why it's so dangerous. we never took apart the ideology. we never truly fashioned a strategy to deal with it in a

comprehensive way and here we sit with the same problem today. >> i think that's a great point and something that i think -- my own view is that you are directly on point. if we level with the american people and talk about the threats, talk about the strategy that is important and many of you have been raising that, i think everybody recognizes once we lay that out what we would or wouldn't have to do to address it. let me ask a related question from -- for mr. kagan. you written on the long war, the idea that sometimes we look what's going on with isis and other issues in the middle east and think, we are going to have this done in 18 months, 20 months maybe a couple of years do you think that there's an importance to having the leadership both in terms of congress, but particularly the executive branch talk more broadly and again level with the

american people about that this might be a generational conflict. this might be akin to the cold war where we have to lay out a broad strategy and your point early on about the need for a strategic concept is so important. lay out a strategy that the executive branch and legislative branch and the american people can get behind and then execute it. and level with the american people that this might not be done in 18 months. so would have any of you -- dr. kagan, i know you have written about the long war. feel free to talk about that. when you talked about the strategic concept, what is it, 20 seconds left, that's a big topic, but point us to the direction of your wrigs or principles, that would be helpful. dr. kagan: this is a generational struggle that we're

in at least. >> we don't talk about it, do we? dr. kagan: the point you opened with is an important one, the administration's narrative is that we are ending the wars and impossible to develop a cohesive strategy for fighting the wars. these are battlefronts on a common war that is going to last for a long time and we don't get to end it unless we win. you don't get to decide -- we may not be interested in war but war is interested in us and this is going to be a problem and we need to level with the american people as you say, as a basis for developing any kind of strategy. i totally agree with you. >> we need to find what we want to achieve. quite often over the last 14 years, we define our objectives in terms of what we are going to counter and defeat. that's important. but what has been missing i think comprehensively whether

it's in iraq syria or afghanistan is the definition of what we actually need to leave behind in those societies, how we help others help themselves. i do believe at certain points, president bush did this, certain points president obama does this, talk about the long-term nature. if you look at their documents, as the administration used to say about afghanistan and iraq, we are going to end it. extend it into who will be the next president. your point is terribly point and i have written a book about this, too. it's important because for our own society, there is a new generation called millenials that are actually this year larger than the baby boomers. our leaders aren't messaging in a cohesive way and part of it is because of the partisanship we have in our politics. and i'm a strong sentist and we

need to bring the american people along with us and something senator mccain has said earlier and before is that the debate we need to be having on the authorization on the use of military force, action on it. this is a moment which has not been seized. you can criticize the administration or criticize whom ever in congress, there has been this muddle. and we actually haven't defined for the american public in the way that fred and others have argued here, that the u.s. has a special leadership role in the world. countries in the region are still looking to us to actually do more. but we need to actually take those steps beyond the questions on military and security steps which are terribly important. we need to talk about how do we fight these ideologies, we have done it with naziism and

communism. our values are better, but what happened to the battle of ideas? we had that debate for a couple of years after 9/11 and kind of rediscovered about that, but our attention deficit disorder and our society and as leaders in congress, we have the responsibility to talk about this in a sustained way. >> we have all had one round but if anybody has a second round. i'm going to seize the moment here to continue for a few moments.

senator kaine: significant armed troops. qatar said if there is significant ground troop presence from the united states and we are recruiting bonn ansa for isil. the meeting occurred with the saudis, so they are willing at least somewhere to take some significant military action to

deal with threats in their own region but said u.s. ground troops against isil would be problematic. i didn't read that to say not even one or under no circumstances, but they were very wary about the notion of u.s. ground troops. we are trying to work that out on the foreign relations committee as we think about an authorization. are they right or wrong, and if they are right, how would you square that with a u.s. presence should mean? >> i actually think for all of the criticisms of the obama administration strategy, some of which i share, this is the one component that didn't exist before. mr. katulis: it has been underutilized. the summit last week, though there were news articles about it, there is a conversation to try to build on what can we do in partnership with them. if there is one thing we should

have learned from 2003 to 2010 or 2011 in iraq, yes u.s. forces can have an important impact on the security situation there, but there are downsides to having a visible presence. i don't think anyone on the panel was talking about ever going back to 2006, 2007 posture. but i do think striking the right balance is the key question. the administration has been understandably rett is ant what it does in iraq and other places given unforced errors. the regional dynamic has shifted quite a lot. the region recognizes that the u.s. in a very visible presence on the ground does have significant downsides for their own legitimacy with their own population. the region is taking action in what it sees as its own self-interest in terms of a multi dimensional.

it is in media campaigns and political forces across the region. the u.s. strategy right now and honed in what my he can per tease and focus is, is working with those reliable partners from jordan to the united arab emirates to saudi arabia and the kurds and some of the iraqis to take what has been a significantly large amount of resources and activity and channel towards more constructive purposes. i don't see that happening in yemen or yet in syria. and i don't see that happening in many other theaters. the basic answer to your question and the leaders you spoke with are reflecting a very popular view at the popular level in their countries as well. they understand that for whatever happens in the iraq war , the u.s. is better sort of seen as a backbone of support as

opposed to out in the front. dr. kagan: we need to distinguish between the ideal and reality. it would be better for regions to be involved with the caveat that we do have a regional war going on and the regional actors we are talking about are on one side of that. we have to think about what the iranian reaction would be. i don't think we would enjoy that very much. and i think it might be worse than the iranian reaction to the deployment of u.s. forces in there. it is a complicated dynamic. in the world of reality the jordanians don't have the resources and the military aren't capable of providing the kind of assistance to iraq. they don't have it in their force structure. senator kaine: how about the

turks? dr. kagan: the turks might be able to provide some of it but no one provides the capability that the u.s. provides including the turks and they would be dependent on us. again, i'm not sure that the optics of the return of the ottoman empire would be better than the optics of having a limited amount of ground troops on the ground. the regional leaders are expressing an ideal version of a strat by -- strategy you would like to see. an amuf is where micro manages on what forces can and cannot be sent and it is up to the president to choose how to fight a war that congress authorizes. in these circumstances, it would constrain the deployment of ground forces which is exeemly necessary, would be extremely

damaging. >> this reminds me of the myth i heard in iraq about u.s. forces were the generator of the antibodies that caused the nurns. it was a misreading of what was going on in iraq and the drivers of the fight. we have to be focused on what are our u.s. interests and how do we defeat this enemy. and the seeds of strategic failure are found in failing to define that enemy, define our interests, the costs and the risks. and if we do those things and we think about our interests, it will drive us to engage more seriously than we have in my mind. it is a very similar situation today. we study radicalization, recruitment for the foreign fighter flow. the u.s. presence in iraq is not going to dramatically increase

that foreign fighter flow. it is being driven by a range of issues. and the different types of recruits that are being pulled in. the driver within iraq is not the u.s. presence, it's shia domination it's the fear for their future and their own lives and lack of political inclusion et cetera. that's the issue we need to get our head around. senator kaine: -- general keane: i agree what everybody said here and we talk past each other on this issue. no one here certainly is advocating that we should have ground units that are occupying towns and villages and securing them and therefore protecting them from isis attack that would put us right in the mainstream of defending against isis. i think that's unnecessary an it would be a mistake.

but also when we have a policy that says no boots on the ground, that doesn't make any sense either, because it denies us from having advisers that have a role to play. it denies us from forward air controllers having a role to play and other capabilities that are unique to us and we elaborated on what they are. they would make a difference in what the 60 nations have agreed to do, which is support the iraqi ground forces, as imperfect as they are. but let's give them a better hand to play than what we are doing. and i don't believe there is a single nation that would object to anything of what we are describing are enablers that would make a difference. second when it comes to syria, i think this is the difference.

and if you spoke to them about that you know what their view is about assad. we have dealt with that in their regime and they know full well to deal with isis and syria, this is going to take a ground force and they would have to contribute to that ground force. i would think that they would logicically ask us to participate in that with them. i don't think we would necessarily have to be the largest contributor, but i think we would have to participate. and i think they would want us, too, because of our experience and our capabilities if we would actually lead it. maybe not. but i think those two things would probably be on the table for discussion. and i think it's reasonable that that kind of allocation of u.s. capability and leadership to deal with isis and syria, is in fact an eventuality.

>> senator blumenthal, do you have questions for the panel? senator blumenthal: thank you for being here and thank you for your eloquent remarks and i was here in the beginning and i was diverted to another committee meeting after our vote. i want to come back to what mr. kagan was describing as the evil of isis, isil. and the absolutely horrid unspeakable acts of brutality that they commit mass rape, mass murder and i agree with you that they are one of the most evil, maybe one of the most evil instution in history. we can argue about it. but when i go home this weekend, most folks are going to ask me what's the threat to the united

states. and 50 years from now, others will be sitting where you are and where i am talking about probably other evil institutions that are committing mass brutality because that seems to be unfortunately the nature of the human condition. that has happened throughout our history. and i think the ordinary person in connecticut over memorial day weekend is going to wonder what our role should be in stopping that from occurring, unless there is a threat to this country. so perhaps you and others on the panel could tell me what i should tell the people of connecticut about why the united states should be involved, whether it is special operations forces or better air support or

whatever the involvement is and why that matters to our security. dr. kagan: as a connecticut native, i'm concerned about what you have to tell the connecticut people to get them on board with this. . as i was driving to virginia the other day, i was driving past the holocaust museum and saw the sign up there, which is never again. one of the things we need to tell the american people is that it is a core american value to take a stand. we do it too late, we try to talk ourselves out of it, but ultimately we generally do it. that's one of the things that make us america. i think we shouldn't use site of that fact.

the reality is isis poses a clear and present danger in the united states homeland. it has already been encouraging cone doning and applauding lone wolf attacks here. it has made it clear that it has the objective of attacking america and the west and it will do that with the resources of a mini state behind it which is something that we have never seen before with al qaeda. this is not a group of bandits hanging out in the bandits of afghanistan, and that was bad enough. but if we reflect on the resources isis has access to, controlling fallujah, ramadi, oil infrastructure, the resources that were in various universitys in mosul and so forth. thousands of fighters, tens of thousands of recruits. this is an army. and this is an army that is very sophisticated and has an ability to conduct operational military planning and execute it that is in advance of anything i've seen

from any of these groups and it has the claired etc. intention to come after the united states and shown a willingness to do that. that is something i think the people of connecticut need to be concerned about. senator blumen that will: i agree -- senator blumen thaul: i agree -- senator -- mr. keane: i agree with what fred is saying. there are groupsmark of them self-radicalalized or already radicalalized -- radicalized and they're motivated to take action. seen plenty of evidence of that. the longer you permit the organization to succeed can you imagine what has gone out on the internet from isis around the world as a result of the success in ramadi and how that has

motivated others that isis in fact is winning and they're standing up against the united states they're standing up against these strong allies of the united states in the region and europe and they're actually winning. so this huge -- so there's huge danger there. as long as you let this organization stay and we don't decapitate it, then the motivation and inspiration of self-radicalization continues to grow, that's one thing. the second thing is in the region itself, and we showed on a map, they're moving into other countries, at the same time they're defending what they have in syria and iraq and expanding. this is what make this is organization so very different than what we've dealt with in the past. they're looking at libya as -- because of the social and political upheaval in libya, and there's hardly a government

there and anybody to push back on it, they're going to put huge resources there. why are we concerned about that? our interest in the region, our interest in north africa, that would be on the southern tip of nato there, not too many miles away from italy. in afghanistan they have expanded rapidly beyond most of our expectations i would assume, into eight provinces in afghanistan. now we have interests in afghanistan for obvious reasons. so this is a movement that we can tie directly to the security of the american people and to our national security objectives of the united states in this region and in south asia. senator blumenthal: if i can put it a different way just to conclude it's more than just -- and by the way american values are directly and inevitably linked to stopping human atrocities, i agree totally with you, mr. kagan, but our

interests go beyond those values and by the way all of the reasons that you stated are the reasons i voted for the training and equiping measures that have been implemented but my frustration is that as you also have observed there is a huge gap between the goals and missions that we've outlined for the united states and the actual action that we're undertaking, the train and equip activities are way behind what we might have hoped by this point and there's no clear timetable for really achieving the level of capability that we expected or hoped. i hope this has been a very sobering morning. i thank you all for being here. thank you. senator mccain: i also want to

thank the witnesses. it's been, i think, helpful to all members and this is not an issue that's going oy way, so i'm sure that we'll be seeing you again. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

>> president obama met with his cabinet at the white house today he spoke briefly before the start of the meeting touching on the issue of combating isis. the president also said the u.s. will continue to pursue strong trade agreements and thanked the senate for taking action on his trade agenda. president obama: everybody all set? good. today i have the opportunity to welcome two of the newest members of our cabinet who haven't had a chance to be at a cabinet meeting before, our new secretary of defense, ash carter and our new attorney general, loretta lynch. we want too give them a big round of applause.

[applause] each of the men and women around this table have a very simple mission, although it's hard to execute. that is, how do we make sure we are continually expanding opportunity, prosperity, and security for the american people. the good news is about halfway through, 2015 -- halfway through 2015 we have seen some significant progress. the unemployment rate is now at its lowest in almost seven years. businesses created three million jobs over the past 12 months, nearly the fastest pace in over a decade. on the health care front, the uninsured rate has now fallen by the largest amount in four decades, even as health care inflation continues to be lower than it has been in a very long time. so our work is paying off. but we've got to build on that

progress. our overarninging -- overarching goal remains the same, which is how do we make sure everybody in the country gets an opportunity that means we keep fighting to make sure that community colleges are as free an universal as high school. that means we go after issues of poverty and inedwallity, urban and rural. we'll continue to expand on our job training agenda, our apprenticeship agenda, so people of all ages have the skills they need to succeed in this economy. it means we're going to continue to go after isil, get a strong deal that prevents iran from get agnew clear weapon, and as part of our agenda for middle class economics, it means we're going to continue to pursue strong trade agreements that benefit american workers and american businesses. and i want to thank the bipartisan group of senators who took a big step forward this morning on a trade agenda that

is consistent with strong labor standards, strong environmental standards and is going to open up access to markets that too often are closed even as these other countries are selling goods here in the united states. it's an agenda that's good for u.s. businesses, but most importantly, good for american workers. so we've got a lot to do over the next year and a half. we're going to run through the tape and i'm going to be hearing from everybody around this table in terms of how we are going to make sure that all of our agencies are working on all cylinders to accomplish these goals. all right? thank you very much, everybody. thank you, guys. >> we see the headline here in politico patriot act in

jeopardy as house skips town. senate majority leader mitch mcconnel is teeing up a weekend showdown over the patriot act hoping to pass a two-month extension of key expiring provisions even as the house showed no signs that it was willing to bail mcconnel out. the kentucky republican set up votes on competing proposals, a popular house bill that would rein in the national security agency's bulk phone records program and a two-month extension of all expiring provisions of the patriot act. those key procedural votes will happen on saturday unless every senator agrows to speed it up, including opponents of government surveillance such as kentucky senator rand paul who held the senate floor for 10 1/2 hours last night to speak against the n.s.a. programs. of course, we cover all senate sessions live on c-span2 and we'll keep you updated on the possibility of that saturday session.

>> for he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother. and gentlemen in england now abed shall think themselves acursed that they were not here. >> one drop of blood drawn from thy country's bosom, should be to thee more than fields of gore. >> the director of -- talks about shakespeare and how politicians use his words. >> sometimes you go with the words, the poetic sounds of the words, and the way senator byrd

did, you're able to pause and linger over a long phrase and stop and keep going. i think he's using the rhythms of the language, something that shakespeare did so brilliantly so he can take english and he can put it into high gear at one moment, and then slow down. and that's something that shakespeare lets you do if you're a politician. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> good night, good night, parting is such sweet, sweet sorry -- sorrow, and it really is. >> this sunday night at 8:00 eastern on "first ladies" influence and image, we look at the personal lives of flee first ladies, ann meagherson, leticia tyler and julia tyler. ann meagherson never set foot in the whout because her husband william harry -- william henry harrison dice after a month. leticia tyler becomes first lady when her husband assumes office, but she passes away a year later. her husband remar i marries --

remarries, julia tyler, the first photographed first lady. that's c spambings span's series "first ladies," about their private lives and influence on the presidency. sundays at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span3. as a complement to the series, c-span's new book, "first ladies: presidential historians on the lives of 45 iconic american women." it's available as a hard cover or ebook through your favorite bookstore or online book seller. >> senate democrats from amtrak's northeast corridor held a news conference today on capitol hill to call for increasing transportation infrastructure funding. the briefing comes more than a week after the amtrak train derailment in philadelphia that killed eight people and injured more than 200. a story in courts says to

modernize the 450 mile neevet corridor which carries 12 million passengers annually plus millions more riding commuter trains that utilize the track requires more than $20 billion upgrading the entire neevet corridor for japanese or french-style high speed trains would require another $150 billion. we'll watch those senate democrats who say amtrak shouldn't have to choose between safety and infrastructure. >> ok, good afternoon,

everybody. i want to thank all of my colleagues, every one of whom has advocate sod forcefully for amtrak in the neevet corridor, for being here, particularly senator reed, he's chair of the appropriations subcommittee on transportation, and senator booker, he's chairman of the rank -- he's ranking member of the -- and senator reid, ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee on transportation soon, again, soon again. and senator booker, ranking member on the authorizing committee of surface transportation, the commerce committee, as well as my other colleagues today. a little over a week ago americans living on a stretch of rail from washington to boston were given a harrowing and deadly reminder of the state of our train system. our thoughts go out to the victims, our thanks go to the first responders who work sod bravely to assist the victims. in the day after that tragedy,

the conversation turned to what needs to be done to ensure that amtrak is safe. the list is long. on the neevet corridor alone, we need to replace bridges that are over a century old. we -- on the northeast corridor alone, we need to replace bridges that are over a century old. we need to straighten out dagets curves and rebuild aging tunnels. what do all of these things have in common? they require full funding. if hard right republicans continue to underfund amtrak, just like the house appropriations committee did one day after the crash, amtrak will be forced to rob peter to pay paul. amtrak will be forced to decide between replacing aging bridges that could become dangerous, replacing old and outdated tracks, or installing life-saving technology on board our trains. the backlog of amtrak's projects that need work.

$21 billion. that's the number that amtrak needs to start working on right away in order to get its infrastructure in a state of good repair. and that number grows every year because the system is not a young, new system. throughout the northeast corridor, amtrak has some infrastructure that is so old, it was built and put into service when jesse james and butch cassidy were still alive and robbing trains. in new york, the bridge build in 1907 needs $165 million in maintenance and repairs. until it gets them, amtrak has to restrict the speefed the trains to 45 miles per hour. the gaitway tunnel connect new york and new jersey, essential to the northeast corridor, carried 55 million passengers under the hudson rive passengers under the hudson river. they were built in 1910. they were badly worn down by superstorm sandy and in just a decade they'll need to be shut

down for a year to be replaced that will shut down the whole northeast corridor as well as all the commuting between new jersey and new york. that will lead to unimaginable construction. those are just two examples. the list goes on and on in every one of our states system of we're joined today, here, with a very clear and simple message to our house republican colleagues. reject the house approached on don't shortchange our railroads. there is no doubt that a host of factors contributed to the infrastructure backlog but there is also no doubt it's going to take [captioning performed by national captioning institute] ing of amtrak to fix it. amtrak has asked for $2 billion in the coming fiscal year. we believe they ought to get every penny. senator reid. senator reid: thank you senator schumer and all my colleagues here today, i can think of 31 million reasons to invest in amtrak. 31 million. that's how many passengers amtrak served last year.

those numbers continue to grow. senator reed: amtrak kecks to jobs and to opportunities, it connect ours communities particularly along the northeast corridor. also it allows people to travel sometimes when they can't travel on highways and through the air because those corridors are so restrict. the northeast corridor is by far the nation's most traveled rail network and it is unacceptable that at a time when amtrak needs more than $21 billion to he pair and replace outdated and warn infrastructure, ranging from bridges and tunnels to communications to new tracks, it is unacceptable that our republican colleagues want to deny amtrak the funding it needs. transportation infrastructure needs to be a priority, especially when it comes to improving safety. the republican budget is headed the wrong way on amtrak. the house bill slashes amtrak by 18%. safe and efficient

transportation infrastructure is vital to our nation, it's vital to our economic growth, we need bipartisan cooperation to modernize our transportation system generate jobs improve public safety, including rail safety and i hope we end this partisan gridlock and move on and invest in our future and our economy. thank you. let me call on senator menendez. senator menendez: i think what we have here is a republican roadblock toward a greater economic future. we have a republican roadblock toward greater safety. in our transportation system. and we have a republican roadblock toward a better quality of life. all of these things, these elements, are part of a great transportation system of which amtrak is an essential part. so i look at my home state as an example of that. this bridge is a linchpin in the northeast corridor, carrying

passengers over a movable swing bridge over the hackensack river. from there hundreds of trains, thousands of passengers, go under the hudson river in an out -- in and out of new york city as the line moves throughout the northeast corridor. you'd think that given the importance of this connection, that the portal bridge and the hudson river tunnels would be a state of the art, world class infrastructure. you'd think that. and so as we see here in the congress, particularly with the house republicans, and republicans here waiting until the last minute to get transportation trust fund re-authorized or extended, and we're quibbling over $1 billion versus $1.4 billion. china is spending $128 billion. we're quibbling over a billion or $1.4 billion for amtrak, china is spending $128 billion in their rail system in just one

year. we should be doing everything we can to stay competitive. the portal bridge was build in 1910. it's subject to speed restrictions and regularly gets stuck after being opened to allow ships to pass underneath. the hudson river tunnels were built back in 1908, they were inundated as senator schumer said, with salt water after hurricane sandy. they continue to co-road, they're a real risk. before you know it, if we don't act now, we're going to find ourselves with tunnels that are closed and in a region that covers just 2% of the united states land mass but provides 20% of the nation's gross domestic product. $3.5 trillion. last point. as the ranking member on the mass transit subcommittee in the banking committee, i have heard

from testimony across the country of the challenges that we have. about 86 -- about $86 billion in maintenance backlog alone. that's not about creating an even better system. that's just about repainting the system we have and bringing it up to some state of repair. and when i hear speaker boehner say to a question, it's ridiculous that you ask that question, well actually, capital investments go to positive train control. that's a capital investment. so it's not a ridiculous question. safety and some of the elements of safety, the deployment of technology, the deployment of other elements, it costs money and they come from a capital account. and so these are all elements of why we have a republican roadblock that has to be removed for a brighter future. with that, let me call our colleague from pennsylvania.

>> i want to thank the senators. senator casey: amtrak and our rail systems across the country provide a great economic benefit, we know that. we know the feast corridor itself provides something on the order of $100 million of economic impact. but that will be diminished and our system overall will be greatly demin herbed if we don't make sure we insist on safety. i believe that just as the folks here believe before the tragedy of last week that took place in philadelphia, and after, that amtrak is not getting the dollars it needs to invest in that future. to invest in the growth that comes from that system and to invest in basic safety measures. we should be bringing, and i hope our republican colleagues agree that safety and economic growth are key, but they should be bringing to this issue, as we

should, the same sense of urningtcy and determination that those first responders brought to their job last week. and the individuals that i met with last week at temple hospital in philadelphia going home at the end of their shift from being called back one woman driving autoway to reading, pennsylvania, one hour away after her shift turned around and came back because she knew she had a job to do. the same is true of all the first responders. if we bring that same sense of determination, we can get this done. but what happened in the house last week was not a good indicator that the house republicans are focused on the same concerns. safety and the economic impact. we should not be putting amtrak in the position of having to choose between safety, like positive train control and other technology, and investing in fixing crumbling bridges or crumbling infrastructure. the congress of the united states should never put any

system, whether it's amtrak or rail across the country, in that position. to make that choice. we've got to do both. we've got to invest in safety and technology like positive train control as well as infrastructure. there's a report in the "philadelphia inquirer" today your paper, because it was there, i know it's true. it said the southeast pennsylvania authority authorities will meet the deadline for positive train control by the end of december. they had to spend -- or will have spent $300 million for positive train control for that one transportation authority. i have no doubt, but i don't have the number, i have no doubt they had to forego a lot of investment in their infrastructure to meet that deadline. they should never have been put in that position. we have to do both. we have to do the safety and invest in that, like positive train control and other safety features, and we have to invest

in the infrastructure. so we can maintain what is a benefit for the country system of with that, i introduce our colleague from delaware senator cuents. -- senator koontz. >> last night, i rode amtrak home to see my wife and children. this morning i road it back. mr. coons: as my colleagues have made clear, we recognize that the $21 billion backlog of the so-called state of good repair for the northeast corridor of amtrak is a deficit, an infrastructure deficit a safety and investment deficit that has built up over years. back in march, i led a group of 22 of us who sent a letter to the transportation appropriations subcommittee insisting that we fully fund amtrak's $2 billion request for this year. will that clear up the $21

billion backlog? no. why should we invest in amtrak, because year over year, the last phi years, they have had steady improvements in ridership new york revenue new york performance, and i think this week's tragedy is just an opportunity to refocus us on why it matters to invest in infrastructure. why, when our competitors, whether the chinese or british, are investing multiples of what we are in modernizing our rail system, we need to do the same. it took a long time to build america's national passenger and freight rail infrastructure and it is today one of the most aging in the world. we have to invest in world class infrastructure to make sure that we can move safely. the hundreds of thousands of people who take amtrak every single day. we shouldn't be putting passengers at risk. we shouldn't be putting our economy at risk. we shouldn't be putting our nation's future at risk. we should not be cutting the appropriations that amtrak needs this year to make steady

progress toward dealing with this long accumulated backlog. this is an irresponsible path that the republican budget in the house would take us toward in cutting investments needed for amtrak to move us forward. to talk further about this i invite my colleague, senator blumenthal to the podium. senator blumenthal: beginning this friday, there are going to be a lot of americans driving to their holiday decemberations on roads that are going to be clogged ancon jested. they're going tore cursing and fist clenching and i'm hoping they direct those curses and those fists at john boehner and the republicans in the house. that are blocking effective amtrak transportation. which is the reason that those roads are clogged and congested. americans take roads because they lack the confidence and

faith in railroads to get them where they want to go as fast as reblyably and safely. for john boehner to say that a question about amtrak spending are stupid is an insult to the american people. and those drivers on the road ought to be insulted and that insult adds to the injury that we all feel by the series of cascading catastrophes on our railroads. tragedies that are preventable and predictable. philadelphia was preventable. and it was predictable. as surely as other derailments. for the congress to say to amtrak that we're cutting below

last year's expenditures is like forcing a family to choose between food and medicine. the medicine is -- the medicines necessary to remedy an illness and the illness for a.m. strak safety problems. but the food is necessary to reconstruction and -- reconstruct and reinvigorate decrepit and decaying infrastructure. in connecticut we have a bridge that was built when grover cleveland was president. grover cleveland is long gone. and so should be that bridge. it's being reconstructed now. but the hudson tunnel is equally essential and equally in danger. and the poster child for this conversation ought to be that tunnel because if it fails transportation will be paralyzed

throughout the east coast and $100 million a tai, let's remember the cost of the railroad shutting down $100 million a day to the northeast region alone will be the inevitable consequence. so the lesson here is now pay now or pay later. and it's already later. pay now and invest now or we will pay later as a nation in safety catastrophes, as well as economic damage that is preventable and predictable. piecemeal fixes are no longer enough. the approach has been patch and pray. patch it and fix it temporarily and pray that it works. the lesson in philadelphia is, it doesn't work. and the approach by the f.r.a., the federal railway administration, should not be to

order a piecemeal fix. in amtrak automatic signal controls for amtrak alone anymore than ordering it for metro north alone was a good fix. it was piecemeal and ad hoc. it ought to be a national, comp rehence i order that automatic train control should be the law of the land. what we risk is failing faith and coffed that will simply to cause our roads and railroads and we will find that we pay a lot more later than we do now. you get what you pay for. america is failing to make the investment that it must in order to assure safety and reliability and centuries old tunnels and bridges will cause the kinds of catastrophes we have seen. the lack of positive train

control is a national disgrace and the piecemeal approach no longer works. and i'm pleased to introduce my colleague and friend from connecticut, senator senator murphy: thank you. we've come to accept the regularity of major accidents and fatalities along the northeastern corridor. i think it's important for taos step back and recognize that this is not the case in other countries that have made a decision to invest regularly in safety upgrades for their railroads. in japan, the bullet train, which hurtles through the countryside at 200 miles per hour has not had one single fatality. france's high speed train, delivering tens of thousands of passengers across that country never had a fatality. why? because they made the decision to invest continually on an ongoing basis in safety upgrades. we made the opposite decision

and so it should come as no shock that we have come to expect that every couple of months we are going to turn on the tv news and see another crash, another derailment, another set of fatalities on the northeast corridor. but this isn't just about the northeast corridor. 20% of this country's g.d.p. is housed in the northeast corridor. every time that line shuts down, the entire country's economy pays less revenue into the federal government. less production benefiting the entire country. every single one of our colleagues should care about this, not just because there are people dying but because the entire country's economy stalls when that line stops functioning. so we have an opportunity to do something about it and do something about it right now. the appropriations committee is going to be taking up the

transportation budget, the president's budget includes for the first time a dedicated capital account for the northeast corridor. $500 million. not nearly enough to take care of our backlog in connecticut, never mind the entire line, but it's an important statement. a statement that we should make right now in the coming weeks and months this year's appropriations bill should have a dedicated account to the northeast corridor. i'd propose that it be used specifically on safety upgrades, but if we don't recognize this backlog and start treating it accordingly within the appropriations committee, it's going to come to the economic detriment of the entire nation. that's something that we simply can't afford. so with that, let me introduce my great friend from massachusetts, senator markey. senator markey: thank you. i will be very brief. what happened last week in the house tells you about all you

need to know in this big debate we are having. last week, the republican-controlled house appropriations committee voted to cut the amtrak budget by $250 million. last week, the house appropriations committee voted to cut the tiger grant program by $8 -- by 80%. and so this is a pretty clearly defined battle. we know from last week but long before that, that amtrak is playing a game of railway russian roulette. where it has to decide where it's going to spend its limited money to install positive train control. they shouldn't have to choose between baltimore and boston. they shouldn't have to choose between wilmington and washington, d.c. no choice should be required. this is a sophie's choice that should not be presented to a

railway. those who ride along -- -- those who ride run the risk because it's not installed. we are calling for a -- an increase in train investment. 22 senators have signed on. we also don't want to see tiger cut because we know that economic growth follows investment in rail. we know the formula. we know it works. so this is really a historic crossroads that we're crossing right now. we have to decide which direction we're going to go in. i think it's a debate worth having for our country on the transportation authorizing subcommittee will be led by corey booker from new jersey. welcome. senator booker: my colleagues' comments have been strong and salient. i have nothing to add and only to echo. therefore i'd like to open it up to questions for any of my colleagues here.

>> right after the train event, some of your republican colleagues were saying there's understandable reluctance to give money to amtrak because of mismanagement, poor purchasing decisions and yen need to reform financially. how do you address those concerns? >> the bottom line is amtrak is profitable. senator schumer: ridership is up. the on-time record is improved. it's a chicken and egg. if they're not going to give it the money, they're not -- it's not going to do everything it needs. but with the limited resources it has while it has problems and needs improvement, it's done a good job compared to most other railroads. >> let me just add, the way to do body building is not starvation. amtrak is profitable in the northeast, it's the only part of amtrak that's profitable. but the reason why people ride the rails is, the reason they purchase anything is they have trust and confidence, they want it. senator blumenthal: there is

consumer demand. that's what amtrak has to spread and sustain by increasing the safety and reliability of its service. >> twice as many people use the rails to get between boston and washington than use the air. >> on positive train control, one of the big complaints aside from the money from rail lines has been how hard it's been for them to get radio spectrum. did congress make a mistake in not setting aside radio speck rum when they did that law? senator schumer: the f.c.c. was lagrd, it is no longer. we have lit a fire, the group of us, under the f.c.r. and lack of frequency will not stop positive train control. >> the f.c.c. has been an obstacle, not a change agent. senator blumenthal: hopefully it will be approving spectrum more

judiciously. >> i asked that question of f.c.c. chairman wheel for the a hearing on that issue before the accident. he gave a very -- a positive answer about their recognition that they were not as strong a contributor as they need to be and they have moved forward to allocate spectrum and make sure their portion of this is done in a timely area. >> the new york area railroads now applying are getting it much manufacturer quickly than they did several years ago. >> given the constraints from sequestration, do you think it realistic to assume you'll get any additional funding for amtrak? within the sequestration constraints? senator schumer: we are all assuming that sequestration is not the level of funding, period. >> so you're assuming that there will be a deal. senator schumer: even without it, amtrak, as we have seen, needs funding. period. >> in addition to what senator

schumer said we see our friends who want to dramatically increase the defense budget, right? national security, domestic security, and part of that is having a transportation system that is safe and that will get your work force to its destination safely that will get mothers home to their children safely, that will get someone on a hospital visit from the many hospitals along the northeast corridor there safely. and so why is it that sequestration can be used as an argument against improving amtrak's budget but then we can do it for national defense? i reject that view. >> senator booker, you are working on a bipartisan rail bill with roger wicker. you're putting the finishing touches on it. how has that bill changed? are you going to include money for concept trains? senator booker: i have been appreciative of the

collaborative efforts with roger wicker and chairman thune. we've seen some progress and after this accident more attention man fwoiven safety and specific safety upgrades as well as resources for positive train control. we are facing, as was said earlier, still prorksgress in this negotiation but nowhere near where we all know we need to be in terms of the total investment that's needed to ged our -- to get our train system not only up to speed but really to start taking advantage of opportunities to go further. we are a nation right now competing in an ever more competitive global marketplace and we see around the world people that are leaving us behind because the speed quality, safety and strength of their rail system outnumber ours. we know every dollar invested in this area produces a tremendous return for growth in our economy.

if we're continuing, we're making more of an investment. if we're not willing to make that investment, we will fall behind and that's unacceptable. the balance of this investment, given current conditions, we're making some progress and hope to have something to announce after recess. senator schumer: thank you. >> sarth night at 8:00 eastern, editorial cartoonists include discuss their role. here's part of that program. >> it's quality control. you know you're stale being effective. just like everything you do, you must be doing something wrong. >> it shows you're still

dangerous, a little bit. yes. >> or that you have touched a sore point for that particular community. not only you know, smoking, mr. butts strips made it into north carolina. when i wrote about frank sinatra, i went dark in las vegas. jerry brown, same thing in california. there are going to be regional, the most recently, i did something about jeb bush and the dallas paper threw it out. because it was too political. too political? the man is running for president. >> and doonsberry's gary trudeau is joined by molly crabapple in the forum which took place three months of the attack on charlie hebdo in paris. you can see it saturday night at 8:00 eastern. >> here are a few book festivals

we'll be covering this spring. we'll close out may at book expo america, where the publishing showcases its upcoming books. then in june printers row lith fest include our three-hour live in depth program with pulitzer prize winning author lawrence wright. that's this spring on c-span2's book tv. >> the new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114th congress with color photos of every senator and house member plus buy yow and contact information and twitter handles. also, district maps, a foldout map of capitol hill and a look at congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. order your copy today. it's $13.95 plus shipping and handling through c-span online store at c-span.org. >> coming up on "washington journal" tomorrow morning we

interview doug hughes, the mailman from florida who flew a jyro copter onto the capitol lawn to call attention to campaign finance reform. he'll discuss why he made his flight and his recent op-ed. later, blogger and syndicated columnist michelle malkin on her book, "who built that." you can see "washington journal" live every morning here on c-span at 7:00 eastern. now a house subcommittee looks at the response to the two major earthquakes to hit nepal recently. members examine the humanitarian needs, the challenges to relief efforts and the long-term implications for the people and infrastructure of the himalayan country. according to nepal's home ministry, the number of people killed by the two earthquakes, the first on april 25 and the second on may 12, has surpassed 8,500. witnesses from the state and

defense departments as well as the u.s. agency for international development testify. >> nepal was hit by a 7.3 magmy tude earth wake on april 25, then another on may 12 claiming the lives of over ,000 people. some claim the disaster was partially mitigated by advance preparation of usaid and others through its 60-year presence in nepal, engaging in disaster risk reduction. mr. salmon: today we discuss efforts to alleviate results of the disaster in nepal. we expect our witnesses to highlight successful preplanning efforts but i also expect an honest assessment of the assessment for rebilling

vulnerable communities. i'd also like to hear about what we can do to make our foreign aid efforts more efficient. the united states has committed nearly $47 million for response and recovery efforts in nepal. we're working with a dozen other nations in cooperation with the united nations as well as thousand offs -- thousands of foreign personnel on the ground in nepal assisting with our projects. our efforts have been particularly concentrated on search and rescue, shelter, water, and sanitation but we have been involved in nearly every aspect of the response to some degree. as far as -- as far as usaid were concerned, they deployed a disaster assistance response team the day of the event sending over 120 people, search and rescue dogs to nepal aboard military aircraft within hours. the team's urban search and rescue personnel some based in nearby fairfax virginia, as was referenced spent weeks working

miracles pulling survivors out of the rubble in kathmandu and else. where while other dart personnel investigated the safety of damaged structures. i look forward to hearing more about their heroic activities and how preparations such as the dart's readiness and prestage supplies helped in nepal. the state department helped to connect thousands of american citizens with their loved ones in nepal during the earthquake. i've also heard that the u.s. bilateral connections with playing an important role in the crisis response. our partner nations in the region are leveraging u.s. capabilities to help shoulder more of the burden. i'd like assistant secretary biswal to inform the committee on whether this might be an indication that others in the region may be less reliant on u.s. agencies. the department of defense supported this these efforts by providing airlifts and other support at usaid's request through d.o. -- though d.o.d.

does not take the lead in comprehensive disaster support such as this without the support such efforts would be impossible. our military is also our country's most significant strategic presence in asia and we rely so heavily on their capabilities. both to support our existing partners and develop new ones through military cooperation. i look forward to hearing about the military's engagement during the crisis and how their support of operations in nepal will inform their strategies in the future. enduring needs and increased needs for nepal, despite these efforts from our country and others, the crisis is far from over in nepal. the coming months and years will be the true test of our response capabilities. monsoon season is fast approaching. large numbers of homeless people exposed to the elements during this time would be a dire enough problem in another -- in and of itself. the earthquakes have also

changed the water tables in nepal. reducing water quality, creating large amounts of displaced earth and increasing the risk of flooding. the nepal faces enormous water and sanitation dangers. food shortages are also a major concern. i understand the crisis hit just before the planning -- planting season and that there were efforts to help farmers get their crops in the ground. additionally, i'm concerned by reports that u.s. food assistance including food that has been prepositioned in sri lanka to reduce delivery times will take up to 45 days to arrive in nepal. i'd appreciate a report on this delay and any idea of nepal's longer term food outlook. these and other challenges will disproportionately affect the vulnerable populations among nepal's displaced people, including women and children. given the history of trafficking in persons issues in nepal, support of these vulnerable

populations will be of the utmost importance and i'd like our administration witnesses to discuss how we're working to ensure their safety. as we consider these horrific, enduring challenges, however we should not forget that the response to the nepal crisis highlighted just how effective some of our disaster response mechanisms really are and reduced some of the earthquake's devastating impact. i've heard that safer building techniques meant we suffered zero u.s. embassy or local personnel fatalities and that prestage supplies in nepal are helping us get people shelter faster. it's also very exciting to hear that some of our partner nations are using u.s.-built capabilities to contribute to that response. i'm interested to hear our witnesses' insight on what this means regarding the efficacy of these investments in the region whether u.s. capacity building in the region has increased -- is increasing disaster response

effectiveness and how these type of investments can reduce the cost of disaster response operations for the united states in the long term. it's under extremely unfortunate circumstances that we discuss these efforts, but this is precisely what we've had many of these organizations for. discussing the challenges we face in the region is necessary to prepare for future potential disasters and working toward minimizing the loss of life as well as the -- as well as depleting limited resources associated with relief efforts. i give my sincere thanks to our colleagues and our witnesses for joining us in this conversation today. and i yield to the ranking member, mr. connolly. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. chairman. welcome to our panel. the united states has demonstrated a long-standing commitment to assistance and disaster readiness in the nepal.

for over 60 years we have had a presence in nepal in the form of our bilateral aid program and we've been focused, as you indicated, mr. chairman, on strengthening the country's disaster response capabilities for the last two decades. u.s. efforts include the establishment of disaster risk reduction office to coordinate government investments that make the country more resilient in the face of natural disasters, implementation of the program for enhanced -- the enhancement of emergency response to train nepali first responders and medical personnel and publication of a disaster relief reduction. we'll be interested in hearing how some things worked and how some things didn't. as part of the u.s. response to a 7.8 magnitude earthquake that occurred on april 25. the u.s. agency for

international development office deployed, as it often does, a disaster assistance response team or dart, that included elite urban search and rescue teams from my home county, fairfax, virginia, and los angeles, california. physicians, canine handlers, structural engineers search and rescue specialists, paramedics and other personnel volunteer to serve on these teams and deploy abroad on a moment's notice and have done it all over the world for decades. it makes one's heart feel better on television watching the backs saying l.a. team, fair tax team, because you know americans are putting themselves at risk to try to save fellow human beings. they've -- fellow human beings they've never met in a faraway place. the team quickly begins to facilitate relief efforts, this time that task was immense. they found a dire situation in

the region most heavily affected by the earthquake which killed more than ,000 people and injured at least 16,000 more. the seismic impact left over 750,000 homes damaged or destroyed and 1.5 million people displaced even without access to clean water. team members helped nepali personnel assess whether structured were safe to inhabit and provided technical guidance on how to shore up buildings that needed to be reinforced. my rack lousely they helped pull a 15-year-old boy from the rubble of a building five days after the earthquake had struck. additionally after experiencing a 7.3 magnitude after shock, the team quickly went back to work and rescued a 4 -year-old woman who had been trapped in a four-story building. u.s. assistance efforts are not cost-free endeavors however. and they certainly are not without risk.

tragically, six of our marines were killed in a helicopter crash while on a humanitarian mission in response to this earthquake. the dangerous nature of these deployments on behalf of vulnerable populations abroad further demonstrates the resolve of u.s. foreign assistance operations. we should honor the men and women who step forward to put thems in harm's way on behalf of this mission. disaster response tests the limits of domestic institutions as well as international assistance and cooperation. i certainly look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the performance of the u.s. team in nepal lessons learned and how we can further improve or coordination with nepal and prospectively other international partners when the need for such disaster relief effort arises again, as we know inevitably it will. i welcome recommendations on how to promote the democratic transition in nepal and put a decade of civil war firmly in

the rearview mirror. it's only through strength of civil society institutions, nepal will be able to develop fully its own disaster response capabilities resilient enough for this disaster prone region in the world. with that, i yield back. mr. chabot: thank you for calling this earthquake -- hearing. the earthquake was tragic. places an enormous gap and historical record of nepal's people. nepal will never be able to get back all that it has lost. the international response has been considerable and in particular, the u.s. government's response efforts from state department, usaid and department of defense and rapid fire response made