react to what was said and come back to this issue, i think we cannot only make this ,uestion of economics discrimination, economic barriers, this is an issue in europe for economic barriers for immigrants. children of immigrants. this is an issue of a small minority of people who are radicalized by groups who are trying to strike us. a very large majority of people suffering from economic barriers do not turn to radical groups. we should be externally forceful in not making any confusion between the vast majority of them, the small minority of radicals that fight. morewill call for european solidarity in terms of intelligence gathering, ramping up forces. we need to target this issue at iraq, syria.ran,

get more global support and from the united states. i hope the french president will get this from obama when he visits washington, d.c. on tuesday. host: benjamin haddad , thank you for being here this money. -- this morning. that concludes us today. the national security council director from the office of combat and terrorism will be discussing soft target attacks in the u.s.. we will also be speaking with the reporter for the national post on donations to bill and hillary's campaigns and clinical fundraising over the years. finally, we speak with the council of american islamic relations speaking about his work in detroit. join us then. ♪

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ >> our road to the white house coverage is coming up next word ohio governor and republican candidate john kasich. then some of the floor speeches given by lawmakers regarding the terror attacks in paris and the u.s. strategy on defeating isis. director johna brennan and secretary state john kerry talk about local security. campaign long, c-span takes you to the road to the white house. access to the candidates at town hall meetings, news conferences,

rallies, and speeches. twitter,ur,'s on facebook, and by phone. every campaign event we cover is available on c-span.org. saidgovernor john kasich this week that his state did not have the authority to block refugees from entering the state. his comments came as several governors are calling for the u.s. to suspend its resettlement program on until security concerns are addressed in the wake of last week's terror attacks in paris. the republican presidential candidate talked more about this topic and other issues at the national press club. this is one hour. thomas burr: good afternoon and welcome to the national press club. my name is thomas burr. i'm the washington correspondent for the "salt lake tribune" and vice-president of the club. our guest today is ohio governor john kasich, who is seeking the republican nomination and, he hopes, eventually the white

house. i would like to welcome our head table guests today. jerry zremski with the "buffalo news," our chair of our speakers committee. and mark schoeff with "investment news," who organized today's event. thank you, gentlemen. [applause] i would also like to welcome our cspan and public radio audiences, and i would like to remind you that you can follow the action on twitter using the hashtag #npclive. that's #npclive. last weekend when the world learned of the terrorist attacks on paris, governor kasich was the first republican candidate contender to call for nato to invoke the article five clause that declares that an attack on one nato country is an attack on all of them. "we as americans must assert leadership, and we need to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with france and the french people. this is a moment to bring us together," kasich said at a republican event in florida on saturday. today, kasich comes to the national press club to outline his national security strategy, which includes rebuilding the u.s. military, revitalizing diplomatic alliances, and in his campaign's words, "recommitting

to fundamental western values." the paris attacks have quickly turned the focus of the presidential campaign that had largely been concentrated on domestic affairs to questions surrounding u.s. foreign and security policy, especially the approach being taken towards the middle east. a week ago in the republican debate, governor kasich forcefully inserted himself into the dialogue on a few occasions, drawing both attention and criticism. today at the press club, the second-term ohio governor has the stage to himself. reelected in 2014 -- [laughter] you can still interrupt if you would like to. [laughter] thomas burr: reelected in 2014, kasich last month achieved an all-time high approval rating of 62% among ohioans, an unusual feat for someone who is running for president. during his time in office, the state of ohio has turned an $8 billion budget deficit into a $2 billion surplus. his budget cutting enthusiasm was demonstrated during his 18 years in congress, where he served as chairman of the house budget committee.

he was also a member of the house armed services committee. prior to coming to washington, he was an ohio state senator. a native of pennsylvania, governor kasich moved to ohio to attend ohio state university, where he graduated in 1974. at a time when polls showed that americans have a disdain for public office holders, kasich has tried to turn the long experience in government into a positive for his campaign by asserting that he can fix washington. we will see over the next few weeks whether the paris attacks will put a higher premium on government experience or will increase voters' frustrations with public officials. please welcome to the national press club podium, governor john kasich. [applause] ,ov. kasich: thank you thomas. thank you. thomas, you did such a good job that maybe you can stand in for me at the next debate. what do you think? okay, last friday in paris, it was made obvious to the world yet again that there is an

enormous chasm between the worldview of civilized people and the worldview of those who committed these acts of horror. we believe that life has value and meaning. they see no value even in their own lives, let alone others. we believe that different views and ideas should be respected , and these make us stronger. they believe the answer to disagreement is death. we believe men and women are equal. they believe women are property. we live in the light of god's love for all creation. they pervert and hijack one of the world's principle religions. we live in the modern world, a world of free expression, a world of science, of respect for rights and liberties. they live in a darkness, devoid of even the basic understanding of humanity.

we forget these differences, it's at our peril. unless we want to see the bloodshed of paris visited here in america and in the streets of our allies' capitols, we need to get serious, immediately, about dealing with this threat. there can be no negotiating and no delay with this darkness. we must simply defeat it. we cannot wait on a resolution to the syrian crisis to begin dealing with isis. i'm not convinced that the agreement achieved in vienna several days ago on the future of syria will be implemented on the announced schedule or, frankly, any schedule. and i doubt it will lead to any certainty over serious future leadership. a ceasefire is supposed to occur within six months and elections within 18, paving the way for a potential political transition in syria. i believe these are empty

promises. what is more, with isis having directly threatened the u.s. homeland, we can't afford to wait. we must act now. we must invoke article five, the mutual defense clause of the north american treaty, and bring nato together to assist our ally france in its defense. i agree with president hollande that friday's attacks were an act of war by isis on france, and therefore, they were an attack on america and every other nato member state. nato came to our aid after 9/11. nato must now do so again for france. we must be swift. we must be decisive. and we must be absolute. [applause] gov. kasich: we must intensify international intelligence

cooperation by identifying, exchanging information on tracking, and if necessary, arresting the thousands of foreign volunteers currently fighting with isis who then later return to their home countries. end-to-end communications encryption technology is increasingly leaving our intelligence agencies in the dark. we must develop new signals intelligence methods to illuminate these targets technologically, and, of course, we must also invest more in human intelligence assets with which to penetrate and neutralize these terrorist groups. our signals intelligence and human intelligence, they do not exist separate from one another. they accent and complement one another. and every effort should be made to leverage each for the other's benefit. we also need to reassess our domestic counterterrorism resources to ensure that

our joint fbi/cia counterterrorism taskforces have the personnel they need to track potential domestic terrorists. we must provide far more support to the kurds, both in syria and iraq. the kurds, who are fighting to defend their homeland, fight like tigers. and they are one of the few groups friendly to the united states who really have shown that they know how to take the fight to isis. we must arm them much more, much more generously than we have done so far. turkey has legitimate concerns about arming the kurdish ypk in syria. we must work to address their concerns as we insist on addressing a threat to the vital national interests of america and the rest of the world. we must create safe havens protected by no fly zones. i first called for no fly zones early last month in order to relieve the suffering of syrian refugees and reduce their need to travel to europe.

these sanctuaries should be located on the turkish and on the jordanian borders. our jordanian and kurdish allies should provide protection for them on the ground while the united states provides protection from the air. we must arrest human traffickers, prosecute them, put them in jail, and confiscate their ill-gotten gains. we must create an international coalition to defeat isis in syria and iraq. we must join with our nato allies, and importantly, with allies in the region as well. that would be the turks, the jordanians, the egyptians, the gulf states, the saudis, to organize an international coalition to defeat isis on the ground in its heartland. experience, of course, has shown that an air campaign on its own is not enough. we must be more forceful in the battle of ideas. u.s. public diplomacy and

international broadcasting have lost their focus on the case for western values and ideals and effectively countering our opponents' propaganda and disinformation. i will consolidate them into a new agency that has a clear mandate -- to promote the core judeo-christian western values that we and our friends and allies share. the values of human rights, the values of democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association. and it should focus on four critical targets. the middle east, china, iran, and russia. sophisticated strategies will be developed to communicate with each of these hard target countries. the challenge posed by isis in syria and iraq is a symptom of a broader weakness in america's national security policy. failing to advance our values in the battle of ideas, not doing

so against a threat such as isis or in places such as syria and iraq, is interpreted by other opponents around the world as weakness. the administration's desire for an iran nuclear deal at any cost is another example. and weakness invites challenges and attacks of the kind that we have seen from nations that do not share our values, such as china and russia. by invading georgia, annexing crimea, fomenting a murderous proxy war in eastern ukraine, mounting provocative patrols, and building out its base structure in both kaliningrad and belarus, russia has once again become a threat to european security. russia's leadership today does not respect the basic tenets of the international order, namely territorial integrity and the rule of law. those are basic values of

international relations, and russia's failure to respect them is simply not compatible with constructive relations with the west. we must work together with our european allies to defend a free ukraine. that includes training and arming ukrainian forces with the weapons that they have asked for and which congress has already approved. it also means focusing on the defense of new nato member states on the front lines with russia, such as poland, latvia, lithuania, and estonia. nato must be vigilant and protective of its easternmost member states, who live every day in russia's shadow. we must focus on supplying and equipping them in achieving interoperability, jointly committing to higher defense spending targets, repositioning existing u.s. forces in europe onto their eastern borders, increasing cooperation with

finland and sweden, and building a new, strong, integrated air defense system on nato's eastern border. we must also learn the lessons of crimea and develop and exercise contingency plans for dealing with future russian provocations. you know, there are no such things as little green men or volunteers. any such combatants will be treated as what they are, an attacking russian army. if they reappear, i will take u.s. forces in europe and around the world to heighten combat readiness in order to be able to intervene in support of our friends and our allies. while russia's actions are forcing us to take tough measures to achieve peace through strength and safeguard our friends and our allies, i will make it clear that the door to negotiations remains open. i am confident that by sitting and talking together with

our allies, russia and america, that we can forge a new european security architecture that accommodates their interests without damaging those of nato member states. the same is true for our relationship with china. the weakness we have shown toward russia is really no different than that we have shown towards china. its efforts to control the south china sea and seabed resources to which it is not entitled are blatant violations of international rules and norms. these are boldfaced efforts to do nothing more than bully its neighbors. because of those efforts, we must now stand by our western pacific allies, who rightfully feel threatened by china's belligerence. that means working with our regional allies to significantly increase our military presence in the region, to ensure freedom of navigation for the 5.3 $ 5.3 trillion in annual

trade that passes through the western pacific. we must forward deploy our pacific combat commander to guam in stationing additional air force and marine corps units in the western pacific. we should increase joint western pacific freedom of navigation and submarine patrols. we should conduct regular regional amphibious landing exercises. we should help our japanese allies defend their territorial waters by installing seabed acoustic sensor systems, anti-ship missiles, rocket launch torpedoes, and mine laying equipment through their southern island chain. to deal with the nuclear threat posed by north korea, i will work with south korea and our other regional allies to revitalize allies' counter proliferation activities and to build ballistic missile defenses. the u.s. does not seek confrontation with china. we should remain open to working responsibly with our allies and with china as an equal stakeholder. together, we should be able to forge innovative solutions and

institutions that respect and accommodate the national security interests of all pacific powers. the same mistakes in judgment and strategy that have let terrorism flourish in recent years and wrongly signal weakness to russia and china are found throughout american national security policy right now, and it all comes down to this -- we have not led. because leadership has not been a priority, we have been content to let the tools of leadership, our military and our alliance relations, grow weak and frayed. we have even hesitated to express and live by the values at the core of who we are. it's time for change before it's too late. we must rebuild our nation's sorely neglected military from the bottom up. this doesn't mean that, like some, we rush to fund every general's wish list.

instead, we must assess our combined allied capabilities and identify the needs and gaps in dealing with threats that we face in each region of the world. this means being strategic about rebuilding our military, matching it to the threats that we face, and complementing the capabilities of our allies. we must also be more careful in how we spend our military dollars, especially on weapons systems. we can make our dollars go further and get our troops the equipment they need faster by rewarding on target cost estimates, insisting on extensive prototyping, incentivizing contractors and program managers to be ahead of schedule and under budget, using off the shelf technology as much as we can, and putting in place high threshold criteria for design changes. likewise, we must ensure that scarce resources reach those who need them most, and those would be our fighting men and women. by streamlining the pentagon bureaucracy, defining

performance standards, and holding our defense civilian workforce to them, providing greater flexibility both to hire the talent we need and part company with consistent underperformers. and we must recognize that cyberspace is a battlefield as well that demands our attention and resources. this has not been the federal government's strength, and we must not shy away from turning to the private sector for much needed help to protect ourselves and to take the battle to the enemy. we can and we must take out of the resources that our enemies use to wage war online. not only do we need strong, decisive, multilateral agreements to respond to anyone that attacks our governments and our private sector and our allies, but we need an aggressive strategy to go after the cyber resources of our enemies. not only does this eliminate threats, but of course, it also deters future attacks. we have let ourselves fall too

far behind in this arena. rebuilding our military is no easy task. we know it will be expensive, and it cannot be done without first making sure that we have a strong economy. no one understood this as well as president ronald reagan. i have proposed an economic revival plan that will provide the growth we need to be strong -- strong economically but also strong militarily. importantly, we need to balance our budget, and we need to stop adding to our national debt. what leverage do we have in dealing with other nations if they are the ones loaning us money for our out-of-control spending? relationships with our allies are critical to all we must do going forward. friends like those in europe have been ignored. friends like israel have been abused. we need to repair the damage. there is strength in numbers, strength in consensus, and by

acting in concert with our allies by sharing intelligence, by working together in international bodies, we can more effectively advance our interests, and we can keep americans safe. as we rebuild our military, we should consult with our allies to assess their military needs and their strengths, and, of course, we also should expect them to pull their weight. and nothing about being an ally means you will not advance your own interests. an exclusive diet of going it alone -- that's unsustainable. but america must always reserve the right to take its own actions and lead. our allied relationships are rooted in shared values, such as respect for human life, freedom of thought, expression, and religion, equality and the right of every person -- every person -- to have the chance to learn, grow, and achieve. these are handed down to us by

our judeo-christian tradition, which has guided our civilization for centuries. yet it is fair to say that at times, we seem to have forgotten them or have become afraid to stand up and proclaim them. if we don't know what we believe, how do we know what we want from life? how do we set goals for our families, our communities, or our nations? if we let ourselves begin to drift, so afraid to offend anyone that we're afraid even to say what we think is right, we put our futures in peril. in this vacuum of values, is it any wonder that we see bright, educated young people abandoning the west for the meaning they think they see in the extremist cause? values are a compass that can help us individually and, as a society, navigate personal

challenges in an increasingly complex and dangerous world. we need to rediscover them. we need to recommit ourselves to them with passion and without apology. this is not our battle alone. we should join with those moderate muslims who have condemned the attack on paris and who see through the lie of extremism. we must encourage them and join with them to speak with one voice, so that the world's young people understand what is a lie, what is true, what is darkness, and what is light and life. finally, a word about how i see america's role in the world. there seems to be a fear today to call america exceptional. i believe america is exceptional. [applause] gov. kasich: it is simply a statement of the obvious. we are exceptional because of our uniqueness. america is not a language or

ethnic group or religion. we are the melting pot of every people in the world. so when paris hurts, we hurt. when ukraine hurts, we hurt. and conversely, when those places hurt and we don't act, the world is weaker, and so are we. throughout all of our history, america has never been afraid to fight for our values and ideas. oh, yeah, it's okay that sometimes we argue. that's just part of it. the fact that we have disagreements is part of how we live, but at each moment of crisis, we have united as a nation. at each moment, we came together in common cause. at each moment, we united the civilized world. and, of course, we came out stronger because of it. this is that moment. it's not someone else's job, nor is it our job alone. it is in the hands of each of us and our allies to realize that

we can change the world. we can fix this. we can make america and the world a safer place to ensure that our children and grandchildren can live to fulfill their dreams and ours. thank you. [applause] thomas burr: thank you, governor. we have a lot of questions today, so you are the only one on the stage, you don't have to ask for equal time. i think we'll be okay. the first question is will the focus on terrorism give more credence to a candidate with government experience? gov. kasich: you know, i was down in florida, speaking to the florida republican party. and i spoke for a short period of time -- much less than the time allotted to me -- to talk about the war against western

civilization. i was asked the night before by a reporter from the "new york times" about experience, and i said i didn't think it was appropriate to be injecting a political campaign in the middle of what the world is experiencing. actually, in my speech, there was a recommendation that i talk about my many years on the armed services committee. i yanked it out of the speech. these are very serious times. you know, we have to be careful that we don't use this as an opportunity by anybody -- and i'm not saying that they are at this point -- to advance a candidacy. we have to be united as americans. this is serious, serious business. our very lives are under attack. let's get through this period of time. let's hear the different

suggestions and ideas that people have. and then over time, i think it will be appropriate to talk about what experience means when we're talking about the commander-in-chief of the united states of america. thomas burr: i'm going to press a little harder on that question. will the paris attacks take the air out of the trump and carson campaigns as foreign and security policy gain prominence? gov. kasich: well, look, i think the talk that i delivered today, which was not written by anybody else -- i mean other people put words to paper, but these things are not something that i'm not directing. i think you've got to analyze whether a talk like this, that in many respects covers the globe, but there is a heck of a lot more to say about so many more issues -- you're going to have to figure out what we need.

we have had a president that, for whatever reason -- maybe it is, on his part, the lack of experience -- certainly an knowe foreign-policy advisers around him puts us in a position of where we have created a great void. i will tell you what i'm worried about. the president said yesterday that, well, he will look at the idea of a no-fly zone, but who would defend the people inside the sanctuary? it is something they ought to consider. i think they should have been considering it's a long time ago. we have been doing nothing. we did not arm the rebels. we did a poor deal with iran. we are not creating a no-fly zone. our allies have drifted away from us. we have made no decision involved in ukraine. there has been so much in action. does that come about because the

president didn't have the experience or couldn't maintain the loyalty or commitment of people who are deeply experienced? one thing i will tell you is when you put together a national security team, you have to have the traditional members of the military, but you also need to have as part of your team those nontraditional members of the team. i can remember years ago when the military wasn't too keen on the idea of special forces. have both. and you have to have civilian leaders who are deeply knowledgeable. and you have to invite this gush and, you have to invite debate. at the end of the day, the president makes the decision. do we go? do we not go? do we engage?

you have to understand how it all works and how you put your team together to get the best possible advice to make sure that america is successful in its foreign ventures. >> thank you, governor. what constitutional grounds you have to block refugees from settling in ohio? gov. kasich: in the state, we don't have the authority. we can only express our concerns. one of my daughters last night said, daddy, why are you not going to let these people come in? what is that? what is that about, daddy? because i know, as some of my friends here today would agree, sometimes i'm criticized for having a big heart. i do have a big heart. but i also have a pretty good brain. and i said to my daughter, i said, you know, we understand

these people are in trouble, but think about us putting somebody on our street in our town or in our country who mean us harm. we can't do that, can we? i understand now, daddy, why you said what you said. i havewe can do is written to the president, i have written to the congress. we just have to have a system that can determine who these people are. and what really got my attention was james clapper, who said we are not confident that we can determine who they are. now, maybe we can develop a system to do that. but at the current time, we can't. we just have to be very careful. mr. burr: following that point, nearly 243 thousand muslim refugees, including 23,000

syrians, have been admitted to the united states and's 9/11. not one of them has committed a terrorist act on u.s. soil. widely need to bar syrian refugees -- why do we need to bar syrian refugees? gov. kasich: look, i'm just talking about the intelligence officials. when they assert we don't know there are, and, in no, has been a lot of changes since 9/11. and when we look at isis and we begin to read the stories of perhaps somebody using -- being able to come from syria into paris, a gets all of our attention. it is not reasonable for the united states as a we have to have a system that determines who they are coming in and the fact is they are safe. i don't, by any stretch of the imagination, condemn muslims. i condemn the radicals, and i was pleased to see that there were a number of moderate muslims who stood up and

condemned the paris attacks. but at this point in time, it is reasonable for a is to be in a position to properly screen. but in addition to that, if we can create a no-fly zone, it becomes a sanctuary that it forces -- if forces would invade that no-fly zone on the ground, jordanian, curtis, and other forces can protect those sanctuaries. we are to be in a position of being able to provide the humanitarian relief to countries like jordan to be able to house these folks until the world can get a good determination of where we are. i think what we have to understand, and sometimes may be in a world where nuclear -- where news moves so fast, it is so hard for a scum as westerners who have tolerance, to understand that there are people in this world now that despise the way we live and not, only

they despise it -- not only they believe they despise it, but they believe the arrow rewarded -- they are rewarded if they can destroy us. think about who these folks are. that is why it is so important we get together with the world. and, you know, sometimes -- sometimes, my sense is the west would like to look the other way. the west would like to believe that this somehow will go away. it will not. and i have been saying for a very long time you either pay me now or you are going to pay me a heck of a lot later. if we sit back and don't do what we need to do to destroy isis. let me also say one other thing. people say, well, if isis is gone, another group will jump up. you see, you win the battle with bullets, but the war of ideas

has to be engaged. the jewish and christian traditions of western civilization need to be expressed in ways that give people hope and understanding and passion. and understand that their lives make a difference. and when we let that he wrote, -- that erode, then we are not a strong. we shouldn't apologize for it. mr. burr: we have learned in the recent days the mastermind of the paris attacks was a belgian citizen. should we bar belgians from entering the united states? gov. kasich: i think i have said all i got to say about -- about how i feel about the refugees. and we will go from there. mr. burr: we have a lot of questions on refugees. let me look through a few. let me ask you to talk about another candidate in the field right now. governor chris christie said we shouldn't be allowing --

refugees in the united states. what a three-year-old be allowed in? gov. kasich: look, the only thing i am saying as for right now, until we get a handle on where we are, we need to stop. and once we have a rational program and we can determine who it is that is coming, then it is another story. but at this point in time, in light of what we are seeing in the world, it is reasonable to stop. now, you know, let me just say one other thing. i mentioned early on about, you know, heart and head. i have done many, many things to make sure that people who find themselves in the shadows are taking care of. i will continue to do it. but you also have to be in a position of where you are not going to jeopardize other people. that is the problem here. so, everybody slow down.

you can have 50 different questions, but my sense is stop now, get your act together, and then we can proceed once we know where we are. governor, some of your fellow republicans on the hill have talked about using an omnibus bill to deal with the syrian situation. would you support a government shutdown over the syrian immigration policy? gov. kasich: well, we have a new speaker of the house, and he should express our concern to the president. and look, you know, as an executive, i kind of like executive orders, but there is a point at which executive orders do nothing more than put your finger in the eye of the legislative ranch. most of the time, almost all the time when i do executive orders, i consult with legislative leaders. i don't always reveal that people because sometimes these -- these discussions have to stay private. but, you know, i think that paul

ryan and the congress should express itself in very clear terms. we need to take a pause. we need to get this right. and when james clapper, the head of the nsa, and all these other intelligence officials say that we can be safe, we have a protocol and a plan to deal with the situation, we can revisit it. but at this point in time, this is not what people want. when thing you learn when you are an executive, you need to lead, but you also have to be sensitive to what people think. you are an executive. you are not somebody that is immune from listening to the public. it has to shape part of who you are and what you do. doesn't mean you don't read at the end of the day -- lead at the end of the day. but public opinion, which is oftentimes pretty darn good, is something we have to pay attention to. mr. burr: before the paris attacks, you called for boots on

the ground to deal with isis. how many boots under the ground under your presidency? or if obama were to take your advice today, would we be looking at another multiyear engagement? gov. kasich: what i said a long, agos what i -- along time is what i said just a few minutes ago: amy now, or pay me a lot more later. i don't think you can deal with isis by just looking the other way. when people say, well, how many boots on the ground? you know, that is a case where the military and the civilian experts will make recommendations. exactly where do we go, what do we do. and you sit as executive on so many things -- you said and you listen to what the experts say. but it is important that they don't have -- one of the things that almost

did a thin in the cuban mission crisis -- almost did us in in the cuban missile crisis, groupthink. you have to get a few troublemakers in the room. people that don't think like everybody else. you just don't make decisions in a vacuum. and you just don't make decisions with people who all think the same way. what i do know is that we will not stop this with air power. you can bomb them until doomsday , it is simply not going to work. you don't take back territory from the air. the air can be useful in supporting people on the ground, but this coalition needs to include many different countries. not just nato. are part ofe turks nato, but the turks are critical. i have always been disappointed that they have not been brought into the economic side of europe. i think they are critical to bring them towards the west. but we absolutely need the saudi's and the egyptians and

the virginians and the gulf state. -- the jordanians and the gulf state. everyone's future is at risk. so i have never shied away from expressing this. when we say, are the people tired of war? we all get tired of war. but at the end of the day, leaders have to rally the public to a cause that is great. as it relates to afghanistan, i would have not have raised troop levels. i would have used special forces and drones to be able to deal with radicals as they popped up. in iraq, let me say it one more time, if saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction, there is no way in the world that i would've ever thought the u.s. should be involved. and my record will reflect it. i remember when the u.s. was engaging in the civil war in lebanon. there were just a handful who voted not to be there. civil wars do not work out well

for the united states of america. and we need to go where there is a significant national interest, or the probability of success. the ability to do our job and come home. nation building? count me out. i don't believe i'm putting men and women into countries to get people to do behave -- to behave the way we do in america. mr. burr: i want to follow up, but i would also like to ask, you just talked about groupthink. president obama talked about appointing a cabinet like lincoln. you appointn, would a democrat? perhaps a socialist? >> [laughter] ? i am not going -- gov. kasich: i am not going to appoint bernie. that is not going to happen. [laughter] sure, i would appoint a democrat. why wouldn't i? i just created a task force on

community and police. i created it a long time ago. with the urban unrest that we have in our country. the chairperson of that task force is not only a democrat, but she is a liberal democrat who ran in the last election against a friend of mine who is a republican. we always believe in working together. back in the old days with tim penny. tim penny and i, when he was a democrat, worked together to take a penny out of every dollar. we had republicans and democrats, and then we were fought by republicans, democrats, and appropriators, and hillary and bill clinton. but we almost won. it said the state for where we were going. most of you know about my longtime efforts with ron to limit the productions of the b-2.

you don't have to think the way i think, but democrats -- come on, we are americans before we are democrats and republicans. i do think in a cabinet, it is always good, within certain bounds, to have some disruptors. you want people to speak truth to power. that is the way you make good decisions. makes you think deep. >> [applause] thank you, governor. i would like to remind our audiences that we do invite members of the public to the events. if you hear applause, it is not a lack of journalistic principle. how would you secure gains in the war against radical terrorism rather than give them up as the u.s. has done? that media: was objectivity you referred to -- yeah.

i -- look, i believe that we create astematically no-fly zone. have the jordanians and have the kurds, who have been a great ally to ours, and why? because we have defended them for so many decades and they trust us. have them defend the sanctuaries from incursion on the ground. article five is something we should be embracing. an attack on france is an attack on all of us. shared intelligence is absolutely critical. immediately, we should be planning a coalition of the winning to go and destroy isis. the kurds, i would like to see the kurds in some sort of a commonwealth where they can be together. a state probably does not work because of the fear that turkey has about the kurds. but we have to deal with turkey. we have to deal, we have to do

it. you have to talk about the bigger picture. iraq, i have felt all along that iraq would ultimately the the -- would ultimately be divided into three. in addition, i would like to believe that if we can leave basically the composition of syria in place, it will prevent a shia crescent from coming across the middle east, including syria. the end is to make sure we stabilize and kill isis. that will begin to stabilize things. i am not, by the way, in favor of putting 50 advisors into syria and potentially getting us into the middle of a civil war, but i am for destroying isis in syria. issues,e complicated but at the and, also, the understand -- understand what i mean when i talk about ideas. think about what radio for

europe meant when we bombarded the soviet union. just recently, we saw south korea bombarding north korea with messages. finally, the north korean said, ok, we will call it off. we need, as the west, including some of our friends in the moderate muslim community, to make it clear to people that you are not going to paradise by walking into a concert hall and can really -- and killing innocent people. we have to win the war of ideas. the lack of winning the war of ideas allows radical droops -- groups to justify themselves. we have to engage in this with all of our allies. and with the united states of america leading the way. when we and europe -- they are all part of who we are -- are not certain about what we difficultt becomes

for them to be strong. we are all united by these values that have lasted for centuries. let's talk about them. let's tell the world about them. it is not just winning the battle of bullets, it is also about winning the war of ideas. mr. burr: last month, you presented a plan to cut taxes significantly and balance the budget within eight years. how do you propose for strengthening the military and getting u.s. troops more involved in the middle east? gov. kasich: [laughter] well, the fact is that we do have a very good economic plan where the numbers actually all adult. -- all adult. just outlined the plan quickly, our personal tax rates would come down to 20%. there would be some tax relief at the bottom. you will be able to go to our website soon to see where all the brackets settle down. capital gains goes to 15%.

we lowered the capital gains tax back when i was the chairman and released a great amount of prosperity. it will unleash it gratefully in the beginning. it'll even it out over time. but economic growth is important on the individual side. on the corporate side, the rates go to 25%. we have a very low tax of the money that would be repatriated, and then know double taxation. me to impose 10% tax or corporations pay nothing, but i have to be realistic because what i'm proposing is not a plan to get elected, but a plan to govern. side, wehe spending believe that we can lower the growth of medicare from 7% to 5% , keeping many of the ideas we have had to slow the growth of medicaid. we will take medicaid from 5% to 3%. we also believe it is possible for us to appeal obamacare and

still have a program to offer health insurance to the people who need it. and we freeze nondefense discretionary for eight years. we shift a lot of programs out of the town, including the regulations on welfare, bundling up the education programs, job , transportation programs. so it begins to, in some respects, kind of hollow out some of the purposes of our big bureaucracy and higher know new people. and military spending would go up. it would go up above the house level. you can accommodate greater how spending. you shift power, money, and influence out of the town. you reduce the growth of medicare and medicaid. have a reasonable tax plan that will grow the economy. and we think all this together, including a program to freeze regulations, will provide us with about 3.95% growth.

we don't make numbers up. we believe there is an element here of dynamics going on our tax bill. but i have been involved for a very very long time and making sure that the members we put together adds up, and in the end, we get economic growth. lower taxes, restraint on spending has yield significant job growth and significant prosperity, both when i was in washington and since i have been governor. the plan that i'm proposing will provide the economic growth we need to accommodate what we need to be doing in america to get to a balanced budget, get to a point where we can begin to pay down debt, making the tax code simpler, providing the economic growth, and making america strong again for our families, our children, and our grandchildren. mr. burr: thank you, governor. we talked about trying to put out a plan to govern, not to get elected.

are you at a disadvantage with some of your opponents' plans have been challenge for their mathematics? do feel like it is difficult to put a plan in that works when you are trying to appeal to a base of voters? why don't you just put the best plan you can together and let the voters make a choice? i believe the voters make good choices. to startnot about putting in wild ideas just to get attention. i just don't want to do that. and the reason i don't want to do it is because i'm a dad. and i want my daughters to be proud of their effort. , whot my wife to be proud has to support me through all this political stuff to do, i want her to be proud of her husband. i want to raise the bar in politics. and i think leveling with people

is not inconsistent with winning. and i invite all of you to come to new hampshire and see how it , where ourwn halls numbers have been in the top tier all along. backnow, i do want to look and think that i did something that i didn't feel good about. i haven't done it throughout my entire political career. one final thing. when i was running for reelection, a lot of my staff said you need to get out there and start attacking barack obama. that will get everybody revved up. , the presidentht is fair game. frankly, i would rather spend my time talking about where we were, where we are, and what we are going to do. and i won the second largest electoral victory in iowa history. that is where i live. and i'm pretty happy living there.

and i'm pretty happy with who i am. and i think that matters. >> [applause] governor, president obama is not in this race, but hillary clinton is. how do you respond to questions about your employment with lehman brothers when anti-wall street populism is prevalent? gov. kasich: at the lehman brothers, iran a two-man office in columbus, ohio. and if i was involved in bankrupting, i should be named pope instead of running for president of the united states. debate,said in the last i believe in free enterprise, but i think there needs to be a value system that underlies it. i think there are times when the pendulum swings towards agreed in a place like wall street. wall street has its place. and i am really happy i was there. i not only learned about how it

works, but more important, i learned how business leaders make decisions about jobs. 347,000 jobsw up in ohio. we have a diversified economy. i deal directly with ceos. they know who i am, i know who they are, and it works. so, -- and i would never look the other way, in terms of what the situation is. and we need to have rules in place that guided them, and we need to have regulators that note -- not only bark, but might. -- bite. i am always comfortable talking about my time at lehman brothers and look forward to a spirited debate about it. countrr: i keep losing how many candidates there are, but the question would be, how long will it take to get down to the final four?

gov. kasich: see, that happens in april, so they will start basketball -- midnight madness start soon. [laughter] i just -- i think that this process of iowa and new hampshire, south carolina, it will sort it -- sort itself out. we talk about poll numbers. you know, this is the reality of it, and it is why the national polls, to me, outside of fundraising, doesn't mean very much. you see, if you live in washington, in order to cover a politician, you take a short cab ride from your office to the capitol. if you are in the new york market, you obviously would get a lot of attention. there are not many reporters who want to consistently fly to columbus, ohio, or any other midwestern city, to cover

somebody who is doing a good job. if you are doing a bad job, you get all the blessed that you could stand -- press that you could stand. national poll numbers are a challenge for me, but i think it will be corrected once we get to new hampshire. in terms of who is going to be around, i expect to be. i don't have any doubt about being around. >> [applause] governor, he said he didn't want to inject politics into a debate over the paris a tax paid your campaign released an ad touting your national security record. isn't that what your campaign is doing? gov. kasich: i didn't know they did that, and i don't know we did it, and i don't know what is behind it. you heard my speech today. i'm the person that speaks, and i said what i have to say, including in florida, including on television on sunday, and including in the questions we have here today. mr. burr: thank you, governor,

for being here. i have a few announcements. the national press crowd is the world's leading organization for journalists, and we fight for a free press worldwide. for more information about the club, visit our website at press.org. and to donate, .org/institute. tonight, the press club host the 30th annual book fair. tomorrow, massachusetts senator -- elizabeth warren the speaker. -- will speak here. senator trent lott, who was here a few minutes ago, and tom daschle will be talking about their new book gender i-19. on januarye to -- 19. i would like to present our guest the traditional press club mug. my question is this -- at the

next debate, how do you than doubt when there are nine people on stage -- like your hair on fire, what do you do to stand out? : it will depend on how the people who moderate the debate operate. going to 90 seconds is an improvement. you know, this whole business of standing out and breaking out, and all of that -- the most is letnt thing for me people know about my experience, let them know about what i want to do, and about my concern for their families. that, i addition to think i'm going back to new hampshire for two or three days this week, next week, the week after, the week after, the week after, the week after, you got where i am going? ok. i will be in iowa.

i am going to south carolina this week. we are moving all of the place. the thing is, debates are one snippet -- they are just one snippet of an overall campaign. but me tell you what we invest in, and this is why i am so optimistic and buoyant about new hampshire, and more so growing about iowa and south carolina. it is organization. organization is what wins elections. the beauty of new hampshire is that it is small. it is like running for congress. that is what makes it so great. it is a special process where the folks there can make good choices without having to learn everything through the prism of a campaign ad. here, for letting me be letting me speak, and putting this together in a short period of time. god bless. [applause]

>> thank you, governor. staff. like to thank the if you would like a copy of the program or to learn more about the national press club, go to the website. press.org. thank you very much. we are adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [applause] >> c-span has your coverage of the road to the white house 2016, where you will find the candidates, the speeches, the debates, and most importantly, your question. this year we are taking the road to the white house across the country with our student cam

contest, giving students the chance to discuss what important issues they want to hear the most from candidates. follow the coverage on tv, on radio, and online at c-span.org. >> c-span presents "landmark cases" the books, a guide to our "landmark cases" series, which explores supreme court decisions including marbury versus madison, korematsu versus the united states, brown versus the board of education, miranda versus the state of arizona, and roe versus wade. it features highlights and impact of each case. it is written by journalist tony mauro and published by c-span. "landmark cases" is available

for a dollars $.95 plus shipping. -- $8.95 plus shipping. get your copy today at c-span.org/landmarkcases. >> members of congress spoke this week about the recent terror attacks in paris and what to do about the fight against isis and the syrian refugee crisis. we heard from several lawmakers, including arizona senator john mccain, who chairs the armed services committee. isil. a year ago, the goal was to degrade and destroy isil. it's impossible to look at where we are today and claim that the president's strategy is succeeding or that it is likely to succeed on anything approaching an acceptable timetable and level of risk. no one should take this as a criticism of the men and women in uniform as well as their civilian counterparts in the field, could doing the best then under the strategic and operational constraints they face, especially the white

house's desire revisiting the vietnam war tactics that the white house is micromanaging the military campaign. it's not that we've done nothing against isil. it's that there is no compelling reason to believe that anything we're doing will be sufficient to destroy isil. thousands of air strikes against isil's targets have conjured the illusion of progress, but they have produced little in the way of decisive battle effects. i noted with some interest that we provided some targeting for the french who carried out air strikes. i wonder why we hadn't done any of that in the last year. isil continues to dominate sunni arab areas in the world in both iraq and syria and efforts to reclaim major population centers in those areas such as most you will have stalled, to say the --

as mosul have stalled, to say the least. meantime, isil continues to expand globally. it's now operating in afghanistan, lebanon, egypt. and other radical islamist groups like boko haram and others have pledged allegiance to isil. this appearance of success only enhances isil's ability to radicalize, recruit and grow. and now in the past month, isil has commenced a new stage in its war on the civilized world by unleashing a wave of terrorist attacks across the globe. in england arrest a, -- in ankara, isil detonated two bombs outside a train station, killing 102 people and injuring 400 more. in skies over egypt, isil destroyed a russian civil airliner with a bomb that killed

all 224 passengers aboard. in beirut, isil conducted two suicide bombings that killed 43 people and injured 239 more. in baghdad, isil bombs killed 26 people, wounded more than 60 others. and finally in the streets of paris last week, as we all know, gunmen wearing suicide belts attacked innocent civilians at restaurants, bars, a soccer stadium and a concert hall, killing at least 129 and wounding 352 other people. the american people have experienced this kind of terror before and we stand together with the people of turkey, russia, lebanon, iraq, france and nearly 20 other nations whose citizens were murdered by these brutal atrocities committers. these attacks reveal nothing new about isil's character. isil is the face of evil in our world today. it has crucified its enemies,

beheaded innocent journalists, burned a muslim pilot alive in a cage. it's condemned women and children and girls to slavery and torture and unspeakable sexual abuse, and when waging war on the living has failed to satisfy its savagery, isil has desecrated and destroyed many of the monuments to civilization that remain across the middle east. isis's latest attacks also reveal nothing new about its intentions. everything that isil is doing is what their leaders have long said they would do. they have stated their aims explicitly and clearly. all we have to do is listen to their words. indeed, as one author put it, isil has toiled mightily to make their projects knowable. what these attacks have demonstrated and what now should

be clear is that isil is at war with us whether or not we admit it that we are at war with them. what should now be clear is that isil is determined to attack the heart of the civilized world. europe and the united states. that it has the intent to attack us, the capability to attack us and the sanctuary from which to plan those attacks. what should now be clear is our people and our allies will not be safe until isil is destroyed, not just degraded but destroyed, not eventually but as soon as possible. unfortunately, unfortunately, almost tragically, this president, president obama, remains as ideologically committed as ever to staying the course he is on and impervious to new information that would suggest otherwise as he made quite clear during his incredible press conference yesterday in turkey, according to the president, the united

states -- according to the president of the united states, anyone who disagrees with him is -- quote -- popping off. popping off. i guess michael morrell, former deputy secretary of the c.i.a. was just popping off when he said recently the downing of a russian airliner, only the third such attack in 25 years, the attacks in paris, the largest in europe since the madrid bombings in 2004 make it crystal clear that our isis strategy is not working. that comes from michael morrell, a former deputy head of the c.i.a. under this president. i guess senator dianne feinstein, vice chair of the senate intelligence committee, was just popping off when she said that isil is not contained, isil is expanding and that we need new military strategy and tactics. i guess general jack keene, one of my heroes, architect of the

successful surge strategy in iraq, was just popping off when he said -- quote -- "we are, in fact, losing this war. moreover, i can say with certainty that this strategy will not defeat isis." this strategy will not defeat isis. that comes from the author of the surge which succeeded which the president by withdrawing all troops allowed to go completely to waste and the lives of brave young americans were wasted. i guess hillary clinton, the president's former secretary of state and desired successor, was just popping off when she declared her support for a no-fly zone in syria to -- quote -- stop the carnage on the ground and in the air. i guess general david petraeus was just popping off when he testified to the armed services committee that the president's strategy has failed to create the military conditions to end the conflict in syria and that

isil will not be defeated until we do so. and i guess james jeffrey, a career foreign officer and the president's ambassador to iraq was just popping off when he wrote in "the washington post" today that the president needs to send thousands of ground troops to destroy isil. what all of these national security leaders recognize is the reality that is staring us right in the face. it is the president who is once again failing to grasp it. he fails to understand even now that wars don't end just because he says they are over, that our terrorist enemies are not defeated just because he says they are. and the threat posed by isil is not contained because he desires it to be so and that maybe, just maybe, the growing group of his bipartisan critics might just be right. and why won't he listen to them?

why won't he listen to these people of experience and knowledge and background? who does he listen to? who does the president listen to? it couldn't be anybody knowledgeable and make the comments that he made at that press conference. the president has had to go back on everything he said he would not do to combat the threats now emanating from syria and iraq. he said he would not arm moderate syrian rebels because that would militarize the conflict. he was wrong. he said he would not intervene militarily in iraq or syria. he was wrong. he said he would not put boots on the ground in syria. he was wrong. now he says that his strategy is working, that all it needs is time and that no further changes are required despite isil's campaign of terror. let me get this straight. after the bombing in paris, after the russian airliner, after the other acts of terror

-- quote -- he needs time, he needs time, and that no further changes are required. does anybody, does anybody believe him anymore? what the president has failed to understand for nearly five years is that unless and until he leads an international effort to end the conflict in syria and iraq, the costs of this conflict will continue to mount. those consequences have grown steadily from mass atrocities and hundreds of thousands dead in syria to the repeated use of weapons of mass destruction to the rise of the world's largest terrorist army and its rampage across syria and iraq. to destabilizing refugee flows that have shaken the stability of syria's neighbors and now are potentially changing the character of european society. now we see the latest manifestation of this threat, global terrorist attacks directed and inspired by isil that has killed hundreds across

the world. the paris attacks obviously should be a wake-up call for all americans, most of all for the president. if we stay the course, if we don't change our strategy now, we will be attacked. i don't know where, when or how, but it will happen. do we need to wait for more innocent people not to die before we address the reality that is right before us? isil has said it intends to attack washington, d.c. do we not take them at their word? do we think they're not capable of it? do we think time is on our side? it's not. time is not on our side. the lesson of the september 11 attack was that mass murders cannot be permitted -- mass murderers cannot be permitted safe havens, cannot be permitted safe havens from which to plot

our destruction. do we really have to pay that price again through the blood of our citizens? for nearly five years, we have been told that there is no military solution to the conflict in syria and iraq, as if anyone believes there is. in fact, one of the things that's most frustrating about the president's rhetoric is that he sets up strawmen. he says we either should do nothing or the republicans -- the critics, now democrats as well, wanting to send in hundreds of thousands or a hundred thousand. we do not. we do not. we believe and i am convinced that we can send in a force composed of sunni arabs, of egyptians, of turks and americans about 10,000, establish the no-fly zone, allow the refugees a sanctuary and make sure that no barrel bombing

will be allowed in those areas, and we can succeed. isis is not invincible. the united states of america and our allies are far stronger. we are the strongest nation on earth. and to say that we can't defeat isil is a matter of will, not a matter of whether it's capability or not. so i say, say to my colleagues, the american people, we can defeat isis and we wipe them off the face of the earth, but we've got to have a strategy, and this president has never had a strategy. for nearly five years, we have been told there is no military solution, there are no good options, that our influence is limited, but that's not always the case. we won't succeed overnight, because if our problem is one of time, not policy, then we can't solve every problem in the middle east, as if that be a solves us of our responsibility to make the situation better

where we can. this isn't a question of our capacity, our capabilities or our options. we've always had options to address this growing threat, but the longer we wait, the longer we wait, the more difficult and risk of cost going is there. four years ago when lindsey graham and i came to this floor and said we need to have a no-fly zone, we need to arm and train the free syrian army, we need once bashar assad to cross the red line, we could have done it then and it would have been a heck of a lot easier, but this president didn't want to do it and we are faced with a more complex tens of thousand -- couple of hundred thousand syrians dead, millions refugees later, and the president of the united states still won't act, still believes as he stated in his press conference yesterday that somehow everything is going fine. what delusion.

after the attack on france, article 5 of nato's founding treaty should be invoked, which states that an attack on one is an attack on all. that's what we did after 9/11. the united states should work with our nato ally and our arab partners to assemble a coalition that will take the fight to isil from the air and on the ground. my friends, air attacks only will not succeed. it will not succeed. i'm sorry to tell you, i apologize ahead of time. we need boots on the ground. not a hundred thousand but about 10,000 with the capabilities -- with the dmaibilities are unique to -- capabilities that are unique to american servicemen and women. and we can defeat isil. we have to step up the air campaign by easing overly restrictive rules of engagement. at the same time we've got to recognize that isil will only be defeated by ground combat forces, as i said.

those don't exist today. we must recognize that our indirect efforts to support our partners on the ground, iraqi security forces, moderate syrian opposition force, the kurdish peshmerga and sue my tribal forces are insufficient to outpace the growing threat we face. the united states must therefore work to assemble, as i mentioned, a coalition and ground force that will -- a commitment on the order of 10,000 u.s. troops. in syria, we must hasten the end of the civil war. we must accept that russia and iran are not interested in a negotiated solution that favors u.s. interest. russia and iran have entirely different goals than the united states of america in syria. russia wants to keep bashar assad or a stiewj in power. they want -- or a stooge in power, they want to keep their major influence in the region and they want to protect their base there. the united states of america has

none of those interests. they want to prop up the guy who's killed 240,000. i appreciate that outpouring of concern of all my colleagues and all americans about these refugees. the refugees are the result of a failure of presidential and american leadership. they're not the cause of it. the cause of these hundreds of thousands or millions of refugees is because our policy failed, bashar assad slaughtered them with barrel bombs and we are now faced with the threat, in some respects, of whether -- of a possibility of one or more of these refugees having gone through greece and now are -- or could possibly, as the director of the c.i.a. said yesterday, possibly ongoing operations to try to orchestrate attacks on america.

it's often said that america doesn't go abroad in search of monsters to destroy but that doesn't mean there are no monsters in the world that seek to destroy us. the longer we wait to accept this reality, the greater the cost we will pay. you know, one of my great heroes and role models, as is the case with many of our colleagues, is winston churchill. and never would compare myself with -- with winston churchill in any possible way, except sometimes i do have some empathy with winston churchill, who during the 1930's came to the floor -- came to the floor of the parliament and made comments and speeches that were very, very moving but no one paid any attention to him. in fact, he was ridiculed. in fact, lindsey graham and i

have -- lindsey graham and i have been rid sciewled from time to time because of our assessment of the situation -- ridiculed from time to time because of our assessment of the situation and what needed to be done. so winston churchill once said -- and i quote -- after the crisis had been resolved, to some degree and the family of britain and the world had awakened -- quote -- and there is a parallel between the situation four years ago and what winston churchill had to say. and a quote -- "when the situation was manageable, it was neglected and now that it is thoroughly out of hand, we apply too late the remedies which then might have affected a cure. there is nothing new in the story. it's as old as the cybaline books. it falls into that long, dismal catalog of the fruitlessness of experience and the confirmed

unteachability of mankind. want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency becomes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong, these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history." i say to my colleagues, we are observing the endless repetition of history. what once upon a time was a manageable situation, where the president of the united states said, it's not a matter of when bashar assad leaves, it's a matter of when. when the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and then the secretary of defense testified before our committee, it's inevitable that bashar assad will go. when the president of the united states continuously said time after time, we have a strategy,

it's not anything to worry abo about. we get out of iraq, we draw red lines in syria and don't do it, don't take any action after that red line is crossed. when his national security team composed of the secretary of state clinton, secretary of defense panetta and then-director of the c.i.a., david petraeus all recommended training and arming the free syrian army, he rejected it. so now we find ourselves with 240 million dead in syria, more children in school -- syrian children in school in lebanon than lebanese children, jordan, the very fabric of one of our best friends threatened and unstable because of the huge number of refugees. we find a very unstable middle east and we find isis spread nod

other nations. they've even -- isis has now established a foothold in afghanistan. and the iranians are doing the same. so it's not too late. it's not too late. we have to take up arms. we have to tell the american people what's at stake here. we have to inform the american people that what happened in paris can happen here. mr. baghdadi, who was once in our prison camp, camp bucca, for four years in iraq and said, i'll see you in new york when he left. he was not kidding. and there is no doubt that what isis has just proved is that contrary to what this president believed, contrary even what our intelligence told us, they have a reach.

they've had a reach to russian -- to shooting -- making sure that a russian jet was destroyed, airliner. they have a reach to paris. they have a reach to beirut. and they have a reach in northern africa and other places in the world. and there's no reason why we should not suspect that they have a reach to the united states of america. it's time we acted. it's time the united states of america, acting with our allies, take out isil. we must go both to iraq and to syria and take them out. their total defeat is the only thing that will eliminate this threat to the united states of america. yes, after they're destroyed, there's a lot to do. yes, there's things such as building societies and economies and free societies and all that. but there's only one thing that mr. baghdadi and his legions understand and that is that we

kill them. and we counter with everything we can this spread of this perverted form of an honorable religion called islam. and this is radical islam terrorists, whether the president ever wants to say it or not. so, my dear colleagues, i hope that working together -- and, by the way, i just -- one additional point. the refugees are a huge problem. obviously we have to pause until we are sure that nobody is doing exactly what apparently at least one of the terrorists that attacked paris did and that is go through greece and into france. but at the same time, we need to understand that the refugee problem is an effect of a failed policy, not the cause of it. so i would just like to finally

say the president should do two things. one, call together the smartest people that we know. i named some of them. general petraeus, david -- general keane. there's a number of names of people, general mattis, general kelly. there are a number of people wh. the names are familiar to many of us who follow national security. these people are the ones that made the surge succeed. call them together over to the white house and say, give me your advice. he must do that. what he's been listening to and what he's doing is failing. and finally, i stand ready -- and i know that my friend, lindsey graham, who is my partner and knows more about these issues than any other member of this body and certainly anybody who's running for president of the united states -- we'll go over, we'd be glad to go over and sit with the president. i want to cooperate with him. i want to work with him.

we need to do that. and i offer up my services and my advice and counsel and anybody else on this side of the aisle. this is a threat to the lives of the men and women who are living in this nation. they deserve our protection and they deserve a bipartisan approach and a bipartisan action in order to stop that. so i stand ready but right now i have not been more concerned. i leave my colleagues with one -- two fundamental facts. one, there are now more refugees in the world at any time since the end of world war ii. two, there are now more crises in the world than at any time since the end of world war ii. we cannot sustain this failed policies that have led us to the situation that america and the world are in today.

mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer the presiding officer: the other senator from arizona. mr. flake: mr. president, over the weekend, france suffered the worst attack that it has seen since world twar two -- world war ii. a day before that, beirut was rocked by two suicide bombings perpetrated by isil that killed more than 40 civilians. we just had it confirmed that the russian plane flying over the sinai was taken down by a terrorist bomb. again, isil has claimed credit. these attacks have followed on the heels of an announced -- an announcement two weeks earlier by the president that he's authorized the deployment of up to 50 special forces in syria. they will be there to support

u.s.-backed syrian rebels in the campaign against isil. more than one year after the announcement of operation inherent resolve, a mission to -- quote -- "degrade and ultimately defeat" isil, this conflict has escalated dramatically. the facts on the ground in the middle east have changed dramatically. russia is intervening militarily on behalf of bashar assad in syria. hundreds of thousands of syrians have left their homes and have left the country to escape isil and assad. precipitating a massive humanitarian crisis that has brought the european union under great strain. in addition to the deployment of u.s. special forces in syria, news reports indicate that the u.s. will increase supplies of military weapons to u.s.-backed syrian rebels fighting isil. for all the changes that we've seen over the past year, one

thing has not changed -- the congress of the united states has not voted to authorize the use of military force against isil. that needs to change. that's why i've come to the floor today and senator -- and the senator from virginia, senator kaine, who will speak in a moment, has come as well. we need an authorization for the use of military force. now, the president maintains that the legal underpinnings of his authorization come from the aumf provided to our previous president in the 107th congress back in 2001. the 2001 aumf allowed the president the authority to use -- quote -- "all necessary and appropriate force" against those he determined who planned, authorized or committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on september 11, 2001 or harbored such organizations or persons."

more than ten years later, two provisions of the massive f.y. 2012 national defense authorization act expanded the 2001 aumf to include -- quote -- associated forces of al qaeda and the taliban. now, this is an expansion from what the administration derives its authority for today's actions to go after the islamic state in iraq and syria. i'm not standing here today to debate the merits of the administration's arguments as to whether or not they have the legal authority. that's not what is at issue right here. what is at issue is the ease with which congress happily defers to old statutes and abdicates its authority to weigh in on what history will record as long, complex, brutal conflict. this conflict hag going on for more than a year with very mixed results, and the consequences will change the geopolitical

landscape in that region for decades. ten american service members have died supporting operation inherent resolve. one of them recently killed in action. five others have been wounded. with thousands of service members in support of operation inherent resolve and attacks happening all over the world, the notion that a 14-year-old statute aimed at another enemy is any kind of substitute for congressional authorization is insufficient. operation inherent resolve warrants its own authorization, not just because of its size and duration, because americans are dying in pursuit of it or because it is directed at an enemy that is a threat to our security. this mission warrants its own authorization because we want it to succeed. we want the world to know that the united states speaks with one voice. nearly a year ago, the senate

foreign relations committee passed -- we pressed the administration to come forward with a draft aumf against isil. when it did not do so, the committee proceeded with its own aumf, which spurred the administration to take action. two months after that exercise, the administration sent up its own draft aumf. that was more than eight months ago. but efforts to produce an aumf here in congress have since stalled. in an effort to break the gridlock, as i mentioned, the senator from virginia, mr. kaine, and myself introduced a resolution that we think represents a good compromise. it may not be perfect. it may represent only a starting point, but we need a starting point here and we need to move forward. this issue is far too important not to try to get an agreement to move ahead. i would urge my colleagues to consider the importance of this operation against isil, and the

implications to foreign policies for many years ahead. specifically, the implications to this body, congress of the united states and the u.s. senate, if we're not even willing to weigh in and authorize the use of force here, what does that say to our adversaries. what does that say to our allies? what does that say to the troops who are fighting on our behalf? how much longer can we go without an authorization for use of force? with that, i'd like to yield time to my colleague, the senator from virginia. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia is recognized. mr. kaine: thank you, mr. president, and i thank my colleague from arizona for working so closely. this does not have to be a partisan issue. in fact, it should not be a partisan issue. my sense is in this congress, in both houses, 80-plus percent of the members believe strongly that the united states should be engaged in military action under some circumstances against this horrible threat of isil, and yet

despite that overwhelming consensus and despite the clear constitutional command in article 1 that we should not be at war without a vote of congress, there has been a strange conspiracy of silence about this in the legislative branch for the last 16 months. the senator from arizona and i introduced a resolution in january to authorize military force building upon previous efforts in the foreign relations committee, the president's authorization. we did it knowing it's not perfect, knowing not everyone would agree with every word, but we did it to show we can be bipartisan and stand up against a threat like isil. let's just review as the senator did, let's review what has happened since august 8, 2014. the president on that day started air strikes against isil and said he was doing it for two reasons. first, to protect american personnel who were jeopardized at a consulate in irbil, and

second to provide humanitarian support for members of a minority religious secretary, the azidib es who were being hammed in. at that point in 2014 isil and their activities were limited to iraq and syria. 16 months later, we have lost four american hostages who have been executed by isil, we have lost ten american service men and women who were deployed to that theater, we have about 3,600 american troops who were deployed thousands of miles from home, risking their lives every day. we have spent $5 billion, $11 million a day in the battle against isil, we have flown nearly 6,300 air strikes with american aircraft against isil. isil which was at first limited to iraq and syria, now has presence in afghanistan, libya, yemen, somalia. they have undertaken attacks that they claim credit for in

the sinai and egypt and in lebanon. this threat is mutating and growing, and at the end of last week on friday the 13th, we saw the horror of isil with the grim assassination of innocents as they were enjoying dinner or going to music concerts or watching soccer games in paris. isil put out a video a few days ago threatening similar attacks on washington. isil's not going away. this is a threat, and the president started military action for a narrow and limited reason, but the threat has mutated. like a cancer, it's grown and it is now affecting nations all over the world. and so the question is how long will congress continue to be silent about this? congress -- and i will say, i think this is a malady that you can lay at the feet of both parties in both houses. congress seems to prefer a

strategy of criticize what the president's doing, and look, i'm critical of some of the things that the president's doing. the senator from arizona, the senior senator's speech earlier laid out some challenges with the strategy. but it's not enough for this body that has a constitutional authority in matters of war to just criticize the commander in chief, but what we've done is sat on the said ions and criticized, but we have not been willing either to vote to authorize what's going on, vote to stop what's going on or vote to refine or revise what's going on. it's easy to be a critic. it's easy to sit in the stands and watch a play and say well, why didn't the coach call a different play, but we're not fans here. we're the owners of the team. we're the article 1 branch and we're not supposed to be at war without a vote of congress. i will hand it back to my colleague from arizona and then perhaps i could say a few concluding words that would be more about the kind of emotional rather than the legal side of this as we're thinking about the

challenges in paris, but i think the events of last week, egypt, beirut, paris, demonstrate that the voice of congress is needed. the voice of congress is needed to fulfill our article 1 responsibility. the voice of congress is needed as the senator from arizona mentioned because we send a message by our voice to our allies, to the adversary and to our troops. the voice of congress is also needed because it has the effect of solving some of the problems that senator mccain mentioned earlier. to the extent that the administration's strategy is not what we would want it to be, they have to present a strategy to congress. when we ask tough questions of the witnesses and we refine it and it gets better and we do that all in the view of the american public so they can be educated about what's at stake. when you don't have the debate, you don't put before the american public the reasons for the involvement, and that is desperately needed.

with that, i want to thank again my colleague from arizona. i'd like to say a few words at the end about why this is a matter of emotional significance to me, but i would now defer to my colleague. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: thank you, mr. president. i thank my colleague from virginia. let me just say, i mentioned, we both mentioned the importance of the message that needs to be sent from the u.s. congress, article 1 branch. the message to our troops who are fighting on our behalf. second, the message to our adversaries. they need to know that we are resolved, that we speak with one voice. let me talk for just a second about the message to our allies. an authorization for use of force will dictate and will set the parameters for that use of force. our allies need to know if we're all in or if there are certain limitations. if we decide that this body, if the congress decides there are certain limitations of that use of force, our allies need to know that. they need to know their role,

what they're required to do. that will be a useful thing. if there are limitations, we need to spell them out. if there aren't, we need to let our adversaries know that as well. but whatever the case, we need to debate this and we need to authorize this use of force. we've waited long enough, we've waited frankly far too long. we've asked the president for language. the president sent language up. i think it's lacking in a few areas, i like some parts of it, but it needs to be debated here. and if we have asked the president for that language, then we need to take it up and actually do something with it. it's our responsibility, we are the article 1 branch. we're the branch that is supposed to declare war. and we need to do that here. so i would again invite my colleague from virginia to close here and thank the president and just say that it's time, it's

well past time that we move on this and hopefully the events of the past couple of weeks, the attacks that happened in paris, the bombing of a plane, the other suicide bombings that have occurred, our commitment of new resources will convince us all that it's time to act here in congress. with that, i yield back. mr. kaine: thank you, mr. president, and thank you again to the senator from arizona for joining together in this important area. so i had a -- an epiphany that was kind of a sad epiphany on friday. i was thinking about senator flake and i have children that are about the same age. i was thinking about young people, looking at our pages here, thinking about young people. like many when the attacks happened friday, my first thoughts were to who do i know in paris? a lot of folks have relatives or have family or co-workers or former co-workers that were in paris, and like a lot of people,

i got on the phone and i got on the text to try to track down my niece. i have a niece who is a student at law school, third year law student. she is in paris for a semester studying there. she was in the restaurant area where the shootings occurred, so close that she could hear them. she was not immediately affected, but she and her friends had to kind of barricade themselves in the restaurant for a while wondering what was going on. now, we were able to determine elizabeth was fine, and she assured all the family and the people who wanted to send her the plane ticket to come home, no, i'm fine. but i started to think about over the weekend like how fine she really was, how fine our young people really are, because elizabeth was a peace corps volunteer in cameroon a few years ago, and since coming home, the village that she lived in was essentially wiped out by boko haram.

the next door neighbor that was her protector and the protector of all the peace corps volunteers that came before was killed, along with a lot of her other friends. and boko haram has now pledged allegiance to isil. so she has had the experience of losing friends in a terrorist attack in cameroon and now she has had the experience of being nearby, near a terrorist attack in paris. and it started to just kind of work on my conscience a little bit that this for now for her is a norm. you know, for me at age 57, these events are not the norm. they're the extreme. but for elizabeth or for my children, i have three kids, one in the military. they all came of age after 9/11. we're living in a world that for so many of our young people, the norm is not peace and safety and complacency. the norm is war or terrorist

attacks all over the globe, and if that can be said about american young people, it's certainly the case for young people in france or young people in syria or all over the region. i hate that we're living in a world where young people are starting to think that this is the norm rather than the exception. and it seems to me as an adult, as somebody in a leadership position, that part of what we need to do is rather than just allow us to drift without taking a position into the world where this is more and more normal, while acknowledging that we are humble people and we can't completely control our destiny, we've got to take charge of a situation and not stand by and just lob in criticism but try to shape it to the best of our ability. i think that was the genius of the drafters of the constituti constitution. james madison, a virginian, who drafted many of these provisions, was trying to do something incredibly radical.

war at the time was for the king or the monarch or the emperor, and madison and the others who drafted the american constitution said, we're going to take that power to initiative war away from the -- to initiate war away from the executive, nobody else has ever done this, and we're going to put the power if the hand of the people's representatives so they can debate and soberly analyze when you should take that step of authorizing military action. we're evewhere even under the bf circumstances horrible things can happen and people can lose their lives. we've allowed this war to go on long enough without putting a congressional fingerprint on it. for our young peemg peemg, peopr troops, for our allies, we should take up that leadership mantle and try to shape this mutating and growing threat. with that, i yield the floor and thank again my colleague from arizona.

mr. daines: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. daines: mr. president, the obama administration's war on energy isn't just a war on coal, it's a war on american jobs, on american families, and our national security. and that's why it's so surprise that the president's anti-energy yeandz iagenda is getting opposn from both sides of the aisle. i'm thankful for the bipartisan leadership by senator mcconnell and as well as senator heitkamp in standing up against the regulations against our nation's coal-fired power plants. i'm glad to join them to stop

the e.p.a. from imposing its anti-coal regulations. the congressional review act resolution of disapproval we are considering today will block the obama administration's regulations on existing coal-fired plants. we're also seeing strong opposition, strong opposition from more than half of the states in the country, including my home state of montana, that through three different lawsuits have requested an initial stay on the rule. the obama administration's wreckless agenda is -- reckless yeandz iagenda is shutting down coal-fired power plants across the united states. it is stifling investments that could lead to innovation to make coal even cleaner here in the united states. president obama calls it the clean power plan. that's not named correctly. it should be called the unaffordable energy plan.

president obama's unaffordable energy plan will have a negligible energy impact on global emissions, but it will lead to devastating consequences for affordable energy and these good-paying union and tribal jobs. here are the facts: the united states mines just 11% of the world's coal and consumes about 10.5% of the world's coal. said another way, 90%, approximately, of all the coal that's mined and consumed occurs outside the united states. and global demand for coal-fired energy will not disappear even if the united states were to shut down every last coal mine and coal-fired plant. coal use around the world has grown four times fafort faster n renewables. 1,200 coal plants are planned in 59 countries. let meet say that again. 1,200 coal plants are planned in 59 countries, about

three-quarters of which will be in china and india. china alone consumes 4 billion tons of coal per year. compare that to the united states as 1 billion tons a year. in other words, china four times greater than the united states. in fact, comie china is buildinw coal plant every ten days for the next ten years. look at japan, for example. after the great quake there in japan, they lost their nuclear power capability. japan is currently building 43 coal-fired plants, and by 2020 india may have built two and a half times as much coal capacity as the u.s. is about to lose. so the obama administration's reckless war on energy will have little impact on global emissions. but here's what it will do: it will devastate significant parts of our economy. it's going to cause energy bills to skyrocket. it'll be a loss of tax revenues

for our schools, for our roads, for our teachers, and it's going to destroy family, wage, union, and tribal jobs. if this rule moves forward, countless coal-fired plants like colstr power plant in montana, will likely be shuttered putting thousands of jobs at risk, and it also will make new coal-fired plants incredibly difficult to build. coal keeps the lights on in this country, and it will continue to power the world for decades to come. in fact, in my home state of montana, it provides more than half of our electricity. i've told my kids, we have four children, that when they plug in their phones, odds are, it's coal that powering that phone. and rather than dismissing this reality, the united states should be on the cutting edge of technological advances in energy development. we should be leading the way in powering the wocialtion not

disengauge -- the world, not disengaging. president obama's out-of-touch regulations take us out and people that can afford it the lead will be impacted the most. i join my colleagues to join us to stop the president's job-killing regulations on affordable energy. join us in standing up for american energy independence. with what we've seen happen in the world in the last week, our in the security and energy independence are tied together. stand up for american jobs, stand up for hardworking american families. thank you, mr. president. ms. warren: mr. president? the presiding officer: the sphror massachusetts. ms. warren: mr. president, on friday isis terrorists massacred 129 people in paris. just the day before, isis terrorists massacred 43 people in beirut. while these are merely the latest in a series of horrific attacks launched by isis over the last few years, these twin

tragedies have riveted the attention of the world. these events test us. it is easy to proclaim that we are tough and brave and good-hearted when threats feel far away. but when those threats loom large and close by, our actions will strip away our tough talk and reveal who we really are. we face a choice, a choice either to lead the world by example or to turn our backs to the threats and the suffering around us. last month senator shaheen, senator durbin, senator klobuchar and i traveled to europe to see the syrian refugee crisis up close. i come to the senate floor today to speak about what i saw and to try to shed some light on the choice we face. over the past four years, millions of people have fled their homes in syria, running for their lives, searching for a future for themselves and their families. official estimates indicate that

2 million syrians are now living in turkey, more than a million in lebanon, and more than half a million in jordan. the true numbers are probably much larger. the crisis has put an enormous economic and political strain on those countries. in late 2014 i traveled to jordan where i visit add u.n. refugee processing strvment i also met with jordan's foreign minister, with u.n. representatives and with american military personnel stationed in amman. even a year ago it was clear that the humanitarian crisis was so straining these host countries and that there was no end in sight. in recent months, the crisis has accelerated. the steady stream of refugees fleeing syria has become a flood, and that flood has swept across europe. every day refugees set out on a journey of hundreds of miles, from syria to the turkish coast. when they arrive, they're met by

human smugglers who charge $1,000 a head for a place on a shoddy, overloaded, plastic raft that is floated out to sea, hopefully in the direction of one of the greek islands. i visited one of those islands last month. lesbos is only a few miles but the risks of crossing is immense. these overcrowded paper-thin rafts are dangerously unsteady. parents do their best to protect their children. little ones are outfitted with blowup pool floaties as a substitute for life jackets in the hope that if their rafts go down, ad a $1.99 pool toy will e enough to save the life of a small child. according to some estimates, more than 500 people have died crossing the sea from turkey to greece so far this year.

despite the risks, thousands make the trip every day. greek coast guard officials told us that when refugees see a coast guard ship, they may even slash holes in their own rafts just so they won't be turned back. i met with the mayor of lesbos who described how his tiny greek island has struggled to cope with those refugees who have washed ashore. refugees are processed in reception centers on the island before boarding ferries to athens but greece plainly lacks the resources necessary to handle these enormous numbers. refugees pile into the reception centers, overflowing the facilities, sleeping in parks or beside the road. last month a volunteer doctor in lesbos was quoted as saying, "there are thousands of children here and their feet are literally rotting.

they can't keep dry, they have high fevers, and they're standing in the pouring rain for days on end." recently the mayor told a local radio program that the island had run out of room to bury the dead. greece i's overwhelmed registration system is not only a humanitarian crisis but also a security risk. in meeting after meeting, i asked greek officials about sciewsht screening for these migrants and time after time i heard the same answer. it was all greece could do simply to fingerprint these individuals and write down their names, before sending them off to athens and from there to somewhere else in europe. now greece's interior minister says that fingerprints taken from one of the paris attackers may match someone who registered as a refugee at a greek island entry point in early october. whether this ultimatel ultimates

to be true, there is no question that a screening system that can do no more than confirm after the fact that a terrorist entered europe is obviously not a screening system that is working. the burden of dealing with syrian refugees cannot fall on greece alone. greece and the other border countries dealing with this crisis need money and expertise to screen out security threats. europe needs to provide that assistance as quickly as possible, and if we are serious about preventing another tragedy like the one in paris, the united states must help. we must build adequate procedures to make sure that refugees, especially those who have entered europe through this slipshod screening process, can enter the united states only after they have been thoroughly vetted and we are fully confident that they do not pose a risk to our nation or our people.

the security threat is real, and it must be addressed. but on our visit to lesbos, we also had the chance to meet with refugees processed at the reception center to see who most of them really are. and from the outside, with its barbed wire and guard towers, it looks like a prison. at the entrance, words "freedom for all" are etched. in speaking with refugees inside, it feels more like a 21st century ellis island. we met doctors and teachers and civil engineers and college students, young, educated middle-class syrians seeking freedom and the opportunity for themselves and their families and seeking a safe refuge from isis, just like the rest of us. the most heartbreaking cases are the unaccompanied children much these boys and girls are

separated from the other refugees in a fenced-off outdoor dormitory area. i met a young girl in that fenced-in area, younger than my own granddaughters, sent out on this perilous journey alone. when i asked how old she was, she shyly held up seven fingers. i wonder what would convince parents to hand a 7-year-old girl and a wad of cash to human smugglers? what could possibly possess them to send a beloved child across the treacherous seas with no more protection than a pool floatie? what could make them send a child on a journey knowing that crime rings of sex slavery and organ harvesting prey on these children, send a little girl out alone with only the wildest, vaguest hope that she might make it through alive and find something, anything, better on the other side?

well, today we all know why parents would send a child on a journey alone. the events of the last week in paris and beirut drive it home. the terrorists of isis, enemies of islam and all modern civilization, butchers who rape, torture and execute women and chich, who blow -- women and children, who blow themselves up in a lunatic effort to kill as many people as possible, these terrorists have spent years torturing the people of syria. and what about the syrian government? president bashar al-assad has spent years bombing his own people. day after day, month after month, year after year, syrian civilians have been caught in the middle, subjected to suicide attacks, car bombings, hotel bombings at the hands of isis or assad or this faction or that faction. each assault more senseless than

the last. day after day, month after month, year after year, mothers, fathers, children, grandparents are slaughtered. in the wake of the murders in paris and beirut last week, people in america, in europe and throughout the world are fearful. millions of syrians are fearful as well, terrified by the reality of their daily lives, terrified that their last avenue of escape from the horrors of isis will be closed. terrified that the world will turn it's back on -- turn its back on them and their children. some politicians have already moved in that direction, proposing to close our country to people fleeing the massacre in syria. but with millions of syrian refugees already in europe, already carrying european passports, already able to travel to the united states and with more moving across europe

every day, that is not a real plan to keep us safe. and that is not who we are. we are a country of immigrants and refugees, a country made strong by our diversity, a country founded by those crossing the sea, fleeing religious persecution and seeking religious freedom. we are not a nation that delivers children back into the hands of isis murderers because some politician doesn't like their religion. and we are not a nation that backs down out of fear. our first responsibility is to protect this country. we must embrace that fundamental obligation. but we do not make ourselves safer by ignoring our common humanity and turning away from our moral obligation. isis has shown itself to the world. we cannot and we will not abandon the people of france to

this butchery. we cannot and we will not abandon the people of lebanon to this butchery. and we cannot and we will must not abandon the people of syria to this butchery. the terrorists in paris and beirut remind us that the hate of a few can alter the lives of many. now we have a chance to affirm a different message, a message that we are a courageous people who will stand strong in the face of terrorism. we have the courage to affirm our commitment to a world of open minds and open hearts. this must be our choice. the same choice that has been made over and over again by every generation of americans. this is always our choice. it is the reason the people of syria and people all around this

world look to us for hope. it is the reason isis despises us. and it is the reason we will defeat them. you can watch the floor debate on that bill later today at 3:20 p.m. eastern time here on c-span. wassyrian refugee crisis also a topic on this weekend's "newsmakers" with republican tom price of georgia. he talked about some of the reasons for passing that will in the house -- bill in the house. that theal problem is

united states doesn't have a strategy. the administration has not defined a strategy. they refuse to engage in this issue in a way that would make it so that we actually defeat and stop terrorism coming from that entity. what the house did this past the was to say, because homeland security secretary and the director of the fbi says, we aren't able to be certain that folks coming into the refugee program are actually coming here and not having any associations with terrorist groups. they're unable to say that. and since they're not able to say that,'s the program and put it in a posture of making certain that there able to vet these individual. --individuals. >> obama has said he will veto this. what would be the next house step? >> what you need to ask yourself what the american people need to ask themselves is what does it mean when a president vetoes a piece of legislation that is solely for the purpose of

protecting the american people? a very troubling time. i call on the president as all of our conference does to recognize the concern that the american people have about this issue. this is not child's play. this is a very, serious issue. to have the president say even though in spite of his homeland security secretary saying that they aren't able to appropriately vet these individuals, that's not the republican conference and the house, that is his homeland security secretary, and have the president say he's not going to listen to that and he's going to continue to allow people into this nation that he cannot with any degree of certainty know that they don't have past ties to terrorism. this is a very troubling event. >> you can see the entire interview with republican congressman tom price tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on c-span. cia director john brennan spoke

about the syrian refugee crisis this week at a conference in washington, d.c. about othere national security concerns, the overseas security advisory council posted this event. director brennan's marks --rema rks are 30 minutes. i am the diplomatic security deputy assistant secretary for threat investigations and analysis. this morning i have the pleasure of introducing our first keynote speaker, the honorable john brennan. mr. brennan is an accomplished leader with an extensive history of public service. n inr to being sworn is -- i march 2013, director brennan spent four years as deputy national security adviser for homeland security and counterterrorism and assistant to the president. he advised the president on counterterrorism strategy and helps coordinate the u.s. government's approach

to homeland security, including its policies for responding to terrorism, natural disasters, and pandemics. mr. brennan began service in government at the cia, where he worked from 1980 to 2005. he spent most of his early career in the agency's main director of, the intelligence, specializing in the near east and south asia before directing counterterrorism and analysis in the 1990's. in 1994 and 1995 he was the agency's intelligence briefer for bill clinton. as deputy executive director of the cia until 2003, he led i multiagency effort to establish what would be the national center.errorism after retiring from the cia in 2005, mr. brennan worked in the private sector for three years. please join me in welcoming the director of the central intelligence agency, the honorable john brennan. [applause]

brennan: i appreciate the opportunity to talk to all of you because of the importance i attach 20 sec. that is a partnership between the private sector and u.s. government, and particularly here at the department of state. i want to take a moment to express my great appreciation, gratitude, and admiration for the work of the bureau of andomatic security here, their regional security officers and assistant rso's across the world who do a tremendous, heroic job in keeping u.s. diplomats, attach a's, intelligence officers safe and also do a great job of making sure that u.s. citizens around the world are kept a safe as

they can be. with that interaction, warden systems in other ways. on behalf of the cia we greatly appreciate the tremendous work and sacrifices of our colleagues at the bureau of diplomatic security. i don't believe there's ever been a time for a stronger partnership between the public and private sector, just looking out over the last two and a half weeks and the incidence and tragic attacks that took place in paris. the bombings in southern beirut, all of the mature beta two isil, -- all of them attributed to isil. isil, the islamic state of iraq and levant, the so-called caliphate, is the latest manifestation of what is a blind adherence to a twisted and contorted ideology that can lead

to such bloodshed around the world. know what all qaeda has been capable of doing over the last several decades. it was nearly 20 years ago when i was in saudi arabia, dealing with al qaeda, then in its early formative stages, and looking at what it was able to do in our home went here. -- homeland here. now looking at isil, daesh, it's a different type of phenomenon in my mind. is one that has taken some of the al qaeda and other terrorist models and expanded significantly. iraq andep roots in syria. and, it now has branched out intobeyond iraq and syria other parts of the middle east,

africa, asia, and beyond, spreading its pursuit of intolerance, subjugation, and violence well beyond its early areas of occupation and activities. taking a look at what happens in paris demonstrates their commitment to random violence in terms of going after the most honorable targets and carrying out as much mayhem and wreaking as much death and destruction as possible against the innocence. have taken advantage of the freedoms and liberties that we are so proud of in much of the world. they also have taken full advantage of social media, using that as an environment to in doctrine kate -- indoctrinate, communicate, brainwash, direct, guide, train, and also presenting a very misleading narrative an impression of what is going on inside of iraq and

syria. they been able to use these great advantages in technology to further their aims. certainly they have been aided by much instability and .olitical upheaval they have been able to take advantage of that to be able to advance their goals and objectives. as was noted, i started out in national security intelligence back in 1980. i've never seen a time when we have faced more serious and consequential issues confronting our national security. around the globe -- globe. secretary scarry, carter, myself and others spend much time at the white house situation room with security advisor rice, president obama and others to address these issues that span the globe that are of such intensity as well as such so quickce, as well as

to develop as well as to have impact around the world, that there has been never a time i think that the u.s. national security challenges have been greater, nor the requirement for the united states to be actively involved in trying to address these many challenges.

i told them that this unsettled landscape will demand their expertise as we go forward. despite the unsettled nature of the global landscape, i believe looked at.s. is still by the overwhelming majority of the worlds populations as well as governments as something that is very special. universalment to values, to social progress, to economic prosperity, to individual freedoms and liberties are much admired and widely aspired to.

as importantly is the strong reputation and capabilities and potential of the u.s. private sector. the u.s. private sector still is seen as the world's leader in innovation, entrepreneurship, education, medicine, technology, science, and so much more. this is a time for us to be able to stand tall among each other, stand tall with our allies and partners around the world, as we that aree challenges serious, that are unfortunately going to be enduring, at least for a while, so that we can in fact deal with the challenges that lie ahead in a collective and constructive way. osec plays a very important role in helping keep the u.s. dream alive here in the united states, but then worldwide. and so i am committed to making

sure that the cia and intelligence community does everything possible to work closely with our state department colleagues to ensure that we do our utmost to be able to optimize the safety and security of americans and american companies and enterprises around the world. early this week, i gave some remarks at the scis here in washington and rather than repeating what was in there, i would invite you to take a look. they are widely available on the website. with that, i would welcome the opportunity to be able to address the questions you might have in the remainder of my time. >> we have microphones on either side. osac constituents and

members, please walk forward, ask your question, and as mr. brennan said, he will be happy to respond. >> we hear quite often in terms of intelligence sharing internationally about the i-5 but we don't hear much about what is happening between us and france in the current days, and others in the western world develop economic societies that are all the target of this thread you described. i would like to hear, if i could, what a strange is taking place on a broader intelligence community basis. director brennan: when i look

back over the last 14 years since 9/11, there has been in theous progress, here united states as well as internationally as far as putting together that architecture required to be able to share and access information in as rapid a fashion as possible. as we have come to realize here in the states, a lot of departments and agencies have different information technology systems, different authorities, different responsibilities as far as handling different types of information to include on u.s. persons, u.s. citizens. we've come a long way over the last 14 years. not just whatt's we've been able to do in the united states, not just within the federal government. there's a lot of very good [indiscernible] and robust [indiscernible] [indiscernible] we have made a lot of progress internationally. information sharing mechanisms he pointed out with the five i's, partners of canada,

australia, u.k., and new zealand, are rooted in traditional information sharing practices and systems. i would say that a lot of our information sharing practices and mechanisms with other are as strong as what we've been able to do with our partners. you haveof making sure the mechanisms to share information, we share it electronically because we want to make sure that gets to the recipients as quickly as we can. sometimes we have to provide a hardcopy of the information, but the real challenge is to make sure you take information that may be derived from sensitive sources, whether it be human or technical, and wherever it may be acquired around the globe, it could have implications for somewhere else. the essence of that information through a system that will enable the person on the other end or the entity of the organization to be able to receive it. truly a veryve had

strong interaction with our french partners. be speaking with our french partners again today about what it is that we need to be able to continue to do as far as sharing information, but also sharing the strategic approaches and what policy courses are so we're able to deal with this challenge that we all face. it does span the gamut of partners around the globe. i mentioned at the session on monday that over the last five weeks or so, i've had a number of conversations with my russian counterpart. despite the policy difference we may have in syria and ukraine, these have been discussions about how we can in fact share more information about this threat from isil, and what we need to be able to do as far as not only the exchanges, but their procedures in place but if we have threat information, is going to get to them as quickly as possible.

we take very seriously within the u.s. government our duty to warn responsibilities. if we have information about a threat to a particular entity, person or whatever, we move it very quickly. a lot of times threat information that comes in is vague. sometimes the ultimate sourcing is uncertain, but at a time now when there is concern that there could be other operations that are somehow underway, that threshold is about as low as it can be. one of the challenges we have as an intelligence community working with our partners is wheat to separate out the from the chaff. particularly in the aftermath of there'srrible attacks, always a spike in terms of people who will be reporting bogus threat information. really up to the professionals within the government as well as the

private sector to be able to take the information that's available. i do distinguish between the strategic warning in terms of the barometric pressure, you know there is something that's brewing, you don't know where it's going to head or when, but there are things you can do in light of what the intelligence portends. a specificou have intelligence, then you can take preemptive action that's going to try to disrupt the plot that's underway. every day around the globe, law enforcement security and intelligence agencies are taking action that disrupt the plans, intentions, and activities of these terrorist organizations. unfortunately, some get through. this is what we've seen over the last several weeks. incidents only redouble the determination of intelligence and security professionals to make sure we do our jobs the best we can, and we

certainly are going to do that. truly, i haven't answered all your questions. >> maybe i can pose a question. director brennan: our audience is a bit shy this morning -- >> since the attacks in paris there's been a lot in the media regarding the threat that the refugees from syria and other countries may or do pose. if you could comment on how you see this security situation pertaining to the refugees that are coming to europe and the united states. is one ofrennan: that the biggest questions as well as one of the biggest challenges that we are facing right now, tremendous displacement of individuals from these or in lands, whether it be iraq or syria, and iraq or syria,

country of 24 million or so before the conflict, is approaching 50% of the population that has been internally displaced or moved across borders to neighboring countries or migrating them to and beyond. it's important for us to do a number of things. i believe we are a country that prides itself on its tradition of welcoming people from around the globe. what we want to do is make sure we're able to maintain our commitment to those values in the things that have made this country great, which is why we don't want the terrorists to succeed in terms of what it is they're trying to do. itthe same time, it makes even more incumbent on the security intelligence professionals to make sure that we are able to look at individuals coming into this country for what it is that we individuals and

the way terrorist organizations might try to secret people into these networks and into these refugee flows. i amf the things that determined to do, and working in concert with my fellow partners both here and abroad, is to see what we can do to strengthen that system that allows us to have as best insight as possible into the backgrounds of these individuals as well as what their intentions might be. strike need to do is that balance. as i noted early this week, there are a number of challenges from a legal, policy, political standpoint that makes striking this balance challenging. we need to make sure we're able to have the government play what i think is certainly its rightful role in protecting its citizenry.

and for many years, decades, centuries, we have had experience about what it means to be vigilant in the physical domain. on terra firma, in the maritime domain and the aviation and air domain, this new domain of digital domain is something that as far as our history and experience. be able to do is make sure that we understand what that appropriate role is for the government in that digital domain. primaryovernment's responsibility is to care for the security and welfare of its people, it needs to do that in all of the domains. there is a great debate about what the government's role is in that domain. that should be a great debate about what it is that we need to do in order to balance individual rights and civil liberties, and what is the

appropriate role for government in that domain to protect its citizenry. i don't think we're there yet as far as being able to understand all the dimensions of that domain. it's one of the reasons why the cia, the recently created a new directorate of innovation. that domain fundamentally affects my agency's ability to be able to carry out its intelligence mission, since many of the things we do need to be done clandestinely. have a forensic history in the digital domain. when we pumpards, gas, when we check into a hotel airplane, wen created that forensic history that is recoverable and knowable, not just by nationstates out there that might be our adversaries, but also from groups that have the capability to understand, manipulate, exploit that digital

domain. if we try to avoid the question of what the government's role is in that domain and say government should not play a role in it, i think we do it at our peril. this is one of the fundamental challenges this country is going to face in the coming years. i'm determined to do what i can to be able to explain from my perspective at least what i see as those challenges, those risks, as well as those opportunities. as we have done through the course of our history, we need to be able to strike that proper balance between the great individual freedoms and privacy rights that we embrace and we love and we want to keep near and dear, but also making sure that our families, our children, our neighbors, our communities, indeed our international fromnity is kept safe

those who would cause us harm, who want to cause us harm can do in term of its -- in terms of its ability to operate in that digital domain. that's why the partnership that really itemized needs to extend beyond the physical domain. into thato extend digital domain, and it needs to extend beyond our sub -- sovereign borders because the digital world, the digital domain this not respect those sovereign borders. you can move things around the world at the speed of light and hop around so many countries. a lesser's going to be some kind of international understanding about what is appropriate and acceptable within that digital domain, we will face a world of .urt in the future

those who want to cause us harm, those who want to kill and maim in the streets of paris as well as around the world, how they can operate within that environment, we need to make sure we are comfortable with what it is that we are expecting our government to do, and what the government is obliged to do in order to make sure that our way of life is maintained in the future. yes? >> david smith of "the guardian." what impact do you think edward snowden's revelation has had on everything you just talked about in that debate over privacy? us your, could you give current assessment of the threat level to the u.s. homeland in

the wake of the paris attacks? director brennan: any unauthorized disclosures made by individuals who have dishonored the oath of office, that they raise their hand and attested to , undermines this country's security. individuals who have done that over time -- [applause] heroizing such individuals i find to be unfathomable as far as what it is that this country needs to be able to do in order to keep itself safe. a lot of people who are speaking out there about what -- and what some individuals have done in have nong it, understanding, are totally ignorant of what it is that such people have brought. what we need to be able to do in the future is make sure that this balance between individual

rights and liberties and the government's sacred obligation to keep its people safe and secure needs to be struck, but it needs to evolve. just the way the world has changed over the last 50 years, fundamentally, it has transformed. there's been a revolution in technology. we need to be able to adapt to this new reality. else?y one over here. >> thank you for your comments most recently here and for your time today. there's a lot of young people in this group who are entering into a time of government service and security with these companies. my question is this, given your

experience in the government and what you've done through the years, do you have hope for the future, and if so, what gives you that hope? [laughter] director brennan: that's a fair question in terms of what i just talked about. absolutely. i'm not only helpful, i'm optimistic. as we looked back over our history as a country, we've had to deal with some tremendous challenges. the threat and specter of nuclear war, nazi germany in terms of rolling over europe. in each one of these instances, the clouds look rather dark and the future looked bleak. because of what it is that this country has founded upon, we've always risen to the occasion. what i want to have happen when i talk about the digital and cyber world, i don't want to have to see or the united states to endure the equivalent of a 9/11.

take thesebe able to actions preemptively, preventively, as opposed to doing it in the aftermath of a crisis. think about the internet of things and how we're going to be even more dependent on this world wide web, we need to be mindful of not just what those opportunities are, but what the vulnerabilities are. talk to our new recruits as well as student groups, i encourage them to pursue their dreams of being involved in international security, international affairs, or intelligence. such ahim, this is historic time for so many reasons. the global landscape is changing. technology that is changing on a time basis, coming in at a of great opportunity if you are a national security intelligence specialist, but for students i also give them a word of caution and warning. i say that once you get in to

the realm of security and intelligence, it gets into your blood. that drives you. you become addicted to making sure that you're doing your level best and your absolute best in order to achieve what it is that your mission asks of you, which is to keep this country strong and safe. for the past 35 years with a brief [indiscernible] focusing on security, it is something that has motivated me to work with professionals, not just the cia but across the u.s. government at around the globe, as well as people across the private sector, who are really determined to make sure that this country is able to attain greater heights in the future. i encourage people, young officers who are here who are part of this effort, we now have a new type of challenge we have

to face. this is the time that we need to be able to stand tall and let those who want to do us harm know that we are the united states of america, that we can stand up to this, and were going to get through it, and were going to do it in partnership with our good friends and allies around the globe. i certainly am willing to continue to do what i can in partnership with you. thank you so much. i wish you well. i thank you for your work and service and look forward to being able to work with you in the future. [applause] >> the overseas security advisory council also hosted a discussion on violent extremism. speakers looked at the recruitment efforts used by isis and some of the reasons

individuals become radicalized. this is an hour. >> i'm so pleased to introduce the members of my panel. to my immediate left, christina nemr. she worked on developing and countering violent extremism partners and she now works in the private capacity in the same round. fiz is the religious advisor to the u.k. ministry of has a long history advising, giving pastoral care within the british military. we are certainly pleased to have him today, giving a more international flavor to our panel. ,t the end we have humera kahn

,xecutive director of muflehun working on early prevention and risk mitigation. to certainly very pleased have my colleagues here with me today to discuss this important issue of radicalization. i have prepared several questions for discussion by the panelists. a are going to start with wealth of research indicates there is no single pathway to radicalization. people become radicalized in a variety of ways. some combination of push factors in their own personal life, making them open to more radical ideas and behavior, but also recruitment factors, drawing them in. i'd like to ask each of the panelists to briefly discuss based on their experience and see us ak what they

most important drivers of radicalization that government and civil society and private sector needs to be controlled about, starting with christina and making our way down the line. christina: when it comes to radicalization and what drives individuals, there is no one path. inre are factors that play purity could be external factors, government corruption, police brutality, feelings of marginalization on a more personal level, and a lot of individuals are always searching for a sense of self-worth. all's a common feeling that humans have, wanting to feel like they mean something and they are contributing something. the role of identity plays into this. people want to be able to identify with something that truly relates to them, they want to be part of a group at the same time.

social dynamics, group dynamics play a part here. if you look at the groups who have committed atrocities, most recently the ones in paris and before that, the charlie hebdo, a lot of these hackers knew each other in some form or fashion. you can't understate the power of your network. you feel marginalized and you might have extreme thoughts by yourself. it's most often when you start meeting other like-minded people that you start settling more and more into your views, they become more black and white, you as a groupnd start moving towards a more polarized outlook. >> thank you very much. i'm very grateful to be the andn male on this panel,

also the one that provides the u.k. flavor. i hope you like it. that you for introducing question, which is an important because the starting point of a lot of a lot of the challenges we are facing in the unlike the, honorable -- and like the honorable john brennan said, we are not comfortable with the new space. the new space doesn't have boundaries, it doesn't have borders. in that environment, radicalization is stateless. radicalization recognizes nobody else's space and authority. i agree with the previous speaker, that there is not one single cause of it. if i were to put my finger on issue of identity

that christina mentioned. i may be talking from a micro the u.k.ve, perspective, and the radicalization we are seeing happening there, and it's the question of a sense of belonging, where do i belong, who am i, where am i going, what treatedrpose, mi being fairly or not being treated fairly, are my people being treated fairly or not being treated fairly, is the simple question that the path to radicalization starts at. one thing i been saying to the u.k. ministry of defense is, keep it simple. we tend to have this idea of looking for something more deep and darker when it isn't there. let's try and keep understanding the way radicalization starts and why it starts, and some of the questions i've mentioned here are, in my opinion, starting points.

, [indiscernible] very ideologically entrenched. when i look at the u.k. landscape. not just ideological extremists and radicals, but when i also look at the far right extremists we've seen the rise of in the u.k., i find those individuals are asking the same question, who am i, where do i belong, things are changing around me, i'm not being treated fairly, are these people a threat to me, are they not a threat to me. you find there all asking the same questions. to find a solution to this, we need to be able to address these questions locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally. radicalization starts from social, emotional, psychological

enfranchisement. i explain these in three categories. the first one being that when people approach the path of radicalization, we're asking these simple questions. the second approach is where those who have become radicalized go out looking for these individuals. where ifve a group it's not stopped at that point, it will get worse. who intervenes first well win, - - will win. out looking for these individuals and finds that gap and finds a space and intervenes and draws them in. once individuals are drawn in, anything can be fed to them which can increase and enhance the radicalization taking place. and where this radicalization

where all of a sudden you can't talk to girls, you can't go to cinemas, you can't talk with people of other sudden yourall of a world become smaller and smaller and you are meeting the same type of people every single day in the lebanese coffee shop at the end of the high street. that leads on to the more extreme form, when initially this was about becoming more ,eligious, more ideological taking an anarchic approach to life, all of a sudden that becomes a very strong religious motive. religion becomes a hook upon which people can hang their thoughts on. and then they believe to do something is their religious duty. when it gets into that realm of andeing a religious duty,

anybody else in here who is religious and devout will know that we want to be devoted to our faith, but when that devotion is twisted and ,anipulated for other means then we get on very dangerous ground. thank you very much. humera: the morning. i would like to thank the state department and osac. thank you for having me and for everyone who is attending. i would like to start off with a disclaimer. i'm not a lawyer, but i've been d.c. very long. i do not speak on behalf of the government.

let's start with radicalization. radicalization in our country is not a crime. violent extremism is a crime. in other countries, radicalization in and of itself is a crime. talking about radicalization, i'm only going to be talking about radicalization that leads to violent extremism, because there we are talking about potentially crossing the lines which are prosecutable under our laws. thats made my life easier they have mentioned the reasons already. no one has been able to find a single profile, a single pathway. it doesn't exist. it's extremely localized. we know there are things that are appearing, the issue of identity, sense of belonging is coming up in a lot of cases. know is that focusing a little bit more on isis, and how people who are

drawn into that space -- one of for severaltivators years now has been helping the syrians. that sense of we need to deal with injustice and get rid of injustice and oppression is actually a very strong part of the grievance narrative. those grievance narratives have residence in individual people's lives for what they might be experiencing locally, for various reasons. about factors which might lead to radicalization, violent extremism, we talk about factors which increase the propensity towards violence. when you talk about countering violent extremism, we have to address any and all of those drivers, push and pull, which can reduce propensity towards violence from the get-go. we also have to deal with the

issue of ideology. one of the things we have to recognize is that ideology is really the starting point for most of the journeys. ideology shows up somewhere along the way, but it's almost never the starting point. there's a lot of other issues which increase that phone ability towards being indoctrinated -- vulnerability towards being indoctrinated great when we talk about responding to it, counter narratives will only work -- are designed for a particular intervention space, and are not sufficient for dealing with the p prevention space because there's a lot of other factors .e have to deal with this is why the need for having public-private partnerships is huge. it is a part of the state which government cannot and should not be touching.

amy: given what each of you have learned about radicalization processes, violent extremism, can you each talk a little bit about what is the space for countering violent extremism, what are the program prosit -- doies -- possibilities we have a good sense of things that work versus things that perhaps crate backlash or things that don't work at this point in time, and are there gaps in our knowledge that need to be filled? asim: i think what's really if you want to do prevention work in communities, what's really challenging is

when it falls under the security banner. takeed to try and prevention and intervention out of the security space, so communities can feel comfortable with it. i think the state must be involved, the government has to be involved, has a responsibility to be involved, even though many people don't want to be involved in this space, we can't do it without this space. you need government -- you need money from the government to be able to run these projects. givewe need to definitely communities the lead in this. and it's the people at the grassroots level can do prevention the best. sometimes some of our politicians coming out and telling people how they should think and how they should feel and what they should do and shouldn't do. but communities take responsibility for this, and begin to develop programs that

will help address some of these issues. the other thing i think we should bear in mind which can have a counter affect in a sense is, sometimes we work with the state or the government or the sector within the government that is dealing with prevention. sometimes by engaging with certain groups who have credibility within the community, by engaging with them, we damage their credibility. we need to be careful who we work with, how we work with, and we need to protect communities too. for example, with some of my work in afghanistan, we used to engage with particular imams at

a particular mosque. what we did not realize was the second order upset that engagement. the following day, that imam would be dead or that mosque would be blown up. how do we ensure that we support these programs and these interventions from a distance, to ensure that these interventions are successful? again i go to the issue of keep it simple. we want to have big powerpoint presentations, reach out to the human aspect to be of a reach out to these people. humanize the issue. one thing i always talk about is getting people to try to meet victims of terrorism and violent extremism.

i have just lost my three-year-old child or wife. how can we get that message out .o people how can we divide our communities, it shatters our communities, and this unites our people. >> we approach the programming -- we have our own framework within any policy or strategy about the we talk four sectors that have to be covered. there is prevention, there is

.ntervention both prevention and intervention are about protecting the individual. -- ateone has mobilized that point it is more important you protect society then about the individual concern. and then the last thing we feel is important is the concept of reentry. we have young people going into prison for short terms. if we do not deal with the ideas while they are in prison and they end up going back to the environment which created them, this is a we are doing a lot of advisory services and attract push government.

it has to be local. we talk about national strategy and national policy. and they don't translate into anything meaningful unless you develop a local strategy and implementation. we can take lessons from many other sectors where there is , it ision of violence always about what is happening at the local level and how to make the local initiative succeed. because we are based in the u.s., our programs are domestic.

they know the problem, they know the factors which are involved, and they also have some innovative solutions. we only talk about counter narrative and alternative narratives. there are the three aspects to any sort of narrative. we have take all three into account when building out the counter narrative space. world whereto the you are only responding to the recruiting material, we have already failed.

if we use a counter narrative paradigm we have failed. we are now playing by their rules. you have to establish the norms. that is the deviant and that is the thing that is already wrong by itself. there is a need for the alternatives. the space where we need to have the metanarrative, which is established on our value, and we have to establish those and pull people from the get go. it is not just about the language we use, but it has to reflect what is happening on the intod and has to translate better environment on the ground where people live. that is the thing that is already wrong by itself. there is a need for the alternatives. >> anytime you look at a problem and start proposing solutions to

it, the natural starting point would be the scope of the problem. in this context, radicalization is not happening in mass numbers. so i think a common mistake is programming, especially when it comes to counter narratives, they are distributed to a mass population. isn't going to work on back to individual factors. we know it happens before radicalization ever does. not to hit on the counter many counter narratives put so much emphasis on the ideology in trying to promote more moderate islam.

i think cv programming has to understand and acknowledge that and not dismiss the population it is working with with the perceived grievances. a lot of time you hear people put into a group, called him crazy. thank you for that. coming in and trying to provide opportunities and individuals.

it gives them a sense of purpose . this is not necessarily a role for government. the messenger does matter. the u.s. government doesn't have test track record. or be seen as implementing certain types of programming. in another issue, when it comes to government, everything that is so reliant, it is very reactive. we need to involve the use -- involve the youth.

everybody has a short attention span. these grievances, the drivers of violence, they are long term issues. they aren't going to be solved overnight. see the options is this has to be a long-term engagement and you are not going to see immediate results. that means making stakeholders aware of a time frame. i want to drop one point. victims voices of counter narratives. they are one of the most resonant stories you can put out there.

a lot of organizations like to put together psa's. there never is any follow-through. those videos are never placed in any manner or targeted toward an adverse population. you do have a viable counter narrative, how are you ensuring that it is getting to the right population? >> there is a faith-based organization here in the audience. urge peoplenitely -- the wholefaiths

basis of radicalization is about dividing communities. the mood we can do in the united fashion wherein the international space organizations that you run, there can be nothing more positive or powerful than a demonstration of unity amongst people of different faiths and cultures. capable.l an capable --t feel on uncapable.o people of different faiths and culture having cups of tea, that wonderful image of different faiths and cultures sitting together and having a chat was

so powerful. we also have to understand we are in it together. was the most powerful things i heard from an army general speaking to an audience battling radicalization is we are here to help you. we are all in it together. let's not point fingers that you need to do more, you are the victim and we need to do more. i think we need a triangle of partnerships where we have communities post radicalization. those community suffering from radicalization or the victims of radicalized they should, even though you can't really defined that. violent suffers from extremism in a state.

get over that triangle of cooperation and partnership, i think we can move forward. at the moment we are pointing --ures at each other pointing fingers at each other. the community is saying the government is doing more. if we can stop pointing fingers really geter and together and say this is a problem common between all of us, just deal with it. -- between all of us and just deal with it. the key thing is this issue is global. we have to equip our people that are at the prevention stage on the front line with the ability to deal with global issues. i'm tired of people saying this is a regional problem. tries to categorize and divide

the issue up into different segments. this is a global issue and we need to be equipped to deal with the global narrative. we need to equip people to engage in a globalized world where we can in -- where we can communicate with each other instantaneously. we cannot say this is a u.s. issue or a serious issue. >> the talks on paris are still in everybody's mind. could each of you responded bit both to the power of those attacks, as far -- as well as driving for radicalization, or inherent in poorly

received or poorly implemented responses to those attacks and perhaps creating backlash or further radicalization. >> we are dealing with a sophisticated enemy, and one that is quite open and uses misdirection. one of the first responses we have seen has been the issue of refugees. if europe starts shutting its doors to refugees it is playing right into the hands of what isis said is what they want. ago, when the body

of the three-year-old child washed up on a turkish beach, that gave international attention. within a week i sometimes put out something like 10 different directives, telling people why are you leaving syria. you have left to religion and you are now -- you should be killed. we have the right to kill you. they don't want syrians leaving syria. of those eight attackers, there is one. they found a syrian passport. the syrian passport belong to a

soldier who was killed six months ago. the fact he was carrying a passport off of a dead soldier is perhaps an indicator of the misdirection that is there. we have to be careful not just fear butd with actually make sure we have a coolheaded response. everyone has a role to play. it is not just government, it is private sector and civil society. every sector has a role to play. fear but actually make sure we have a coolheadedspecific responses ane relative responses. responses are things that change the underlying environment. they are not correctly addressing the issue of

extremism head-on. every community needs cde specific and relevant. they are enabled to build a platform for relevant measures. they have the ability to actually work in the world of awareness of education. we talked about belonging. every part is impacted by this. also working on issues of exit. there are a lot of relevant responses, which private sector has. especially for the technology , you have a tremendous

role you can play in the specific work. >> the concept of resilience is very important here, especially in the aftermath of the attack on paris. we need to understand the swords of terrorist attacks won't break us. government is promoting the resilience. that you don't get with a very conservative responses or responses that end up exacerbating the problem. we are seeing the infringement of civil -- infringement of

civil rights. a lot of these and up with intel. that's where it needs to stay. efforts there are things that can be done. in montreal they opened up a center for individuals suspected on being on the path to radicalization. reporting them in a safe space. they only had a very few instances of work, but such a center allows individuals with concerns. if they themselves feel conflicted on the path they can come and speak in a safe space. those types of programs are integral to the situation.

it is important not to prosecute all those who start down the path. also allowing those opportunities to disengage. >> having said i wasn't to take it vantage of people's comments, theird like to reinforce point about resilience. there can be nothing more ensuring they maintain the values. the attacks and parents can have a variety of affect's. it is going to get bad before it

gets better. no doubt it got worse. it is very worse. i would like to see the attacks in paris as a turning point where from this point onwards things get better rather than worse. -- it is unfortunate people have to die for it to get better. he was a british soldier whose -- he was beheaded on the streets of london. it was unfortunate he had to die for people to stand up to armed forces. you believe it or not, in the u.k. we potentially do a similar relationship

with armed forces that you might have in the u.s.. it was unfortunate a soldier had to die on the streets of london. at that time one of the most powerful i heard from the u.k. government is when prime minister david cameron came in with a black door just above his head, and he said this is not a representation of islam, this is a bit trail of islam. that really bought all of our community together. carefully thought through responses by some of our leaders are crucial at this time. i wish and i hope it can be a point where people realize the brutality of this ideology.

and a realize this is not the path we want to follow. a prevention response to this, which is automatic. whether mentally, emotionally, or physically. we have seen some responses around the world, where people were happy about the attacks and and renewed aple sense of confidence in this group of people that this ideology, look where it can get to you. it is kind of a double-edged sword. i fear a new war on terror.

carrying out and escalating its way in northern iraq and syria. careful as to how we present ourselves in the aftermath of these events. i don't think we should be creating another environment where people feel that they are now the subject of this war on terror. the bombing that is taking place, absolutely right. i'm not in a position to question a military strategy in dealing with the threat.

the way we present that issue is very important. are we becoming irrational and insane? all of a sudden we want to throw onto a nation, onto a ?ommunity have we lost our sanity and moral compass? these withle view air bases in the region? how do people view that? ensure that this as a religious war.

alongside military action, which has taken place, what we are dealing with is an ideology. we were in afghanistan for 15 years, and one of our main efforts was to destroy the taliban and. still problems in afghanistan. an ideology cannot be bond, and ideology cannot be destroyed. the only way to destroy this is through a big global hearts and minds campaign, and to work together globally in being able to deliver the hearts and minds campaign. it is not a battle for ground and not a battle for territory. unfortunately we are losing that

battle at the moment and we need to do more. >> i think we want to open up the floor to questions. if anybody has questions for our panelist. >> thank you very much and thank you for the work you are doing in the communities. the foundation of society is family. all of the problems we see and use in the western civilization and western world, it starts with the family. i see those young men being recruited by cartels to go out there and behead people that are opposite, it reminds me of the radicalization problem, that it has taken advantage of disenfranchised youth, but it all starts in the family.

today young muslim men are going to mosque, but they don't need to go to mosques to be radicalized. they can pick that up on the internet. the parents do not know what the children are doing. the parents may themselves be prejudicial for western ideas. think communities can do? society as a whole, families as a whole, muslim community is not exempt of this integration of the family nucleus. if the muslim families are disintegrating, they are prejudicial, just like any other western family may be. how can we find a solution? what do you think a solution to that problem is?

>> there are a few points in response. is hard to make the generalization that extremist groups come from broken families. there are lots of examples to the contrary where they do come from loving homes, their parents have been present. if you cannot make that project was asian. there many times law-enforcement has attempted to involve parents and treat you as radicalized individuals. either they are too much on the radicalization. thatld start with assumption.

networks are intimately more important. roles forld be bigger the friends network. >> we need cyber e mom's -- cyber imams. >> every friday you can join in. >> i agree with your point about the mosque being a place where individuals are radicalized. apart never been the case from a few known mosques and , mosques are ams place where the muslim community can go pray.

it is not a place where people hang around much. cyberspace,n the the social meeting environment has become extremely powerful. all of the radicalization has happened online. we actually need to create a new describes how vastly and quickly you can communicate on social media. it is just not good enough, it is massive. what is really important is young people are so savvy to these things.

three young innocent girls from to pack upcided their bags and go to syria. the terrorists didn't have a clue. the family was fine, the family unit was fine. they just didn't have a clue. savvy and soare so sophisticated with how they are dealing with this. i have young children. fear one day my daughter won't come home. she has left the country. that is how scary the environment issue is. i think the family has a role to play.

this new digital space, this createdworld we have can do amazing things. the last thing i will say is in terms of sophistication, my son is a great example. has this online account where he has to do his homework, and many of you probably know about it. he is able to hack into the score tond change his show he has completed his homework when he actually hasn't. the kinds of minds we are dealing with. >> in north america, that 90% of

the radicalization is happening online. the number is 50% online and the whenrs dropped more talking about north africa and asia. this is a representation of internet penetration and how much communities and societies -- health engage. -- societies health engage. it is also the age when talking about 14 through 25, where every study says a listen to their peers. a lot less --

how many of you are going to say i encourage my 15 or 16-year-old child to go talk to a stranger online to convince them not to go to syria. how many of us are willing to have our kids actually join the battle, not knowing what they're up against is the whole isis machinery. the moment we actually engage online in the space, you can talk to just one of them. they are monitoring conversations and will go back in and change what has been said . for every individual being recruited, they will manage their social media presence at any point in time. becausee is bigger where they would have the most

leverage is also the most of honorable population. and how do we make sure if we are going to get our youth into this world, do we really want our youth -- that is a huge ask. this is something to which there is no good answer to. you talked about instantaneous. last year the senate put out the torture report. guess how long it took before isis supporters were actually tweeting exerts from that. we will be ready for any sort of response. did we know the report was coming? no. places where we can do something proactively. >> thank you for you -- thank

you. arrives, iecretary have no options. [laughter] >> it may be a takeaway or a food for thought. thank you very much for what you did today. s previously mentioned, there are many pathways to address being radicalized. change can only happen if people are aligned on this globally and working on silos and not focusing on one approach but focusing on a variety of approaches. whener point was made something happens, people often have a knee-jerk reaction for short-term quick term solutions, which focuses on symptoms rather than a root cause. you also pointed out how this is global. my question and my thought is

has anyone considered the value of intercept oral partnership between government agencies, ngos, or nonprofits? you can't always do this in one big massive tarnish of around the globe. they then have various roles and responsibilities and a variety of approaches so they are working in silos and there is more of a collaborative on focusing on that. different approaches for the holistic approach for -- was to approach. how could such a thing be assembled? >> i will take my snarky take on this one. the summit onwards, there are many summits. you had all the site meetings.

new networks are coming into place. how do you manage them? and how does it become useful? that is about connecting different cities around the world so you can deal with this exchange of information and knowledge. so they can learn from each other. the network was great but i'm still waiting for america to tell us what the do. it is the expectation that some will lead more than others. it hasn't happened yet.

the other huge obstacle we are hasng -- this sector belonged to law enforcement. this is one of the first times where we say jesus was society, you are going to be part of our counterterrorism were resale civil society, you are going to be part of our counterterrorism responses. say to civil society, you are going to be part of our counterterrorism responses. it is not a static balance, it has to be dynamic. we have to allow space for safe fails. for failsafes. we need to take the learning and integrated into what we do next.

i apologize, i have to end of the panel at this time. i got the high five. i want to thank you tremendously for your panel and panel members. one thing i have experience of the last 18 months with this is the quiet of the audience the more focused and receptive they your discussions. we could hear it and today. thank you very much again. >> the oversee security advisory council heard from secretary of state john kerry, talk about the situation in syria and the global fight against isis. this is 30 minutes.

>> it is obvious secretary kerry needs no introduction, but by way of paying on it to his service, he does deserve mention that he is the son of a foreign service officer and entered his hiscall to duty to include time in vietnam, followed on by a 28 year career in politics during which time, finishing up at the head of our senate foreign relations committee. then, to our great benefit, coming on as the 68th secretary of state, john kerry. [applause] sec. kerry: thank you very, very much. good morning to everybody. thank you all for taking time to be here. thank you for your, not just introduction, but you are

outstanding leadership of the diplomatic security service. i want to thank anne from raytheon and my home state, and the 34 member organizations of osac, for your tremendous contributions at a moment when the reality of what george schultz thought of doing 30 years ago or so has a lot more meeting or impact. yesterday, i returned from paris, where, as everybody knows too well, last friday, the forces of darkness tried to take that light away, replacing it with fear, with terror, with death, chaos. obviously, this tragedy came on the heels of terror strikes in beirut, baghdad, ankara, and the

explosion of an aircraft in egypt that as we now know from the russians, they have deemed to be a terrorist act. last weekend, as i think most of you know, i was in vienna, where we brought together a broadly representative international group and agreed on the outlines of a plan to try to break the syrian war to an end. the syrian war, as we all know, is a combination of things. it is a civil war, but it is also a proxy war, regrettably. that has to end. that is why the president commissioned me, particularly, to seize the initiative and go out and try to bring the parties together. the first time, we were able to

bring all of the parties to the table including iran and russia. some criticize that, but i have to tell you, i don't know how you end the war if some of the biggest states aren't at the table trying to find a political solution. now, it is complicated, no question about it. there are forces at play that have been asked play long before the united states of america became a country. that doesn't mean that they are irreconcilable or impossible to deal with. there were a lot of sunni and shia living together quite peacefully before the middle east began to boil over in the way that it is today due to a lot of different factors. not just the iraqi war, though

that obviously played a key role. nobody can hide from that fact. but also, a clash of culture and modernity. a clash of a process that has been building for some hunting as certain players have supported certain ideologies and varioushem in countries. and those are coming back to bite people today. believehe end, i do that the vast majority of people , and i hear this wherever i go, are absolutely totally committed acrossnprecedented way ethnic, across religious, across

political, a cross cultural lines, to fight for decency and stability and for a future not based on creating chaos and violence. they are not arguing about health care or infrastructure or schools. schools.t want to whatever degree they want anybody educated, they want and educated exactly by what they believe people ought to be learning. , they killeople christians because they are christians. people need to understand this, there is no negotiation. when you license rate is a form of daily life and call the will of god, surely a religion

a lot of them are run amok. for a lot of people this is an adventure to go out and be paid and do whatever you want. this is a generational moment, a moment in history were all of us stand up and accept this. inare not going to be coward our pursuit of daily life and values which drive us as a country and people, as human beings. we work too hard and too long.

all of our efforts to try to interests andnd talk about resolving things in the rule of law, not understanding differences that promoting tolerance. tolerance, one of the most important words in life today and one of the most important organizing principles of any nation society. so that is our obligation. we need to make clear our willingness and determination to stay together, to protect each other and show we are not intimidated and we will never allow these terrorists to achieve their filenames. let me make my point is clearly as i can, there are no grounds of history, religion, ideology, politics, economic disadvantage

or personal ambition that justifies the slaughter of , the bombingians of public places, ordered indiscriminate violence against men, women, and children. as such atrocities can never be rationalized and we can never let them be rationalized. no excuse, they have to be stopped. that is where the advisory councils playing an indispensable role. make this clear, we don't have any illusions as to how complicated this is. think anothern't invasion by americans and yet another muslim country where the local citizens are not prepared to fight back and hold the land that you gain. it makes a lot of sense, which andhy our strategy is clear

it is working not as fast as anybody would have liked, but working. we have liberated communities in iraq and syria. tikrit is able to rebuild. it is now securely in the hands of iraqis. forces of iraq where they lost 1200 wounded are fighting to retake. liberatedrd -- just over the weekend. in the last few days we have taken on oil revenue, which is where they are getting their andy to pay for this destroyed over 161 oil trucks.

the last 98 kilometers is in operation we will engage in together with the turks in order to shut down that. russia and france increased bombing levels and we will see greater court mason in this effort you that there is another side to the coin. why do all these fighters come there? where do they come from? they came to fight assad. they came to fight because his response was to send his thugs to beat up young people to demonstrate for our future.

the parents went out and demonstrated. they were met not with thugs but bullets and bombs. have 300,000 citizens in the country who have been killed. against international laws as everybody knows. three quarters of the country has already voted with their feet. displaced people, refugees, 4 million refugees. and the rest of them displaced. if the united states wanted to keep them there, you couldn't do it. fightingks won't stop because of what he has done. that is the other complicating factor here.

the first time we get people to sit down at the table and everybody including iran and including russia signed on to a communique that said we all want a united syria, we all want a secular syria. there is tolerance and respect for different religions and cultures. all of us signed on to that, including signing on to a transitional process of governments -- of governments. we can take some of the power of sod currently has in order to put together a constitutional reform process.

and a year to have to have the election. i will tell you every country understands this is dangerous it is happening. it is empowering evil people. hopefully common sense will prevail. that.e seen a lot of more people are prepared to show it. over the next few days we are constantly open to figuring out how we can qualitatively a prime more apply more pressure. enabling other people to be a vote to target and do things more effectively. we are confident that will put additional pressure. working withain

everybody with the political process works. if you can get a transitioning counsel, if you can move power to an excepted entity, then you have the ability to bring everybody together to go after daesh and isil. dividing you have a legitimate political process. that is how much hangs in the balance right now on this political effort. if diplomacy can actually succeed in creating the transition. and indeed empowering all of us together. what is notable about this situation is every single is supposed to -- is daesh.\to

if we are creative, patient, and study, we will have the ability send aroy them and message to boko haram, to al qaeda, to any other entities in the world, the world will stand united against barbarism and against attack very purpose and reasonableness itself. embassy has been working around the clock in delivering a full range of consular assistance to everybody in france. we are going to continue to help however we can. i will thank you profoundly for the act -- for the work behind the scenes you have performed the role you were conceived to play. as a point of contact for our private sector in a moment of crisis and source of

information, intelligence and security for u.s. organizations abroad, on the very first night a website was created for the paris country council. since then they have been in constant touch with private sector constituents, offering advice and security-related updates with u.s. organizations and businesses. they also reached out. a student was among those sent out security advisories to other young americans studying in france. moving forward, we will stay connected with private sector partners and will produce post-attack analysis and reporting that would help everybody to be able to prepare for the future. combinedese efforts remind us why he was present

when he established this torture -- this structure. he knew from experience the world was growing more dangerous, even as it became more interconnected. he knew it would be important for diplomats and citizens the events of the past two days and speak to the essential need andus and business nonprofits, faith-based organizations, whichever, to stay ahead of the curve assessing the risks and taking protective measures to respond to them. we obviously cannot afford to be slow in sharing information because information that comes late or not at all is the precursor to disaster. we have to be knowledgeable local conditions and circumstances to discern the difference between an empty

threat and a real one. we had to stay in touch so if an emergency arises, we know where you are and what you need. since friday night, there has been a great deal of discussion parties,called soft cafes, restaurants, sporting events, so forth. types of places you would not automatically expect to be a prime target for a global terrorist organization. these targets are viewed as anonymous destinations chosen almost at random. the ultimate purpose of those is to do what the name terrorist implies, to sow terror, scare everybody.

in the case of bosak members, the work you are doing is really important. you are building infrastructure, conducting business, leading local projects. providing needed services, participating in civil society, helping to build the opposite of everything these people want to destroy. pretty stunning when you think about it. a professor in syria who spent his life curating and caring history -- 83 years old hold out into a village square in the chop his head off,

string his body up and then go thatestroy the roman arch was a symbol of his community. nobody who witnesses that kind of distraction and that kind of horror should have any doubt in their heart or in their gut about how critical it is for us to stand up and we have stood up before, my friends. stood up to the fascism of world war ii, stood up to the horrors of the holocaust come extraordinary moments of challenge -- paris came out of it. i assure you, we will come out of this. we will continue to expand and broaden our commercial and academic connections overseas. we will visit and invite visitors. we will do the right thing by the right people. how can some to say a

50-year-old woman with th her grandchildren will be a threat? we will continue to be proud of this department to represent the united states of america. , none of youke have be nominated by the president of the net states were the united states or confirmed by the senate to be an ambassador. everyone of us is an investor when you travel abroad. it matters enormously that you carry that role of the master seriously. -- ambassador seriously. you win friends, you explain to people that we are not telling anybody what they have to do. we give people a choice.

we don't punish people if they don't make the choice we want them to. you can help earn respect for those values and you do. all of this is multiplied when you reply to acts of terror with affirmations of courage and friendship and support. we are so happy to have you all here today. my message to you today is one of enormous gratitude. thank you for all you've done and continue to do to keep america safe around the world and to enable america to and individual americans to continue to contribute to international prosperity, development, democracy and justice. my message today is one of encouragement. to continue strengthening our partnership and helping us to make progress in the years to

come. thank you very, very much. i appreciate it. [applause] >> francois hollande will be traveling to the u.s. on tuesday to meet with president obama about potential strategies for combating isis. the l.a. times reports that france is seeking a coalition that would include the u.s., france and russia. it goes on to mention that since mid-2014, the u.s. has been involved in more than 8000 airstrikes on the islamic state. fewer bombings are happening now because it's becoming harder to locate appropriate targets.

french officials have indicated that they want to pick up the pace of attacks in efforts to break the stalemate. france has already taken steps toward that goal by sending its largest aircraft carrier to the mediterranean, bringing a total of 40 warplanes to the conflict. we will bring you coverage of president gallant -- francois lalonde's visit when it happens. -- president francois hollande's visit when it happens. >> this weekend come our c-span cities tour will explore the history and literary life of syracuse, new york. on book tv, we will visit the special collections library and syracuse university. and learn about the anti-slave movement in the area through the papers and abolitionists. discussed her book, which explores the length -- we

will talk with jeff about his book "going viral." why events go viral online. ,> when something goes viral the process of social sharing, we tend to think of viral as a video that got one million views. it is more the process by which that happens. what happens when people share content into their own networks. some get a lot of followers. it also spreads the content. it reaches a wide audience. >> we will visit the eureka now museum to learn how the canal influenced the growth of syracuse. -- eureka now. -- erie canal.

archer to syracuse also takes us to the matilda joslyn home, one of the country's first women's rights champions. her speech launched for international prominence on the subject of women's suffrage. >> she is 26 at the time and has had four children already. she learns that the convention will occur. she writes a speech and she travels to syracuse bringing her oldest daughter with her. she had not contacted any of the organizers, she was not of the program. her --a had written to she just shows up and waits in the crowd. when there is a quiet moment, she marches up on stage, trembling, takes the podium and begins to speak.

she gives this incredibly moving speech. from that moment, she goes on to become a leader in the women's movement. >> this weekend come watch c-span's cities tour on c-span2 's book tv and american history tv on c-span3. working with our cable affiliates, visiting cities across the country. >> republican presidential candidate jeb bush recently spoke about defense policy and national security to cadets at the citadel in south carolina. he mentioned the recent terrorist attacks in paris and outlined his plans for the military and combating isis. this is 30 minutes. [applause] [applause]

>> national security is very important, especially to those of us that plan on entering the military after graduation. i'm honored and excited to have the 40 for governor of florida here to speak to us today. it is of great concern to many cadets that the majority of the front runners in the race do not have the experience to handle the threat we face with radical islam. today, we had the opportunity to hear from someone who is strong on national security and committed to protecting our country. governor jeb bush is a man who asked trouble -- whose travel expenses has molded the leader he is today. wife inis beautiful mexico. his experiences as a successful business man to his incredible feat of becoming the first

republican two-term governor of the state of florida. he is a man with strong leadership and sound judgment. as governor, he was famously -- heed to as veto combated wasteful spending. his leadership oversaw the jobsion of 1.3 million new and unified a state left in shambles after experiencing four hurricanes and 44 days. a compassionate conservative, governor bush spent countless hours tending to the needs of the fourth-largest state in the nation. he is a champion of domestic issues, a strong military and conservative principles. and hardring integrity work to washington. here to speak to the vital issue of national security, join me in welcoming governor jeb bush. [applause]

jeb bush: thank you. thank you. thank you all. thank you. thank you so much. grant, thank you so much. who knows? print will be going to have a semester abroad down in mexico. you may be as lucky as may. i've been married 42 years. it was love at first sight. i know the cadets don't think that's possible. it is. it was a life-changing event. i hope you will have life-changing events as you go forward in your life that i've been blessed to have. thank you so much for allowing me to come. i really appreciate the ofpitality and privilege addressing the core cadets.

it is great to be here and i'm toud to report that i got the parade deck at 6:00 this morning and went on a run with the guards. the next time you presidential candidate comes by here might eb has set a new precedent. you cannot give a speech to cadets without first doing some pt. -- for all of us, what a privilege it is to be here this morning in the presence of war heroes throughout this room. for me, to be here in the presence of major general james livingston is an incredible honor. you don't need any reminders from me about military virtues. his character and the character of our military is summed up in that one word on the middle he "valor." this marine did

more than could ever be asked, gave more than could ever be repaid and i'm incredibly honored to have his support. [applause] today, we do so with memories fresh from the atrocities in paris. the discriminant murder of people sitting outside a cafe, the slaughter of innocents outside the national soccer stadium. or any concert hall. the merciless killing of women, children and unmarked citizens who only had the crime of living in freedom our hearts are broken to the people of france. they are our oldest and first ally and we are joined together by shared values. like france, we know the deep

of lives lost due to terrorist brutality. what happened on the streets of paris on friday should not come as a surprise. after all, we have seen isis expanded in recent weeks to lebanon, egypt and turkey. to say nothing of the daily horrors faced by those who live under their control in syria, iraq, live yet and afghanistan. this brutal savagery is a reminder of what is at stake in this election. we were choosing the leader of the free world and if these attacks remind us of anything, it is that we are living in serious times that require serious leadership. and that the free world needs to act. the last seven years under president obama have taught us that problems do not take care of themselves in the absence of american leadership.

during the state of the union address, he declared we were stopping the advance of isis and soon, they took the city. they repeated the delusion that isis is contained just hours before they murdered 129 innocent people in paris. hours after they killed dozens in beirut. america has had enough of empty words, declarations detached from reality, and administration with no strategy or no intention to win. here's the truth. we are at war with radical islamic terrorism. [applause] jeb bush: it is the war of our times and they struggle that will determine the fate of the free world. three months ago at the reagan

library, i warned that we needed to the fight isis and i outlined a clear and serious strategy to eradicate it. the actions remain critical. we must unleash the power of our air force by removing self-imposed restraints. enforce a no-fly zone, creates a zones in syria, lower our special operations forces to target terror networks and arm the kurdish forces. action hasfor rightly grown. the united states should not delay in leading a global coalition to take out isis with overwhelming support. as the words of french president francois lond have made clear, the nine states will not be alone in galvanizing this global effort. militarily, we need to intensify our efforts in the air and on the ground. airpower cannot bring the results we seek.

the united states in conjunction with our nato allies and more air of partners will need to increase our presence on the ground. scope of which should be aligned with what the general recommends, not politicians. [applause] jeb bush: the bulk of these ground troops will come from local forces we have built workable relationships with. endake out isis, we must assad's brutal war against his own people. we need to create a safe and secure syria. , this is be no doubt not going to be easy. some of you in this room will serve on the front lines of that fight against isis and against

radical islamic terrorism. you will sign up for an uncertain fate on foreign fields of battle because your country and the cause of freedom are calling you. an generations, america alliances and diplomacy and military power and american credibility defended the piece and deterred the violence. this is the way forward in our time as well. , who isunited states going to help our friends and allies in the middle east gain the upper hand against radical islamic terrorists like isis? for the united states, who will lead the efforts to once and for all stop iran's bid for nuclear weapons capability, it support for terrorism and its ballistic missile proliferation? for the united states, who will defend christians come iranian

dissidents, religious minorities and other persecuted people in the middle east and across the world? who will be the dependable friend of israel, standing with them against the worst if not the united states of america? the fate of millions, the security of our own people in the cause of freedom itself all depend on the decisions we make in these coming years. sometimes very bad things happen when america steps away from our challenges. it is time for american leadership again and that leadership requires a change in course. defending our national interests always involves risk. the greatest risk of all is the risk of military inferiority. today, that is the direction we are headed. the next president will take office after nate your drawdown of military power and careless

neglect by the president and congress. -- after an eight year drawdown of military power. you'd be hard-pressed to find soldiers who feel washington is doing right by the military and i agree. in a decade, our government withheld a trillion dollars from our national defense. there is no security rationale for these cuts were any kind of strategic vision. ,hey are completely arbitrary imposed by a process that everyone in washington claims to dislike but no one in washington has the courage to stop. in these years, we have seen cuts in defense that are not only automatic, but also systematic. not only relentless, but irrational. we are going from the cutting edge of military power to what the army secretary calls the ragged edge of readiness.

the army has 80,000 fewer active soldiers, half of our stateside marine units are not ready to fight. 12 please of air force planes qualify for antique license plates in virginia. backbone of our army fleet took its first flight with harry truman was president of the united states. our naval fleet has shrunk to have the size it was at the end of the cold war. sometimes big problems are summed up in one anecdote. to conduct training exercises under our native obligations near, american forces have been arming vehicles from our allies. europe.obligations in the brits are responding with choppers. that is embarrassing for the

greatest country on the face of the earth. whatever challenges we face in europe or elsewhere, we are not going to meet them with our equipment. others are not following our example. -- we are not going to meet them with our equipment. heavilys been spending on warships, summaries, long range attack aircraft, missiles systems another capabilities that threaten america's strategic position in the pacific. are, we china's desires can safely assume it is not in our interest to drawdown as they build up. president obama does not see a reason to change course. here in south carolina, hillary clinton said her foreign policy would be no more aggressive than his. i reject that diminished view of america's role in the world. in my administration, security for the unite states will mean gaining and keeping the edge in every category old and new.

[applause] >> whether it is our command of the seas, land or air, space or cyberspace, america's goal should be technological superiority. maintaining force without equal. such a force is essential for deterrence. we must understand that sometimes deterrence fails. , after circumstances other elements of american influence have been utilized, with the threat we face as an urgent one indicating it international interest, we must be prepared to use force. , it must bese force effective and our objectives

must be well defined so that one deployment does not lead to in this others or the job undone. force will be purposeful, aimed towards victory and always with the heavy thumb of american power, resources and resolve on the scales of war. [applause] bush: i have a plan for a 21st-century military to project that force when necessary around the world. the prevailing conflict to deter enemies and what conflict, we must have the readiness and equipment to meet any challenge from any adversary. we don't need to be the world's policeman. we must restore our place as the leader and indispensable power of the free world. [applause] bush: this is how we get

there. those service branches taking , that is not nearly enough to protect america's interests. ask thedent, i would congress for an increase of 40,000 active-duty soldiers. [applause] bush: under my plan for my marines will be restored to a strength of 186,000 fighters. [applause] bush: because in a crisis come everything can turn on a weed and skill of the core will restore dominance in air and naval forces. pilots tot allow our

fly 20 century aircraft into the face of 21st century and defenses. -- air defenses. we must continue to invest in air operations command. in this fight against islamic terrorism, they have demonstrated time and time again their ability to capture and trainenior terrorists and and enable local forces so that a larger commitment is not required. america's intelligence agencies are overstretched and struggling to respond to technological advances by adversaries and harmful links -- leaks of sensitive information. i will give our talented core of intelligence professionals who too often go unrecognized everything they need to support the war fight and get the job done. i believe in the principles that the greater our security and military power, the less likely

does we will have to assert that power or be provoked into using it. our best presidents cold that peace through strength. this applies to capabilities of every kind which all require foresight and sustained commitment. , i would immediately work with congress to rebuild our military forces starting with our most urgent needs, he new generation of aircraft so that airplanes are not older than our pilots. sailorsleet so that our control the strongest and safest ships on the seas. an expansion of our summary program so that america will always be a quite whispered in our adversaries year. --roved missile defenses to will always be a quiet whisper ear.r adversary's

i will fight to restore the patriot act metadata program to ensure we have the ability to connect the dots between known foreign terrorists and the potential operatives here in the united states of america. [applause] jeb bush: if there was ever a time for such a program, it is now. eo view in congress w courageous enoughre out a plane in south carolina to address the v.a. scandal. we need to modernize the with as many choices as they need to ensure those who serve our country are treated with the dignity they deserve when they return home. n[applause]

among the goals of the 21st century military plan i will put before the next congress. not because i seek war, but because we all seek peace. i believe the best policy for creating the conditions for peace is to develop the capability to wage war with crushing force. simplyot and will not throw money at the problem. we need to reform the pentagon, shedding over had passed down from a previous generation and adapt it to our 21st century challenges. that means procurement reform. we buy the right tools at the right price and get them to the war fighter at the right time. we need to reduce the workforce so that our poor fighters and their families -- war fighters and their families are not interest and not a

special interest should ever come before the needs of the men and women who wear our country's uniform. [applause] bush: nor can any serious modernization plan overlook our vulnerabilities in cyber warfare. it is frankly appalling that the united states is not plainly superior to rivals who seek to undermine us in cyberspace. our government and american companies are under cyber attack every day. to protect ourselves is not enough to keep making fixes after every breach. as president come i will give our intelligence agencies the mandate and resources to stay ahead of this threat. i would work hard to see the united states is at the forefront of developing much-needed doctrine on cyber warfare. potential hackers and cyber thieves, government or nonstate

players need to understand what sort of response they will face should they attack us. new doctrinen this will also require that we developed our own capabilities to the point that america's retaliation to a cyber attack would be certain and devastating. america requires only one kind of defense policy. a policy summed up in a single word. first. comedent kennedy explained i don't mean first if, i do not mean first but, i do not mean mean first pe riod. [applause] bush: if we are to take command of our future, we must ensure our military is first once again.

our armed forces need to know that support for the military is not just another partisan issue. their commander in chief is not just another politician. in every circumstance, against every attempt to shortchange our military, our troops need to be certain that the commander-in-chief has their back, and i will. [applause] i am mindful that charleston has a great history. this is the city where the civil war's first shots were fired and the present who led the union to war, abraham lincoln, did so humility, knowing the cost of conflict but also knowing the even greater price of surrender.

as we gather today in the aftermath of the bloodshed in paris, let it be said that this ,eneration knew the cost of war but also knew the even greater cost of acquiescence to an enemy --h which there is no radical islamic terrorists have declared war on the western world. their aim is our total destruction. we cannot withdraw from this threat or negotiate with it. we have but one choice, to defeat it. [applause] >> today, we can take inspiration from the courage of the people of france. from the heroes who liberated it 70 years ago. on the norman coast, thousands risked -- each one

died to stop the evil of their time. they traded their future for hours and their grave markers face west towards the america they would never return to. , not ever present reminder only of the price of freedom, but the valor of those who protect it. her in our time, some of you dangerouslled to take missions to protect that freedom and defeat the evil we face today. mission thaty should you be said into harm's way, that you would be given every tool to wage war with lethal force and efficiency. you would have the support from washington that you have from the american people. led by a president who is resolute, as i will be coming in defeat of islamic terrorism wherever it appears go. [applause] bush: together, we can

determine aggression, protect our vital interests, overcome the violence and defend the innocent who were helpless. let us accept the task and see it through, to move this world .gain in the direction of peace god bless you all and god bless the united states of america. [applause] [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [applause] [applause] [applause] >> c-span has your coverage of the road to the white house 2016. where you will find the candidates, the speeches, the thises and your questions year, we are taking a road to

the white house coverage across the country with our studentcam contest. what issues they want to hear about the most from the candidates. contest onstudentcam tv, radio and online at www.c-span.org. >> the c-span bus is traveling around the country, giving visitors an opportunity to learn more about our campaign 2016 coverage. the bus is in florida for the miami book fair this weekend. you can watch that life this weekend on c-span2 possible tv. you can follow the bus on twitter with the handle @c-spanbus. you can find out where the bus is headed next on www.c-span.org . >> every weekend on american

history tv on c-span3, 40 hours of programs that tell our nation's story. sunday morning, wrote the white house rewind looks back at the 1988 political campaign of george herbert walker bush. days of the last two john f. kennedy's papal trip in texas. -- fateful trip in texas. university of virginia history professor and university of richmond resident emeritus discuss "the birth of the nation." >> c-span presents landmark guide to ourok, a

landmark cases series which explores 12 historic supreme court decisions, including library versus madison -- marbury versus madison, brown versus the board of education, miranda versus arizona and roe versus wade. landmark cases, the book, features introductions and the highlights and impact of each case. landmark cases is available for $8.95 plus shipping. get your copy today at www.c-span.org/landmarkcases. the terrorist attacks in france were a major topic on capitol hill this week. leading many lawmakers to speak about the isis threat and concerns over the syrian refugee crisis.

here is a portion of what was said on the house and senate floors. , mr. chairman. i want to rise today and discuss the issue of the syrian refugees and the islamic state terrorists who are coming across our southern border and in relation to this the office of refugee resettlement loophole that exists there and also, mr. speaker, as i begin my remarks, i commend the house and our speaker for speaking out and taking an action to condemn the paris attacks. this administration has announced its intention to resettle 10,000 syrian refugees within the united states in fiscal year 2016. now, i want you to think about that number. 10,000 in the year 2016. they will go to resettlement

communities all across the country if the administration has its way. it is important to note that the office of refugee resettlement, or the o.r.r., as it is called, does not simply resettle refugees from overseas. in fact, the o.r.r. has been resettling, they have been resettling thousands of illegal aliens that are coming across our southern border. i want to read to you from their 2013 report to congress and i'm quoting from the report. other categories eligible for assistance and services, certain other persons admitted to the u.s. or granted status under other immigration categories also are eligible for refugee benefits. in addition, certain persons deemed to be victims of a severe form of trafficking, though not legally admitted as refugees, are eligible for o.r.r. benefits

to the same extent as refugees, ending quote. that's correct. the o.r.r. resettles illegal aliens not classified as refugees providing another potential gateway for the islamic state terrorist. frankly, we would know more about the o.r.r. activities if they filed their annual reports as required in section 413-a of the immigration and nationality act and did it in a timely fashion. but the last report we have from them is from 2013. it is not transparent. it's not accountable. and it cannot be trusted. and i know this for sure, mr. speaker, i wrote secretary burwell twice last year about resettlement activities at the o.r.r. and have been investigating them since july of 2014 when congressman bridenstine and i traveled to a

u.a.c. facility at fort sill, oklahoma. mr. chairman, i would like to submit those letters for the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. blackburn: we know there are more than mexicans and central americans coming across that southern border, and we know that once they are here the o.r.r. has no way of tracking them and keeping up with them. in april, a judicial watch report cited a mexican army officer and police inspector who advised that isis was operating training bases in close proximity to the u.s. southern border. another report from august, 2014, advised that social media traffic indicated isis was planning to infiltrate the southern border in order to carry out a terrorist attack. due to these findings, all, all of our resettlement services must be temporarily suspended. i am currently working on a

solution with several ofy colleagues to address the loophole that allows nonrefugees to be resettled. in the past three weeks, the islamic state has bombed a russian jetliner, committed suicide bombingsn beirut, and massacred, massacred french citizens? paris. they are now exporting their terror. there is simply no method that will allow us to determine with 100% accuracy whether syrians or illegal aliens that we resettle nto the u.s. are really isis jihadists. mr. speaker, is the isis threat contained? no. can we guarantee that syrian refugees who are resettled into the u.s. will not commit acts of terror against americans? no. doe know who these people are? no. are they properly vetted?

no. would it be responsible to bring syrian refugees into this country after the attacks in paris? the answer is no. do americans across this country want the administration to resele syrian refugees into the u.s.? no. is the administration dangerouy naive on this policy? absotely. i encourage my colleagues to look closely at the issue. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel, for five minutes. mr. rangel: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: withot objection. mr. rangel: thank you for this opportunity, mr. speaker. i wod just like to joinith that lions of americans feel heart-base sympathy for the losses of our friends i europe and france and paris. d of course to give sympathy to those peop that are

absolutely hysterical on this issue as relates to refugees, even though there's no evidence at all that it was refugees that were responsible for it. ut this pe of unprovoked attacks does cause fear and many times irresponsible behavior on behalf of people as they attempt to instill fear in all people to such an extent that it shatters the principles of what this country was built on. nevertheless, there's enough of us to be concerned about, there's enough for us to be fearful about. and there has to be concern as to what are we going to do about it. those that read in the media and listen to it you would find that

-- and even members of congress, we have member now saying that we can't win this war against isis unless we have more of our military on the ground fighting against the assad government. we talk about sending troops overseas to put their lives in harm's way as though it's just another foreign policy decision that members of congress can make without any regard at all to the constitutional responsibility we have to ourselves and to be an example for the world. . whenever this great nation is threatened, whenever our national security is threatened, the president should be coming to this house

of representatives and the senate and share with us what other threats to our national security, and when it becomes abundantly clear that we have to call upon our military in any way, we should have a declaration of war for the reasons that the president has given to us. and our responsibility to our constituents is to share as much information as we can to tell them that war means sacrifice, loss of life. and yet today we haven't had a declaration of war since franklin roosevelt. tens of thousands of americans have died. in this recent crisis, less than 10% of eligible americans have actually put themselves in harm's way because of executive

mandate and the allowance of the congress to allow this to happen. nd we've lost just in iraq 7,000 american lives that some of us have to go to the funerals and explain the best that we can that even though would be at war there american lives lost in foreign countries. i submit to you that if we believe that our national security is threatened, we should have a declaration of war, we should have a draft and we should have a way to pay for these wars so that we would know that it's not easy sending your loved ones abroad and not even know the reasons that they are there. it would seem to me that as everyone heard the president of france says they're at war

against isis that if we are at war against isis, whatever country they're representing, it should be brought to the american people. it should be brought to the congress and the president should ask us to declare war. but it's just totally not fair for people in the house of representatives to come here and to say that americans should be sent overseas to fight an unknown enemy, to put their lives in jeopardy and perhaps their families in jeopardy without being able to say that they're fighting a war for democracy -- to preserve democracy in this country. it just seems to me that whether you call them no feet on the ground but boots on the ground, that if someone's coming back here with a flag-draped coffin, that we should be able to say they fought for america, they died for america and that we're fighting for peace and to end the war that has yet to be

declared. i yield back the balance of hi time. the speaker pro tempore: -- mr. rangel: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky, mr. barr, for five minutes. mr. barr: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of our allies, the people of france, and in strong condemnation of the terrorist attacks in paris, france, carried out by the islamic state this past friday. the people of france have been our allies since the american revolution, and having traveled to normandy and seeing the american flag over omaha beach, it underscores the important alliance that we have had with the people of france throughout our history. and ever since the founding of our country, we have been united with the people of france by our shared values of freedom and civil society and democracy. the attack on friday was an attack on these values, by barbaric terrorists who want to impose their brutal and twisted

version of islam and authoritarian rule across the world. we grieve for the mass of loss of life, not just for the french people, but also for the victims and their families around the globe, including nohemi gonzalez, an american student from almonte, california. we join the voices around the attacks but condemnation is not enough. as i saw firsthand while visiting iraq and afghanistan last month, the president's strategy of withdrawal and containment is clearly not working. by underestimating the threat, referring to isil as the j.v. team, declaring that isil has been contained just hours before the brutal attacks in paris, president obama has allowed this radical islamic cancer on humanity to fester and grow. indeed, the key lesson that my trip to the middle east is that american retreat has made the world a much less stable and much more dangerous place.

the weakness of the president's foreign policy and u.s. withdrawal from the middle east has allowed our adversaries, isil, russia, iran, al qaeda to fill the vacuum, to grow stronger and become a much greater threat to our homeland and our interests. in contrast, our allies -- israel, the jordanians, the government of iraq, the kurdish regional government, the regional government in afghanistan -- they have become more threatened and vulnerable. there is not a place in the world that is more safer or stable today or where our adversaries are weaker or our allies are stronger than the day president obama took office. the president has in recent days lectured his critics to ome up with our own plan and regurgitated his tired attacks on his predecessor's national security policy. but if there is any lesson to be learned from the obama policy in iraq, as contrasted

with u.s. policy after world war ii in japan and germany, is that once you win a war, do not leave. a residual security force and a continued diplomatic engagement to prevent sectarian divisions would have reassured moderate sunnis and prevented the rise of isil. the president implies his critics would lead us to another unpopular ground war in the middle east. but we do not need to fight the iraq war again. we've already won that war, but we do need to do more to combat isil. what about authorizing use of military force that doesn't constrain the commander in chief, which is what the president sent us? why don't we do what our ally, president abaddy, in baghdad wants and asked us for, which is more u.s. airpower, more u.s. special operators on the ground for more coordination of the air campaign, more funding for the iraqi train and equip fund? we must do to help the moderate

forces, the indigenous forces on the ground such as the kurdish peshmerga and address he serge of refugees across -- surge of refugees across the world but the answer is not to settle them across the united states. a settlement program is an admission of defeat that their homes will never be safe for them to return to so we should assimilate them with new homes, new languages, new cultures. that's not the answer for these refugees. we know that one terrorist blended with those trying to lee from isil, it would pose as a security threat to the united states. we should not take them away from the anti-isil campaign through an open-ended refugee program. let'sin stead, let's actively protect -- instead, let's actively protect them and win

the war. the best thing we can do for these people is to defeat the enemy and to end their reign of terror, rape and oppression. we need a strategy not to contain isil but to eliminate them. the refugee issue is larger than the refugees. as we were reminded so tragically friday in paris, failure to confront ideologies abroad gives them a reason to attack here at home. let's pray for the people of france but let's do more. let's rise up with them with resolve to defend our shared ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, yesterday i spoke about the horrific terror attacks in paris last week and why they were a stark reminder of two things. first, that the stretch of isis stretches well beyond syria and iraq. and second that this terror army has grown in power and grown in influence and certainly grown in

territory. unfortunately the administration and commander in chief particularly have stood by as spectators without developing an effective strategy to degrade and destroy isis as the president claims is his goal. instead we've seen airstrikes which are necessary but not sufficient to deal with the threat of isis in syria and in iraq. more than a year ago i, among others, called with the president to discuss congress's strategy. my thought is any time americans are sent into harm's way, as there are americans in harm's way both in iraq and perhaps throughout the region, there ought to be a clear purpose articulated by the commander in cheervetion and it -- commander in chief and it ought to be a joint undertaking between the congress and the executive, because our men and women in

uniform deserve the unqualified support of all americans, and i think that can best be demonstrated and accomplished by building consensus for this action in congress. but what we've seen instead are speeches, interviews and assurances that have really attempted to hide the fact that the president's so-called strategy against is isis has been nothing more and nothing less than an abject failure. the picture painted by the administration on the perceived success of this strategy has been overstated at best and disingenuous at worst. between referring to isis, now numbering as many as 30,000 strong, as the j.v. team, just hours before the paris attacks and just hours before the paris attacks proclaiming in an interview with abc news that they were -- quote -- "contain "contained," the president has

simply not shot straight with the american people. the american people can take the truth. they just haven't heard it yet about the nature of the threat and about an effective strategy to deal with that threat. and as we've learned and as the 9/11 commission observed, one of the worst things we can do for our own national security is allow safe havens for terrorists to develop in places like syria and iraq. places where they can train, they can arm and then they can export their attacks. and given the unique capability of isis, they can communicate by social media and over the internet and radicalize people here in the united states just ashey apparently did to people in france. the criticism of the president's lack of a strategy is not a partisan issue, it's not limited to members of my political par party. on monday in an interview on

msnbc, the rank member on the senate intelligence committee, the senior senator from california, said -- and i quote -- "she said, isil is not contained," adding, "i've never been more concerned." that's senator feinstein, the ranking member or i believe they call it the vice chair of the intelligence committee. i couldn't agree with my democrat colleague from california more. isil, isis, whatever you want to call it, has not been contained and i agree with her, i have never been more concerned by the terrorist threat particularly since 9/11. it's pretty clear that in the wake of the tragic events in paris that what the administration is doing to combat isis is failing. it's not working. in iraq, isis has captured city after city. over the last two years where

americans have shed their blood, where americans have spent their treasure and took years to bring relative peace preceding president obama's precipitous withdraw from iraq. i can only imagine how hard it is for some of our veterans who served in iraq to hear the laundry list of familiar places that have been taken by isis almost overnight. sadly, of course, this includes cities where the precious lives of american heroes were lost, places like mosul, fallujah, and ramadi. i can only imagine what an american veteran, having lost a limb or suffered other grievous injury, what they must feel, the rage they must have by seeing those hard-fought gains squandered. and i can't help but think about the gold star mothers, moms who've lost servicemen and women

in combat in service to our country. what a terrible squander of hard-fought-for gains. but that's what laid the predicate and created the vacuum for the threat we see today. so where we stand today -- from where we stand today, iraq is undeniably worse off than when president obama took office. he said he wanted to end the war in iraq and afghanistan only to see, because of bad judgment and bad strategy, the war proliferate and get that much more serious. at least the war being conducted against us and american interests and our allies. like i said, this is the result of that bad policy and bad judgment is not one less war, it's a safe haven for isis that's been carved out of syria and iraq which border has been

completely erased between those two previous separated countri countries. as 30,000 fighters continue to plunge the region deeper into chaos. mr. president, i was struck by the comments of the director of the central intelligence agency who spoke at the center for strategic and international studies yesterday. he said that after -- or i should say before the current administration that there were mainly -- there were probably about 700 adherents left, that is the origin of this problem today which was known as al qaeda. 700 or so adhere notes left. and he went on to say that now, as i've already alluded to, that there are between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters across iraq and

syria. those are the number of troops that isis can muster now as a result of our failed policies in iraq and syria. so according to the c.i.a. director's own estimate, that means there's been an increase just during the seven years of the obama administration of between 2,700 and 4,400%. mr. president, your strategy's not working. and as we all know, this is not just about a fight over there. this is about a fight that's coming here to a neighborhood, to a city near you. according to the media reports on monday, c.i.a. director also -- the c.i.a. director also warned that isis was likely planning additional attacks. and on that same day, a new

propaganda video popped up on-line where isis issued a fresh threat to target washington, d.c. perhaps most concerning -- and it's all concerning -- is the serious threat we face at home from a jihadist who is already living here on u.s. soil. you know, most of the people who carried out the attacks in france were born and grew up in belgium. some of them emigrated, one under a fake syrian passport, apparently. but we need to be worried about home-grown radicalized terrorists, radicalized by isis or like-minded groups via the internet. in vex vex, we've seen this firsthand. so-called home-grown threats that occurred at fort hood in 2009. and in garland, texas, earlier this year. but in the face of all, this the

president's own c.i.a. director talking about the huge increase in the threat over the last seven years of this failed strategy, given what's snapped paris -- given what's happened in paris, given the threats against the united states and washington, d.c. in this propaganda video, why in the world would any reasonable person say we don't need to change a thing; we need to stay the course, which is apparent what will the president is saying? no rational person would say, hey, this is working out just the way i had it planned. you would reconsider. you would reevaluate in light of the evidence and experience. that's what a reasonable person would do. well, "the washington post" on november the 16th -- i guess that was two days ago -- issued an editorial called "president obama's false choice against the islamic state."

and they used the word to describe the president in this first paragraph that i thought i understood the meaning of -- and i think i did -- but i looked it up anyway and it's the word petulant. here's what they said -- "pressed about his strategy for fighting the islamic state, a petulant sounding president obama insisted monday, as he has before, that his critics have offered no concrete alternatives for action in syria and iraq other than -- quote -- 'putting large numbers of u.s. troops on the ground.' well, petulant, i did look it up, means childishly sulky or bad tempered is one definition. so apparently "the washington post" wasn't impressed with the president's response either. and he says -- they went on to say that the president's claim was faulty in a number of respects. first of all, nobody's proposed

putting large numbers of u.s. troops on the ground. no one. so this is a strawman that the presidenpresident erects just sn knock it down to try to discredit anybody who doesn't drink the same kool-aid he does on this topic. "the washington post" went on to say that a number of military experts have proposed a number of constructive ideas that would help us make better progress against this enemy. things like deploying more special operations forces, including forward air controllers who can direct munitions and airstrikes and bombing raids with much more accuracy than without them. we could also make sure that we have more americans to advise the iraqis, moderate syrian forces and other people with similar interests, to advise

them to battlefield tactics to make them more effective. the president could send in more advisors to iraqi battalions and more u.s. specialized assets. there's no one in the world that has the technological advantage on the united states when it comes to our military and our specialized assets like drones, for example, among other things. and then there's the issue of the kurds. you know, the peshmerga have been an impressive fighting force. they have been boots on the ground in a large portion of iraq, and they've been crying out for the sort of weapons that they need in order to be more effective. the administration has decided, well, let's send everything through baghdad. and, sadly, most of those weapons don't end up making their way into the hands of the kurds and the peshmerga because of political differences between those. so there's a lot we could do and

the president's strawman that they continually erect so he can just knock it down as he tries to rid expiewl criticize anybody who has the -- ridicule and criticize anybody who has the temerity to question this failed strategy. it's just not working. it's not working for him and people increasingly are losing confidence in his judgment. to eradicate isis abroad and neutralize the threat this terror army poses at home, we need a proactive multifaceted strategy. the president's approach, characterized by ineffectual airstrikes and half-measures, has resulted in tactical stalemate that's kept isis morale high and recruitment study. -- recruitment steady. you know, we are blessed with some of the most elite military forces in the world. incredible human beings and great patriots. but not even they can hold on to

territory after it's bombed because there are just simply not enough of them. that's why, as "the washington post" suggested, it's so important to send in american advisors on tactics and people that will allow the boots on the ground, like the kurds, the persh measure ga to be more -- peshmerga, to be more effective. they can be the boots on the ground. they're the ones most direct interest in the outcome. it doesn't take an expert military strategist to see that air power alone will not defeat isis. perhaps the greatest military leader we've had in -- certainly in my adult lifetime, general david petraeus, has said that. the president's own military advisors have told him that but he simply won't listen to them. preferring, it seems to me, to sort of run out the clock on his administration and then have to hand off this terrible mess to his successor.

but heaven help us if in the meantime, as a result of this ineffective strategy, an emboldened isis, that we see more attacks not over there but over here. and you know what? we already have u.s. boots on the ground in iraq and syria. i'll just remind everyone, there's about 3,500 u.s. troops in iraq, 3,500, and about 50 u.s. special operators in syria, as the obama administration has publicly stated. so if the president's going to put american boots on the ground, why not come up with a strategy, working together with our allies and those with aligned interests, to make them more effective and to actually crush isis before isis hits us here in the homeland? we know the white house has sought to micromanage the military campaign and impose unreasonable restrictions on what the troops that are there are allowed to do, so-called

caveats. are war fighters literally have had one arm tied behind their back, and this is simply just another recipe for continued failure and it has to stop. it has to change. we know that isis can't be dislodged from territory it now holds unless we have effective partners on the ground. that means working closely, as i indicated, with partners like the iraqi security forces, the kurdish peshmerga, and the sunni tribal forces and supporting them with u.s. air power and intelligence. to further bolster these ground partners, the president needs to consider embedding american troops as military advisors, as i just said. and by employing u.s. troops like the joint tactical air controllers that i mentioned earlier from the "washington post" editorial, that was one of their suggestions, in support of

those ground partners, we would make our air strikes more precise and more lethal. this is the type of thing that will be needed to clear and to hold territory after recapturing it from isis. it really doesn't accomplish very much to bomb the living day lights out of some isis stronghold and not follow on with troops to be able to hold that territory, but we end up doing the same thing over and over again, bombing the same territory, they leave and then they come back because there is nothing there to hold that territory. in the long run, the overall effort to dislodge isis from key tribal areas and population centers has to be undergirded by a political framework as well that will sustain the lasting rejection of isis's bankrupt ideology. no one's suggesting that military combat alone is going to solve this problem, but in

order to bring the people who can, the so-called reconcileables, the people who are willing to try to work toward a long-lasting solution and eradicate the ones who won't, it's going to take a military strategy and a political framework. and i would just close on this, mr. president. there has been a lot of concern. i've heard it in my office and we've all heard it from our constituents back home. a lot of concern about refugees. whose heart doesn't break for people who have been run out of their own homeland, who have seen family members murdered by a butcher like assad in syria? but this is not a new phenomenon. we've known since the syrian civil war started following the arab spring in 2011 that hundreds of thousands, indeed

millions of syrians have fled their country, have been dislocated within the country, have moved into refugee camps in turkey and jordan and lebanon, and now they're going to europe and some of them are showing up here in the united states. i bet if you ask every single one of those or most of those refugees, would you prefer to live in safety and security in your own land or do you want to go somewhere else, they would say well, i want to stay here. so we need a policy that will actually allow syrians to stay in syria and iraqis to stay in iraq, but in the absence of any kind of military strategy and no political framework and no solution from the commander in chief, these poor people have nowhere else to go. so we need to create safe zones in syria. we can do that. we can create a no-fly zone in

cooperation with our partners there in the middle east. we need to create safe zones in syria where tens of thousands of refugees who are now trying to flee syria could actually live with our help. this means areas where innocent men, women and children could be protected from attacks both from the air and from the ground, zones where they don't have to worry about being murdered 24 hours a day by isis or by the blood-thirsty regime of bashar al-assad. congress should not have to tell the commander in chief how to conduct a successful military campaign. or what a strategy looks like. but you know what? it takes "the washington post" editorial to tell the president that what he is saying is the alternative, it's just not true and there are productive ways that we can turn the tide against isis and provide more

stability and safety to people who prefer to stay home and not flee to distant shores and create consternation here in the united states about are we adequately screening these refugees to make sure they're not a threat to us here. so it's my hope that the president will consider thoughtful options that are being proposed by members of congress. i'll bet they're thoughtful options being proposed by the president's own military advisors, but he's just simply not listening to them and stubbornly resisting reconsidering his failed strategy. petulant is what the "washington post" called it. childishly sulky or bad tempered. that's what they called the president's attitude. the american people have seen some of our own countrymen and

women murdered by isis in barbaric and horrific fashion in images transmitted around the globe. they are understandably apprehensive about our security as a nation and our receding leadership role in the world. what's basically happening is as america retreats is the tyrants, the thugs, the terrorists, the bullies fill that void, and in this case just like before 9/11, that void is filled by bad people who want to not only harm the people nearby but the west, meaning the united states and our allies, over here. so the american people deserve a clear, credible strategy from the president. one that will combat this terror threat before the violence we saw last week in paris shows up here on our own doorstep.

more than ever, our nation needs strong leadership, and i hope the president will finally rise to the challenge. the house took action on the syrian refugee crisis by passing -- untilat would national security agencies verify those coming from syria don't pose a security risk. the vote was 289 to 137, which would be enough to override a presidential veto. 60 senators need to prove the bill. he currently is not on the senate's agenda. here is some of the debate this week in the house. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker,

pursuant to house resolution 531, i call up h.r. 4038 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4038, a bill to require that complell certifications and background investigations be completed prior to the admission of certain aliens as refugees, and or other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the chair would ask all members to please clear the well. ask all members to please take their conversations from the floor. ask all members and staff to please take their seats. pursuant to house resolution 531, the bill is considered as read. the bill shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on judiciary. the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all

members may have five legislative days to revise and includeheir remarks and extraneous materials on h.r. 4038, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. mr. goodlatte: i support h.r. 4038 -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the chair would again ask all members and staff to take their conversations from the floor. take their seats. the gentleman from virginia virginia tech. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i support h.r. 4038, the american security against foreign enemies act of 2015. just one example of a terrorist taking advantage of the united states' generous immigration policy in order to perpetrate attacks on americans is too many. unfortunately, there are too many examples to count. most notable are the attacks on september 11, 2001, perpetrated by 19 foreign nationals who are

admitted to the u.s. through our legal immigration system. the u.s. government has the ultimate responsibilities to protect its citizens. as such, if u.s. immigration policy allows foreign nationals who want to do us harm access to u.s. soil, then the immigration policy must be reviewed and amended. we are faced with such a situation right now. there is a very real possibility that a terrorist, particularly one from or claiming to be from syria or iraq, will attempt to gain access to the united states as a refugee. in fact, isis is making no secret of their plans to have their members infiltrate groups of syrian refugees. we should take isis at its word. of course, our hope is that such an individual would be screened out through the refugee vetting process. unfortunately, we have heard time and time again from top counterterrorism and intelligence officials that the current vetting process cannot

prevent such an individual from receiving refugee status. in fact, just late last month f.b.i. director james comey told the judiciary committee that with a conflict zone like syria where there is dramatically less information available to use during the vetting process, he could not offer anybody an absolute assurance that there is no risk associated with admitting syrian nationals as refugees. and he told another house committee that we can only query against that which we have collected. and so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database till the cows come home but nothing will show up. because we have no record on that person. the admission's foreign policy inaction in syria and failure to take seriously the isis threat,

are responsible for the flood of syrians currently leaving their country. of course, we all remember when the president told us that isis was the j.v. team. that j.v. team just murdered over 120 innocent people in paris, including at least one american. and the paris j.v. team included at least one terrorist who was registered as a refugee from syria. h.r. 4038 requires certification by the f.b.i. director that the security vetting process is sufficient to prevent an individual who is a security threat from being admitted as a refugee. the bill also requires that the d.h.s. secretary, f.b.i. director, and director of national intelligence certify to congress that each refugee is not a security threat prior to his or her admission to the united states. in addition, h.r. 4038 requires the d.h.s. inspector general to review such certifications

annually and report its findings to congress. the certification procedures apply to aliens who are nationals of iraq or syria. those who have no nationality, and whose last habitual residents was in iraq or syria, or present in those countries at ny time on or after march 1, 2011. h.r. 4038 puts the administration on notice that their lax attitude toward this issue will no longer be tolerated and puts the administration on notice that congress is not yet finished reforming refugee policy. in fact, our committee has been hard at work long before the paris attacks working on legislation to make necessary security related and other changes to the u.s. refugee admissions program. and we look forward to moving that legislation through the house. h.r. 4038 is not meant to be the soul solution to the security problems we face in vetting syrian and other refugees. but it is an important first

step. and i look forward to congress taking additional action to ensure america's safety. i thank the gentleman from texas and the gentleman from north carolina for the work they have done on this bill. i urge my colleagues to support t i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, members, the so-called american safe act purports to make us safer but as the administration has so correctly observed, this measure would provide no meaningful additional security for the american people. worse yet, it would effectively deny refugee status for syrians and iraqis who are themselves victims of terrorism in their

own homelands. h.r. 4038 is a terribly flawed and inhumane bill for many reasons. to begin with, while ensuring the safety of all americans should be our top priority, h.r. 4038 does nothing to achieve this goal. this measure sets unreasonable clearance standards that the department of homeland security simply cannot meet. refugees seeking to come to our shores are already subject to the highest level of vetting, more than any other traveler or immigrant to the united states. . this extensive screening process is performed by the department of homeland security, the state

department, in conjunction with the cents tral intelligence agency. the federal bureau of investigation and other law enforcement and intelligence agencies. exhaustive utilizes background checks that often take up to 24 months on average toll complete and even longer in some cases. we must keep in mind that our nation was founded by immigrants and has historically welcomed refugees when there is suffering around the globe. whether it is an earthquake in haiti, a tsunami in asia or four years of civil war in syria with no end in sight, the world always looks to the united states. we provide protections for , ugees and asylum seekers

especially women and children. nevertheless, in the wake of the september 11 attacks on our shores and the tragic november 13 terrorist attacks in paris, we must be vigilant particularly in the midst of a global refugee crisis. h.r. 038, however, is an extreme overreaction to these latest security concerns. rather than shutting our doors to these desperate men and women and children who are risking death and to escape torture in their own homelands, we should work to ut liz our resources and good intentions to welcome them.

and finally, congress needs to o its part by properly funding refugee resettlement as well as funding our federal agencies so they have the necessary personnel and programs to complete security checks that we already have in place. instead of slamming our doors to the world's most vulnerable, we should be considering legislation to strengthen and expand refugee programs. unfortunately, the bill before us today is not a serious effort to legislate and it will not make us safer. it's a knee-jerk reaction, as evidenced by the fact that this measure was introduced just two days ago and has not been the subject of a single hearing or any meaningful review by our committee. rather than betraying our

values, we must continue to focus on the most effective tools to keep us safe while also providing refuge for the world's most vulnerable. accordingly, i urge, i urge all of my colleagues to oppose h.r. 4038. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: at this time, it's my pleasure to yield five minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul, the chairman of the homeland security committee and the chief sponsor of this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. mccaul: i thank the chairman of judiciary. i rise today to urge my colleagues to support the america safe act. let me be clear. we are a nation at war.

the world was reminded last week that islamic terrorists are seeking to harm our people, destroy our way of life and undermine the foundational principles of the free world. sadly with the news that at least one of these frirtsfer terrorists may have infiltrated europe posing as a syrian refugee, the paris attacks confirm our worst fears. thousands of foreign fighters terror back ring to the west. the world is now looking at america for leadership and for a clear-eyed understanding of the threat. isis is not contained, as the president says. isis is expanding globally and is plotting aggressively. the group is now responsible for more than 60 terrorist plots against western targets including 18 in the united states. here in the homeland, we have arrested more than one isis

supporter a week in the past year. in -- and the f.b.i. says it has nearly 1,000 isis-related investigations in all 50 states. today, we must take decisive action to show the american people that we are doing all that we can to protect our count troy. we must listen to the words of our enemies. isis has vowed in their words to exploit the refugee process to sneak operatives, to infiltrate the west and they appear to have already done that to attack our allies. for nearly a year, intelligence and law enforcement agencies have warned congress, both publicly and privately, that they are alarmed by intelligence collection gaps and our ability to weed out terrorists from the refugee process. f.b.i. director comey testified before my committee and stated

we can questionery our data bases until the cows come home because nothing will show up because we have no record of them. we know that organizations like isis might like to exploit this program. this is an administration official's words, not mine. this legislation would add two important layers to our defenses. creating the most robust national security screening process in american history for any refugee population. the american safe act also strikes an important balance between security and our humanitarian responsibilities. it sets up roadblocks to keep terrorists from entering the united states while also allowing legitimate refugees who are not a threat to be resettled

appropriately. let us not forget this legislation is the first in a series of steps we must take to .efend the homeland last week the streets of paris could just as easily have been the streets of new york or chicago or houston or los angeles. but as i have said before, our long-term message to these terrorists must be clear. you may have fired the first shot in the struggle, but rest assured, america will fire the last. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i'm pleased now to who has worked

harder on this issue than anyone i know, the gentlelady from california, mrs. love green, to whom i yield three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is ecognized for three minutes. ms. lofgren: all of us watched with horror the events in paris. november 13 was france's september 11 and all of us have paused to consider what further should be done to make sure that america is safe because our first obligation as members of congress is to make sure that america is safe. and so as we watch the refugees from the middle east pouring into europe, concern has been expressed and i think correctly, who are these people hidden among the many helpless victims are there those that would pose a threat. it's worth noting that our process for refugees is completely different. no one gets into the united

states unless they have been completely vetted. this process starts with the u.n. referring only those people who are vulnerable, who have been tortured, who have been victimized, who are helpless women and children who are screened by us. we have a process that includes soliciting information from the d.e.a., from the intelligence agencies, from the f.b.i. and alike, all of those agencies have a veto. if there's a problem, they veto the admission. the process takes two years or more and a very small number of people actually are admitted. of the 2,000 or so syrian refugees who have been admitted to the united states, the overwhelming majority are children and widows who have been victims of torture, who

have seen their husbands beheaded. the bill before us, as has been described by the speaker and the author, would stop the refugee program. they call it a pause. they would stop it because it completely structures the very elaborate system we have by putting the f.b.i. as the lead agency. they would have to hire agents. it would be a pause, that's what they have described. it would take a couple of years to start up. now why is that a bad idea? isis is our enemy and we need to fight them and we need to defeat them, but we are fighting on two levels. one, military, but also this is a fight of values. america stands for freedom. we are the beacon of light, of democracy, of freedom in the world and part of that value of america is allowing people who are escaping monsters like isis

to be able to become americans like us. we need to screen and make sure that we are completely safe. but if we stop that program, we give isis a win. please defeat this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: it's my pleasure to yield five minutes to the chief co-sponsor of the legislation, the gentleman from orth carolina. mr. hudson: america is a good country and we have a long history of accepting refugees, people fleeing oppression and violence, but we have an obligation to the american people. we welcome people into this country who are seeking asylum. we owe it to the american people to know who these people are. and when you've got a terrorist

group like isis, who has said that they will exploit this refugee crisis to infiltrate america, this is an orgs that has -- an organization that has said their goal is to come to america and kill americans. i take them at their word. the number one responsibility of this body is to protect the american people. and it's not me saying that we have challenges with the current vetting process, it's experts from president obama's administration. i draw your attention to the first quote from jeh johnson. it's true that we aren't going to know a lot about the syrians. that is definitely a challenge. i draw your attention to the next quote from director james comey of the f.b.i. we can only questionery against that which we have collected. if someone has not made a ripple

in the pond in syria in a way to get reflected in our data bases, we can questioner question our data until the cows come home but nothing will show up because we have no record of that person. this is president obama's own administration saying that the current process is broken, that we are bringing in these refugees that we cannot properly vet. so our legislation simply says, let's stop this flow unless and until the law enforcement experts that president obama has apointed, the f.b.i. director, director of homeland security can vouch for the fact that we have a process in place that they are comfortable with. how radical is that? this is common sense and that's why our polls show 75% of the american people support this measure. i know the president has issued a veto threat, but i hope today

in this house, we can come together republicans and democrats and respond to the american people and we have a bipartisan vote that doesn't say no to refugees, it sauce pause the program unless and until the law enforcement experts are comfortable that we got a process. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: i yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from south carolina, ask that he be

mr. conyers: i yield to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: i rise in opposition to this bill that would block syrians come to the united states for years. the shocking events in paris has strengthened our resolve to defeat the terrorist who is are responsible for these heinous acts and for bombing a russian airliner and carrying out deadly bombings in beirut. but defeating terrorism should not be slamming the door in the face of those fleeing the terrorists. that's why i'm appalled by the actions by this house and by some of the words of my colleagues today. the united states has been -- has always been and should always be a place of refuge. remember the syrian refugees are running away from isis. they are running away from war on terror. they are its victims. to stop thousands of desperate people who are fleeing unspeakable violence is unconscionable. we might as well take down the statue of liberty.

countries whose much smaller populations like lebanon and turkey has agreed to take a million refugees or more. even france announced they're increasing the amount of refugees they're accepting. we're talking about a mere 10,000. they're subject to an extensive vetting process which could take up to 24 months. but the real danger america faces is isis through its propaganda can radicalize people already here and inspire them to attack the united states from within. in paris, we saw that several of the attackers were european nationals who could enter the u.s. without being vetted. so it is ridiculous to assert by denying access to refugees we would be making america safer. we face a choice that will echo through history. 1924, a racist xenophobic anti-semitic congress slammed the doors shut on jewish, italian and greek immigrants. if it were not for the 1924 immigration act perhaps two

million of the six million jews who were murdered in the holocaust would be living safely in the united states instead. back then we shut our doors to people in desperate need. we must not do so again. we must not let ourselves be guided by irrational fear. we have a moral obligation and for those who care a religious obligation to extend the hand to those in need. i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields back the balance of his time. the chair lays before the house n enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 2036, an act suspend the current compensation packages for the chief executive officers of fannie mae and freddie mac and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. gowdy: mr. chairman, i yield a minute to the gentleman from california, the majority leader, kevin mccarthy. the speaker pro tempore: the majority leader is recognized for one minute. mr. mccarthy: well, i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank those who have worked

on this bill. congressman richard hudson, chairman mike mccaul, a number of other committee chairmens and chairman goodlatte and others. this is not an issue that comes before us just because of an action that happened recently, a horrific action. you know, mr. speaker, our duty is to protect the american people. you know, without security we cannot have freedom. without security we cannot help others abroad. the american people are generous. and we want to help those in the world suffering from terrorism and civil war. the fact that america gives far more in foreign aid than any other country in the world is a testament to our generosity. ou know, in 2014, we gave over $6.5 billion in humanitarian foreign aid alone. and that doesn't even count the

millions of dollars that privately have been offered by american people. but being generous does not mean we have to have a weak screening process for refugees. especially for those coming from iraq and syria where we know people are there who seek to do us harm and are looking to exploit a weak process. and it is wrong to condemn a strong screening process using the language of charity and morality. when we allow refugees into this country, we must be guided by one single principle. if you are a terrorist or you are a threat to our country, you are not getting in, period. the bill before us increases the standards to keep those who want to do us harm out, but america's not saying no to refugees. america always stands as a beacon of hope for everyone

fleeing oppression and terror. nothing will stop us from protecting the innocent while continuing our fight against evil. instead, this bill puts a pause on our refugee program until we are certain that nobody being allowed in possesses a threat to the american people. but to those who do not even want to consider increasing accountability in our refugee process and to the president who announced that he wants to veto this bill, let me tell you this. it is against the values of our nation and the values of a free society to give terrorists the opening they are looking for to come into our country and to harm the american people, and we have an obligation to stop that from happening. but in the debate we are having n the refugee crisis, we should not lose sight of the root of the problem. the real problem is isil and our lack of strategy to destroy

them. it asounds me that president refuses to face reality and admit that his strategy is failing. isil controls territory the size of maryland. attacks in paris, beirut and in egypt so that isil is not contained to iraq and syria. every day isil continues to exist is another day they can train, recruit and radicalize more people to continue their war on the civilized world and threaten the safety of the american people. this danger is real, and nothing can replace a winning strategy. here in the house we will not accept half measures. we are committed to keeping america safe. that's why i ask all in the house to support this bill, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm

pleased to recognize the distinguished member of the house judiciary committee, the gentlelady from texas, ms. sheila jackson lee, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for two minutes. i'd like to e: thank the gentleman from michigan. i've been on the homeland security committee since the heinous and vial act of 9/11. i've often said that i was at ground zero and i had the misery of seeing the recovering that was still occurring at that time. i take no backseat to the concern and love for this nation as i know that my colleagues do on both sides of the aisle. but this legislation is divided in a simple premise. no to refugees, stop the refugee program, turn your back on children and women and old people, broken and bent.

this side saying that america's values can parallel the love, respect and commitment to the national security of this nation. isil determines to divide this bipolar world divided between muzz -- muslims but those who live every day under the sun who love freedom. e do not define the faith by those who kill us and maim us. as president franklin delano roosevelt said, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. nameless, unjustified terrorists who convert, retreat and advance. this is the extensive, extensive review that only a small number of syrians go through that are able to get in this country from refugee camps. that is the only place they come from. this is an extensive way. i say to mr. president, certify

it now, but what this legislation does is require that the 5-year-old syrian girl that has lived most of her life in a jordanian camp must be certified by four or five individuals who are already in the process of the certification. there are 60 million individuals who are displaced across the globe now. 20% of them are syrian fleeing conflict that has taken 240,000 lives. right now the f.b.i. has 50 terrorist cells being investigated. they cannot count them as syrian refugees. this is the wrong direction. let us follow our values, mr. speaker. vote that bill down and bring refugees who are already certified. this bill is unnecessary. it stops the refugee program. where is our mercy? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized.

mr. gowdy: thank you, mr. speaker. would yield three minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, the chairman of the appropriations committee, mr. rodgest. he speaker pro tempore: -- mr. gowdy: thank you. mr. speaker. i would yield three minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, the chairman of the appropriations committee, mr. rogers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. rogers: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise today, first, to reaffirm our solidarity to the people in france, our brethren in beirut and to those who perished over the skies of the sinai. the senseless and unspeakable violence, the blind fanaticism, he utter and irrational hatred to human life by isis, together they present a threat to not only national and global security but also to the fundamental values that constitute the very fiber of

civilization. isis must be stopped. the violence must end, and the united states must do more, more to stamp out this evil, more to eradicate the threats posed here and abroad and more to ensure that americans can tuck in their children at night with a feeling of security that they will be waking up tomorrow morning for school free from fear. that's why we must support this safe act. it's thoughtful, it will further one of our principal national security priorities -- keeping americans safe as we work to eliminate the threat posed by isis. the instability in syria and the surrounding region has continued unabated for more than four years, and we've witnessed an indescribable humanitarian crisis because of the brutality of the assad regime and radical islamic groups such as isis.

in the wake of the paris tragedy, we must step back and review the procedures in place for admitting refugees resulting from this conflict coming into our country. we can and must implement a system that assists the victims of the tragedy but that also prioritizes american security first. will ensure that no refugee from iraq or syria steps foot on u.s. soil without the secretary of the department of human services -- d.h.s. and the f.b.i. director and the highest intelligence officer certify that each refugee is not a security threat to the u.s.. the department of homeland security, the f.b.i., the director of national intelligence must unanimously

certify that a person seeking refuge in this country does not represent a security threat. this is an unprecedented vetting process to ensure dangerous people do not slip through the cracks. i urge your support, all in this chamber, so we can provide our military and intelligence personnel with the best possible chance for success as they work to keep us safe. i urge support for the bill and yield back the time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to recognize the ranking member on homeland security committee, mr. thompson of mississippi, for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized for five minutes. mr. thompson: thank you very much, mr. speaker, and i appreciate the generosity from my colleague from michigan on

the time. mr. speaker, we live in uncertain and dangerous times with ever-evolving terrorist threats. the brutality that isil has inflicted on innocent people is both chilling and demands action. as members of congress, we have a responsibility to do all we can to protect our citizens. in the wake of the paris attacks, questions have been raised about the screening system that u.s. citizens on whether it can be exploited by terrorists. in light of those questions, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous nsent to enter in the record a letter from formal homeland security secretary janet napolitano and former secretary michael chertoff supporting the current system of vetting refugees. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection, so ordered. . we have seen a number of governors including the governor of my home state choose fear over facts. if they had done their research, they would have learned our program is an extensive 13-step process. it starts with the referral from the united nations of a pre-screeped person within its refugee camps, requires department of homeland security to do in-person interviews and subject each applicant to reoccurring vetting against the department of homeland security, the state department, f.b.i., department of defense and intelligence community terrorist and criminal data bases. no excuses, mr. speaker. any one of those reviews pops up

with a problem, that person can't be considered for the refugee program. no excuses. unlike in europe, where migrants across into country that have little opportunity to vet them, jailen is allowed on u.s. soil until all the checks are completed to d.h.s.'s satisfaction. and has been said by representative lofgren, it takes 18 to 24 months for the process an applicant for refugee status. that process is thorough and complete, but there has been a reference to a stolen passport in the paris situation. that person, if they had applied for the refugee program, would have had to go through the same process of vetting that would

ave required at least 18 to 24 months so the thought that that person can just get on a plane and get here to this country is actually not accurate. to perfect my effort the record. our system of vetting is a multi layered, multi agency approach where the f.b.i. has veto authority on any applicant seeking refugee status. while no system is risk free, the protections in place in the american system are rigorous, robust and extensive. in fact, mr. speaker, yesterday, a witness that the majority invited to appear before our committee, matthew olesen, the former director of the national counterterrorism center, told

our committee, no refugee program in the world is as extensive as what we do in the united states. yet here we are today considering h.r. 4038, a bill that would upend the current system which was developed by security personnel with one thought in mind, to protect the homeland. and this -- these security personnel have done a wonderful job through the knowledge of all of us, none of the refugees that we are talking about from syria or iraq who come through this system have done anything have been model citizens since they have been here. for the record, del were 23,000 people that applied for refugee status from these two countries. those 23,000, about 7,000

were actually brewed and of those 7,000, only 2,000 were admitted. so, mr. speaker, our system is robust. it works and it speaks to our value as americans. i'm proud to say that people who e abused, people who are oppressed can still look to this country, follow the rules and if those rules are properly applied, they can look to america as somewhere they can call home, because most of those individuals applying for refugee status can't go home. once again, i call on members to embrace facts over fear, mr. speaker. and vote against h.r. 4038. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from south

carolina is recognized. mr. gowdy: i yield three minutes to the judge from the great state of texas, judge poe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. poe: i thank the gentleman from south carolina for the time. mr. speaker, isis is at war with the united states. the question is is america at war with isis? i'm not so sure, since we don't have a strategy to defeat isis other than if we are attacked, shelter in place, honker down, get more security guards around the capitol. use the tunnels rather than walk outside. that's what we were told after the paris attacks, mr. speaker. this legislation is really simple. it has with its core the idea to protect american citizens. it has nothing to do with refugees as far as being whether we accept refugees.

the country accepts refugees. we always have. that's clear. it's not the issue of refugees, it's the issue of letting isis terrorists get into the country to kill us, mr. speaker. our own security that the gentleman from mississippi kept talking about tells us we cannot vet syrian refugees. the f.b.i. director says that. we can't do it. one of the reasons many of these folks have no identity so we can't track somebody on someone who has no identity. this legislation says let's take some safeguards before we bring in these specific refugees. let's make sure that the people in charge of security certify that this person is not a threat. they can't do it right now, even the f.b.i. director says they can't certify. we owe that to the american

public and this legislation does that. the gentleman from mississippi is correct, 31 governors of the states say wait a minute. not so fast. find out who these people are. i think that the governors of the state get it right. they ought to have the ability, i think, to decide whether people should come to their state or not, only after a security check. so this legislation is a step to protect america. one of the things we're supposed to do. and the legislation is coming up quickly. why? because it's an immediate threat. you have refugees being bombed in syria. if we are going to take them in, let's have a plan to protect not only us but those refugees. and that plan is in this legislation. it seems to me it would be irresponsible not to pass the

legislation to require a certification of everybody that comes into america so that america can be safe, because that is our responsibility, mr. speaker. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to recognize the distinguished the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for one minute. without objection, so ordered. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, this bill is nothing but a p.r. piece that could have been written by joseph goebb emp are ls who said if you can make people afraid, you can make them do anything. they are attempting to panic the american people that there is

not a system in place. let me tell you about this system that is there. mr. thompson said what is really there. i helped a woman who for two years was a translator for american troops in iraq. she was so good, she saved lots of people's lives. she was so good that the enemy put a mark on her and said they were going to kill her. so she had to go into hiding. it took her from january, 2007 ntil september 2007 to get the papers and the witnesses and all the information necessary to get her into the united states. somebody who had put her life on the line for us. our soldiers, and it took nine

months to get her in. then her mother and brothers and sisters who were 16, 12 and and nine, it took two years. we have a robust system that is working. this bill is p.r. baloney and we ought to vote no. it sends the wrong message and says only white christians can come into this country. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. gowdy: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, chairman of the financial services committee, mr. hensarling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for yielding and all of his work to make our nation more secure. mr. speaker, i do rise in support today of the safety and security of the american people. as members of congress, we have no more sacred responsibility.

thus, i rise in support of the safe act. now, i join all americans and all the people of the world in standing with the people of paris. and we are so sobered as to what happened to their homeland. but we are also sobered by the challenge and the grave responsibility to thwart the same evil from coming to our homeland. the director of the f.b.i. has testified before congress just last month that a number of people who are of serious concern were able to slip through screenings of iraqi refugees. that's what the director of the f.b.i. said. this disturbing information, mr. speaker, obviously raises very serious red flags about lapses in the security within our current refugee vetting system.

again, it is why i support and i encourage all members to support the american safe act of 2015. it would effectively hit the pause button on the refugee program, not to stop, but the pause button. and it's simple legislation. it simply requires more rigid standards so that the f.b.i., the department of homeland security and the director of national intelligence would positively certify that each refugee from iraq and syria does not pose a security threat to us, to our homeland, to our families. otherwise, they will not be permitted to set down on american soil. it is simple, it is common sense, it is needed. mr. speaker, our hearts also go out to the millions of refugees forced to flee their homes and

save their lives and there is no other country in the world, no other country in the world that has been more generous with their time and treasure to refugees than the united states of america, but today is not the day to share our territory. not until and unless these people can be properly vetted to ensure they don't threaten our families. mr. speaker, hopefully the world has awakened. there is a very real threat that isis poses and it is not the j.v. team, they are not contained and what happened in paris was not merely a setback. i urge my colleagues to take the responsibility to secure our homeland seriously. this will be the first of what i know will be many steps that this chamber will take to address the growing threats that are posed to our families and our country. and i thank the sponsors of the legislation for bringing it to

the floor. i urge all my colleagues to adopt it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the the gentleman from texas has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm honored to recognize our leader, ms. pelosi, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding and for his great service to our country promoting our values, strengthening our nation. i come to the floor in a very prayerful way today because we are all horrified at what happened in paris, what happened in beirut, what happened to the russian airliner to name a few recent incidents. we recognize that that is horrible and that we have to protect the american people from

it. as we do so, we must be strong. but our strengths must spring from our prayerfulness for those who lost their lives or whose security was threatened physically, emotionally and every other way. in our body, -- in our country, we have a relationship with france. they were our earliest friends. and that's why in this chamber of the house of representatives, any visitor can see there are only two paintings. . george washington, our hero, our founding father. the other painting in this hamber is the marquis de l lafayette in the friendship that the french government extended to the colonies in had our war for independence. just imagine george washington

-lafayette, a long, long friendship. and so while we are concerned about violence exists in the world, when paris was hit in such a vicious way, in some ways it hit home for us, not that the other lives were not equally as important. so as we come to the floor to talk about what do we do next, we take an oath of office, every one of us, to protect and support the american people, the constitution of the united states. keeping the american people safe is our first responsibility. it's the oath we take, and if the american people rbt safe, what else really -- aren't safe, what else really matters? we understand the concern, the fear that has -- goes out in the country when an act of terrorism strikes. and in fact, that's the goal of

terrorists -- to instill fear, to instill terror. we cannot let them succeed. and so we have to take the measures necessary to protect the american people and to be very strong in how we do it. and that's why i have a problem with the bill that is on the floor today. because i think we have a much stronger, better option to protect the american people, and that is in the form of the thompson-lofgren legislation. in the bill, unlike the republican bill, the democratic alternative applies tough scrutiny to all refugees, potential refugees, not just syrians and iraqis, as the republican bill is limited to. it would require -- the thompson-lofgren secure refugee process act, would require the secretary of homeland security to verify the identity of all

refugee applicants, any application that contains insufficient, conflicting or unreliable information would be denied from day one. the bill also requires that at least five federal agencies -- the department of homeland security, the attorney general, the federal bureau of investigation, are the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, the director of national intelligence -- check all refugee applicantses -- applications against their records. anything that has a national security or criminal threat would be denied. all. not iraq, syria. all. two former secretaries of homeland security, janet napolitano -- secretary janet napolitano and secretary michael chertoff, have written about the process that's in existence now and which the thompson-lofgren legislation

respects, the process that is currently in place is thorough and robust and so long as it's fully implemented and not diluted -- and not diluted, it would allow us to safely admit the most vulnerable refugees while protecting the american people. fortunately, they say, these goals are not mutually exclusive. there are other things we could be doing in a bipartisan way, and i would hope that was a place we could have gone with this, and one of them relates closing loopholes in the visa waiver program. our colleagues on the senate side today are putting forth their principles, and they state, if an isis recruit attempts to travel to the united states on a fraudulent passport, paper passport issued by a country that participates

in the visa waiver program, that individual would avoid biometric screening and in-person interviews. how could we allow this loophole -- if we are truly addressing this challenge in a comprehensive way? and as if the republicans want to make the nation safer in the face of terror, there is another clear area in which we should act and that is we should be voting on congressman peter king, republican peter king's bill to close the appalling loophole that's outrageous. it's outrageous that a person who's on the terrorism watch list -- listen to this. if someone is on the terrorist watch list could walk into a gun store and buy a gun. his bill is called the denying firearms and explosive to dangerous terrorists act.

visa waiver, close the terrorist gun loophole. according to the g.a.o., over the last 11 years, more than 2,000 suspects on the f.b.i.'s terrorist watch list bought weapons in the united states. did you know that? did you know that? 91% of all suspected terrorists who tried to buy guns in the united states walked away with the weapon they wanted over the ime period with just 190 rejected despite ominous history. 10:1 were 5: 1, able to get the guns? it is outrageous that we would be slamming the door of mothers and children while we still allow people on the terrorist watch list to walk in the door

. a gun store and buy a gun and in regard to those mothers and children, i am with u.s. catholic conference of bishops o the episcopalians, presbyterians, evangelicals and juish groups, i say the republican bill before the house today fails to meet our values and fails to strengthen the security of the american people. families in syria and iraq are desperately trying to escape isis' gruesome campaign of torture, rape and violence and terror from the assad regime. the republican bill before the use today severely handicaps the refugee settlement in the future in our country. instead, it slams the door -- that door, again, on desperate mothers and children fleeing isis' unspeakable violence. as lee anderson, president of

the national association of evangelicals, said, quote, of course we want to keep terrorists out of our country but let's not punish the victims of isis for the since of isis -- for the sins of isis. did you know this? here are the facts. since 2001 only about -- in the last few years, only about 2,200 syrians have been admitted to the united states. half are children. 25% are seniors. all faced an 18 to 24-month screening process. at the refugee council, a coalition of more than 80 states, humanitarian and human rights groups point out in their letter to congress, because so few refugees in the world are resettled, the united states often chooses the most vulnerable, including refugees

who cannot remain safely where they are and families with children who cannot receive the medical care they need to survive. mr. speaker, i'd like to submit the refugee council's letter with all of the co-signers for the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. pelosi: thank you. as it is a proud american tradition, we can both ensure the security of our country and welcome desperate women and children and seniors faces isis' brutality. my colleague that spoke before me said our hearts go out to the refugees, but our hand of iendship does not and it could. we could do this in a bipartisan way. if we betray our values as a country and slam the door in the face of those innocent victims of terror, we do not strengthen our security. we weaken ourselves in the

ght against isis' savage ideology. as the refugee council wrote to congress, and this is important, it would send a demoralizing and dangerous message to the world that the united states makes judgments about people based on the country they come from and their religion. this feeds into extreme propaganda and all -- and makes us all less safe. you know, i talked about the french to begin with. it was interesting to me to hear president hollande speaking to thousands of people in the wake of the tragedy. and what he said in some of his emarks at various venues was that france would be welcoming 30,000 refugees from syria in the period ahead.

with all that they had suffered, the immediacy of the tragedy, the emotion of the moment and still doing the right thing. if we betray our values as a country and slam the door, again, on these victims, we do not strengthen our security, i said that. and all i can just say is this bill does not make us safer. the republican bill before us does not make us safer. it does not reflect our values, and it does not have my support. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the minority leader has expired. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. gowdy: thank you, mr. speaker. i am pleased to yield a minute to the gentleman from nebraska, mr. ashford. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for one minute. mr. ashford: i thank the gentleman from south carolina. mr. speaker, in my view, h.r. 4038 is in fact a commonsense pproach to address the legit

imate security concerns that my constituents are expressing today in wake of horrific attacks in paris, in my view a game changer -- it's a game-changer -- we must and are obligated to reassess our existing procedures and that's what all this bill does. for admitting and monitoring refugees from countries associated with isis. i cannot sit back and ignore the concerns of my constituents and the american public. this legislation does not shut down the refugee asylum process. if it did i wouldn't support it. we are simply asking the administration to reassure us that those coming to the united states do not pose a threat to the american people. we should not accept anything less from our federal government. i am very proud of our american legacy as a welcoming nation,

and i have devoted much of my professional life to that concept and idea. this legislation, in my view, simply does not diminish that legacy. rather, this legislation will protect that legacy into the future and reassure americans that we are working to protect them. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nebraska yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield to my friend from new york, mr. meeks, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. meeks: mr. speaker, i think it is without question that we have the strongest, the most stringent and the toughest refugee system in the entire world. i don't think anybody can dispute that. yet, we are still humanitarian bout what our system is.

this bill is called america safe act, but where our greatest danger lies is when rhetoric is given for isis to utilize to recruit american citizens, those of us who are here to radicalize them and then they can go to a gunshop and buy an assault weapon. if we are truly wanting to make sure that america is safe, we should make sure that no homegrown or radicalized person here has access to an assault weapon. we should have a bill -- we want every american to be safe, as i hear my colleagues talking, i'm with you. how we make them safe, make sure that nobody, refugee otherwise, has the ability to come to our nation and put

their hands on an assault weapon that could harm our people, that's what will keep america safe. working together with the most stringent refugee system is what we need to do. this is just something to try to keep people from coming in who are running away from rape, rom violence, from persecution . young children, women who are widows, who overwhelmingly are the individuals of the 2,000 that have been let in here. let's keep america safe. let's keep assault weapons out of our land, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. gowdy: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. rohrabacher: i rise in support of h.r. 4038. this legislation will give us a pause to ensure that a safe haven in america is not used by terrorists to murder large number of americans. after the slaughter in paris, it be hoofs us to take a close look to see americans will not be put in jeopardy by flaws in our own system that already exists. yes, we can be proud that our country has a tradition of assisting suffering refugees, but we will not, we will not be consistent with that by putting americans in jeopardy. what can we do to improve the system, protect more americans? if we pause for a moment, we might come up with some ideas. for example, let me be the first

one on the floor of the house to advocate that all people coming here especially from the middle east be given polygraph tests. let's give them a lie detector test. this shouldn't be an option for our embassies but a requirement. timely, we heard several references to the jews being sent back in 1938 to nazi germany. they had been targeted for genocide. it was wrong, it was horrible and immoral for us to send them back and not recognized they were targeted for genocide. today the christians in the middle east are targeted for genocide and i hear over here, no, but christians should get the priority the same way those jews should have been given the priority in 1938 because today christians are targeted for genocide in the middle east. if we are not to make the same

mistake that september the jews back in 1938 to hitler's death camps let's not send christians back because it might people get upset. save the christians from genocide, but let's make our system better so americans are not put in jeopardy by the been eff lens of our own people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i'm pleased to yield to my colleague from california, mr. sherman, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. sherman: we want to vote for a bill to reflect the angst of our constituents. if you eed this bill, you can't vote for it. the directors of f.b.i. and national intelligence and secretary of homeland security

to personally review and vote on and certify each and every individual refugee file. we admitted 187 refugees last month. if our security leaders just spent two hours on each file, it will consume all of their working hours. isis cannot at the same time and permanently incapacitate our security leaders. this bill does. now some will say our security leaders won't look at the files but this is an underhanded way without taking responsibility. but our security leaders are human. and our security leaders will know if they invest a couple of hours in personally reviewing the file, they can save a human life and if they spend another two hours, they can save another human life. our security leaders will be full-time refugee evaluators. this bill is not a pause bill

but a permanent bill which personal nantly incapacitates our security agencies. read the bill and vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. gowdy: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from mississippi, mr. palazzo. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. palazzo: we are under attack and we are being targeted and we are at war. the ep my has brought war to us and make no mistake this is radical muslim extremism. last week in paris we saw a reminder of how dedicated our enemy is. we must fight back and must do more. the united states of america must do more. the president of the united states on the very day isis attacked paris argued that isis had been contained. he was wrong. last year, the president called isis the j.c. team. he was wrong. he has been wrong on isis since

the very beginning and he is wrong now. where is the strategy? where is the will power? where is the leadership? two years ago secretary of state john kerry testified in front of the house armed services committee about the need to arm syrian rebels. i questioned this decision because we had no way of vetting these rebels and i told secretary kerry at the time, america is not buying what you are selling. two years later, the administration has shut down the army in the syrian rebels because it was ineffective. now they want to bring in 10,000 refugees to the united states, refugees who the dect tore of the f.b.i. says cannot be fully vetted. mr. speaker, today we are going to pass a strong piece of legislation to protect the american people. the safe act will ensure the highest level of security is placed on every single syrian refugee and effectively stop this program to make sure americans are protected. i believe we should do more, but

this is a powerful first step to stop dangerous terrorists from reaping our soil. but the president, our commander in chief, the one person charged with protecting the u.s. homeland above all others has threatened to veto this bill. i dare him. i dare the president because he is angrier at republicans than he is at terrorists. i dare him to veto this bill because he thinks his strategy is working. i dare the president of the united states to tell the citizens of the united states that he is more concerned with syrian refugees than the safety of the american people. i dare him. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i yield now one minute to the distinguished the ntleman from california, mr. liu. mr. lieu: i'm congressman ted bill. d i oppose the

it is the wrong solution for the brong problem thrfment has not been a single act of terrorism on american soil committed by a refugee. and in paris those attacks were committed by french and belgian citizens. toought to be banning travel rance and belgium, and if that isn't crazy enough, america is a country born of persecution and equality for all. we are that shining city upon the hill. we are better than this. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back his time. the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy is recognized. mr. gowdy: it is my pleasure to yield two minutes to my friend from south carolina, mr. duncan.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. duncan: i thank the gentleman from south carolina for yielding time. as a christian, i have compassion and sympathy for the refugees in syria. in fact, i visited with many of them at a camp in jordan that held 120,000 syrian refugees. we are criticized for not having compassion on this issue. let me tell you compassion cuts two ways. we should be cognizant of the compassion we show our fellow citizens in america. that compassion is exemplified by using the good sense that god gave us addressing the national security concern that our nation faces. our compassion should be to the best of our abilities, and this legislation does, says we are going to use the best of our abilities. we should do everything we can to make sure elements of evil

are not introduced and interviews compassion in the hearts, towns and cities and states that we represent. we lock our doors not because we hate the people on the outside, we lock our doors because we love the people on the inside. this legislation is a great step, first step, first step to hit pause and let's get this right for the people we serve and the great nation that we swear to uphold and defend. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina yield back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i yield one minute to the distinguished the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: my republican friends, unlike the french who had the vision and courage not to scape got desperate syrian refugees fleeing the mr. barrow:ians that attacked

barbariansfleing the in paris. they would do what the 9/11 hijackers using this system. are we going to pause and certify visas for students, tourists and workers? why not? one objectionable portion of this bill for me is i have worked for 10 years to try and help the iraqis who worked with us in iraq during that war to be able to escape the mercy of al qaeda with long memories who are killing and torturing them. this bill pulls the plug on that and condemns them to be left to the terrorists. i think that is reprehensible. these are people who depended upon us and relied upon us. we have been working in a

bipartisan way for 10 years to help them escape to safety and this bill would slam that door shut. you ought to be ashamed. the speaker pro tempore: the time the gentleman from oregon has expired. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. gowdy: we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased now to yield one minute to the distinguished the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. boyle. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. boyle: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this bill is a great way for congress to appear as if it's acting and achieving something without actually doing anything. mr. speaker, i'm proud to be a member of the foreign affairs committee. we have had numerous hearings from the beginning of the year, including yesterday, on this

issue specifically. one of the great challenges western countries face is the problem of home-grown terrorism. we saw that last week in paris when the overwhelming majority of those who perpetrated these acts were french nationals and belgian nationals. the big issue we face is what do we do with those who hold european passports and can come here easily by getting a plane ticket? what do we do with the problem of home-grown terrorism here in the u.s. those are the key challenges we face and how we balance our civil liberties and need for tourism with our need for security. this bill sadly today does absolutely nothing about it. so we are going to pass this bill and pat ourselves on the back and go home and say we did something when actually we have done nothing to achieve the problem and protect the security of the american people.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. gouddepoud we continue to reserve. the eaker pro tempore: gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i yield to the ntleman from california, mr. becerra, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. becerra: the safety of our fellow americans and america itself is and must be our number one priority, our number one responsibility here in this chamber. the people of america have the right to expect indeed demand exactly that. our national security screening and background system for refugees is the toughest in the world. that is why so few refugees from syria have ever been able to receive their clearance to be accepted into this country. ut then

paris, november 13 happened. we're reminded of 9/11. if i believe that this rushed legislation made our toughest of refugee screening systems work better, i would vote for it. but if this rushed legislation only adds another layer of bureaucracy that makes our screening process look tougher and then results in women and children who are fleeing the very terrorists we seek to keep out dereknying them of a chance to seek refuge here in this country, i cannot support that. our tradition and our values open our door to those as in the past who fled europe to start this country in the first place. it is up to us to do this courageously and do it right, not with rushed legislation. i urge a no vet and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from south

carolina. mr. gowdy: we continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased now to yield to the gentleman from tennessee, a member of the judiciary committee, one member. -- one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen is recognized for one minute. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. conyers, thank you for the time. this bill is here not having gone through committee. it's not our normal process. it's considered an emergency. it's not an emergency. refugees will not get in this country for a year and a half to two years from the time they apply. we could come back and look at the democratic bill of which i'm a co-sponsor that incorporates mr. king's amendment on terrorists, people getting guns who could be on the terrorist list, and get a democratic and republican bill that we might find we could agree on. instead, we're doing this for politics and we're doing it as a of inuing use of pinata

president barack hussein obama. this is an attack on the president who has the response to believe the defend us. this doesn't make us safer, it's a political way to attack the president and it's wrong. that's why i will be voting no i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. gowdy: may i inquire how much time we have left remaining on our side. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina has two minutes remaining, the gentleman from michigan has four minutes remaining. mr. gowdy: we continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record from today's "new rk times" editorial board, noted today, refugees from the

ar aren't the enemy. this measure represents the election year pandering to the exene phobia that -- to the xenophobea that rears up when people from abroad arrive. people who know these issues, law enforce -- law enforcement and intelligence professional,, immigration officials and humanitarian groups, say this wrongheaded proposal simply would not protect americans from foreign enemies. thank you, sir. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. gowdy: i will continue to reserve until such time as my friend from michigan has closed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you. mr. speaker, i'm proud to yield to ms. lofgren a member of the committee, -- a member of the

committee on judiciary, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, i have listened to all of this debate with keen interest. and a sense of great sadness that we were unable to come up with a bipartisan bill today. i would like to note, however, that a bill was introduced by myself and mr. thompson of mississippi that is much tougher than the bill before us. it would relate to all refugees in terms of their identity and their excludeability, including nigerians, when we war worry about boko haram, somalians because we may be worried about el sagab. but we also took good ideas from mr. mccaul, it is a good idea to

do some sampling on the i.g. it is a good idea to have some reporting to committees. unfortunately, our bill was not put in order. but it is a stronger bill. it incorporates the good ideas in the republican bill. but a smarter approach to deal with the threat. i yield back the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to have included in the record letters of opposition to h.r. 4038. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. conyers: and now i yield to the gentlelady from florida, ms. fran tell, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for one minute. ms. frankel: mr. speaker, our folks back home are

understandably fright and there's no question that isil must be destroyed and that the safety of americans must be our first priority. to deny refuge to women and children who are fleeing rape and torture and who go through a two-year vigorous entry process will not make us a safer country. at a time we're trying to forge a coalition of international nations, it is self-defeating to send a message of isolation. our anti-terrorism resources must be focused on terrorists, not on innocent human beings seeking shelter from the most unspeakable horrors. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is ecognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of the time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you. members of the committee and of the house, instead of slamming our doors to the world's most vulnerable, we should be considering legislation to strengthen and expand refugee programs. unfortunately, the bill before us today is not a serious effort to legislate and it will not make us safer. it's a knee jerk reaction, as evidenced by the fact that this measure was introduced to us -- was introduced just two days ago and has not been the subject of a single hearing of any meaning -- or any meaningful review by our committee. rather than betraying our values, we must continue to focus on the most effective tools to keep us safe while

providing refuge for the world's most vulnerable. accordingly, i plead with, i urge my colleagues, to please oppose h.r. 4038. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields back. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. gowdy: thank you, mr. speaker. it seems common sense call that hen it comes o-- commonsenseical, that when it comes to this we should rely on the men and women who are experts who have dead kayed their lives to public safety and national security. these are the facts. we don't have sufficient information to appropriately nfingt and vet failed nation states. this is a fact. isis has sworn to bring this war against innocence here. this is a fact. the administration officials noted isis may well use the refugee program to infiltrate our country.

this is also a fact, mr. speaker. the margin for error is zero. it is zero. and the presumption should always be in favor of national security and public safety because that is the preeminent role of government. and it's our constitutional duty, mr. speaker, so unless and until those we place in charge of our national security and public safety canned pro-- can provide the necessary assurances, we should seek to aid those who need aid where they are. in conclusion, mr. speaker, the president says we are scared of widows and orphans. that's what passes for debate this day and age. with all due respect to the president, what we're really afraid of, mr. speaker, is a foreign policy that produces so many widows and orphans. he's the commander in chief, mr. speaker. his job is to make our home safer. you can also make the homeland of the refugees safer. he could restore order to the

region and defeat that j.v. team he once thought he had contained. that would be the very best thing we could do for those who aspire to a better, safer life. with that, i would yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 531, the previous question is ordered on the bill. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: supplemental certifications and background investigations be completed prior to the admission of certain aliens as refugees and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. thompson: i am opposed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies.

the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. thompson of mississippi -- open the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend. mr. gowdy: may i reserve a point of order. the speaker pro tempore: point of order is reserved. the clerk will read. the clerk: to the committee on judiciary with instructions to report the same back to the -- mr. thompson: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? hearing none, so order. the gentleman from mississippi is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. thompson: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final assage as amended. mr. speaker, my motion to recommit will do several things. first thing it will do is

require the secretary of homeland security to verify the identify of refugee applicants. any application that contains insufficient, conflicting, or unreliable information would be denied. the second point of my motion to recommit is that this motion would require at least five federal agencies, the department of homeland security, the attorney general, and federal bureau of investigation, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, the director of national intelligence, all -- all together, to check refugee applicants against their records. any application that indicates a national security or criminal threat would be denied. in addition, mr. speaker, my motion would also require that

the secretary of homeland security would certify that all relevant federal immigration laws have been complied with and that the applicant has not been resettled in a safe third party country and has the department of homeland security's inspector general's review as a sample of the certification. fourthly, mr. speaker, my motion to recommit would require the department of homeland security inspector general to submit monthly reports to congress on refugee applications from syria and iraq. the secure refugee process act of 015 is a pro-security, pro-compassion bill that would ensure the u.s. continues to maintain the most extensive interagency security screening process in the world.

to vet all people who seek safe harbor in a great nation. mr. speaker, the people we are talking about in this particular motion, they really don't have a country. many of them have been tortured. the women have been raped. the children, for the lack of a better term, are destitute. we are a nation of values. my bill speaks to those values. it does not pause the process. it does not create a moratorium to the process. it adds an additional layer of security without stopping the refugee program. . it is not the immigration bill. it's a refugee program. as i said earlier, we had 23,000 individuals apply for status under this particular program who were iraqi or