the president is authorized subject to the limitations in subsection c to use the armed forceings ofhe united states against isil or -- man, this sounds like a contract. c limitations the authority granted in subsection 8 does not authorize the use of forces in enduring combat operations. okay. that's not a real dispelling of doubt. the authorization for use of military force shall terminate three years after the date of this resolution unless authorized. let me read you one other authorization. passed on december 8th, 1941. the president is hereby directed to deploy the entire naval of the united states and the resources of the government to carry on war against the imperial government of japan and bring the conflict to a termination. all resources are hereby pledged by the congress of the united states. if we're discussing language to dispel all doubt, to send an unmistakable message, which authorization would you want to have at your back general dempsey? >> senator i'm not going to compare something from 1941 to a conflict with a non-state actor. i was consulted on this aumf. >>

we then have coal-fired and oil fired plants that they applied the subsection e standards.dards which were designed by congress to limit the emission regulations to read -- reasonable amounts designed because the floors are in fact, limited to what has already been achieved high plans in the same category. there was some question raised about whether or not this categorization was something the epa recognized incudes to affect the emissions standards and make them reasonable. in fact they did use -- created a category of coal burning plants that burn lignite because it turns out none of those lands could meet the standards that would otherwise have applied with the other coal-fired plants categories. and they looked at the whole process. they started out with two coal-fired categories. and it up with one oil fired category. in the final rule, there are four separate categories. of oil fired plants, depending on what they burn. this whole process to produce emissions standards that makes sense was built into subsection d -- justice kagan: could you clarify the categorization

, which, by the way, isn't even the right subsection, but whatever. [laughter] that's where i would look, is in where it talks about what a coverage month is? >> but, your honor, i've already described the difficulties of putting it part of it in 1321, right? because then you would create this bizarre tax credit provision which is only half true, and you wouldn't tell taxpayers and insurance companies. so i believe that's the complete answer. but the other practical point i'd like to make is they had three years to implement this. and no one thought the states were going to have to make a decision overnight. if the irs had done its job, every state would have been fully informed of the consequences because presumably they've read 36b, and then they would make an intelligent decision well in advance of the 2013 deadline. so there's a bizarre notion that states were somehow unable to read a statute or to or to read a regulation is simply -- >> i really want i really want to hear what you're going to say in your five to ten minutes. and if you want, only

, which, by the way, isn't even the right subsection, but whatever. that where i would look, is in where it talks about what a coverage month is? >> but, your honor, i've already described the difficulties of putting it part of it in 1321, right? because then you would create this bizarre tax credit provision which is only half true, and you wouldn't tell taxpayers and insurance companies. so i believe that's the complete answer. but the other practical point i'd like to make is they had three years to implement this. and no one thought the states were going to have to make a decision overnight. if the irs had done its job, every state would have been fully informed of the consequences because presumably they've read 36b, and then they would make an intelligent decision well in advance of the two 2013 deadline. so there's a bizarre notion that states were somehow unable to read a statute or to or to read a regulation is simply -- >> i really want i really want to hear what you're going to say in your two minutes. and if you want, only if you want, i w

in subsection c, called limitations, it says the authority granted in subsection a does not authorize the use of united states forces in offensive ground combat operations. so what is enduring ground combat operations? does this refer to the length of time which the operation is on going? the scope of the operations? some undefined relationship between time and scope? >> well, thanks. the aumf, for me, two things are important. one is that it gives us the flexibility to carry out our campaign. and that speaks to the provision. i'll come back to that in a minute. the other is that it's about a past up here on capitol hill up here. it's very clear to our men and women who are conducting the campaign against isil that the country are behind them. that's very important to me. both the content e tent and the provision that it's supported widely. for the chairman and me we need the flexibility to conduct the campaign against isil and the way that defeating that enemy requires. it does rule out using language that you described what the president has said in iraq or afghanistan-type, long of

nothing in the subsection shall be construed as requiring the administrator to disseminate scientific and technical information. i hope that allays their concerns but it's always nice to hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle so concerned about the cost of legislation. contrary to the c.b.o. estimate, h.r. 1030 does not require the e.p.a. to disseminate information. it requires them to base their information on data that is public so all americans are better informed about the regulations that affect their daily lives. americans deserve all the facts and they deserve all the data. they have the right to know what the regulations -- that the regulations they are forced to live under are justified by sound science. the e.p.a. spends over $8 billion a year. surely it can base its rule ops science that is transparent and available to everyone. for these reasons i oppose the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from maryland. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in subsection c, called limitations, it says the authority granted in subsection a does not authorize the use of the united states armed forces in "enduring offensive ground combat operations." so what is enduring offensive ground combat operations? does it refer to the length of time which the operation is ongoing, the scope of the operations, some undefined relationship between time and scope? sec. carter: thanks, the aumf for me as secretary of defense two things are important in the aumf. one is that it gives us the flexibility to carry out our campaign, and that speaks to the provision you quote, and i'll come back to that in a minute. the other is that passed up here on capitol hill in a way that says very clearly to our men and women who are conducting the campaign against isil that the country is behind them. that's very important to me both the content of the aumf and that it's supported widely in the congress. to get to the provisions of it the aumf doesn't try to say everything that is permitted. instead, which is i think wise because for the chairman and me, we need the fl

in subsection c call limitations, the authority granted in subsection a does not authorize the use of the united states armed forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations. so what is enduring offensive ground combat operations as is referred to the length of time which the operation is ongoing the scope of the operations, some undefined relationship between time and scope? sec. carter: thanks, the aumf for me as secretary of defense, two things are important in the aumf. one is that it gives us the flexibility to carry out our campaign and that speaks to the provision you quote and i'll come back to that in a minute. the other is that passed up here on capitol hill in a way that says very clearly to our men and women who are conducting the campaign against isil that the country is behind them. that's very important to me both the content and it's supported widely in the congress. to get to the provisions of it, it doesn't try to say everything that is permitted instead which is i think wise because for the chairman and me, we need the flexibility to conduct the campaign again

something like this, they would be pointing to wall street as the culprit for -- and particularly a subsectionrt sellers and hedge funds, guys that bet against stocks. and, you know, short sellers make money when stocks go down. you borrow the shares, you sell them, you pay them back when they go down. what lumber liquidators is essentially saying is this is -- they're spreading rumors that are false. the genesis of this story was from a financial blogger named quoth the raven -- liz: 25 years old? >> he is? liz: well, the guy who wrote the original report was a young guy who did a little -- >> i got the ideas, i got the ideas of calling up just seeing what their customer service was doing, just to give full credit to this financial blogger, and it was fascinating. he spent all weekend, he said, listening -- you know, calling up this customer service and getting an education on short selling. so hat tip to mr. raven. liz: what's your best guest, does lumber liquidators survive this scandal? >> bob chapman, he's been on this show regarding -- liz: herbalife -- >> last week went long the stock.

, which by the way isn't even the right subsection but whatever. [ laughter ] >> that is where i would look, is in where it talks about what a coverage month is. >> but, your honor, i've described the difficulties of putting part of it in 1321 because you would create this bizarre tax credit provision which is only half true and you wouldn't tell taxpayers and insurance companies so i believe that is the complete answer. but the other practical point i would like to make is they had three years to implement this. and no one thought the states would have to make a decision overnight. if the irs had done its job, every state would have been fully informed of the consequences because presumably they've red 36-b and then make an intent jell decision well -- an intelligent decision. and if the states were unable to read a statute or read a regulation -- >> we want to hear what you were going to say in your five to ten minutes, and if you want only if you want, i would be interested in your response to the government's brief that if you read the words established by the state, without refere

in subsection c called limitations, it says the authority granted in subsection a does not authorize the use of the united states armed forces in, quote, enduring offensive ground combat operations. so what is enduring offensive ground combat operations? does this refer to the length of time in which the operation is ongoing, the scope of the operations, some undefined relationship between time and scope? >> well thanks the aumf for me as secretary of defense two things are important in aumf. one is that it gives us the flexibility to carry out our campaign, and that speaks to the provision you quote and i'll come back to that in a minute. but the other is that it is past up here on capitol hill in a way that says very clearly to our men and women who are conduct ing the campaign against isil that the country is behind them. that's r very important to me. both the content and that it's supported wide lyly in the congress. the aumf doesn't try to say everything that is permtded. which is i think wise because for the chairman and me we need the flexibility to conduct the campaign again

b, after reassembling pursuant to subsection a, when the house adjourns on a motion offered pursuanto the subsection by its majority leader or his designee the house shall again stand adjourned, pursuant to the first section of this concurrent resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the gentleman from illinois. mr. davis: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 32, resolved that when the senate recesses or adjourns on any day from friday, march 27, 2015, through monday, march 30 2015 on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority leader or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on monday, april 13 2015, or such other time on that day as may be specified by its majority leader or his designee and the motion to recess or adjourn or until the time of any reassembly, pursu

if you can add or remove a subsection, which would you choose and why? why from each other's sites -- >> from each other's sites? >> it's open. >> i think the thing we do well is coverage of internet culture. we call it weird internet. it's not just weird. it's internet. our sister site does a little bit of it. it's a huge new arena. it needs journalists doing work because it's influential. >> i want to find a way to tell climate stories in a way that is readable and compelling, and it's really hard. the market for climate journalists has been so diminished there is hardly anyone doing it. the people are doing wordy but not very readable -- were the but not -- worthy but not readable work. >> traditional newsrooms have largely given up on a lot of diversity goals. what we have seen in the research we have done, the digital divide and the sense of people of color not being connected to the internet, that did not happen. the other promise of digital that there would be a new diversity of content also has not happened. there is a growing concern, and now we

see the limitations granted in subsection eight, it does not authorize troops in dauphin offensive campaigns. it will terminate three years after the date. unless we authorize. i'm not seeing that sending in a mystical message. let me read you one more. this was passed on december 8 1941. the president is hereby authorized to deploying the resources of the government to carry on war against the imperial government of japan. all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the country of the united states. discussing language to dispel all doubt, general dempsey, which authorization would you want to have at your back. >> i am not going to compare something from 1941 to the us days -- to the states global conflict. >> secretary carter, why would anybody want to pick a fight with the united states? why would isis put the brutal the headings of americans and other westerners -- why would they want to pick a fight with united states? >> i can only say and read as you can hear and read what they say. which is they intend to create an islamic state and regard us and our friends and allies

buzzfeed gawker, and vice all have sister sites or subsections. if you could add a sister sistte or remove one which one or why? shani: from each other's? [laughter] >> it's open. max: something we do well, and could be done better his coverage of internet culture. -- is coverage of internet culture. we call it weird internet, but it is not even weird, it is just to let. -- it is just internet gizmodo does a bit of it. is ait is incredibly important and influential. >> i really to find a way to tell climate stories in a way that is readable and compelling. it is just hard. the market for climate journalist has been so diminished in the last 10 years. there is hardly anybody doing it. the people who are doing it are doing it were isoing worthy, but not readable work. tom: can i ask a related question? traditional newsrooms, as they have shrunk, have largely given up on diversity pulls. what we have done in research at api, the digital divide in terms of minority publishing's not being connected to the internet, that problem may have been solved by

it says the president is authorized, subject to the limitations of subsection c to use force necessary against isil or associated forces as defined in section five. this sounds like a contract. limitations, the authority does not authorize the use of united states armed forces in and during ground combat authorizations. that's not the dispelling of doubt. the use of military force will terminate three years after the authorization. i'm not seeing that sending an unmistakable message. this was passed on december 8. the president is authorized and directed to employ the entire force of the united states and the resources of government to carry on war against the imperial government of japan and to bring the conflict to a successful determination. all of the resources are pledged by the congress of the united states. if we are discussing language to dispel all doubt, send an unmistakable message, which authorizations would you want to have at your back? >> i'm not going to compare something from 1941 to a conflict with a nonstate actor. >> secretary carter. it has always puzzled me. why w

use of military force offered by the white house says in section 2-c, the authority granted in subsection a does not authorize the use of the united states armed forces in enduring ground combat operations. in that context, mr. secretary, what does enduring mean? >> it means iraq, afghanistan, long-term ground operations. you could obviously define it in terms of months, not years. but it is -- it is a distinction between someone engaged in a rescue mission and going in on a -- on an advise and assist program to help people understand how to do fire control over one or two or three-day period or something. there are all kinds of examples that could be defined. but enduring means we are not beginning the process or committing to a process of a long-term combat troop on-the-ground offensive engagement war. >> and three days is enduring or years is -- >> i'm not going to play with the words. >> how about months. >> it is a non-combat role. >> would two months being enduring? >> it depends on what they are being asked to do or doing. >> two years? >> it -- again, you are talking about a comba

it says, the president is authorized, subject to limitations in subsection c to use the armed forces of the united states against isil or associated persons or forces as defined in section 5. this sounds like a contract. c, limitations. the authority granted in a does not provide authority for a ground campaign for other operations. the authorization for use of military force shall terminate three years after the enactment of this joint authorization unless reauthorized. i'm not seeing that send an unmistakable message. this was passed on december 8, 1941. the president is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military force of the united states and the resources of the government to carry on war against the imperial government and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged i the congress of the united states. if we are discussing language to dispel all doubt, send an unmistakable message, which authorization would you want to have your back? >> am not going to compare something from 1941, which wa

the president is authorized subject to the limitations and subsection c to use the armed forces of the united states against isil or associated persons or forces as defined in section five. the authority granted in subsection does not authorize the use of an eye states armed forces in and during -- that is not a real dispelling of doubt. duration of this authorization shall determine three years after the date of the enactment. let me read you one other authorization. this was passed on december 8 1941. the president is hereby authorized and record to employ the entire naval and military force of the united states and the resource of the government to carry on war against the imperial government of japan and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the congress of unite states. if we are discussing language to dispel all doubts, send an unmistakable message, which authorization would you want to have in your back? chairman dempsey: i am not going to compare something from 1941 to the conflict with a nonstate actor. i w

it's true we may not agree with every single subsection of it. have to tell you this build is a great job of telling congress that we need to move in the right direction and that this stuff matters. but we can't do it alone. we have to work together. we are very pleased that joining us in the conference today will be theresa mcmillan and joining her will be acting fra administrator sarah feinberg. they will be here to share the administration's positions and proposals and taking your questions on the audience. we are also thrilled that joining us up here in a few minutes on the stage will be two to great leaders in the transportation field that have worked tirelessly in washington d.c.. when you see me testify on capitol hill very often two people are standing next to me. janet kavinoky and dr. pete ruane. they will help tell the story about how we have to work together to move the ball forward. passage of a surface transportation bill is a lengthy process. the first stage we pass that on december 2013. we gather the information. we information.

you know i think the subsection of this town is our politics today is trivalizing, super superficial process that is larger than one individual. when we look at politics in the age of obama how much does one person coming in especially someone who came in with the goal of changing the tone in washington and the kind of politics you lay bear how much can one person or any group of people affect that change? >> as i found out, and this wasn't part of a grand plan but obama in the chronlogical order i was writing about, which was a profile in washington where everything was changing, he was the cunary coming through the coal mine. he had ground-breaking politic and i got to watch him go through it. i think to some degree he would say or has said his inability to change washington has been have single biggest disappointed of his presidency. i go back and forth on how hard he tried. i think the neverminds on the things we was promiseingpromising, especially relating to money in politics, may not have been sincere. i still think that for as little as he might have changed the politics in w