Transcripts For CSPAN3 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20141211 :

for a vote, i urge this committee to make sure that they also pull in the illegal work permits that will be granted by this administration before we're able to get around to preventing that action. and i thank you for your attention. >> yes, ma'am. thank you very much. mr. king? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do thank the committee. you put a lot of hours here in this committee. and i know that the public appreciates it well enough. i bring an amendment here to the appropriations bill, and some of the things that it does, it recognizes -- i supported this date of december 11th as the deadline for the cr because the president was promising that he was going to issue his -- i'll call them lawless edicts -- executive amnesty perhaps for the discussion of this committee -- he promised he was going to do that. it was one of the promises that he kept. i argued sometimes against my conserve conservative colleagues who wanted to do a cr that lasted until perhaps next march that we need to do have a way to stop his executive action if he took action after the election and before the permits were issued, and you end up with tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of perhaps a few million people that have been granted a card that tells them they get to stay in america and another one that tells them they can work in america. i thought it was a wise date and i supported it for that reason and i'm here to follow through on the very intent that i believe was the date -- the reason we chose december 11th as the day. so my amendment does this. it says the president has said to us, go win an election. and we did that. we had a wave election in 2010. we have a wave election in 2014. 15 new seats in the house, majority in the senate. the people have spoken. another time to fight. when this happens, this cr that i have is only -- is only until january 30th of next year. because we need to be able to hold funding back for who knows what else he's going to do. he's demonstrated clearly that he's not restrained, at least by his oath in the constitution. and so what might he do if we have -- if we have an omnibus bill that funds everything else with the exception of department of homeland security, then the president has an open book for funding all the way to september 30th, and you can pick another fight after that. we didn't get to pick our time for this fight. this fight is now. he made the decision when he made the decision. so my cr goes to january 30th. that funding levels of the december 11th cr and it does something else that's important in addition to the mulvaney amendment which i agree with in scope and philosophy that it brings here, but it does not address daca and the morton memos. so my amendment goes back to as far back as march 2nd, 2011, and it shuts off the morton memos which were bled into us one at a time scattered throughout that spring and summer of 2011. some of us raised an issue to that. then the daca memo came out. some of us raised an issue to that. others said we'll fight later. and i organized meetings of some of the smartest constitutional minds that i could pull together. we did that at the heritage foundation. the lead on that was former attorney general ed meese who essentially took over part of that agenda. he was so engaged in it. and out of it came a lawsuit that's now known as crane versus napolitano. i have been defending this constitution along the way, whether the rest of the conference or the rest of the country actually knew it or not. and i think my record's pretty clear on that. but this amendment goes back to daca, and it shuts off the funding to implement or enforce daca, shuts off funding to the morton memos. and by the way, i offered an amendment june 6th of 2013 to the appropriations bill that passed the house of representatives with a vote of 224 to whatever it was. it enjoyed bipartisan support to the extent of three democrats joining 221 republicans on that vote. this house -- this congress has twice voted to defund daca, 2013 and then again in 2014 with the border bill that was discussed a moment ago. and so that's still not enough. the listing for theéhqúu presid executive edicts, his executive amnesty that he issued on november 20th is listed in my amendment, and it's listed also in the mulvaney amendment, but it's devoid of the broader catch-all language that says all the other messages that might be out there, the president has essentially changed law by a third-tier u.s. treasury department website in one of the obamacare pieces to this. so we don't know what all he might have done. we don't know what all he might do. so i wrote broader catch-all language so we can at least defend the constitution with regard to immigration and cover it all and shut off all the funding to that. and again, we didn't pick this time. the president picked this time. the gentleman from oklahoma mentioned a bar fight. sometimes you don't get to pick that time and go do your recruits. but while that's going on, they are hiring people today to accelerate the distribution of these permits that are created out of thin air by a president that knows very well he's violating the constitution. i'd say also that my amendment, even though i got the last draft of this sometime around 3:00, it has the support of -- on file of mr. gosart, others who would come in, it would be a uc-request, jeff duncan, paul brown, fleming, michele bachmann. i haven't had a chance to even talk to mr. gomert yet. that's where we are on this. i wanted the profound constitutional arguments thatry i've heard here on this rules committee are encouraging to me. i expected i would hear them at the supreme court level. and at the time i sat in on those oral arguments were not as stimulating, and i congratulate you for that. but the time has come to stand on principle to shut this opportunity for the new congress to be seated so that those reinforcements we talk about can weigh in on the 2015 fiscal year as well as the 2016 fiscal year and have an opportunity to limit the funding along the way. and so i just remind us that we took an oath of office. each one of us took an oath of office. and the fervor with which i've heard the conviction and this panel and some of the witnesses in particular jeff duncan, if i could associate myself not only with his words but his passion on this constitution, that's our oath. and we take it seriously. and when the president gives his oath of office which is specified in the constitution, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states, so help him god, and he's required under the take care law to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. and he lectures on that at least 22 times. i'm glad he did that, but he knows that he is wrong. and when the president doesn't abide by his oath of office, we have an ever more powerful command that we abide by ours. and it doesn't say pick the time, wait till it's convenient, wait till next year, wait till reinforcements arrive. wait till it doesn't make you uncomfortable or wait till it's politically expedient. you take an oath to uphold the constitution, you do so. just to wrap this up with an example, when i was in the state senate, we had a governor that believed that he could legislate by executive order. and i was the only one that really believed that, that he was wrong, that i know of, but he issued an executive order that i believed rewrote the civil rights section of the iowa code. and my smart republican lawyers said you don't understand, senator at the time, you don't understand this is very nuanced. it's smart lawyers that wrote this. i said, well, what i understand is i take the language. i inject it into the written code, and i see that he has amended the civil rights section of the code. i did it the right way. i brought a bill to nullify his executive order and it passed the house and senate and he vetoed it before it ever had the final vote on it in the house. and then we failed in the veto override attempt. i reached into my kids' inheritance to hire the attorneys to go to court to nullify that executive order because i believed so strongly in the separation of powers. succeeded in the case of king versus vilsack. anybody can look that up. ten years later, they reversed that by statute. the house and the senate in iowa passed the same language that was the executive order of the governors ten years earlier. it's in the code of iowa. i disagree with the policy. but you never heard a word about me because that was the voice of the people. we cannot have a president that operates as if he happened to be the emperor or the king. we've got to abide by this constitution and stand by it and stand with it. he's picked the time for the fight, not us. we need to do it now. this amendment actually lets us do so and defend the constitution. so i thank you for your attention. and i'd yield back. >> mr. king, thank you very much. judge, welcome to the rules committee. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and my dear friend, michele bachmann is much more gracious than i am. she said she"t÷ enjoyed sitting through this hearing, and i'm not quite to that point yet. but my amendment, one page. very simple. i think we're better off with an amendment that is all-inclusive and would eliminate unlawful acts that have been done by the president by preventing money from going to them just like the congress did in 1974 to vietnam, like the congress did in the '80s, any help to the contras in nicarag nicaragua. it generally cuts off all funding for any type of executive order, memorandum, directive, signed, created or implemented by the executive branch on or after may 15th, 2012, that relates to immigration and naturalization, work authorization for aliens or the conferring of any benefit to any alien unlawfully present. and i'll tell you, i have gotten the impression that the inclination is to have a closed rule and not allow the amendment. but let me tell you, there are employers out there that need a vote on this. under the law as it exists, we know the president's saying okay, we're going to issue permits, but 8 us c-section 1324 makes it basically a crime to hire, recruit or refer for a fee anybody that's an unauthorized alien. and there's a real legal issue there as to okay, maybe the president gave you a permit, but is he going to sign a pardon for you if you hire people illegally? folks need to know, and i think we can clarify that pretty quickly with a vote on this. now, i do think it's better if it's general, you get specific, as some of my dear friends' amendments have, i think you create problems. and i know mr. mcgovern indicated there's such a problem with all the closed rules, but i do recall in 2009 and '10, the record was set for closed rules, and i'm hoping that as this congress goes out, we're not going to follow suit of the most closed rules that ever have been in that congress. >> you beat it already. >> have we already beat it? we really have. gosh. then i hope we don't add to it tonight. now, i think one of our problems has been, as was said earlier, one of my friends here on the committee that we have not forced the senate to take the tough votes that they should have to take on. and i think that gives a better indication to voters, who's for what in the senate. and i checked with crs again. i thought i was right. i checked with crs before i came in for the hearing. and it is possible for this committee to vote for a rule that would allow an amendment here any or all of them to be included. and if it passes, becomes part of the bill, goes down to tqa senate, this committee has the power, according to crs, to say as part of the rule, that the vote for the things they believe, forces the senate to vote against the things they don't believe, and i think the process is much better for than and the reason we'd be willing to do that is if we had a short-term cr so that we'd get into next year on everything and get into next year and then with a republican senate, we've got these here folks to negotiate with in the senate. that's why i brought the amendment. i think it works. i think you can allow that and still not have even any threat of a shutdown because gosh, we seats in the house. i'd hate to think how many seats we might have won if we didn't have a shutdown. sarcasm, sorry. anyway, i offer that for your consideration and hope that one or all of these will have a chance to go to the floor. thank you.99xs >> thank you very much. i've got a question for you. who says they're going to do anything with what we do? >> well -- >> what makes them vote on something? down to the senate that funds everything, everything -- >> okay. >> -- but has this provision, the only thing that says we're not funding the president's illegal actions in one of these amendments that's come up, and so there doesn't have to be a shutdown. you don't even have to agree with the senate. >> but what happens, sir, if they don't decide to do anything? i=q even the most liberal mainstream media would have a hard time pinning that on republicans in the house because we gave them everything we wanted, everything they wanted, everything would be covered in the spending in the short term. and if they don't like that one addition we had, they can vote it out. it ought to be pretty doggone clear who was shutting down the government if it gets shut down. it wouldn't be us. it would be the senate. they got everything they wanted. they can strip out the one thing they don't. and then it goes to the president. i think it would be incredible. more seats in the senate, i ñ would be a great position to take for harry reid. because i guarantee you if we sent that down there and they did that, there would be democrats who would not be back again in two years.ñ thank you. >> mrs. fox.óok >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate our colleagues being here today, and i have no questions. thank you. >> i have no questions either, but merry christmas, everybody. >> merry christmas, louise. merry christmas.u]h i know this will be tough -- >> is panel -- the gentleman from colorado. >> happy hanukkah. >> happy holidays. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. i'm sorry, tom. i apologize. the gentleman from oklahoma. >> that's all right. we're quite often overlooked by texas. >> not at christmastime. >> not in football season either. to my friend from iowa, and i just want to clarify something because there's nobody i hold in higher regard, honestly, than you. you've been my friend, my decade. you talk very eloquently and appropriately in my view about your sense of your -- the oath that you took to defend and protect the constitution of the united states. i'm assuming, and i'm sure i'm right on this, that you're not suggesting that any of us, on either side of the aisle, even when we disagree, take our oath any less seriously about protecting and defending the constitution of the united states. we may disagree about a policy. but i know my friend would not suggest that any of us on this panel on either side of the aisle don't regard that oath as probably the most important commitment and oath that we've ever taken. and we take it very seriously. >> the gentleman from oklahoma, i thank you for the opportunity the reason that i expressed the depth and constitutional conviction that i recognize here around this panel was for that reason. and y'all understand that, and i think that the debate here has been better than many that i've heard in oral arguments before the supreme court. and no, i wouldn't think to imply that you don't take that oath seriously. i would, though, suggest that we oath, as we each have to interpret the constitution itself. we don't rely upon necessarily the supreme court to tell us what2c: the constitution says. we rely upon our conscience to determine how deep we go and how we interpret the oath. >> i respect my friend for saying that. and i know he believes that. but i just want to reiterate. if we come to a disagreement and the people on this panel and people in this congress know how seriously i think about what i would regard our constitutional oath when we swear allegiance to the constitution, you swear allegiance to indian sovereignty whether you know it or not because it's in there in section 1, article 8. now, i have many people on both sides of the aisle in this congress that disagree with me on native american issues. i don't regard that they are knowingly or deliberately breaking their oath to the constitution when we have a disagreement. you know, the gentleman, as always, states his case very well. literally, my friend. there's nobody i know that's more articulate than you. but i just want to lay that out for the record because i know you're not doing that. we have a disagreement. it's not because anybody up here on either side of the aisle has a different level of commitment to their oath of office. they may see the issue differently, but they are all democrat, republican, liberal and conservative, absolutely the constitution of the united states because they take that oath every two years, and they mean it from the bottom of their heart. i just wanted to give my friend the opportunity to clarify that if he thought it was appropriate. >> and to the gentleman from oklahoma and the rest of the panel, i do plead guilty to occasionally using superlatives and hyperbole in order to make my point. and so it's all with the emphasis on the effort of persuasion to bring people around to my way of thinking here. that's what we should all do in whatever capacity, the gifts that we have. i thank the gentleman from oklahoma. >> i appreciate that. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> yes, sir. i appreciate it. the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. when the class of 2010 arrived, we thought we were the cavalry coming to save the day then. and it would have been these three faces that folks in that class looked to to try to figure out how to be a productive source of friction within the institution in order to -- in order to make a difference here. and it is not lost on me that one of those three faces is not going to be with us any longer next year, and that is a tremendous loss for us as a conference and for us as a body. i'm glad the way it turned out. and what i hope is our last rules co&dl)uqq meeting of the session, that the three of you are here. but ms. bachmann, i hope you know that because of conservatism, we'll be the lesser for not having you here to advocate for next year. and we will have to find a suitable -- a third member of this panel come next time around. i don't know who that would be, but i thank all three of you for sometimes -- it's very difficult issues that you take on, and sometimes it's not particularly popular issues that you take onx but i would say generally those issues that need to be taken up the most are those issues that are the most difficult to take up.]kq and i thank yo$! 0&. i'd be happy to yield. >> real quickly for a comment. i love the class of 2010.óhhíp just speaking as a native american, could you please refer to yourself asxñxñ marines rath than the cavalry? >> i was thinking of patton's armored cavalry, i would say to the gentleman. and with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from florida. >> i have no questions. but i want to echo mr. woodall's comments. class of 2010, the marines came to help in deference to that. you know, as a rose sits there between two thorns, i will tell you ms. bachmann, we're going to really miss you. and we're"uñ going to miss whatu bring in regards to, you know, a thoughtful process. we do appreciate that. and to the two thorns next to you, we have -- no, no, you know, we go back. and we have a lot of meetings on the side, and we really do appreciate it fromny the praye breakfast to the opportunity breakfast and stuff. so i really do appreciate all three of you. thank you very much. >> the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from louisville, tex texas. >> i realize that i'm sort of the last man standing here on this panel. hold in very high regard. and michele, i'll1'=l just joi others. we will miss you. mr. chairman, i will never forget the day the gentleman from iowa told me earlier this term that had he known that i would one day be on the rules committee, he would have been nicer to me for the last ten years. it was at that point, i appreciated the raw power that came with this appointment. but to the gentleman from texas, i want to thank you for bringing up the -- i think it was the case church amendment from 1973, the series of amendments ten years later. i mean, sometimes we think about defunding as some sort of exotic do. it has been a technique that has been employed by both sides of the dais in the past and sometimes it has changed the course of history.j&p so i thank youu%2zr for bringinr amendment here today and 3d that all of2íeywu have spent wi us this evening. mr. chairman, i'll yield back. >> thank you very much. ms. bachmann, i want to add my hearty congratulations to you, and about the best thing i can tell you is twowrú things. job well done. you're going to be missed. and i don't think we've seen the last of you, but we hothank you for your awesome time here and the time when we formed thez te party caulk sacus and i was an original member of that and for the years and the days that people visit us and came alive. so thank you very much. i want to thank all three of you for being here today. if you leave anything you have in writing for us at the committee, i appreciate it very much. and thank you for taking time to be here today. >> thank you, sir. >> mr. poulis, i don't know if you want to go down front or if you would like to stay, so the gentleman may go to the front. judge, good to see you. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> if the gentleman could hold on just one moment, please. the s2nrhgentleman is recognize. >> thank you. i worked very hard in a short time frame. >> mike. -- >> very hard given the short time frame. i just saw the bill last night, stayed up most of the night trying to get through it. but i did come up with four amendments that i think would approve the bill. ranging from -- and i'll#a!wñ s with something might be more controversial to the ones that i don't think should be controversial at all and i'll briefly go through the four of those. the first one, the most important, and maybe the most controversial is the most important -d-sone. i didn't know i'd have the opportunity to do this again, this congress. now i am offering %0l÷hr-15 as amendment to this rule that would allow for immediate consideration of hr-15 which i'm very excited about because this would -- i know i've heard from a couple of my colleagues they wanted to stop this executive action. this would do that, unlike the tc5"nd instead, there would be law that the senate's already passed with more than two-thirds bipartisan majority. and i think the vote is on the floor of the house. i would like to offer that up. i think it would address the concerns of mr. king and others that were passionate about this executive order not moving through. so i would urge the inclusion of that amendment. i also have some money-saving amendments. we're trying to get at the answer to the deficit spending lev levels, and i think we'll have those tomorrow. we all know that there is a deficit spending bill. so i did find several cuts. one of them is to cut some of the subsidies to fossil fuel research. and now, i would -- on my own, i would cut it even more, but the president requested $483 million. this congress saw fit in this appropriations bill to add an additional, i believe, $70 million on top of that.uex increasing it to $571 million. amendment, to the president's level. so this would save about a@0t$9 million. and this is just research in fossil fuels. so it's a subsidy for oil and gas research. and i think that going above and beyond even what obama wants to spend, i know the republicans are the big spending party, but in this particular case, we should cut it back to the fiscal prudence of the president and reduce the deficit with that. so that is the next amendment. that's amendment number 18 which i hope is made in order. i was also able to put together an amendment with regard to the aircraft carrier "george washington." now, this is an aircraft carrier that is effectively the 11th carrier strike group. almost everybody from secretary gates, former secretary gates on down to people on both sides of the aisle, on outside think tanks, american enterprise, new american security, agree that this is likely to be cut going to a force of ten carrier] grous which, by the way, still to fight any multiple wars in the world as more than all the rest of the world combined. so we are providing money for the ongoing overhaul and refueling and maintenance of an aircraft carrier which is very likely to be decommissioned in another year or two or perhaps in the next defense authorization. it's just a waste of money. and we can save $5 billion if we include this amendment in the appropriations bill and allow an up-and-down vote. i think it will pass. and then finally, i think this is the least controversial because, you know, we all came off the campaign trail recently. we all had to run for office again. and one of theíç examples i alws give when people say, you know, why is-9 congress spending so much, and why are the republicans spending so much. i always say, well, here's what happens. here's the dynamic. and i use the defense spending as appen example. what happens is, the defense experts, the military, the pentagon, they often say, we it's a capability we don't need, we're not going to use. congress still spends the money. perhaps because a member of influence wanted it in their district or there was some sort of special interest or pork reason to have it in there, even when the military didn't want it. and one such project is the cutting $120 million from this program which the army has said they don't want. the army has stated repeatedly upgrades are unnecessary. the administration doesn't include it in their funding proposal. the army has proposed freezing refurbishment until the m1-a3 variety becomes operational in 2017. general odierno testified back in 2012, quote, we don't need the tanks, end quote. and congress keeps doing it. they keep giving it to them. so this, i hope, which saves $120 million, supported by taxpayers for common sense, project and government oversight, i think would pass and would allow all of us to go back to our constituents and say, look, sometimes congress can get it right. we take the deficit seriously. and when there's a project that even the military leaders say they don't want, why would congress, at taxpayer expense, hoist them on vgit. those are my amendments. i hope all of them are in order. i think they'll all pass if they are, and i thank the chairman for the time and happy to answer any questions. >> thank the gentleman. does any member of the democrat panel have a question? does any member of the republican -- the gentleman from oklahoma. >> i do. i want to -- and i respect my friend's amendments, but i do want to put something in the record.3kk] you talked about the big spending republican congress. it's spending more or less in discretionary spending in the last democratic majority.!b >> we'd have to get the answer. >> i can give you the answer. it's a lot less. it's $165 billion less than when you had the majority in 2008 and discretionary spending alone. it's lower in defense spending as well. now, we can -- i don't disagree with my friend bringing important projects up to discuss, but the defense budget is down. the deficit is down from $1.4 trillion to under $500 billion from when my friends were in the majority. and overall spending, discretionary is down. so i just want to, for the record, point out if we're the big-spending republican congress, the democrats were spending a lot more. >> well, this bill before us today, though, is a bill put together by republicans. i don't know if there are any democrats in the room. maybe there were, maybe there weren't. essentially it's a $1.1 trillion. >> to my friend's point, there were democrats in the room, both in the house. i'd also remind you that the counterpart is a democratic united states senate and a democratic president that we're negotiating with.zpkbz so the idea that democrats were somehow unrepresented in this process is just simply not the case. >> well, i hope that these amendments, that some of which are )bognoncontroversial, can h reduce thebbce size of this e d expenditu expenditure. >> well, my friend is more than fair in making that point. but i do want to point out another thing that people tend and it may not even be germane. i'd certainly let my friend comment. this idea that the pentagon is always right about what is recommends and congress is always wrong, it was the united states air force that was opposed to drones. pilotless airplanes. that was a congressional idea. actually an earearmark, a phras we're no longer allowed to use evidently. if we want to go back in history -- not the pentagon because it didn't exist, but the defense department, or the war department it was called aircraft carriers. that was actually a congressional initiative against, quote, battleship admirals. so again, i don't disparage our friends in the pentagon and their professional expertise. but occasionally congress is right on some really big decisions. to my friend's point about the abrams tank -- and this is one we have wrestled with on the defense appropriations committee, and i know they've wrestled with in a bipartisan way. there's only one tank line left in the united states that actually produces tanks. and the real question is, if you don't need them this year -- and sustained by foreign sales. we're not the only people that buy. mostly -- so if you cut it back, do you save money in the short term, no question my friend is correct. but do you lose the capability of producing them, and do you lose the industrial base and capacity that goes with that, which by the way, there are half the number of people -- this is not my district. full disclosure. this is ohio, okay. there are half the number of people working at that plant than there were three or four years ago. that, i'm not sure my friend is not correct. i just want you to know that this has not been a political discussion in defense appropriations, and i'm sure our with our friends on the authorizing committee, it has really been a struggle as to what the appropriate thing to do is to maintain capacity and recognize that the pentagon tends to focus on the kind of war we are now. you know, there was a lot of argument that we'll never fight a major land war again. well, there is a country called north korea that has a large conventional force. we don't know that. and so again, to my friend's point, again, i think the amendments are worthy to discuss. i appreciate him bringing them up. but there is a context here in terms of -- and i know my friend didn't suggest this, but it wasn't a political decision on tanks. we have a fundamental disagreement sometimes on weapons systems. and congress is not always wrong. occasionally, you know, it's more farsighted than the united states military about these things. you know, at the end of the day, you're right. we need to have these debates, bring these things up, have the discussion. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back his time to us. any republicans? the gentleman is recognized. >> i just want to make a comment. and i truly -- i really appreciate when you go line item and you look at things and you say hey, listen, there's some reasons why i think we could save money and cut. i'll just let you go back, though, the authorizing committee, we debated this issue ad nauseam. and you know, there was 100 and some amendments within hask that of hask was unanimous. and this was part of the authorizing portion of it. and i would -- >> which one are you talking about, the tank or the aircraft carrier group? >> allxñi u of the above. and i will tell you this. even the general has said and other generals that have testified in front of myself anz others have said the pentagon has not gotten it right once in regards to what war we're going to fight next. and that's -- that's a fact. i mean, it's nothing against them. they've never been able to figure out what they're going to -- what's the next war we're going to fight. and so i think, you know, the gentleman from oklahoma hit it on the head. sometimes, you know, we have to have some congressional ideas in there to make us -- >> i don't know if congress has either. >> oh, never have. >> and the other challenge we always have in any area with an authorizing committee and the appropriation is the authorizing committees, it's not their job -- well, they can be cognizant of budgetary issues,q they're not the one taz have to match the resources with the and lower levels. >> absolutely. but hask absolutely is the authorizing committee as it relates to the armed services. >> yes. >> and i think we have a very bipartisan group. like i said, it passed out of committee unanimously. that authorization. so i just want to thank you, though, for your ideas. and i would be glad to yield back. >> if i could -- >> absolutely. >> thank you. many of us feel, in terms of,wé you know, what is the security risk to our country, that continued deficit spending and the therefore economic reliance that leads to in terms of other countries owning our national debt is really one of the greatest middle and long-term he9ñ >> i think you agree with all of us on the republican side, that's why we've really gone after discretionary spending in regards to that it is our biggest threat in regards to, you know, the debt that we have $18 trillion in debt today. and growing. it's notm48 i first got here, which is a but it is still a problem for america. but the other thing is this. and we've said it here before. if we don't take care of our national defense and protection of the homeland, there is nothing else to worry about. there is nothing. and the threats have not gotten less. resurgence in russia and china and you have all the other actors out thebx it has not gotten safer. and so i think that when we start cutting investment within the military, particularly when you start talking about cutting investments in our military men and women, it is a dangerous, dangerous road to go down. and with that, i yield back. >> thank you very much. does any other republican seek time? thank you very much for taking time to bring us your thoughtful ideas. and i appreciate you very much. okay. this, now, closes the hearing portion of the bill that we began hours ago to amendment hr-83. the chairman will be in receipt of a motion. >> mr. chairman, i move the committee grant a rule providing for the consideration of senate amendment to hr-83 to require the secretary of the interior to assemble and obtain a technical policy and financial experts to address the energy needs of the insular areas of the united states and the freely associated states through the development of energy, action plans aimed at reliable energy including increasing use of indigenous clean energy resources and for other purposes. the rule makes an order of motion offered by the chair of the committee on appropriations or his designee that the house concur on the senate amendment that hr-83 with an amendment consisting of the rules committee prep 113-59 modified by the addiment printed in the rules committee report. it waives the consideration of motion. the rule provides that the senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. the rule provides 70 minutes of debate on the motion with 60 minutes equally divided controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations and ten minutes equally divided control by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on education and the work force section 2 of the rule provides that upon adoption of the motion specified in section 1, 122 shall be considered as adopted. section 3 of the rule provides the chair of the committee on appropriations may insert in the congressional record at any time during the remainder of the second session of the 113th congress such material as he may deem explanatory of senate amendment specified in the first section of the resolution. finally section 4 of the rule waives the requirement of clause 6a rule 13 requiring a two-thirds vote to consider rule on the same date as reported #s rules committee or any ed resolution reported from the rules committee through legislative day of december 12, 2014. >> you've now heard the motion from the gentle woman from grandfather community, north carolina. is there amendment or discussion? >> yes, sir. >> the gentle woman is recognized. >> i move the committee grant an open rule for the bill that we can offer amendments on the floor and fix this profoundly flawed piece of legislation. >> you've now heard the amendment -- well -- well, it simply shuts down the government perhaps that is what people want. i don't. you've heard the amendment. any discussion? hearing none, the vote now will be on the slaughter amendment. those who approve signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> those oppose, no. further discussion? >> i have an amendment to the rule. why? oh, thank you. this is a new york bill. >> i'll give you a new york minute. >> all right. the part we want to add new york to the list of states with medical marijuanaekú mr. webster, no. miss ross lehtinen. mr. burgess, no. ms. slaughter. >> the woman from new york is recognized. >> this is an amendment i offered that mr. kaufman had come up with. i was very much impressed by it because as we all know, what happened to all of our equipment in iraq when isis came over the hill, they all threw off their uniforms and abandoned probably a billion dollars worth of medical equipment which isis picked up and is now using to shoot at us. mr. kaufman asked if we could have an amendment that would prohiblt to pay the salaries of iraqi security forces or to provide weapons or equipment to the iraqi security forces. if i could speak to that, secretary hagel was just there where he was asked for money again to provide them with all of the weapons. and you recall, too, we all saw that they have -- we discovered that 50,000 ghost soldiers were on the payroll. and we were paying their salaries. i think this is incredibly sensible and it says it is sort of grown up and paying a little bit of attention to what we're doing here. >> further discussion. those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> those opposed, no. >> no. >> roll call, please. >> the gentle woman asked for a roll call vote. >> ms. fox. >> no. >> ms. fox, no. mr. bishop. mr. bishop, no. mr. cole. mr. cole, no. mr. woodall. mr. woodall, no. mr. nugent. mr. nugent, no. mr. webster. mr. webster, no. ms. ross lehtinen. mr. burgess, no. ms. slaughter. >> aye. >> ms. slaughter, aye. mr. mcgovern. >> aye. >> aye. mr. hastings. mr. hastings, aye. mr. poulis. mr. poulis, aye. mr. chairman. >> no. >> mr. chairman, no. four yeas, eight nays. >> further discussion? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment to the rule. i move that the klein miller pension reform amendment be made in order as a standalone amendment with one hour of debate evenly divided between the proponent and opponent. and the reason why i'm making this amendment is because, i mean, this so-called compromise come out of regular order. i'm not quite sure all the details in this particular pension -- so-called pension reform package. i can tell you that i've got some letters in support of it. i got letters from the teamsters and the steelworkers and mr. hastings mentioned a number of other organizations including the aarp that are strongly against it. but, i mean, under this rule, this amendment is going to be self-executed when you pass the rule and there will be no debate on it. and so i think members deserve the opportunity to know what the hell they're voting on before we have a vote. so i'd urge my colleagues to support this amendment. >> further discussion. those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> those opposed, no. nos have it. >> ask for roll call. >> the gentleman asks for a roll call vote. >> ms. fox. >> no. >> ms. fox, no. mr. bishop, no. mr. cole. mr. cole, no. mr. woodall. mr. woodall, no. mr. nugent. mr. nugent, no. mr. webster. mr. webster, no. ms. ross lehtinen. mr. burgess. mr. burgess, no. ms. slaud lawsuiter. >> aye. >> mr. mcgovern, aye. mr. hastings, aye. mr. poulis. mr. poulis, aye. mr. chairman. >> no.aye. mr. polis aye. mr. chairman? >> no. >> mr. chairman no. >> the amendment is not agreed to. >> i move that the committee make an order and give the necessary waivers for the amendment, the house amendment by myself and representative walter jones number five, which would provide that no funds may be used to carry military operations related to operation inherent resolve, that's iraq, syria and the region until congress authorizes such operation. >> heard the amendment by the gentleman from massachusetts, further discussion? seeing none, the vote will now be on the amendment, those in favor signify by saying aye. no by saying no. nos have it. >> i have an amendment to the rule. i move the committee make aal rule and give the necessary waivers by the house amendment by myself and walter jones that provides that no funds may be used in continued deployment in afghanistan after march 21st 2015 unless and until congress authorizes such mission. >> for discussion, seeing none, the vote will now be on the amendment from the gentleman from massachusetts. those in favor, aye. those opposed no. >> number 7, which would provide that no funds would be used to deploy u.s. ground forces in a combat role in iraq, syria or any other country related to operation inherent resolve. mr. chairman, the reason why i think this amendment is so vitally important because it appears that we will leave without living up to our constitutional responsibilities and voting on an authorization on this current war that we're in. and not with standing the fact that early on the president said there would be absolutely no ground troops that would be deployed in combat, that is changing and secretary of state kerry yesterday testified before the senate and said that any aumf that congress should consider should not include restrictions on the use of ground troops and should not limit operations to iraq and to syria. i worry very hutmuch that by th time we reconvene, our troops will be in a combat mission, something all of my colleagues should be concerned about. so i urge the committee to support the amendment. further discussion, seeing none, those in favor, signify by saying eye. those opposed no. nos have it. >> gentlemen asks for a role call. >> ms. fox. mr. bishop, no. mr. cole, no. mr. woodal, no. mr. webster, no. mr. burgess, no. ms. slaughter, aye. mr. hastings, aye. mr. chairman, no. >> the amendment is not agreed to, further amendments or discussion? >> i have three more amendments. i move the committee make an order and give the necessary waivers to the amendment for the house amendment by myself, representative deloreo and representative huffman, two amendments that will weaken the child nutrition act. scientists and nutritionists say we need to limit the number of white grains in our meals. i would urge my colleagues to support this. >> now heard the amendment and the discussion from the gentleman from massachusetts. any further discussion? seeing none, the vote will be on the government proposed -- those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed no. the nos have it. mr. bishop no. mr. cole, no. mr. webster, no. ms. ross lateman, no. mr. burgess no. ms. slaughter, aye. mr. hastings aye. mr. polis, no. >> i move the committee make an order and give the necessary waivers to the house amendment number 15 which would strike language included in the bill that extends dot provisions requiring drivers to be off between 1:00 a.m. -- the amendment also strikes language that suspends the requirement that 168 hours, seven days elapse before a driver can start a new week. i would just say to my colleagues that this was, this, again, does not belong in this appropriations bill. al but this, according to highway safety advocates, would result in making our roads more dangerous, and according to the teamsters and various truck driving associations, that this is something that would be dangerous. >> the vote -- those in favor signify by eye. >> ms. fox, no. mr. bishop no. mr. cole, no. mr. woodal, no. mr. webster, no. mr. burgess, no. ms. slaughter, aye. mr. hastings, aye. mr. polis, aye. mr. chairman, no. >> four yays, nine nays. >> one final amendment mr. chairman, i move the committee make an order and give to the necessary waivers to the amendment, number 13 which would strike provisions allowing a maximum increase in the maximum contribution people can make to political parties each year. i just say, mr. chairman, in honor of this appropriations bill is not the place to be making drastic changes to our campaign finance laws and according to reform groups if these provisions become law they will constitution the most corruptive campaign finance laws passed by congress and sign bid a president. 77 $0,000 per year or $1.5 million for a two-year cycle. this amendment would strike the language in the ball that concludes how much money america's wellsiest donors can -- campaign reform u groups urging members to vote against these destructive finance reform provisions and urge my colleagues to support that. >> further discussion? seeing none the vote will now be on the government. those in favor vote aye. those opposed, no. the gentleman asked for a role call vote. >> mr. fox, no. mr. bishop, no. mr. cole, no. mr. nugent, no. mr. webster, no. ms. ross lightman, no. mr. burgess, no. ms. slaughter, aye. mr. mcgovern, aye. mr. chairman, no. >> four yays, nine nays. >> i'm sorry, excuse me, ye gentleman has a question. >> i misspoke, i have one additional amendment that -- >> the gentleman is recognized. >> and that is i would like to offer an amendment to make the amendment an order which would strike the provisions regarding dodd frank that are included in the omnibus bill. we had some discussion about this earlier. but the fact of the matter is, you know, that, you know, what the house is repealing is basically a prohibition against federal government bailouts of swaps entities and basically the provision that's about to be repealed requires banks to keep out of their risky wall street -- as the "new york times" has explained, the goal was to isolate risky trading and to prevent government bailouts because these sorts of risky trades called derivative trades remain the culprit in the 2008 financial crisis. again, this has no business being on this omnibus bill. and i think that -- i know a lot of democratic votes will be opposed to this because of precisely the inclusion of this terrible repeal. and i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. >> you have now heard the motion and the amendment and the discussion for the discussion. seeing none, vote now being on the government. those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed say no. the nos have it. >> ms. fox, no. mr. cole, no. mr. nugent, no. mr. webster, no. mr. burgess, no. ms. slaughter, aye. mr. mcgovern, aye. mr. hastings, aye. polis, aye. mr. chairman, no. >> the amendment is not agreed to. further amendment or discussion? >> yes, mr. chairman. gentleman from florida is recognized. >> gentlemen i have an amendment and i ask that you make and give the necessary waivers to my amendment that has no numbered reference because it comes from the resolution itself. i ask that in the fifth noted portion of the resolution, where it reads and ten minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair, and ranking minority member of the committee on education and workforce, that that read as 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the ch chair and ranking minority member of the workforce. my reasoning for that, mr. chairman, and i won't ask for a role call because no one has had an opportunity on our side, particularly staff, to give me input with reference to this matter. but what we will allow for here. and i have seen as have all of us, a lot of unfairness on this committee, both when democrats were in the majority and when republicans were in the majority. but this would be particularly unfair to those who have a different point of view than mr. miller and mr. kline. the ten minutes that are allotted, even though arguably they could be permitted to have, give one person one minute or two minutes, knowing the principles, i doubt very seriously if anyone other than someone who is going to speak in favor of to the kline-miller amendment would be speaking. we're undoing 40 years of erisa law, in the dead of the night, patched on a piece of legislation that should have a stand alone as governor mcgovern has sought by way of amendment. but at the very least, we could give some members of the house who have a different point of view an opportunity to speak, even if it were not 60 minutes, if it was 30 minutes, something that would allow something other than two people who are going to argue in favor of its amendment and it's understandable that they would. it's just not fair, mr. chairman. >> i think the gentleman makes a point that is understandable. would the gentleman have a motion to double the amount of time from what it is now to doubling it as opposed to --- >> doubling it from 60 minutes -- >> i don't believe it's 60 minutes. >> no, it's 70 and 10. so 10 to 20? >> 10 to 20. >> i would be in agreement to 10 to 20. >> state that for the record. state for the record that it read 20 minutes instead of 30 minutes. >> would that also include a free standing vote or would it still be --- >> i don't think that's what we were talking about. we were talking about taking that time, that time that he was in reference to. and i believe i could support it. and i believe this committee could support that -- >> but it gets no vote. it's self-ee cuted. >> i heard you said time. >> yes. >> the time. those in favor ---further discussion, those in favor of the minutes, signify by saying aye. those opposed? the amendment is agreed to, thank you, gentleman. gentleman from colorado. >> it is my great hope that an amendment can be put into the rule. bring up hr 15 the house -- immigration reform bill under a closed rule. and once again mr. chairman this will be the last opportunity to actually undo the president's executive actions and instead go with something that democrats and republicans here support more than two-thirds of the senate and i think it will pass the house and i hope this amendment as the hastings amendment is adopted. >> further discussion? those in favor signify by saying aye? those opposed no. gentleman asked for a roll call vote. ms. fox, no, mr. bishop, no. mr. cole, no. mr. woodal, no. mr. webster, no. ms. ross lateman, aye. mr. burgess, no. ms. slaughter, aye. mr. mcgovern, aye. mr. hastings, aye. mr. chairman, no. >> chairman, no. >> five yays, eight nays. >> the amendment is not agreed to. >> i move the economy make an order and give the necessary waivers for my house amendment number 14, 18 and 19. and also the amendment number 13 separately moved by mr. mcgovern but i included en masse with mine. with regard to the campaign finance rules to allow for all of those amendments to be considered. >> heard the amendment from the gentleman from colorado, those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed no. nos have it. i want to thank the committee, i would like to defer to the gentle woman for a comment from north carolina, gentle woman, you're recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i know it's late and everybody wants to go home. i think we do need to make one comment about so many comments that were made here this afternoon by our colleagues about the power of the purse. and i have to say that i have talked with people about this a lot, if i have gotten a lot of mail about it, oh, they say the house has the power of the first, therefore you can stop the president by defunding anything that you want to do. i think since we had so much talk today about the constitution and the importance of protecting the constitution that it might be useful as i have done when i have spoken with groups at home, simply to read the clause that has the exception that has been interpreted as the power of the purse. it's section 7, article 1. all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the house of representatives. semicolon, but the senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills. what i think the public has often not understood when the term power of the purse in the house has been used, is the second part of the section. and that is that we unilaterally cannot stop the president or anyone else from taking action by holding back money. the senate has to concur and that of course, as other parts of the constitution show, the president has to agree with that. i think that has gotten lost in much of the discussion, and i think, again, since we have spent so much time talking about the constitution, it might be worthwhile, our quoting the exact provision so that we help a little bit in educating the public and maybe our own members about what the provision says. so many of our colleagues said, i mean we had some hypotheticals in here at the end, if we do such and such, then the senate will have to do so and so. well, i don't believe that, i think that defunding, we might want to do that, but it doesn't necessarily mean the senate would follow suit and the president would follow suit. so i just wanted to bring this up to us before we adjourn tonight to clarify the record on what power of the purse means. thank you mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentle woman and i would prefer to the gentleman mr. hastings. >> i thank the gentle woman for that -- i happen to consider over the years sean hannity to be a friend and i hope he gets your clarification. >> thank you. >> so noted. >> further discussion by the committee. let's see, i think we have -- we need to vote on the motion. i haven't lost it yet. i'm just trying to stay after it here. we're going to now call for the last vote of the evening and that will be in favor of the gentle woman, those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed no. the ayes have it. clerk will seek a role call vote. >> ms. fox, aye. mr. bishop, aye. mr. cole, aye. mr. woodal, aye. mr. nugent, aye. mr. webster, aye. ms. ros lateman, aye. mr. burgess, aye. mr. mcgovern, no. mr. hastings, no. mr. polis, no. mr. chairman, aye. >> clerk will report the total. >> nine u yays, four nays. >> the motion is agreed to i want to thank the entire committee to let us know that mr. cole will be handling this for republicans. >> and the pleasure will be mrs. slaughter's. and i want to do a couple of things here, first of all i want to say thank you to everybody for your patience, i thought this committee did an awesome job in dealing with the people that came to visit us and that helps us and them. i thought we did a good job. secondly i would like to let everybody know that yesterday was anne thorson, ms. marilyn, happy birthday. she finds herself sitting next to a young woman who, ms. smu, torri t. miller who we have not seen since she left the senate, she used to be the communications director, so it's good to see torri t. miller torrent. and lastly, i do not expect, but we will wait to find out whether we're going to have another rules committee meeting before we leave. but i wants to wish each and every one of you the very best of the holiday season. the very best of thanks from me to the staff and to the members for sticking together, getting our job done and for the opportunity for us to go back and enjoy our families, remembering that there are lots of people back home who do recognize the work that you do is in fact very important and i want to put an exexclamation point behind that. thank you, everyone. under the $1.1 trillion bill passed out of the rules committee this evening, almost all of the federal government is funded through september 2015, except the homeland security department which is funded through february. the headline in politico, support phrase on left for spending bill. nancy pelosi and progressives aren't ready to support a carefully crafted government funding compromise, throwing the is $1.1 trillion bill in doubt one day before the shut down. a feds sure that would loosen campaign finance laws. house speaker john boehner will need votes from pelosi's caucus to pass the $1.1 trillion nine-month spending bill before shutdown on thursday. republican sources predict that between 40 and 80 of their lawmakers will vote no. so far, representative chris van holland of maryland has said he will vote no, as will senator elizabeth warren of massachusetts. senior gop leaders said they will not renegotiate the agreement, and if democratic support falls apart, the house would revert to a three or four month stopgap bill and set up a government funding battle in the early days of gop controlled capitol hill. white house press secretary josh ernest was asked about the spending bill at "today's" white house briefing. here's a short bit of what he had to say. >> chris van holland, the leading democrat on the budget committee in the house while you were speak announced that you should take the internet away from us -- he's announced that he's voting against the omnibus because he's very concerned about it lifting campaign finance limits and also about the dodd-frank roll backs that are in there, does the white house have any feelings about how democrats should vote on this measure? >> as always, we believe the democrats should vote their conscience, they should make those kinds of decisions for themselves. the president's decision about whether or not to support this legislation is certainly something he will do based on his own conscious, as the leading democrat on the house budget committee, mr. van holland has more immediate and detailed knowledge of this proposal than we do here at the white house so far. but we're endeavoring to review this and hope that we can have a clearer position on the specific legislation soon. >> and you have said that it's 1,600 pages and you have only had it for 16 hours, or not even 16 hours. can the president veto this? i mean this is, you know, must pass bill, three most powerful words in washington, possibly. is the president ---i mean -- >> right, except for like commander in chief. but it's all right. >> you must have bills -- >> i might have a jaundiced perspective on that. >> these house bills can make a lot of things happen. >> it's true, you can see that right away. >> and by having so little time to review this, does the president really have an option here? >> yes, the president always has an option. the powera it has endowed in the presidency by the constitution. but because this is such an important piece of legislation, it is garnering the kind of thorough review in the executive branch. we had folks that were up very late last night and very early this morning reviewing these specific proposals and trying to -- we are going to give this must-pass legislation the kind of thorough, detailed review that it deserves. >> here are some of the comments we have recently received from our viewers. >> caller: i'm very interested in this program on the american indian. i didn't watch the whole thing, i came in and found it. on when i turned the tv on and watched what i could for about an hour and a half or two hours. this program is absolutely wonderful. and it's going to be on again, and you will get an even bigger audience by notifying all the local geological societies and asking them to spread the word. something i have never seen on it before and i do watch a lot of cspan. thank you. >> caller: i am calling from greensberg, pennsylvania, american history tv, i love that channel every weekend, i watch it almost religiously. i love all the history stuff you have. please give us more history programs. history in the sense of, you know, like something before 1950 or 1960, if you want to have these political commentary type things, you know, from the 1970s on, you know, that's fine later or during the week or something, but not during the history weekend. and i really love your history lectures. i like to have another chance to hear that, or even see it again several months later. like today, instead of this reag reaganite ranting about how bad the government is. >> i love cspan, i love the nonfiction books. and i love it when you have the book fair. i'm always elated on the weekend watching cspan. it's the best thing i do and it's the most fun -- my friend teaches history in a junior college and i never used to be interested in a whole lot of history. now i am. so thank you very much. >> and continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400 or e-mail us at [email protected], or second us a tweet at #comments. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. now on efforts to combat isis in iraq and syria. deputy mckirk testified before the house foreign affairs committee about the obama administration's strategy and efforts to build a more effective national government in iraq. this is two hours and ten minutes. this hearing will come to order, i will ask those in the audience to take their skates at this time. this morning we welcome back ambassador mcgirk who was one of the few sounding the itsis alar as early as you did. we were having hearings last february to discuss the need to use airpower to turn back isis. after four months of the u.s.-led air campaign in iraq and in syria, isis still controls essentially the same amount of territory than it did in the summer. and one of the reasons for this in my opinion is the limited nature of this effort. we have conducted only about 1,000 air strikes to date, to date. now if you -- if you compared that to when saddam hussein invaded kuwait, and the response on the part of the united states, back then, we had 1,000 sortes per day. so you get an idea in terms of the response and how minimal it is compared to what we have seen in the past to deter an entity like this. moreover, the committee is concerned by reports that targeting has been micromanaged from the white house. this clearly has been an issue within the pentagon. but even with this flawed air campaign, kurdish and iraqi security forces have pushed isis out of specific key infrastructure areas, such as mosul and the haditha dams. they have shed more of their blood and more air attacks would mean more isis defeats. another parallel to the administration's effort to pair -- but when we look at that program in syria, u.s.-backed groups have seen no increase in support in the past several months. in fact, the syrian groups have suffered from dire ammunition shortages in the last several weeks. we had meetings with a representative recently. they're out of ammunition. in addition to not being supplied with the heavy weapons they need to fight isis, and at the same time as they're fighting isis, for example on the border there, aleppo has isis on one side and 30, 40 air strikes a day, barrel bombs being dropped from the assad regime on their forces while they're trying to fight isis. in iraq, the kurdish peshmerga remain the most effective fighting force against isis, but the administration and baghdad have refused thus far to supply them with anything more than light weapons as they go up against isis's tanks and tar tillry and of these and other heavy weapons. tragic event a couple of weeks ago, when you had a small squadron of peshmerga try to take on ten tanks or ten armored personnel carriers, ten pieces of armor that were put into play by isis against them. they only had small arms, and as a consequence, they called in for air strikes, but after 2 1/2 hours, it took quite a considerable time for these air strike to come in. they had been wiped out on the ground. this is why we have heard from the foreign minister, that the situation for the peshmerga, with their need for armor and for artillery, for long range mortars, for anti-tank missiles, that unmet need has had very real consequences for them. i am hopeful that the recent accord announced between baghdad and irbill which i appreciate the administration has helped engineer, will speed support for the kurds. if not, the ranking member and i have an intention to do just that. 60 plus countries have joined the anti-isis campaign, some key partners continue to perceive the administration's strategy as misguided. t turkey for one has with held use of its air base, ground forces and other resources and the saudis and other arabs don't see how allowing assad to pummel those on the ground from the air in aleppo makes any sense. instead, they push of course for a no fly area along the kurdish border where they suggest they and jordan can patrol that long-term to keep from having the presyrian forces hit from the air by assad if it's very time they're trying to fight against isis. meanwhile, there are grave security -- allowing isis to control an area of that size. there were 15,000 foreign fighters within isis and recordedly isis has been recruiting 1,000 new fighters per month. this is part of the problem of not turning back isis is that on social media, they use the argument that they're on the advance, they're carrying out their jihad and of course this resonates with certain young men who enlist in their cause. this is why we would argue that a more effective strategy that would roll them back would hurt their recruiting effort. and these fighters, particularly with western passports, have the potential to attack us at home. as members may remember, when secretary kerry testified here in september, he said it's time for the defensive strategy we and our international partners have pursued thus far to transition to an offensive strategy. ambassador mcgirk, with a lack lurser air campaign, severely under supplied partners on the ground and key allies with deep concern about the president's strategy, i just don't see how this is a credible offense. and we would like to talk to -- i would like to ask you about that. and of course next congress, this committee expects to consider a new authorization for use of military force to support this effort and that is something we will do under a time frame that is befitting of the gravity of the issue. and the committee also expects that the commander in chief will come to congress with his request and work in a bipartisan way to garner maximum support. before turning to the ranking member, i would like to note that is this is last full committee hearing of the 113th congress and we have accomplished a lot during the last 13 years of which i would like to recognize all the members for their contribution and for those members who will not be return, we wish you well and i was going to turn to mr. angle at this time whose long held observations on syria have proven prophetic. he has seen thing as they really were on the ground, frankly before many and suggested a strategy to engage isis before this committee some two years ago. while we wait for the ranking member, my suggestion then would be that we go, ambassador to your testimony and after you conclude, he will make his opening statement. ambassador mcgirk. >> the ambassador recently served as the dep -- isil, working alongside general howell, he currently serves as the deputy assistant secretary for iraq and iran, he was previously senior advisors to ambassadors ryon rocker, christopher hill, and james jeffrey in baghdad. without objection, the witness's full statement will be made part of the record, members will have five calendar days to submit statements and questions and exstrain you materials for the record. >> it is an honor to appear again before this committee to provide an upgrade on the global cam feipaign to degrade and def isil. i would like to reflect briefly in how far we have come in the six months since the city of mosul in iraq fell. i was in northern iraq on june 10, six months ago today when mosul collapsed. during the next 72 hours, other cities fell, isil's -- to the west, a lesser noted but equally devastating offensive took place from across the syrian border with isil capturing the strategic border city, isis then poured down the euphrates valley. in baghdad during this period, just six months ago this week, there was a growing panic within the population, the government, security services and the diplomatic community. at the embassy we prepared for the worst-case scenario and evacuated 1,500 people moving them to amman, kuwait -- the president ordered four initiatives to hold the line and set the condition force a possible counter offensive. first we served intelligence over the skies of iraq, we went from flying o iningflying -- se established joint operations centers in baghdad and irbill restoring critical relationships with iraqi and kurdish commanders. third, we deployed special forces team with a focus on the defense of baghdad. and finally and perhaps most importantly, we supported the iraqis as they work to stachbtd up to a new and more inclusive government. throughout the summer months we work these four tracks sma simultaneously -- while supporting the iraqi political leaders as they set up a new government. for all of these reasons on august 8, when the president first ordered u.s. military forces to conduct air strikes in iraq, we were able to act with precision and efficacy. one month later, the iraqi parliament -- new and different leaders across every cabinet position. including oil, finance and defense. this new government led by prime minister abbadi. first it's governing philosophy is decentralization or a functioning federalism within the constitutional structure of iraq. last week's historic oil accord with the kurdistan region is an outgrowth of this new policy. second the new government has committed to significant security reforms including a smaller more agile army, strengthening security forces at the local level, including tribal forces and ultimately provincial based national guard. third, the government is submitted to a policy of restoring -- maintaining iraqi's independence. even in its first 100 days, the government has made agreement -- nonetheless, despite this progress, the challenge of this new government are truly enormous. isil has thousands of fighters controlling three major cities in iraq. the iraqi economy which had been growing at 4% per year is now predicted to contract due to falling oil prices. this new government despite the promise simply cannot defeat isil and stabilize iraq on its own. it will need the support of the united states and the world. that is why we will need a global campaign to prosecute an effort against isil, last week in brussels, kerry held a -- common and shared commitment across five lines of effort. this conference for the first time formalized a global coalition to defeat and degrade isil. the lines of effort include military support to our -- humanitarian support and deal with -- we're now seeing progress along each of these lines of effort. on the military side, there are now seven countries flying combat air missions over iraq. as a result of these strikes, isil's offensive has been halted, it's ability to mass and maneuver forces degraded, it's leadership cells eliminated. in the past 60 days alone, iraqi forces have retaken ground at mosul dam, and down baghdad. they have also held the line. efforts to generate additional forces, specifically 12 new brigades, will soon begin at multiple sites across iraq in cooperation from our coalition partners. in syria, coalition air -- massive isil assault leading to significant attrition of isil fighters. they are now losing 100 fighters per week including top commanders and p top foreign fighters. on combatting foreign fighters, we now have in place a chapter 7 security council resolution calling on all major states to send -- criminalizing foreign fighter related activities and in the past month alone, foreign fighter networks have been broken up in austria, malaysia and foreign fighters prosecuted in germany and the usa. we're cutting the avenues of revenues and destroys isil's refining capacity. these efforts are now having an impact. on a humanitarian front, much has been done but far more is noted and this was a key focus of our conference in brussels last week. we have begun a campaign, fatwas issued from top religious leaders declaring isil a direct threat to islam, and other coalition partners are working to establish operations rooms to combat social media programs and messaging campaigns in real time. as president obama's envoys to the anti-isil coalition, we have viz it -- we have found the coalition strongly and firmly united. particularly when it comes to the way we interact. the situation in syria is more complex and our tools for the moment more limited. general allen and i have a common set of questions about the best way forward in syria and also a divergence in how to proceed. many of our coalition partners have not envisioned themselves as -- ensuring such a transition potentially even more destabilizing than the situation we face now. at the same time, other coalition partners are urging strikes against the assad regime, considering the regime a central source of instability in the region. our message to all these partners has been clear. we believe there must be a political transition in syria through a negotiated political process. any future government cannot include bashar al assad which remains a magnet for terrorism in the region. a political transition will also require a strong counter weight to extremists like isil. that is why the department is leading an effort to modernize forces subject to funding from congress. this process of course will take time and throughout we will constantly assess how we can ensure the moderate forces in the field are able to protect themselves against moderate threats cloug isil and the syrian regime. in conclusion looking back six months ago at this very hour, we have begun to make progress against isil, but i want to emphasize this will be a long-term, multiarea campaign. we are now in the earliest faces of phase one. as we move into a new phase, we will require ongoing support from congress. >> i think i will start with my questions and then when elliott arrives he can give his opening statement and i'll ask his and we'll go down the line. ambassador, as you know, the syrian city of aleppo is the last major city, the last refuge of the syrian middle class, it's under the partial control of the moderate syrian opposition as it's pushed by isis. this is an absolutely critical city for the opposition, for both symbolic and strategic reasons. it is through this city that most foreign humanitarian and military assistance to the people of northern syria and the moderate opposition flows. yet over the past year, as the moderate opposition has struggled to maintain its defense of this city, as better resourced fighters from isis, as, you know, as many as 40 air strikes a day from the assad regime hit them, they have had to contend with assad's use of hezbollah fighters against them. and so you see a situation where it's sit has gradually captured more parts of city as have those who want to extinguish this last representation of the syrian middle class efforts to hold on. and they're encircled. and they're defending it from within. and most observers agree that if aleppo follows out of moderate control, it will have catastrophic consequences for the free syrian army. so they're all right on the ropes after years of anemic support. when we meet with them, we hear from them the same thing that you hear from them, they can't get the equipment that they need to fight back against isis. so in late august, a team of state department briefers met with committee staff, which had requested a briefing of the situation in aleppo. the state department official said it was a question not of when it would fall, but ---it was a question of when, not if, aleppo would fall, a question of when not if aleppo would fall. when our staff was asked if eliminating ---the state department said that the administration was still frying to decide if it was. which sounded like it was can diplomatic speak for no. and as events have played out over the past few months, it seemed clear that that was the case. isis continues to advance on aleppo, the barrel bombs continue to drop on the city and this is now on a daily basis. so ambassador, if we're serious about combatting isis in syria, we cannot let aleppo fall. it is far more strategically important than kobani, but all of our efforts are focused not in that area, but up in kobani. if aleppo falls, it's likely that another mass waves of people and refugees and the syrian middle class would all but be destroyed. i will ask you, is preventing the fall of aleppo an administration priority? >> mr. chairman, let me address this question a few ways, we're very focused on the situation in aleppo. right now we are acting on requests from the iraqi government and the united nations security council to protect them against isil. so all of our kinetic operations in syria is focused on isil. on the aleppo situation, we're very focused on what we can do. that is why general allen and i have made about four trips to turkey over the last couple of months and the focus of the conversation with the turks is how we might be able to work together to begin to improve the situation there, we're obviously doing a number of things with the moderate opposition, which i can't discuss here. but i can assure you that we're very focused on the situation and looking at ways to allow them to hold the line. aleppo, and surrounding areas, it's not so much isil. but what we're focusing on is isil targets, they can be very hard to find but we're looking at it very closely and our conversations with turkey specifically focussed on this question. >> that calls into question the fact that they're fighting al qaeda units as well, as you know, it calls into question our policy on safe zones. but my worry about the dithering on this is that we had these dialogues back in february on isis at a time, frankly, we began this dialogue before isis even took falluja. we were calling for air strikes and action against isis before they managed to pull that off. and then city by city by city, the call went out to members of congress and others who had syrian experience, if isis wasn't hit while their columns were on the ground that mosul itself would fall. and it did. and they took the central bank. still no action, still discussion, still dithering and now we're at the point where we see the last major stronghold for the syrian middle class trying to hold off isis and hold off al qaeda on one front, and hold off the barrel bombs and we still can't seem to see any policy that will rescue the city and when our -- when we directly ask whether it's a strategy steic effort, the response we get is we're still trying to decide. we can be still trying to decide after we are have lost the ability to reverse what's going on in syria, just as we lost that ability to reverse what was going on in western iraq because we didn't hit the targets prior to them taking mosul. so i -- anyway, my time is expired and we will now go to mr. sherman of california, we will return to mr. angleal. >> ambassador, interrupt me if i've got this wrong, but you're not saying that the u.n. resolution or the request of the iraqi government gives the administration legal authority under american law to deploy troops, you're relying on the various authorization to use military force. it's also my understanding that the interpretation is that they authorized the efforts that you have taken against al qaeda in syria, that you have taken against isis, which is a splinter arguably, a continuing splinter, one of the many streams of al qaeda. do i have that right as to your legal position? >> international basis for operating in syria now -- >> i wasn't asking about your international basis. that is not legally binding. what's legally binding is the laws of congress. and you're not claiming that the u.n.'s actions or the iraqi actions give you authority under the war powers act. >> i'm saying the situation in aleppo is a very confused one, our ability to look closely at what's happening there is rimt limited to the fact that we're flying all the way from the gulf. and our focus right now is on isil. >> i was asking you about the legal position of the administration, it's authorize days to use force and -- you're not going to answer my question, so i want to go on to another question. we have been pushed around by this iraqi government. we state offed it, you've pointed out, i believe that they may have taken baghdad, or might well have taken baghdad if it hadn't been for us. they are terrorizing the folks at camp liberty in clear violation of not only u.s. preferences but international law. they have allied themselveses with iran, with the iranian air force carrying out operations over iraq and iranian ground forces operating on the ground in conjunction with iraqi forces. and sometimes folks at to the upper levels of the state department don't focus that much on the money of the u.s. taxpayers. we're giving all this a tremendous amount of aid to iraq. whereas it's my understanding that iraq is still paying and still acknowledges arabia and kuwait for tens of billions of dollars, borrowed by saddam hussein. have you bothered -- is iraq still making payments to kuwait and saudi arabia on that debt and does that therefore put them in a position where instead of paying for what we give them often we have to give it to them for free? >> as i mentioned briefly in my opening testimony, the iraqis face a very serious fiscal crisis. they're forcing a $40 billion. >> they face that fiscal because they honor the debts run up by saddam hussein. and i've brought this up at hearings for the last five years in this room. i've never gotten a straight answer out of the state department. figured i would try it again. >> i'll give you a straight question. the payments to kuwait are mandated. they come to a billion dollars a month. iraq is obligated to pay those funds. >> those are payments on saddam hussein's debt? >> they're payments of the '90-'91 gulf war reparations. >> no, i'm not talking about the reparations. i'm talking about the money saddam borrowed to carry on his war against iran. the promissory notes and bonds. >> right. the iraqis resist paying, as you know, the debts of saddam hussein because the new iraqi government considers them also a victim of saddam hussein which is true. >> but they haven't renounced those debts. we haven't urged them -- >> we have. we urged over the last decade all the debt holders from the saddam era to renounce those debts. >> wait. you asked the debt holders -- but you haven't urged iraq to refuse to pay. it's one thing to ask the creditor, oh, please tear up the note. it's another thing to stand behind the debtor saying in effect we don't owe the money, we're not going to pay. >> we're doing anything we can to help the iraqis preserve their fiscal resources right now. that's why we're working -- >> except stand up to saudi arabia and kuwait and void this debt, money they lent saddam hussein to carry on a war against iran. >> it's a slightly different issue. with kuwait, we're in very good discussions with them. secretary of defense just saw the amir about relieving those payments. so we are -- >> you're talking about completely different payments, sir. i'm talking about the debt -- >> they come from the same pot. they come from the same pot. >> okay. i hope for the record you'll brief us on what you've done to push the iraqi regime to honor its obligations to the residents of camp liberty and camp herb ra. >> i would be happy to come up and give you a briefing on that. of course the new iraqi government has been in place for 100 days and it is much different than the previous government. i would be happy to come brief you on that. >> okay. >> thank you. >> we go now to the ranking member, mr. elliott engel. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ambassador, thank you. thank you for your good work. mr. chairman, thank you for calling this important hearing on the fight against isis. though our military operation against isis is focussed in the middle east, the threat posed by this terrorist group spans the globe. recent reports indicate that isis is recruiting more than 1,000 foreign fighters every month. these fighters are streaming into syria and yaerk from europe, north africa, the gulf, the u.s. and other nations. most troubling some are returning to their home countries armed with the knowledge of how to sew terror. the good news is more than 60 countries have joined the anti-isis coalition together we're cracking down on terrorist financing, stemming the flow of foreign fighter, discrediting isis faults and violent iedology providing military support to our partners. it's left hundreds of thousands without homes or families and a significant number including several european countries, australia, canada and a number of regional partners have worked alongside the u.s. military to impede its growth. we're making progress but nowhere near stamping out this threat. today i hope we can discuss what strategy will get us closer to the goal. i think there are a few areas that i think are especially critical. we need a global coalition, it's krits kal we engage closely with local partners, iraqi, syrian, curd. such cooperation is essential to stop the threat of isis and the u.s. does not bear a disproportionate burden in this fight. i supported a program to train and equip the syrian operation. congress voted overwhelming to get this program off the ground and i look forward to hearing the status of this effort. we need to state clearly if there's no future for assad in syria and seeing assad go remains a top priority and the interests and goals of the united states simply don't align with assad and iran. assad is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of syrians. we also have the horrific pictures smuggled out of damascus by ceaser, a prafer, the syrian army defector. assad is a magnet of extremism. as long as he remains in power, courtesy of iran and hezbollah. we must determine and understand that the u.s. plays a unique role in this situation. our capabilities are unmatched. i understand that the american people are uneasy about getting more involved and the conflict half bay around the globe. i feel the same way. we're tired of war. we want to bring your men and women home. we want to work with local partners is so important to help prevent future escalation of american involvement. but we must not forget in so many places around the world, freedom, dignity and justice are under constant attack and i firmly believe if the u.s. does not lead the way as a champion of these values no one else will. we believe in a world in which all people are free to decide their own futures and there are times when defending and advancing that vision requires difficult choices and sacrifice. that's what makes the united states the world's one indispensable nation. we didn't ask for this conflict but we cannot ignore it, so i look forward to hearing the questions and answers and the testimony and i want to ask as my first question, a question about iran. iran also wants to defeat isis, but reports indicate that iranian fighter jets were targeting isis in iraq. what involvement does iran have in iraq, both on the air and on the ground? what is their involvement with the shia militias and how are they involved in the fight again against isil? it's happened once, we don't want it to happen again. >> thank you. there's no question that iran is playing a role in iraq. isil is a threat to iran and we have said that every country in the world has a role to play in defeating isil. the question for the iranians is whether they're going to do it in a constructive way or d n a destructive way. somewhat of what we're seeing right now in terms of iranian militias is not only problematic in terms of what we're seeing it's also problematic i know to the new government and also to ayatollah who has spoken out against any armed group operating outside the structures of the iraqi state. in the iraqi government made a commitment that was reaffirmed before 60 countries last month in brussels to assure that all armed groups are operating under the structures of iraqi state and that's something that the government will be working on. but in the total security collapse we had this summer, there's no question that mili a militias and some armed groups filled that vacuum that iran has played a role in that and it's something that the new government will have to begin to work on. >> i just think -- i'll yield back, that we need to be very weary of iran. it's not simply the enemy of my enemy is my friend. i think we need to be very, very careful not to stumble down that path. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. we go to, chair of the middle east sub committee. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. good to have you back, ambassador. following up on mr. engel's questions regarding iran, secretary has stated quite clear tla the united states is not coordinating with iran on iraq and on the fight against isil. and in addition in your 15-page testimony, you don't mention iran even single time, yet the regime clearly has a role that it is playing in iraq as you just stated. prime minister abadty has claimed no knowledge of the recent air strikes but iran has confirmed that it did carry them out. so, who currently controls the air space in iraq given that the iraqis don't have sufficient capabilities to maintain their own air sovereignty? and if no coordination had taken place and the iranians did, indeed, take this action into their own hands without coordinating, didn't iran violate iraqi air space? will there be any rep cushions from that? as we continue our nuclear talks with iran, we ignore multiple violations that iran continues to make as the talks take place. will this be yet another violation of iran that we turn a blind eye to? secretary has called possible iranian action in iraq against isil as positive despite the fact that teheran's incessant meddling in baghdad and its stoking of sectarian tension in iraq and in syria has played a large part in the rise of isil. is it the administration's view that having a shiite iran the world's foremost supporter of terrorism, inspite of our nuclear talks, invade iraqi air space to attack sunni isil. does the administration view this as a positive development? on and syria, you testify that it is our goal -- not that it is an absolute necessity to find a future inri

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , Australia , Haditha , Al Anbar , Iraq , Turkey , China , California , United States , Austria , Syria , Aleppo , Lab , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , Nicaragua , Massachusetts , Iowa , Kurdistan , Khuzestan , Iran , Amman , O11 , Jordan , New York , Canada , Malaysia , North Carolina , Germany , Damascus , Dimashq , Texas , Afghanistan , Florida , Georgia , Falluja , Brussels , Bruxelles Capitale , Belgium , Oklahoma , Abbadi , Hormozgan , Baghdad , Colorado , Saudi Arabia , Teheran , Iran General , Pennsylvania , Daca , Tinh Vinh Phuc , Maryland , North Korea , Ohio , Capitol Hill , Kuwait , Euphrates , Dayr Az Zawr , America , Iraqis , Syrians , Iranians , Turks , Saudis , Iranian , Iraqi , Syrian , American , Josh Ernest , Jeff Duncan , Chris Van Holland , Elizabeth Warren , Nancy Pelosi , Ross Lightman , James Jeffrey , Dodd Frank , Michele Bachmann , Harry Reid , Ross Lehtinen , Fleming Michele Bachmann , Al Qaeda , Klein Miller , John Boehner , Walter Jones , Paul Brown , Elliott Engel , Bashar Al Assad ,