tv House Session CSPAN November 12, 2014 2:00pm-4:01pm EST
kentucky and contributed about $2 million to his campaign? stop youdan, can i --where did you hear >> "washington journal" live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. we'll leave this house as the house and senate are -- leave this house as the house and senate are coming back. the house will start legislative work at 4:00. first up some one-minute speeches. live to the house floor here on c-span. father conroy: god of universe we give you thanks for giving us another day. a full week later we are thankful that we live in a nation where a peaceful change or readjustment of government is not only expected but achieved. may it ever be so. bless the members of this assembly as they return to the work facing them, work that needs to be done.
give them the wisdom they need and the chity they must possess to work together. help them to make wise decisions in a good manner. we ask your blessing as well on those newly elected or re-elected to this assembly. may they fully understand the trust that has been given them to represent not only those whose votes they received but those who did not vote for them as well. all are citizens to be represented by the new members of this people's house. may your blessing, o god, be with them and with us all this day and every day to come. and may all we do be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. pledge of allegiance will be led
today by the gentlelady from north carolina, ms. foxx. ms. foxx: please join in the pledge to our wonderful flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: mr. secretary. the secretary: i'm directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time on the legislative day of november 13, 2014, or november 14, 2014,
for the speaker to entertain motions that the house suspend the rules under clause 1 of rule 15. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. so ordered. pursuant to clause -- the following enrolled bills were signed by speaker pro tempore wolf on friday, september 19, 014. the clerk: h.r. 594, h.r. 2600. h.r. 3043. h.r. 3716. h.r. 5062. h.r. 5404. h.r. 4980. h.r. 4980. senate joint resolution 40. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute.
>> mr. speaker, yesterday was veterans day and i want to say thank you to my fellow americans who took the time to celebrate it. it is a day where we have the opportunity to thank a few that defend us from enemies at home and abroad. they walkthrough the gates of hell to stand up against evil and danger so we do not have to. mr. palazzo: veterans don't ask for much so it's not a hard holiday to celebrate. a simple thank you will do just fine. i want to ask the american people to never forget their sacrifices that these fine men and women and their families make for us. as a nation, we must keep our promises we made to these defenders of freedom. veterans love our american flag. it represents the greatest nation in the history of mankind. fly it proudly. simply put, be proud to be an american. for a veteran that is thanksful. i -- thanks enough. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for
what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. pelosi: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise to celebrate the life of carol j. lancaster, the visionary educator, public servant, and trail blazering dean of the georgetown school of foreign service who passed away last month. born to working class parents during the second world war, lancaster became the first in her family to attend college. at georgetown university, she became one of the first women to earn a bachelor of science degree from the school of foreign service. following graduation, dean lancaster was award add lbright scholarship to study at the university in bolivia adding spanish to the five additional languages she would learn in adulthood. she later earned a doctorate in international relations in the london school of economics in 1972. after teaching in england and following a series of prestigious fellowships, she was called to serve in the u.s.
department of state as a member of the policy planning staff and in the earl-i 1980's she became deputy assistant secretary of state for affairs at the state department. during the clinton administration she served as deputy administrative usaid. in every position she has her time and talent on creating a bert world for our children. her commitment to building the next generation of global leaders gelled her to teach at the law school of foreign service where she inspired students, encouraged scholars, and authored numerous books and articles for more than 30 years. at georgetown, lancaster motivate add new generation of young leaders, thinkers, and problem solvers to soar to great heights and tackle today's challenges. her legacy of excellence continues to echo through a georgetown community. the georgetown university president noted that lancaster, quote, provided extraordinary leadership and dean of sfs and
was a leader and professor contributing in countless ways to our community through her vision and scholarship. moreover, the joy and dedication that carol brought to her work inspired us all to be the very best versions of ourselves, he said. chairman of the foreign visitors noted as the first woman and first alumnus to become dean of the school of foreign service, she was renowned for her commitment to her students and demonstrated both intellectual, curiosity, and courage. and had a profound effect on the way we think about global development. carol will be remembered as a pioneering woman, international affairs, and stalwart champion of human dignity. in conclusion, when speaking around the world, she also had to stand on what she called the madeline albright box to be seen over podiums. today thousands of young students and women from across the world stand on her shoulders inspired by her example and empowered by her leadership to speak boldly, act bravely, and
make their mark in the world. may it be comfort to her husband and the entire family that so many people around the world mourn their loss, share their grief, and praying for them at this sad time. president johnson sirleaf of liberia said it best. may she rest in peace for her long years of labor to make the world a better place. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. you can't turn on the tv this week without hearing about myth economist jonathan gruber's comments that obamacare was passed by exploiting the lack of information given to the american people. in his comments, gruber, key architect of the legislation, called the lack of transparency involved in passing obamacare, quote, a huge political advantage, end quote. president obama has claimed that
his administration is the most transparent administration in history. with statements like gruber's indicate otherwise. it is long past time for congress to require transparency from the executive branch. earlier this year bipartisan majority in the house passed my bill, h.r. 899, the unfunded mandate information and transparency act which we call ue meeta. this bipartisan legislation would improve transparency and public disclosure of the true cost in dollars and jobs that federal dictates pose to the economy. asking the federal government to disclose the cost of a mandate in addition toits benefits should not be controversial. it's just plain common sense, mr. speaker. i call on the senate to pass umeta and put transparency back in government. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without
objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, in 2009 president-elect obama wrote a memo that his presidency will usher in unprecedented level of openness. but this week it was revealed that the lead act text for the affordable care act, jonathan gruber, capitalized on his words now, the stupidity of the american people. in passing the health care law. he further went on to say the lack of transparency is a huge political advantage and was critical to passing the law. this insult to the american people is shocking, but it is hardly surprising. in 2011, the energy and commerce committee uncovered evidence of secret meetings at the white house where they were setting the stage for the takeover of america's health care. at the time their work was discounted. old news, they said. but was it really? the american people sent a message last week and the message was, they are not stupid. this administration, which finds value while talking transparency, needs to conduct its business in the light of day exactly as they promised in 2009. i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady seek unanimous consent? the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> thank you so much, mr. speaker. ms. ros-lehtinen: we are now less than two weeks away from the iran nuclear negotiations deadline. a deal that allows iran to enrich any uranium and to keep in place as nuclear infrastructure is a bad deal. as long as iran maintains the capability to enrich uranium, it can create a nuclear weapon. the administration has always misinterpreted the goal of our sanctions. they are to compel iran to completely abandon its nuclear pursuit. as the deadline looms, and as republicans are set to control congress. i urge my colleagues to not allow president obama to trade away the only leverage we have over the mullahs in tehran in exchange for minor and easy reversible modifications by iran
on its nuclear weapons program. simply pushing back iran's breakout time is not in the interest of the u.s. national security. ensuring that there will never be an iranian bomb is in our nation's interests. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> mr. speaker, while the identifies of the world are on isis, the russian bear has quietly come out of hibernation. mr. poe: putin is back. seeking to devour his neighbors and reclaim his kingdom by once again sending covert henmen into eastern ukraine. he's systematically trying to re-establish imperial russia with him as the czar. according to a u.s. general, new russian tanks, artillery, air defense systems, and russian
combat troops have entered eastern ukraine. news reports indicate five of artillery were toting pieces and another five were toeing partly covered multilaunch rocket systems. this sounds like an aggression to me. the course the kremlin lies and denies it all. why is this continuing? on the world stage america looks weak and leaderless. reset buttons and red lines don't mean anything to putin. our hollow objections to russia are meaningless. t needs to stop its cold war two-type aggression and return to the cave. what is america's plan? that's just the way it is. i yield back of the the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, on october 2, the president promised, quote, i'm not on the ballot this fall, but my policies are on the ballot.
end of quote. clearly america, which is not stupid, voted last tuesday to stop his policies which destroy jobs at home and weaken national defense abroad. on sunday the "atlanta journal constitution" lead editorial explained, quote, the electorate took a switch to the donkey's hindquarters, end of quote. resulting in georgia and south carolina achieving returning republican victories for all statewide and federal offices for the first time in 136 years. it failed policies should stop and together we should work for positive change such as opening yucca mountain to reduce the environmental risk of nuclear waste. the "boston globe" said, resuming the yucca mountain project and democrats should recognize that. the pipeline should be completed to promote energy independence. in my home communities, with michelin of lexington, and m.t.u. of graniteville. in conclusion, god bless our
troops anti-president should take action to never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from missouri is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, missouri's eighth district has more than 200 miles of the mississippi river and dependent on barge traffic to move our crops. . the army corps of engineers closed a stretch of the mississippi river that gets the harvest to market and did not adequately notify shippers. this is absolutely unacceptable. my colleagues and i sent a letter this week urging the corps to notify industries in advance of construction and also to take market factors into consideration when having construction in the future. the work the corps does to protect our river system is vital and we need to secure more resources to complete its mission but construction must
be scheduled appropriately and not at the expense of america's farmers and shippers. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on september 23, 2014, at 2:23 p.m. appointments. national council on disability. with best wishes i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on september 29, 2014, at 10:13 a.m. appointments. john c. stennis, center for
public service training and development. advisory committee on student financial assistance. john c. stennis center for public service training and development. with best wishes i am. signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the seetary of the senate on october 21, 2014, at 10:50 a.m. appointments, national advisory committee on constitutional quality and integrity. with best wishes i am. signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house communications. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have been served with a grand jury subpoena for documents
issued by the united states district court for the district of columbia in connection with a matter now pending before the grand jury. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined that compliance with the subpoena is consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. signed sincerely, ed cassidy. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives, that i have been served with a subpoena issued by the department of the army, office of staff judge advocate for documents in a criminal case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined that compliance with the subpoena is consistent with the precedence and privileges of the house. signed sincerely, allyson schwartz, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of
representatives, that i have received a deposition subpoena for documents issued by the district court of douglas county, nebraska, in connection with a civil matter now pending before that court. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined that compliance with the subpoena is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. signed sincerely, lee terry. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the district of columbia. i am consulting with counsel to determine whether and to what extent compliance with the subpoena is consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. signed sincerely, steven e. stockman, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules
of the house of representatives that i have been served with a grand jury subpoena issued by the united states district court for the district of columbia for testimony and documents in a criminal investigation. after consultation with the office of general counsel i have determined that compliance with the subpoena is consistent with the precedents and privileges of the house. signed sincerely, donny ferguson, senior communications and policy advisor. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives, that i have been served with a grand jury subpoena issued by the united states district court for the district of columbia for testimony and documents in a criminal investigation. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined that compliance with the subpoena is consistent with the pres dents and privileges of the -- pres dense and privileges of the house. -- precedence and privileges of the house.
the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have been served with a grand jury subpoena issued by the united states district court for the district of columbia for testimony and documents in a criminal investigation. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined that compliance with the subpoena is consistent with the precedence and privileges of the house. gned sincerely, prentice leblanc, legislative assistant. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, section 202-d of the national emergencies act, 50 united states code, 1622-d provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration the president publishes in the federal register and transmits to the congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in
effect beyond the anniversary date. in accordance with this provision, i have sent to the federal register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency with respect to iran that was declared in executive order 12170 of november 14, 1979, is to continue in effect beyond november 14, 2014. because our relations with iran have not yet returned to normal and the process of implementing the agreements with iran dated january 19, 1981, is still under way, i have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in executive order 12170 with respect to iran. signed, barack obama, the white house. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess u
>> looking ahead to the 114th congress on "washington journal" tomorrow morning as they look to interview ohio democrat tim ryan, a member of the budget and appropriation committee. then it's the longest tenured republican house speaker, dennis hastert, joining us. and paul from bloomberg will join us to talk about president obama's open internet proposal and net neutrality. "washington journal" thursday and every morning live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> this weekend on c-span, author and president of arabs for israel. >> i had arrived late at night on september 11 morning. i arrived at my whom in lack
lang and look at the 6:00 arc m. time and seeing the second airplane hitting the twin tower live. i was traumatized. because that was when i knew this is terrorism. t's not one airplane accident. so i ran to the phone and called my people in egypt. i wanted them to comfort me. especially after i learned that muhammad alta, was from cairo. the same city i came from. i called around eight people and they all said the same thing even though some of them don't know the other. they tell me how dare you say this was done by arabs. on't you know this is a jewish conspiracy?
the jews did it. and i hung up the phone and wept. i suddenly felt i cannot relate to my country of origin anymore. this is a very hard feeling. when you can't relate to how the people you love and were brought up with for many, many years of your life that they don't see the reality as it should be. >> her entire interview sunday evening at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's "q&a." on book tv we are featuring new releases, karen armstrong on religion and conflict. president george w. bush on his beography of his father. and john mccain on unsung military heroes. on american history tv on c-span3, our all day live coverage of the world war i centennial symposium from norfolk, starting at 9:30 a.m. eastern.
find our schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. email us at comments at c-span.org or send us a tweet at c-span #comments. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> virginia senator tim kaine said today there is currently, quote, no legal authority sufficient enough to support action in combating isis and the mission against isis is, quote, not covered by wording or intent. he has called on congress to debate an authorization of military force. he's also joined here by harvard university law professor jack gold smith.
>> good morning to everyone who is physically here trying to get through security. watching on live streaming or on c-span. i'm jane harman, the president and c.e.o. of the wilson center and a recovering politician having served nine terms in the united states congress. it's my pleasure to welcome you to a very important national conversation on congress, the presidency, and military intervention. last week i was at harvard law school, an institution i attended decades back, and i was teaching a seminar on authorization for war. it was a three-hour seminar. of course i didn't think i was
skilled enough to do this all by myself, so skyped in was the man sitting in the front row, jeff smith, who is a partner in charge of the national security practice at a major law firm, former general counsel of the c.i.a., and was counsel to the senate armed services committee under senator sam nunn and knows a boatload about this subject as do the members of this panel. jeff, again, my thanks for making me look good. i hope the rest of you do the same. article 1, section 8 of the constitution says, quote, congress shall have the power to declare war, unquote. up to this point this congress has been awol. we are at war, that's the administration's term, with isil, a new enemy, but the ministration is relying on a decade-old authority. while the president has decided to seek a new authorization to
use military force, aumf, his administration insists that the old authorizations apply, too. i voted for them. i voted for the 2001 aumf and i voted for the very controversial 2002 iraq aumf. this isn't the fight those of us who voted for those aumf's intended to authorize. this is a fight against a new enemy in a new country. more than a year ago, right here at the wilson center, senator bob corker, who will become, i think, the new chair of the senate foreign relations committee, warned that congress had no ownership whatsoever of our foreign policy. he was right then, he's right today, and we aren't the only people saying this. half a dozen new aumf's have been introduced by both parties in both houses, including by our keynote speaker today, senator
tim kaine of virginia. very astute observers like jack goldsmith and matt waxman, have flagged just how unprecedented president obama's approach is. in an article in the "new republic" about a month ago, they call this president not president bush 43, quote, the master of unilateral war, unquote. i'm sure jack will speak to that today. with the midterm elections and three months of air strikes behind us, i think it's past time to address this issue. the president has realized that welcoming congress to act isn't asking congress to act. just last week he requested new tailored authorization from congress. but if the president was right to ask, and he surely was right, hen congress also needs to do. the duck and brame game has to end. it's time to govern. in my view that governing and
that process ought to begin now in the lame duck session. the pending bills raise important issues, and i'm sure we'll discuss them. should the old aumf's be repealed? what should the new scope of any new authority be? and how will we pay for operations that have already cost nearly $1 billion? we'll move that dialogue forward today but the american people deserve representation in this debate. they ought to get it out through congress. with that i'd like to introduce our wonderful keynote speaker, senator tim kaine of virginia. since he was elected to represent virginia, just a few years ago, senator kaine has made his mark at his committee op armed services, foreign relations committee, and the war powers debate. he's worked across party lines with senators john mccain to bring the 1973 war powers resolution up to date. and this september he introduced and been advocating for his
proposal for a new aumf against isil. after his remarks, which will be approximately 10 minutes, senator kaine will join me, and jack goldsmith who will be introduced shortly, in a conversation with jim sciutto. the chief national security correspondent for cnn and i think the only journalist to embed in 2003 in the iraq invasion, do i have that right? >> with u.s. special forces. >> ok. former chief correspondent for abc in london and author of a book entitled "against us, the new face of america's enemies in the muslim world." we are happy to have them all with us today and on the first day of the lame duck session, i hate that name, on the first day of congress coming back into session, it is the right time not only to have this discussion, but to call for action in congress.
thank you very much. >> thank you. thank you, good morning. if past history is any guide, i'm hoping a lame session will be followed by a ver rile duck. that is my hope for the next two months. want to thank jane for the introduction and opportunity to be here with jim and jack to talk about an issue i'm very passionate about. hard to say everything i want to say in 10 minutes, let me try to say three things. first, i never do this, i'm going to talk a little bit about why this matters to me so much. it's not relevant whether i propose is good or bad. i went to a ceremony at iwo jima memorial monday and veterans day ceremonies yesterday and want to talk about why this matters to me personally. second, i want to talk about what's at stake both the constitution alowell case between the president and congress. but also an underlying moral value that seems tonight realish she we often don't talk about. third, i want to talk about what
we need to do. i have an immediate term, a short term, an long term. why does it matter to me? people come in to elected office with passions and interests. i have many. but i only have one obsession and this is t my obsession with how the nation makes a decision to go to war and what are the right processes that would engage congress, the president, and american public it is an obsession of mine. i'll be focused on this as long as i'm blessed to be here. the obsession started when i was lieutenant governor of virginia and watched the debate around the iraq authorization in october of 2002. i was a lieutenant governor. i didn't know anything about the intel. i assumed everything i heard was true. even assuming it was all true, some of it turned out later not to be true, i was very troubled with the fact that a vote was being pushed right before a midterm with no apparent reason for the timing. remember, we didn't go into iraq until march of 2003. so what explained having a big
debate and vote, i was listening to it on npr, and doing it in october of 2002? i concluded that the most likely explanation was a desire to hopefully make a midterm election work out better. let's push the timing so that it happened. it turned out to be very smart politics in the sense that the midterm election did work out better than it might otherwise have worked out. i think it turned out to be very, very problematic. i would put that vote -- i cast votes i take back, but i put that vote up maybe with the kansas nebraska act of 1854. that started my obsession. i became governor, one of the jobs is to be commander in chief of the guard. the virginia guard and air guard. that's a part of the governor's job that nobody talks about. you don't campaign about it. it doesn't go on a bumper sticker. when you are in two wars and have thousands of people being deployed multiple times in many cases, as a governor you go to the funerals, gloiments, homecomings, i visited iraq and
afghanistan to see our troops there. one of my cabinet secretary sons was badly injured by an i.e.d. one of my church members i sang in the choir with was killed in iraq. other of my sons was not physically injured but came back suffering some significant challenges as a result of his service. along the way i have both a son and nephew who have joined the military. this is up close and personal to us in virginia. it's very up close and personal. so my thought about the policy and the fact that it's so present to us in virginia, even in my own family, has turned this into a real obsession of mine. it's an important issue. what's at stake here? first thing's at stake, we have one of the real experts on this in jack on this panel is the constitutional allocation of powers. how should we make a decision to go to war? the framers had such a clear view of this and it was smart. they were virginians. forgive me for like maybe leaning a little bit heavy into
them. it is important when you look at the constitution and jane read the section from article 1 about congress' power to declare war. we are used to our constitution. we forget how abnormal it is. how unusual it is. war prior to our constitution was for the king, the executive. that was what the world history had been. so the framers of the constitution stood in the flow of history and tried to offer a different direction and put the decisionmaking powers to a legislative branch. taking it away from a monarchy, an executive. it's congress that declares war. the president is the commander in chief once a war is declared because the last thing you need is 535 commander in chief. but in describing why it was done this way, these folks were clear. george mason, a virginian, during the debate said this provision is meant to be a facilitator of peace not war. it's meant to be a clogger of war by handing the power to
congress. principal drafter, james madison, about 10 years after the constitution, wrote a letter to jefferson and said, our constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates that it is the executive that is the branch most interested in war and most prone to it. it is for this reason we have put the question of war in the legislative branch. another virginian, one of our first presidents, thomas jefferson, was confronted with a war, kind of similar to what we are dealing with now, a quasi-terrorist, the barberie pirates, grappled with what congress said, the constitution said about the allocation of powers. jefferson knew as president and commander in chief, i can always defend the nation immediately. so as our ships were being attacked he could tell the commanders of the ships you have to defend yourselves. didn't need congress for that. at some point he decided, just defending every new ship attack
doesn't seem smart. can't we go on offense against them? he said when i go beyond the line of defense, i can't do that without the sanction of congress. so it was very clear initially from the beginning that a president could defend against imminent attack without congress. although you should get congress onboard later. congress, though, had to declare war any going on offense against anyone other than imminent defense to a congressional declaration. that was the clear understanding. we have gotten it wrong virtually since the inquest. it doesn't matter whether presidents or congresses or republican or democrat or whig or federalist, we have gotten it wrong. we have gotten it wrong because madison was half right but not cynical enough. madison described the provision of the war powers provisions as a check against executive power. it's the executive branch most prone to war, most interested in it. therefore we put in in the legislative branch. he saw monarchs and executives' overreach. what he didn't see was
legislatures abdicate. war is unpopular. people will get killed. my constituents may not like it. well, maybe if the president can initiate and if it works out well we can say, boy, mr. president, we are with you all the time, and if it works out poorly, mr. president, how dare you? i can't believe you did this without coming to congress. from the beginning there has been a tendency toward congressional abdication, and i would argue if anything it is that that is more explanatory of our currentdy lema than executive overreach. but in any event there is a symbiotic pathology between executive overreach and congressional abdication that has put us in a situation where presidents like president obama can all-g all the way back are more prone to start things unilaterally without congress. one value is we ought to get the -- get our decisionmaking back so it respects the allocation of powers. that was a revolutionary thing when it was done and it still is. war shouldn't be for the monarch
or executive but the legislative. the second thing at stake is the underlying value. this is what really matters to me. if we don't do it the way the framers intended, if we alaw war to begin unilaterally by a president with a congress that stands back and says we don't want to get involved, there is a midterm coming up. we might make people mad. then we ask people to risk their lives. we are asking people to river their lives every day. we had the first combat death already against isil. a corporal, marine corps pral from indiana who was killed in an incident with an osprey helicopter supporting the air strike campaign on the second of october. jordan was his name. we are asking people to risk their lives or injury or capture. or risk the mental stress of seeing these things happen to their colleagues. or the mental stress of seeing these things might happen to civilians who are an unfortunate but always a part of the damage in war. how dare we ask people to risk
that if we are not willing to do our job to have a debate in frovent american public and then put our thumb print on the mission and say this isn't in the national interest? we are afraid of having that debate? we don't want to say it's in the national interest but risk your life? that seems to me to be the height of public immorality. what could you do? bribery is bad. a whole lot is bad. what could you do than ordering people to risk their lives without having a discussion about whether the mission is worth it or not? that's what's really at stake. when you don't have congress have the debate, you not only violate the constitution, but you force people to risk their lives without a consensus that the mission is in the national interest. what should we do? quickly. i propose three things. first, we have to have a legal authorization to cover this current military mission against isil because in my view from about mid august to now there has not been legal authority that is sufficient to authorize this mission. when the president started air
strikes on august 8, there was a credible claim that isil's momentum could potentially jeopardize the united states embassy personnel either in baghdad or in iraq. so he was defending the united states as presidents can do without coming to congress. but by about mid august we were engaging in air strikes to retake a dam that posed no threat to baghdad. posed no threat to the united states. we were helping rescue refugees, an important thing. but there was no imminent threat to american interests. so from that time we have been engaged, as the president said, we have gone often offense against isil. as chuck hagel said we are in a war against isil. we have been engaged in wamplet it's not about imminent defense of the united states without legal authority. the president's article 2 powers as commander in chief are as jefferson said, about defending against imminent threat. we are beyond that. i frankly view the argument that either the 2001 or 2002
authorizations covers this mission against isil as ridiculous. this mission against isil is not covered by the wording of those authorizations. it's not offered by the intent of those organizations. it's not -- authorizations. it's not covered by what members of congress thought when they voted for them. and most importantly, it's not covered by what president obama has said about the authorizations. it in may of 2013 he said the 2001 aumf should be narrowed and repealed. not expanded. he sent witnesses to testify before us in the senate about the 2002 iraq authorization and said it was obsolete and it was time to repeal it. in my view, there is currently no legal authority to support the action against isil unless and until congress comes in and has the debate and votes. that's why i introduced a resolution in the short term we should deal with it right away. second, we do need to deal with the 2001 authorization. because that continues to be out
there. we can dweel it together, with the anti-isil authorization or separately. the congress in 2001 passed a brief authorization without a temporal limitation, without a geographic limitation. and because of the definition of associated force that is has been gloomed into the authorization, even the targets that were subject of that authorization are now very proud, multiple theaters of war. we are still at war under that authorization 13 years later and administration officials have said they think the war authorized by the 2001 authorization will likely go on for another 25 or 30 years. that is unacceptable. and we should be having a debate to significantly narrow that authorization. especially since members of congress, like congresswoman harman, in 2001 explicitly rejected the bush administration's attempt to have a broader authorization. the bush administration came to congress and said give us the authorization to take essentially preemptive action against terrorist groups before they hurt us, and congress
overwhelmingly rejected that. what both administrations have done, basically, is expand the authorization that was passed to basically be what congress rejected in 2001. the last thing i think we should do, and ift introduced legislation with senator mccain to do this, is go back into the war powers resolution in 1973. come up with a better process for this discussion that will take place, always will take place between congress and the president. a process that respects both sides constitutional prerogatives. there is a group at the university of virginia, the miller certainty, that studied this una panel led by jim baker and warren chris tomplet there's never been a golden era in america where we have gotten this right. we changed the process here, there, and everyw i am under no illusion that a better process will make these decisions easy, far from it. but not having a process takes hard and consequential decisions and makes it harder. senator mccain and i have a bill called the war powers consultation act of 2014 that
tries to take the dialogue process, define what is war in the 21st century that would trigger voting, cyberattacks, droughns, what is a war. second, defines what consultation is so a president can't say i consulted with congress when he calls one person. and third defines what voting requirements should be. these are the three things we are working on. we do need, as jane said, to do this right now in the lame duck. there is no reason to extend this questionable war for five or six months before congress gets around to it. i'm excited we have our first meeting about it in the foreign relations committee today. i look forward to working with my colleagues in the debate today. thank you. [applause] >> it's an honor to be on the stage today next to senator kaine who has been at the forefront of the issue i cover every day. jack, senior fellow at hoover institution at stanford, which means he has two decent
educational institutions covered. and james, always great to see jane. always see each other in the cnn greenroom but often in the field. we were in ukraine together for elections. senator kaine, i wonder if i could begin with you. this is an issue that splits both parties. and you see the president now oddly presenting that he wants to pursue a new aumf. possibly as an olive branch but knowing there's some in the g.o.p. that might be more forward leaning than members of his own party. i wonder if in the current environment we can look at this issue as one where there's a potential for bipartisan agreement? to give some definition whether before or ideally, as you say, during the lame duck session, but perhaps after as well? >> i do. i look at this split in both parties. not as a negative but positive. so many things up on the hill now get divided into partisan
camps. this clearly is no. on foreign relations committee, one of my hardest votes thus far was the vote to authorize use of military force in syria punish assad for use of chemical weapons. it was a 10-8 vote, but it was nonpartisan, it was a divided vote. but it was a nonpartisan vote because it didn't break down along partisan lines. there are republicans who do not like the notion of executive power exercised muscularly by this president or others. who i think would resonate with this. there are democrats, of a variety of the big 10 we have in the democratic party, feel, they may have different feelings about the isil mission itself, and the parameters of it, they do feel strongly they don't want to see that power purely to an executive. i do think -- and senator corker, who i worked closely with, i know this has been passion of his as well. i don't see it as a partisan issue. i think that creates some opportunity for finding a path
forward. there are some specifics that are important specifics where there are some partisan differences. you want to authorize ground troops or do you want to contribute ground troops? there's some -- what should the length of a sunset provision be? there are tough details that are important where there will be differences. overall there are plenty who worry about presidential power. >> professor gold smith. by my count there have been 3,200 strike missions over iraq and iran. the president authorizing with this latest 1,500 up to 2,900 troops. that sounds like a war to me. isn't this debate arguably too late? and by doing this now, is this mostly about the president's legacy? does it then set a precedent for other presidents? weigh in on how important it is to act it even though the war's already under way. if you get through the lame duck session, you get to the new
year, we are talking six, 12 months before you have an actual vote on this. >> first of all thank you for inviting me here today. it's a real honor to be here. i don't think it's too late. obviously, it's not too late. it can happen. it would be very important for the prose to go to congress and for congress to give him the authorization not just to use force against the islamic state, but also as senator kaine said, to update the 2001 authorization and to give that a temporary approval and legitimacy and figure out some of the complicated issues that have arisen n last 12 years. >> do those necessarily come together? you get a new authorization, you revise the 2001, or -- >> they it's a matter how the politics work and what the sequencing is. it might be easier to do it one way or the other. i think they both should be done. both the isil -- state authorization and updating the 2001 authorization, the president last week basically suggested that they both should
be done. it would be extraordinarily important to do so for all the reasons senator kaine said, both legal and political in our constitutional values. as for the president's legacy, i do believe that it is very much in his interest to see that this happens. for a long time until the rise of the islamic state, one got the impression that the obama administration wanted to declare the war against islamic terrorists over with by the end of his administration. for the long time they resisted going to cofpblgt the president also has kind of my accident developed the most extraordinarily aggressive war powers legacy. he's used force in humanitarian context that has never been done. he's done things that have really gutted the central provisions of the war powers resolution. he expanded the 2001 aumf when he said he wanted to contract it. all those things will be on his record an all of it can be cleaned up, so to speak, for his legacy if we can work out these
issues. >> retroactively. >> he will leave on a high note for him. on these issues. >> jane, you know washington to say the least. handicap this for us. senator kaine has laid out a very ambitious agenda when you speak about the aumf revising 2001, but also the possibility of the next step giving clarity to the war powers act. but just for a moment handicap the chances in this congress with a hard fought 2016 presidential leaks coming up, etc., that you can get real progress on this issue. resolution on this issue. >> i think this was an ugly election. i know one has missed that. control changed hands in the senate but didn't change hands because people decided the other team was great. and the democratic team was bad. they decided everybody was bad and congress does nothing and i think this was in many ways a referendum on the incumbents in congress. now we have a somewhat new
congress. and a new team in control. but i think this congress is on trial. and the terrorists aren't going to check our party registrations before they blow us up. let's get that. they are not going to interview all of you and figure out which hat you're wearing. i have no idea which hat you're wearing. you're wearing a good government hat, right? that's why you're here. so is everybody on this panel. i hope that every editorial board in the country starts writing about the awol congress, the duck and blame congress. this has to be item number one. as tim said people are dying there. there hasn't been a public debate. the place the public can debate this is through congress. we spent a billion dollars, i understand that's chump change these days, but a billion over the next month is going to be more billions and there may be more deaths. and there may be turns and twists here we can't even imagine. and i just -- it's not just -- i
actually agree with you, tim, that this is immoral. but i also think it is colossally dumb and unwise politics for both parties. >> will they? >> sort of. it starts now. it will depend on how -- what the public says, too. hat's why -- digital campaign, editorials, come on, wake folks up. this is day one. here is tim kaine on hour one of day one down here doing the right thing which is calling for action. >> senator kaine, do you see the partners on the other side of the aisle, thrick as we have the leadership change, corker moving into a leadership role, mccain, etc. do you see -- they have very public views on this as well. do you see with that leadership -- there's also a leadership question, can the leadership bring their own party to the table on both sides? do you think you have the partners present now in congress that you can work together and
move forward? >> i'm still a new guy. i do think we do. in fact, if the president had really pushed congress to have this debate and vote before we went into recess, would he have gotten the authorization. what's my evidence for that? i sat around the table at the foreign relations committee when we debated -- when we met with secretary hagel and secretary kerry. the single hardest piece of the mission against isil that the president proposed in his speech on tuesday, september 10, was the arming and training of the syrian opposition. that was the most controversial within congress. more so than air strikes. congress voted for that piece of it in connection with the continuing resolution. the vote was 2/3, 1/3 and the house 3/4, 1/4 in the senate. i watched my colleagues around the table, 18 of them, based on the discussion who would likely vote yes on an authorization right now, it was a better imagine than the 10-8.
that was as of september 13 or 14. we'll see come november what folks think. i think if the president had pushed the authorization at that time he would have gotten it. it's more complicated now after the mid terms. i do see partners there on all three of these immediate terms. i do see partners on both sides. >> one thing on both these points about the duck and blame congress and how the president could have gotten the authorization before the mid terms. if you look back at every authorization force since world war ii, every single one, major one, they only -- there have been about 10 or 1212, they wonal came about because the president insisted on it. it's for congress to do this on its own for all the reasons we have seen. president obama has said i welcome it to working with cofpblgt if he set up a draft authorization tomorrow and i want this in a month, that would get the job done. and the question is going to be, if he doesn't make that move, whether congress can do ton its own. >> boehner has said he wants the president to draft it. >> i completely agree with this.
this works so much better when the president sends up the draft authorization. so much better. if he doesn't -- i don't need you, but i welcome you. then you have six different authorizations put in. i put one in with basic authorizations, limitations, there are five other ones float floating around. the better thing to do sport president to send up a draft and us to have hearings and pepper the administration witness was questions and refine it. that's what we did on the syria authorization. they sent up one version and got a different one. they started with a white house version. that is the best way. >> it might also help if the leadership on a bipartisan basis asked the president to do this. this is a big deal. >> they ask the president not to do it. >> i think before the mid terms they asked him not to do it. we are now after the mid terms. and he is doing what they asked. they wanted him to ask. part of the preconversation on this. so they wanted him to ask.
he's asked. they ought to ask him to send up a bill and hopefully that bill will be prepared by a squad of outstanding lawyers like jeff smith and jack goldsmith and others and it will come up for congressional consideration. possibly based on the six that have already been introduced. certainly including yours. >> i would bet, i don't know this for a fact, i would bet that senator menendez is take the senate versions into the foreign retions committee, he's talking to the administration, here are three versions, what do you think? one from column a, one from b, one from c. i'm sure they are trying to do the frankenstein job and take the best from each. >> also let's invinet comments by republicans. don't make this partisan in any way. >> the war against isis, isil is the biggest new war. there are still lots of troops on the ground in afghanistan. it's not the only one. you have drone strikes going on in pakistan and yemen and somalia. we have military forces deployed
around nigeria. when you have the missing girls. there are a lot of places where the u.s. is killing people right now. professor goldsmith, this would deal with the isis issue. do you need other authorizations for these other -- they are called pinpoint, but they are extensive actions. . those are all premised on the president's article two powers. for all the reasons we stated, both in terms of refreshing the authority, of having the public debate about whether we should be doing those things, and also i believe for putting some procedural requirements on the president to -- so he can tell the american people exactly who are we at war with in all these places and where. it's remarkable, i tested in front of the senate armed services committee last year on this issue and it was remarkable how little the members of the senate armed services committee knew where
we were fighting and against who. it's just a remarkable thing. >> have they visited those war zones? >> they don't even know where it's going on. >> let me add one thing. on the ground in syria there's at least one more terror group. if we're now authorizing war in syria, you can't just say isil is the entire game. and there may well be others. but i think people are looking for a strategy, an overarching strategy. not just let's lift this group over here and sell out group over there. how with re-- how are we going to, win may be an overstate, -- overstatement, but how are we going to win the argument, with some kid trying to decide whether to strap on a suicide vest inemen? how are we going to win that argument? part of it is kinetic, but that's not all of it. we actually have to have a narrative here about what we
stand for and what we're trying to achieve that respects the interests of those on the ground, other than those involved in terror groups, and empowers them because otherwise that argument won't be won, to step up. so we need a strategy for that. and i think that strategy, you know, with all respect, ought to be part of the conversation with congress and a conversation in which the american people participate. >> and the numbers indicate that we're losing that part of the battle because the flow of foreign fighters are keeping up and there's an argument to said that the u.s.-led air campaign will increase that. it's a great recruiting tool. >> it's winning the conflict but it is also winning the argument. there is a bigger picture here that involves diplomacy and aid and the only way you're really going to win -- because the cold war was simple. there were two competing power theories. now there's at least three. there's sort of the authoritarian model, there's the liberal democracy model and there's the kind of sectarian
jihad model that is a nonstate model. those are the competing philosophies of power that are out in the world right now. we all have a huge stake in wanting the small liberal democratic argument to be the victor. >> and p.s., this war is being waged on social media. the most modern communications techniques to take us back to the seventh century. go figure. but we have to wage it back on social media. >> and they're damn good at it. you see their propaganda videos very highly produced. they know their audience well it. works because you're getting folks, possibly the shooter in ottawa or this ax-wielding guy in new york or these teenage girls in california or colorado, rather. one thing i want to get audience questions, but you brought up something, remember the old enemy in syria is assad. we used to talk about his days are numbered. include -- perhaps
because this also gets to your point, what are the strategies? is it just about them? do you pivot later to taking down the assad regime? do we deal with that issue now or is that down the road? >> i'll just say i don't think we'll deal with it because i don't think -- i don't think official policies of the u.s. any longer will be regime change in a sovereign nation. i don't think that should be part of our official policy. people say that they don't like that the president set a red line and didn't honor it. i think the president did exactly what he said he would do with respect to the red line on chemical weapons. if you use them, we're going to take action. we did. there was a diplomatic follow-on. chemical weapons stockpile has been destroyed. i think the president did what he said he would do there. what the president should not have said, i don't think we should be in the business of saying assad must go or others must go. we don't set the timetable for change in regime in other nations. we've been bad at it when we tried and we should step back from thinking we should set it. i don't think assad is a
butcher. these crimes are horrible, the barrel bombing, the chemical weapons. they violated many international protocols. but we still don't set the timetable of a regime change for another nation. we should be out of the regime change business. so i don't think a front-on we have to change assad out should be part of this authorization. >> let me go to the audience now. taking moderator privilege, if you'd like. go to the front row, jeff smith, first. if you want to quiz the audience. >> to for our viewers at c-span. >> first of all, thank you for organizing this. it's just terrific. a lot of great ideas have surfaced in this. it's an enormously complicated subject to get in a short period. two very quick points. one is, i think we do need to decide what the strategy is. and that's unclear. that's really the president's responsibility. secondly, there's an additional
audience here and that is our enemies and our allies. what we do in this legislation will be followed very closely. we will only win this war written broadly against islamic terrorism with allies. and with reform within the islamic world. and if they know that this nation is not committed to a long-term commitment, they're not going to participate. our allies are going to say, you go ahead, we'll watch. and i think it's important that we signal to the world as well as to our own people and to the men and women who fight it that this is a long-term commitment of the united states and we're in it, we're going to pay for it. >> responses? agree? >> absolutely. >> in the fourth row here. >> thank you for holding this thing. question, how detailed should the congressional authorization
be? should you just support going to war conflict or are you going to suggest things like tactical questions, no boots on the ground, other conditions, use of certain kinds of weapons, etc. and secondly, what about aa tax increase to pay for it? >> great question for you because your proposal has both the time limit and the prohibition on ground troops. >> i drafted an authorization. dy don't feel pride of ownership in the pieces. i put everything in for a reason but subject to debate. my authorization basically tracks the president's four-point mission from the september, 2010, speech. the noncontroversial and we'll be the biggest provider of humanitarian aid in the region, that's something we ought to feel good about, it is an important thing we do. point two, counterterrorism operations against isil leadership. there's some news over the weekend that may prove beneficial in that area. point three, air strike campaign in iraq and syria. point four, the arming and
training and equipping of ground forces from the region. the iraqi army, the kurdish area or vetted opposition in syria. i say let's do those four things but put four limitations in. a sunset. i put in a year. nothing magic about the year but there ought to be a report back and a re-authorization provision in the sunset. i put in a limitation on new no ground troops except in specified circumstances. i did that for the reason that was just mentioned. there's no amount of american ground troops that will win this war in iraq and syria if the ground forces from the region aren't willing to stand up against the extremism from the region. >> let me -- >> if they are willing to stand up, then we should provide the support that an air strike campaign, counterterrorism, arming and equipping, we should provide that support. but if they're not willing to do it, i don't think there's a successful american ground mission in there. then just real quickly the other two limitations i put in is repeal the iraq 2002 authorization so we don't have
dueling authorizations in the same real estate. and number four, narrowly describe who the target is. because the use of the associated forces doctrine as part of the aumf basically has evolved to we can take military action against any group connected with al qaeda or associated. so long as they intend action against the u.s. or a coalition partner. there were 59 coalition partners. so let's try to be specific about who the target is. those are the limitations i put in. but i think they're controversial. the sunset's controversial, not ground troops is controversial. and the definition of associated forces is controversial. we have to get in a room and hammer those out. >> in terms of definition, there's been a lot of parsing of words by this administration on things like, what is a war? remember initially it was not a war. what is combat? what are ground troops? you know the general dempsey has not taken off the table an option the president has which is forward ground controllers. is that a ground troop? >> i did put into my authorization some -- look, to
the extent that you need ground troops in to carry out the counterterrorism portion of the mission, fine. >> dangerous job, though. >> the extent that you need ground troops in because you have to rescue american personnel, you have to do that. there are circumstances in which ground troops would be used but overall, general dempsey, while he said i'm not going to take off the table recommending ground troops, he also made pretty clear in his testimony that we're not going to win this in the sense that jane mentioned. we're not going to win this with american ground troops and needing to pick up what the region itself won't do to police the ex treesmism that is within -- extremism that is within the region. >> everybody who flies an airplane or a helicopter or is in special forces wears combat boots, two of them. so how are we going to count boots on the ground? second of all, if one of these things crashes, there's going to be a mess cue -- going to be a rescue mission. zero boots isn't an option. but the other part that have question was about pay-fors. we're up to $1 billion.
we're going higher. i was part of a group of trouble makers during my 100 years in congress arguing that we should put our wars on budget. yes there are emergency expenses, but they don't last for 13 years. and we're going to have to pay for this and not just hopefully with the lives of the .1% who actually sign up to serve and god bless all of them. but all of us are going to pay for this with tax dollars and there has to be a debate about the cost of war. and we have to step up and budget for it. >> just as a follow-up to that point, i want to ask you, is there a legal definition to a combat force? the reason i ask that is because as general dempsey has taken out the large ground force, but he has kept open in nam of instances the idea of -- in a number of instances the idea of a forward ground controller, who is still in danger. the president's plan puts u.s. advisors not just into new
operation centers but at several sites around the country which are not front lines but they're a heck of a lot closer to combat, right? and the way combat is today in iraq, that could be a suicide truck bomber driving in the front gate of a brigade headquarters, right? so again, when i talked to administration officials every day, i feel like i'm being snowed on the definition of these things. is there a legal definition? >> there's not a well specified legal definition of ground troops. there are various types of troops on the ground there now. might of getting to it be to talk about hostilities. where hostilities and practice has been defined of you're in hostilities if you're in a situation basically where the troops are in danger of being attacked or engaging in a military operation. and so you might be able to get at this by a definition not of
troops on the ground but rather what types of activities can they engage. there's no subtle definition of that that i know of. there if you're flying a helicopter or a plane, you can get hurt too. shot at. >> you certainly can. >> it's -- to put it mildly, it's a flexible test. >> apaches flying over anbar. we know they have shoulder-fired missiles. >> you said that regime change should not be and will not be an official policy of the united states. but at the same time you have this program of equipping and helping the opposition. what are you helping them to do since their official line of policy is to change the regime? thank you. >> great question. and we got into that in a pretty significant way at the last foreign relations committee meeting we had. in september. the question is, could we provide arms to organizations that would fight isil, that
wouldn't also be focused on fighting the assad regime. we're talking about syria now, obviously. and that's a tough one. that is a tough one. i think we want to make sure that the primary mission of folks that we're providing assistance to, once they're appropriately vetted, is the battle against isil. but i think it would be unrealistic to expect that they would suddenly decide that they're not focused on assad. in my view, the syrian part of this operation is as complicated as the iraq side is. the irsyrian part is extremely -- is much more complicated. i would actually expect that if there's an authorization of congress against isil, you will probably see this mission evolve, you know, when the u.s. went into world war ii, we didn't just invade germany. we went to north africa, then we went to italy, then we came into france. you're going to see intense focus on iraq and attempting to stabilize the situation in iraq. then an attempt to stabilize the border between iraq and
syria, then the border between syria and jordan, turkey, iraq and lebron. and at some point -- lebanon. at some point there will be an opening to figure out what is the right path forward in syria that can lead hopefully to an end of the civil war? but the syrian side of this is much more complicated. i acknowledge the question you raise. it's not easy to separate out the motives. >> don't forget egypt. >> indeed. >> and libya. they've got a presence in libya as well. in the back. just for fairness. >> thank you. i'd just like to ask a question about the precedent that's being set with either executive overreach into the war powers authority or congressional abdication. do you see this as a growing trend and if so what are the
consequences? and would you argue that the united states, either the president or congress, is acting unlawfully? if the two of you could answer, mr. goldman is jn smith and senator kaine. >> in the terms of the precedence, the president has been stretching the precedence in a number of ways. he's been stretching the precedence on article two authorities, not as senator kaine said wherks acts in self-defense of the united states, but when he's engaged in pure humanitarian interventions in iraq, whatever you think of those, whether they're good or bad, moral or whatever, the serious question of their legality and the president has pushed those precedents beyond where they've gone before. he's certainly stretched the 2001 aumf beyond where it had been before. to extend it to the islamic state. very controversialy. and he has also stretched the
precedence in terms of noncompliance with the war powers resolution. not in this context as much as he did in libya. so whether he's acting unlawfully, this is such a bushy area of law, in article two. especially if he's engaged in self-defense. i wouldn't say that he's acting strictly unlawfully. i think he's acting deeply imprudently and not consistent with constitutional values or what he said he wanted to do in the past. and it's worse for all the reasons that senator kaine said. >> i don't disagree with what jack said except i would put more of the blame on congress' shoulders than the white house. >> just to be clear, excuse me for interrupting, i'm with you on that. i think the congressional abdication mentality on this and on so many other issues is that -- right now think about this one. you have part of congress suing the president. we don't want you to use executive power.
but, mr. president, whatever do you, do not bring to us any vote about a war before the midterm elections. the very people that are suing the president over being too executive or telling him, but be an executive on this and we're not going to challenge you. i view this as fundamentally the artic i branch one branch not doing what it's supposed to do. on abdication, let me lay out what i think the real big picture problem. is here is how war has evolved in this country. you can start it without congress, you can fund it on the credit card, even in vietnam, as unpopular as it was, we taxed ourselves to pay for at least part of it. some of it was deficit funded. but now iraq and afghanistan are all on the credit card. the decisionmakers' kids are not likely to serve. in thearya of the draft, the decisionmakers' kids were likely to sefrpblt and it's real controversial but we have private contractors now that we can just contract to do things and we don't have to ask the military to do. each of those moves, no vote, on the credit card, your kids don't have to serve, we can get
contractors to do it. together -- come together to suggest a grave dange that are we're sort of outsourcing the moral responsibility of sober decision making that the framers talked about when they set up the constitution the way they did. >> but add to that, without a debate on a strategy, an overarching strategy for all this i'd say we're putting ourselves more at risk. >> you would say an evolving strategy. right? we've heard different terations over time. >> i wanted to ask you, the responsibility's more on congress, ok, whatever, let's say nothing happens for x period of months. at what point do you think if you think this is both illegal and immoral right now does the operation have to stop? or is that completely unrealistic? and how do you see this interfacing with kind of -- are democrats going to be obstructionists against the
g.o.p. senate now? does this come as a barter against immigration and other policies? >> the latter question, i don't see that happens. i may be naive. i don't see it, well, slees, we can get an edge on an authorization by trading it off an immigration involvement i hope what jane has encouraged, that others are banging on us to act. if congress doesn't act, there are going to be those of us who are going to be introducing resolutions of disapproval or trying to get in the way. and stop a war from going on. absolutely. absolutely. because i do think, as jack indicated, i do think this is -- this can be fixed. the president, i think when he started on august 8, he had a good-faithed defense argument. but then it evolved to office but he had congressional leadership saying, don't talk to us. ok, we're here. we have to have this discussion. if congress does not do what iteds -- what it needs to do, i think congress has to try to
rein in the precedent from being the bad precedent, of just unilateral presidential action. we have to try to rein it in. >> one thing we haven't mentioned is sequestration. congress ducked the budget fight and instead imposed this straitjacket that nobody thought would actually happen. but it's here. both on defense and nondefense pending. there's no budget being debated. they come out of a general account called o.c.o. we're going to be hollowing out our military capability. if it surges in this direction, i'm not sure whether that's good or bad, but we're not debating it. what if something else happens in ukraine in russia, in china. >> or ebola. look at all the other things. >> how are we going to pay for that? this is just plain irresponsible.
>> i wanted to get back to the question of long-term strategy. not just against isil but terrorism in general. and i worry about the language we use sometimes in calling it a war on terror. obviously isil is an actual war. but terrorism is sort of an ongoing conflict. it's a state of mind. there's so much psychology involved. you have senior officials saying that the drone strikes are basically a game of whack-a-mole and they keep coming. every time you fire a miss nool a country, people hate you. and then more keep joining and it's hard to discern cause and effect. but how much of the current terrorists joining isil have been incentivized to do that because of our wars in iraq and afghanistan? and i really appreciated the article as a strategic narrative that the wilson center put out. i was wondering if could you talk about that. what's our long-term strategy and narrative and effort to build? >> if i could say a couple of things. that's what we need a public
debate for. i don't think we're going to debate it in the next 10 minutes here. but the war on terror was a misnomer. and president obama changed that after he became president. he started to call it the war on al qaeda. it's obviously the war on more groups. terror is a tactic. you're right. it is not a defined enemy. and it's a tactic that's in overuse at the moment. so that would be one point. on the drone strike issue, you're right. to some extent there has been what an israeli strategist calls the boomerang effect. the more drone strikes do you, the more enemies you build. however, those don't strikes, nd i do know a lot about this, i'm on a few advisory boards, are highly target and we have taken out some real bad guys with drones. i would argue they have to be part of our tool kit. but again we have to explain the whole thing in way that that not just american, tim was
right about this, but our enemies and our friends out there can understand. so that our intentions are clear and we're not building more enemies. it was actually don rumsfeld who said, are we taking out more than are rising up against us? it's a question mark. and it has to be debated. >> i think we've been doing this for 13 years and i don't think we have a good answer to that question. it may be that what we're doing now, i don't know, as bad as it seems, is the least bad option. >> a sobering thought. middle here. >> take a few questions ogether. >> since we have 10 minutes to go, a little under 10 minutes, if i could ask you to ask a question, there's a woman behind you who has her hand
raised and we can do a couple at once. >> there are two issues that ou raised initially to have an authorization for the isil. but also what to do with the 2001 aumf. i can imagine that there could be a targeted authorization to go after isil. i wonder, though, it seems harder to do something with the 2001 aumf. i was wondering if jack goldsmith could speak to the implications of allowing that to linger, if it isn't dealt with, not only for the president's legacy, but for the future, for the next president. >> before we get to that, just get a few and we'll deal with them one by one. >> good morning. quite agree with senator kaine about this isis issue is
-- there is a bigger picture, philosophy of power. originally i came from indonesia, the largest muslim country in the world. there is a sensitivity of political culture in hands -- in muslim issues. and i am very concerned of the bipartisan issue on isil. it's jeopardizing our attention and focus on strategy thinking in handling the world politics against the united states through radical muslim movement and that's what i think the congress has to focus on instead of bipartisan issues. , is question is that here any discussion or
investigative research, who are isis?ternal actors on of the the complexity issue of muslim political culture, it is not only the local who are the actors. the external actors should be investigated and they are the one who are really harboring -- >> we have five minutes. but is your question who is really behind isis? >> external, yes. >> that's a fair question. i wonder if could you pass it, just because we'll have a chance for one each before we run up against our deadline here. there's a gentleman in front of you. >> yes. i have been waiting to ask this . estion
>> in fairness, let's do one each. let's do one each and then if we have time we'll come back. >> really quickly, you mentioned sunsetting. or narrowing the 2001 aumf several times. why not just sunset it altogether? that's for senator kaine. >> so one of you on the aumf. you have the question, can you split getting a new one for the current military operations from reforming or repealing the 2001 and then perhaps related to that question, this gentleman's question is, which is can you sut -- question which is, can you sunset it? >> i think it's very important to update the 2001 aumf. whether with the isil authorization or separately. and the reason is for several. one, to put it on the -- for congress to reaffirm who we're fighting against. and even if it has the same scope and practice, it's important that congress do that, give it a contemporary legitimacy. plus, i think this is very
important, i think congress has to insist, especially since it's very difficult to capture all of the associated groups without a general phrase like associated groups, i think congress has to insist that it be informed by the executive branch about exactly -- and the american people should be informed about who exactly we're at war against under this necessarily somewhat vague authorization. because these groups and individuals don't come prepackaged. and the combination of giving the public more information about who we're fighting against, plus a sunset clause, which senator kaine has included in his authorization which i fully support, those two things would do a lot to bring more rigor and discipline and accountability to that authorization. >> i agree that. i think you could not let the 2001 aumf sunset except as a pressure mechanism, to come up with version 2.0. but there does not on be -- need to be a version 2.0. if only to continue the effort against al qaeda. because al qaeda continues to
be a threat in many ways. it has to be defined in way, now they're mutating into other groups. how do we explain to the american public -- >> and what about some assessment of cost and controls on cost? because that is a big part of this. this if this whole challenge expands. has said that we have to get after the flow of foreign fighters and the funding, the outside groups, do you think there's a sufficient attention to the outside actors and causes? >> no. the flow of funds a big deal question. and of course we've all read about at least allegations that some people in some countries in the region are sending money in to fund isil and related groups and that has to be fully fruned -- understood. who are those people, where are those funds coming from and in addition to that, isil has captured oil resources and other things that have to be cut off. they're the wealthiest terror movement in history and they're
different from the other ones because they're actually setting up a state inside of two -- one is a failed state, that would be syria. and one is a challenged state, that would be iraq. at the moment, but obviously aligning with others and threatening to make this bigger. it's a big deal, your question is a valid question. >> it's not just money, right? because it's also the ideology and these are not just mistearious actors. they're state actors here who turn a blind eye. >> i agree. >> some began providing support to them because they were the most effective against assad but now they realize the threat, they're like, ok, we're not going to support them anymore. a lot of it stemmed from the desire to topple assad. they were getting support. but there are still external sources beyond the extortion, beyond the oil revenue. >> and don't forget the sunni-shi'a attentions. >> i believe we have time for
one more. maybe, you've been patient here in the second row. >> thank you. i was wondering about the implications of a sunset provision in aumf. given the history of congressional inaction, it's entirely possible that the authorization could sunset and if that happens, what happens? do the troops come home immediately? do they have to pull all the equipment? >> just a new debate. >> i actually think that it's possible what you say, that it won't be re-authorized because some political deadlock. but it's worked remarkably well in the context of surveillance. since 2007-2008. when congress basically updated u.s. surveillance authorities. they put a sunset on it and it's worked remarkably well. it's been a forings mechanism to make congress come back. it's always been a little fraught but it always happens. i have ever reason to think that will happen here. simply because the stakes are
so high. there's general consensus that we need authorization to be fighting these groups. but if it did somehow lapse, the main -- the president can do a lot what have he's doing now in theory under article two. it's not a good idea but he could in self-defense do a lot under article two. one consequence would be that -- the 2001 authorization ran out, then the argument for detaining people in gitmo and other things like that would vb to be rethought. that would be the main direct consequence i think. >> i think you raised a fair question. i've made my argument all about congressional abdication and then i'm abdicating that congress do things. so your question to me is, what's the likelihood that congress will do things when the abdication has been a historical trend. but i think forcing mechanisms are helpful. there is a precedent for use of sunsets that kind of drag congress back in, congress will act. i think that will happen. >> i think the bottom line, though, is the american people
have to make this decision. not a member of the senate, not a vaunted cnn correspondent, not even a grandmother over here. and the way that the american people speak is through congress. and congress has to debate these things. and i would argue has to vote on these things. stand up and be accountable. >> let me just ask this closing thought. i know we have to go. but it strikes me that this is a true moment of reckoning for the country. we're talking about how the nation decides to go to war. the most grave decision that both the president and congress can make. you're deciding how the nation funds these wars, which is an issue that we punted for the last 20 years, as you say, putting it on the credit card. but also about how the nation debates it. we haven't, you know, in the leadup to iraq, we didn't have a proper public debate, etc. you're attempting it here now. with all the political dysfunction in washington, is our government, this congress, up to it? up to that task? >> if we after 13 years of war
have not learned enough to have this discussion seriously, then god help us. a virginian died in the middle of september in afghanistan. we're still losing people in afghanistan. a staff sergeant, strong from suffolk, virginia. he was on husband fourth -- his fourth deployment. if we have not learned anything in 13 years of this, we should have at least learned that the question of how we start military action needs to be dramatically improved. i think we've learned enough that we will tackle this. >> and i would just say, of course this is shameless self-promotion, but i'm proud that the wilson center can convene a discussion like this on the first day that congress is back after this election season from hell. and i'm very proud of tim kaine for coming here in his first hour back to talk to us about this and bjork corker did it last year and others have come
-- bob corker did it last year and others have come. this conversation needs to move a mile up the hill. >> thanks very much. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]
>> the lame duck of the 113th congress begins today. the house is back to start legislative work in about 25 minutes or so. at 4:00 eastern time. members will take up five bills, including one dealing with presidential records. and another concerning government reports. any recorded votes will be held at 6:30 p.m. eastern. the house republican conference will be holding leadership elections tomorrow with democrats expected to hold theirs next week. now, to get us to the top of the hour, when the house gavels in, here's a discussion on the impact the midterm elections are having on women in politics. it's from today's "washington journal." >> "washington journal" continues. host: and we are back to jennifer lawless who is the
director of american university's women and policy institute here to talk about campaign 2014. the headline the next day, after november 4, women had a good women. 100 and one what did you find? my feeling was: even though i did not want to diminish that, we went in with governors before the election and five after, and just a net gain in the house, it did not seem like a year of the woman. and 2036 does not look good either. what you mean? guest: the eternal pessimist. [laughter] when women are not competing in a lot of races, there are not chances.
we disk -- discovered a gap in political ambition among adults, and the report he put out is the gender gap in the interest in running for office is just as big. unless there is a jolt to the system and real change, there's no reason to expect the next generation will look much different than this one. host: why the lack of ambition? guest: is not a lack of ambition overall. young women and young men are interested in wanting to improve the world, achieve success, and do well in their careers, but women are less likely to enter politics were couple of reasons. the first, they do not think they are as qualified as men, and this is the case for college students as well as adults. we have done surveys of male and female lawyers, business leaders, educators, and political activist. 60% of the men think they're qualified to run, and fewer than 40% of the women thing they do. on paper, you were not able to tell them apart. men they do not think they are
qualified still give a serious pause. women not only doubt the qualifications, but let self-doubt hold them back. the second reason is women are far less likely than men to be encouraged by anyone to run for office. we compare this country to other countries with women in politics and government roles? fare well.o not 99 nations surpassed united states in the percentage of women serving the legislature, and that is not only because of quotas. many of the design of us do not have gender quotas, so we are well below the worldwide action --average. host: what are these countries doing differently? quotas, so make sure women appear on the party list running for office. in united states there is no evidence of voter bias, that women cannot raise as much money as men when they run, and at least at the congressional level, there is no evidence to suggest that the volume or substance of media coverage is any different. if women can get on the campaign
trail and get to election day, they are just as likely to win their races, they are less likely to put themselves out there. host: what about reelection? guest: just as likely to win reelection. this election cycle is an example. at and women challengers won equal rates. host: where talking to jennifer lawless from american university about the role that women played. take a look at the report. only one-third -- how does the selection compared to previous elections? it is pretty typical from what we have seen. some states are seen a net decrease in the percentage of women serving. at the congressional level, to have an additional two or three women each election cycle has
become par for the course. when you did this poll, the gender gap and political addition, and you asked if you ever thought about running for office, more women thought about it than men do. guest: that is have not thought about it. host: have not thought about. ok. what is going on there? collegence you get to you see a gap emerge, and what happens at that point is men and women start to sears to consider what they want to do with their lives and women look at the political system and say absolutely not. we found that substantial perceptions of bias in the electoral arena. even the women do just as well as men when they run for office, most do not know that to be true, and that could be part of the reason they got the qualification, why women do not think about throwing their hat into the ring. you think you would be too difficult and it would not be treated fairly. we want to disseminate the
information that once you are on the campaign trail and you make it to election day, you have just as good of a shot. host: what you think needs to be done -- a policy option like the needs to be quotas like there are in other countries? guest: that is not going to happen here. i am not sure quotas solve the problem. quotas suggest you have to, and you will see women are capable. .ere, we have a supply problem what has to happen is the parties need to make a concerted effort to put forward martin -- female candidates. the good news is when women are encouraged to run for office, even by a collie, family member, or friend, the suggestion resonates. a lot of parties are waiting to do this and we can all get out the door and if i women that we think would be great candidates, young women -- identify women that we think would be great candidates, young women in particular. host: does this have to be a cultural shift? guest: it has to be a cultural
shift in terms of how proactively are. most public opinion polls reveal they think there should be more women in government, but they do not often have a chance to elect one because she does not appear on the ballot. host: let's get to calls. john. herndon, virginia. democratic caller. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am four me angry is daughters, and i always tell them if you work hard enough, you will get paid this amount is anyone else. what makes me angry is when i see a republican congresswoman denying the equal pay for men that she works for, saying we do not need that -- the democrats are playing games. that is nothing to do with it. there are a lot of young women graduating universities, smart enough to get any position they want. way, women are the ones that raise the men, and they can do better assessment in any situation than men as far as i'm concerned.
and knowd to stand up that it means something for them. we need to educate young college girls to understand that you have to climb the ladder, and you need to understand that you have to speak up in order to get what you want. host: ok. all right, john. guest: there is no question that that is true, and i would have couple of things that the first is that pay equity and student loan interest rates are two the great opportunities organizations that care about getting women involved in politics to appeal to college women on because these are the issues that will matter to them so soon after graduation. it is important not to conflate female candidates with democratic and republican party edibles. it is true that about 70% of female elected officials are democrats, whether there is a democrat or republican in front of their names tells us more about how they will vote as opposed to whether they will have an x or y chromosome.
what about issues -- he started talking about women needing to get paid as much as men, and that sort of thing. that has been an issue in this campaign. i mean, democrats ran on equal pay. they ran on minimum wage. do those issues propel a female candidate to run? democrat,she is a maybe, but a lot of those issues propel mail democratic candidates to run as well cared we have reached a time where party polarization has made it such that the sex of a candidate is a most irrelevant in terms of the policy agenda and the way you are she will cast a vote if elected. askingou also do a poll folks about her congressional career -- if the following jobs paid this amount of money, which would you most like to be. what do you think these numbers say? the mostthink important fact coming out of that graph is that young people
hold congress in just as low average american citizen does, and this is an indictment against government. it demonstrates how the solution people are common and it also suggest something has to change if you want the next generation to pick up the mantle of public service. even though the gender differences are important, the more telling finding coming out of the data are that people, young people, have no interest whatsoever in running for office. host: so, the call to serve is not there. guest: i think the call to service their. the call to serve as an elected official is now falling on deaf ears. host:,, kentucky. republican caller. i voted on abortion, the bible speaks against a, of course common sense speaks against it. if i see somebody doing something wrong, and i go along with them, i am just as guilty as they are, so a lot of people
have got blood on their hands. i do not understand how anybody can do that. host: we are going to leave it there and move on to jerry in reno, nevada, independent caller. caller: what about the war on men? host: why do you say that, jerry? caller: there is all this hype about the war on women, which there isn't. men love women. host: ok, so where do you see the war on men? caller: well, because it is always this juncture between keep -- women host: jerry, are you still there? caller: i am still here. women keep saying we are fighting them. we are not fighting them. women have the same opportunities we do. host: ok. guest: there is a polling about
differences and politically relevant extrinsic in high school and college and jerry brings me back to that if you i am wondering are majoring in political science and are more likely to run for office, or if you have a family who is politically active, are you more likely, so yes, there are certain circumstances that propel ambition for men and women, so those are a politicized upbringing, if you take political science classes come if you talk about policies with your family and friends come if you follow a lot of political ifsites or political media, you play a competitive sport it what is interesting and important as that women are less likely than men to have those experiences, so although those experiences propel ambitions for both young men and women, men are more likely to have the ingredients required to do so. host: why is that? guest: and part when they get to
shackles come off, women and men get to make their own decisions. in high school, often parents tell you what to do and what are to be super taken, your teachers tell you, you are competing with your male and female counterparts in high school to get into the best college. once you get to college, you kind of get to do what you want, ambitions stay flat and men go through the roof, and so they gravitate toward the politicized science classes, they migrate toward mock trial and debate and other competitive sports teams where they can really showcase their competitive spirit, and that reinforces or might even trigger running for office. host: we are taking a request and sent comments about women in politics with jennifer lawless. here are the phone numbers for you -- .ostdemocrats, (202) 585-3880 republicans, (202) 585-3881. and independents and all others,
(202) 585-3882. the phone lines are open. what percentage of women make up the electorate in this country and what is that percentage in congress? guest: women make up the majority of the electorate like they do the majority of the population and they are slightly en tolikely than m turn out to vote, but their numbers and all other comparisons pale in comparison. 81% of the u.s. house of representatives are men, 45 of the 50 states have male governors, more than 90 of the largest cities have male mayors, elected officials are men, so there is a clear disconnect. host: when can we expected it to change and be more reflective of the electorate? guest: not anytime soon. what we need to do is really engage in systematic efforts to encourage more women to run for office, and the party needs to make a concerted effort to
ensure that they have women on the bench who are ready to run and special elections, who are ready to run an open state contest, and who are ready to take on an vulnerable incumbents. the majority of women run as democrats, so as long as women's electoral fortune are tied to the clinical environment, we are never going to see substantial gains. this means when democrats have a bad year, women disproportionally have a bad year, so until the democrats in a book and start fielding comparable numbers of female candidates, the opportunities for it is almost absent. host: although this year in 2014 we did see the republicans send part of theenators, 114th congress, and this is the first time for these states, and west virginia and iowa. guest: that is right, and with joni ernst going in iowa, that leaves only mississippi as a state who is never got to washington here to 49 of the 50 states have had one woman in
their congressional delegation at least once. host: you say either ho pretty y differential, so when a new senate convenes in january and 70% will 20 women, still be democrats. host: do we know how many states of never had a female senator? guest: i do not know those numbers, but iowa which is never had a fema governor or female senator and only had one woman in its congressional delegation of the state.-- that is not to say there were not interesting independent gains. joni ernst is the new republican senator, mia love in utah became the first african american woman republican in congress. there are certainly milestones that were achieved.
in totality, the election cycle did not fundamentally shift the landscape for women. host: let's hear from shauna next, republican. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. it sounds like it is not "a war on women come go in my opinion, it sounds like what the guest that there is just a lack of women interested in the political arena because if you think about it, most women graduate from college, a lot more our career minded, but they take on roles that are conducive of heading a family, and a lot of the times when you have republican women like myself, we are scrutinized because we have conservative values and a lot of women who do feel that they have conservative views, they kind of keep it to themselves because they do not want to be criticized for those values. it just seems like in this
country if you are a democratic woman, you are allowed basically i am a everyone, hey, democrat and i am interested in politics, but if you are a republican, you have to keep that closed mouth because you are criticized. -- it is notif we about a party, it is not about being a republican or democrat, it is more about getting women more interested in wanting to country in a direction that best suits the american people, and i think women can do that. women just need incentives to what to be in that arena. guest: a couple of things, and this is actually good news, which i do not offer much of. andfirst is that we found, this is the case in the population as well, very few differences in the interest in politics or willingness to produce a paper between women and men, so the really drop off for women is when we get to running for office. it is not at they are not interested in community events
or current affairs or serving their society. but the interesting thing is the gender gap in political ambition is the same size for democrat and republican come so democratic women are less likely than democratic men to run come in the same is true for republican women. that it played no role, which is somewhat counterintuitive. we have reached the point where women are now accustomed to balancing worklife and responsibility to become the new normal for women, so those impediments are no longer holding women back. the factor means that on both side of the aisle, women are less likely than men to be recruited to run. host: all right, north carolina, marie, an independent. caller: hi. i just wanted to ask the lady t heir opinion on whether we can continue to call our electoral process fair and democratic
where we completely excluded such a large portion of the through citizenry artificially manufacturing such a large prison population of primarily black males, and since black males do make up such a large portion of our citizenry, yet they are often incarcerated -- host: we are talking about women in politics. i don't know if there is summit you want to address there, jennifer lawless. guest: there is no question of voter suppression efforts across the board or the gree re-enfranchisement across the ballots, there is nothing to suggest the man women feel differently or minimum in a popular generic testing their votes are being excluded any differently now. women are taking full advantage of the franchise and their
suffrage, they're just not running for office. what about redistricting and the method of allowing incumbents to really solidify their reelection prospect? has that led to a slower pace of getting women into office? because you have from earlier times, 10, 20 years ago, men who were in politics and are reelected every year, every two years or every six years. guest: right. it is true that the incumbency advantage is an impediment. state level, 16 states have term limits, which is whether incumbency is proving to be a potential barrier, and what scholars have found is that states with term limits actually don't have a better record of electing more female candidates because not only are men term limited out, women are, too, so there are more open seats, but women do not get the benefit
from the incumbency advantage, and in open seats, more men think about throwing their hats into the ring, so incumbency would prove to be more of an impediment than we might see it to be right now if women and men had equal likelihood of running for office. at this point they don't, so term limits or worrying so much of skiers the big issue, which is that women are less likely to even consider a clinical career. -- consider a political career. host: john is next. mader: a caller or two ago my point, when he sees the way republican women are treated by the liberal media, and sarah palin is a glaring example of that, if i were a conservative [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] good luck watch this and any "washington journal" program online at c-span.org. we're going to leave it now though as the how's is about to gavel back in. for legislative work. members today taking up five bills, including one dealing
with presidential records and another concerning government reports. any recorded votes will be held at 6:30 p.m. eastern. the house republican conference will hold leadership elections tomorrow and democrats are expected to hold theirs next week. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. issa: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment to the bill h.r. 4194. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4194, an act to provide for the elimination or modification of federal reporting