Mr. Johnson has spent the past three decades fighting for the people and the issues politicians don’t care to talk about. Since the 1970s, Mr. Johnson has been engaged in the fight against climate change, and in March 2016, he helped organize a Climate March in South Kingstown. In the late 1990s, Mr. Johnson became heavily involved in the protests against the inhumanity of the American sanctions on Iraq which killed an estimated 500,000 children. Opposed to the Iraq War from the beginning, Mr. Johnson, alongside thousands of people, participated in the Iraq War demonstration in NYC on February 15, 2003. Over the years, Mr. Johnson has brought to the high school activists like Ralph Nader and the late Howard Zinn to speak on issues ranging from climate change to perpetual war.

But even with all of these things going on, Mr. Johnson always finds time to help his students. When I was at the high school, Mr. Johnson was always helping someone after school, whether it was with biology concepts, family problems, writing an essay or a science fair project. These conversations would go well into the afternoon, sometimes into the night. And it was one of these late afternoon conversations that sparked the idea for this campaign.

Today, his campaign is run by the volunteer work of a dozen of his students (current and former). We have spent countless hours working on a campaign platform (available online) that covers everything from agricultural policy to social security reform. We have been kicked out of libraries while collecting signatures outside. We have marched through torrential rain holding deteriorating cardboard box anti-war signs in our arms. We have designed a bumper stickers and yard signs, brochures and a website. We do this because we have talked to Mr. Johnson; we have gotten to know what a passionate man he is; and we really believe that he has the ability to affect change, meaningful change, where Mr. Langevin hasn’t in his decade and a half.

To Mr. Johnson, and perhaps to his campaign’s detriment, the election isn’t just about winning and a job in Congress— it is about his students. “The reason why I got into politics was because I was always talking about issues like climate change, but if all you do is talk about them, all you do is depress kids,” he told me earlier today in his classroom, “I felt like I had to do more than a hollow, academic exercise. It had to be a tangible part of my life. I was tired of feeling guilty.” This same feeling motivated Mr. Johnson to run in 1994, 1998 and then again in 2000 for statewide office. In 1994, Mr. Johnson ran for Lieutenant Governor as a Green, receiving about 6% of the vote. To date, no statewide election has matched that vote share result for a Green candidate.

Mr. Johnson is a candidate who will not represent corporate greed and war. He will never take money, as Mr. Langevin has, from defense contractors: General Dynamics, Raytheon and Northrup Grumman. He will not be passive as climate change ravages our world— he will be practicing civil disobedience with the activists— he will be getting arrested on the streets so that people will pay attention. Mr. Johnson is a person who understands the plight of the “American dream” and the American worker. He was the first person in his family to graduate from college, and today, he holds four degrees. He has worked as a submarine welder, a quahogger, a farmer, a prison dishwasher, a medical technician, a Ford assembly line operator, a gas station mechanic, a painter, a landscaper, a book editor and a paperboy. Nowadays, in addition to the high school, he commutes to Providence to work in DCYF group homes on weekends. Private sector, public sector, white collar, blue collar, Mr. Johnson has seen it all. He has seen for himself the struggle and hardship Americans must face every day.

This election season, we hang on the precipice. We must think carefully about whether we want to maintain this status quo of wage stagnation and environmental degradation. We must be open to alternatives, no matter our political affiliation or views. And more than anything, we must courageously vote our conscience after we have given all candidates a fair assessment. Mr. Johnson, I believe, offers alternatives to our status quo, alternatives that will leave a healthy planet for future generations, alternatives that will heal our economic system so that it is more equitable and fair for both the American people and those abroad.

If you want to read more about our campaign and our views, please visit out website. And check out our Facebook page!

The event will be on Wednesday, 3pm at the Providence Public Safety Complex.

Cicilline and Langevin both participated in the historic sit-in on the House floor last week that was organized to call attention to the GOP’s inaction on gun safety following the horrific Pulse massacre in Orlando that left 49 innocent people dead.

The follow-up event is being billed, by Cicilline spokesman Rich Luchette, as an opportunity to “discuss ways for Rhode Islanders to continue to push Republicans in Congress on ‘no fly, no buy’ and universal background checks,” he said.

Cicilline was an organizer of the 26-hour House floor sit-in, along with Georgia Congressman John Lewis, which for 12 hours prevented Republicans from conducting congressional business.

“Republicans can no longer ignore the voices of millions of Americans who are demanding commonsense legislation to address this epidemic,” Cicilline said in a statement following the protest action. “It is shameful that Speaker Ryan, using a procedural maneuver, adjourned the House in the dark of night, shortly after his party voted for another Wall Street giveaway, so that Republicans would not have to address the very real impact of gun violence. This isn’t Wall Street’s House – it’s the People’s House – and it’s time Republicans start acting like it by addressing the important issues facing American families. When the Speaker calls the House back into session we will continue to stand up once again for our constituents who are demanding we take action to reduce gun violence in our country.”

In a letter to congressional colleagues, the six organizers of the sit in wrote:

Dear Colleagues:

This week, Democrats in Congress made history while the world watched.  Our sit-in showed that the Republican Leadership can no longer ignore the epidemic of gun violence.  A movement was born and will only continue to grow.

We ask you to join us in a National Day of Action on June 29, 2016.  While you are back home in your District, you can continue to build the momentum and engage your community.  Whether it a press conference, roundtable, or telephone town hall, we encourage you host an event showing that Democrats in Congress will keep up the fight against gun violence.  Local partners including survivors, law enforcement and faith leaders can be excellent partners and can help carry our message even further.

We look forward to working with you as we continue our fight to bring commonsense, bipartisan, gun violence prevention legislation up for a vote. Together, we can give voice to the overwhelming majority of the American people who want to see their Congress take action to help keep our communities safe.

Sincerely,

John Lewis

John B. Larson

Katherine M. Clark

David N. Cicilline

Robin Kelly

Mike Thompson

This bill is a continuation of an overreach by the right wing conservative majority that has over taken the House of Representatives.  The vetting process for refugees entering this country is already more than sufficient. These additional layers of bureaucracy are completely unnecessary. They put an undue burden on our security departments, and they will unnecessarily increase the time that it takes for Syrian refugees to be admitted. And with a military budget of $600 billion we should all wonder why the implementation of effective and expedited screening isn’t already in place.

It can take years for refugees to be allowed to enter this country. With these additional redundant and unnecessary security checks it could delay the process even longer. President Obama has promised to veto the legislation and one would think that a Democratic Representative of a supposedly blue state would support the President on such an important issue.

By siding with the Republican right wing majority, Langevin sets himself apart from the compassionate and understanding legislators who know that there needs to be a balance with security and timeliness in getting refugees vetted and resettled in this country. His actions show, once again that the D next to his name means nothing. He has shamed the state, our founding father Roger Williams, and all of the great people of Rhode Island who want to do more for the people of Syria.

The people of Syria have no choice but to leave their homeland due in large part to the United States destabilizing the region in the first place. The people of Syria are not Daesh. They are civilians who want to live in peace, who want to have shelter, who want to save the lives of their children.

Langevin’s reaction to this crisis is just another reason why 2016 should be his last year in Congress.

• Langevin defends voting with GOP on Syrian refugee bill
• Dems draw more with love than GOP does with fear
• Cathy Cool Rumsey will run against Elaine Morgan
• Rep. Nardolillo thinks Elaine Morgan owes Muslims an apology
• State senators to hold rally to support Syrian refugees
• Humanists of RI support sheltering Syrian refugees in RI
• Cicilline to Obama: Accept 100,000 Syrian refugees
• Diossa to Obama: Central Falls will take in Syrian refugees
• Dorcas International explains Rhode Island refugee process

“After reading the bill, I was convinced that it does not stop the process, it really doesn’t shut the program down, nor does it significantly slow it,” Langevin told RI Future in an interview, which you can listen to in its entirety below. “It added modest layer of new security in terms of the vetting process but nothing that would shut down or significantly slow the vetting process, and that’s ultimately why I supported it.”

He said it wasn’t difficult to vote against President Obama, who strongly urged Democrats not to support the Republican-backed bill. “All of my decisions are based on the merits. They don’t belong to a particular party or special interest.”

Langevin, who told me he didn’t see State Sen. Elaine Morgan’s comments about Islam and Muslim refugees, said he thinks the United States should accept more Syrian refugees than the 10,000 Obama has called for – and that he thinks the government should add resources to ensure the refugee process moves quicker.

“I strongly support additional resources that will expedite the process,” he said. “The best thing we can do to make sure we’re not slowing the process down is put more resources into vetting so we can speed it up.”

When asked how he thinks Rhode Islanders feel about the issue, he said, “I’ve heard from people on both sides of this issue.”

You can listen to our full 20 minute conversation on his vote in particular and the Syrian refugee crisis in general here:

• Dems draw more with love than GOP does with fear
• Cathy Cool Rumsey will run against Elaine Morgan
• Rep. Nardolillo thinks Elaine Morgan owes Muslims an apology
• State senators to hold rally to support Syrian refugees
• Humanists of RI support sheltering Syrian refugees in RI
• Cicilline to Obama: Accept 100,000 Syrian refugees
• Diossa to Obama: Central Falls will take in Syrian refugees
• Dorcas International explains Rhode Island refugee process

A new poll from Monmouth State University released Monday shows 41 percent of respondents are unsure if the deal should be inked while 32 percent think lawmakers should not support it and 27 percent think they should. And according to The Hill, 35 House Democrats support the deal and 29 are undecided while 18 Senate Democrats support and 20 are undecided.

The Rhode Island congressional delegation is on the fence, too.

“Congressman Langevin continues to review the agreement and consider the options in advance of Congressional action this fall,” said his spokeswoman Meg Geoghegan. “He has not yet made a final decision on how he will vote on the issue.” Rich Luchette, a spokesman for Congressman David Cicilline said simply, “Congressman Cicilline is reviewing the proposed agreement.”

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse “hasn’t announced a position on the Iran deal yet,” according to spokesman Seth Larson. And Chip Unruh, spokesman for Senator Jack Reed, said the ranking member of the RI delegation, and a nationally-regarded foreign policy expert, “continues to thoroughly review.”

As a ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Reed has been conducting hearings on the issue with Arizona Sen. John McCain. The Hill lists Reed in the yes column but RIPR coverage from July 16 says Reed “has not decided whether he supports President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.” Unruh said The Hill “must be speculating.”

Speculation or not, The Hill lists noted progressive leaders Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders as supporting the deal.

This agreement is obviously not all that many of us would have liked but it beats the alternative – a war with Iran that could go on for years,” Sanders said, according to The Hill. And quoting her from the Boston Globe, Elizabeth Warren has said, “The question now before Congress — the only question before Congress — is whether the recently announced nuclear agreement represents our best available option for preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. I am convinced that it does.”

Progressives have largely supported the deal with Code Pink calling it “a great victory for peace-loving people around the world.” The New York Times has a 200 word summary of the deal.

The president is also largely at odds with Rhode Island’s congressional delegation on fast-tracking a potential trade compact with 12 Pacific Rim nations. Of the Ocean State’s four elected officials in Congress, three have now spoken out against giving Obama fast track authority. Only Senator Jack Reed is still holding his cards close as the Senate Finance Committee considers granting the president trade promotion authority today.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse said he opposes fast track authority for the TPP deal, he told RI Future exclusively today.

“It would be a mistake to provide fast-track authority for trade agreements that could further undermine American wages, manufacturing jobs, and our environment,” he said in an emailed statement. “We need the opportunity carefully review any proposed trade agreements to ensure we’re not repeating the mistakes of past free trade deals.”

In February, Whitehouse gave a speech against trade agreements in general on the Senate floor in February, saying: “I start with a state that has been on the losing end of these trade deals. People say that they are going to enforce the environmental and human rights and labor and safety requirements of these agreements. I haven’t seen it. And I gotta say I don’t like the process very much either. It is secret, we are kept out of it. Who’s in it is a lot of really big corporations and the are up to, I think, a lot of no good in a lot of the deals.”

Congressman David Cicilline is against it, too. He wrote this op/ed in the Providence Journal last month.

“Any agreement that promotes fast-track trade to advance the Trans-Pacific Partnership without thorough review and Congressional input is a bad deal for Rhode Island workers,” he told RI Future yesterday. “Congress should play an important role in making sure trade policies are fair for American workers, businesses, intellectual property holders, and consumers. The fast-track model undercuts oversight of trade agreements and makes it more difficult to protect the interests of working families. We should be working to promote American manufacturing, implement flexible workplace policies that benefit middle-class families, and finally raise the minimum wage so everyone has an opportunity to succeed.”

Also yesterday, Congressman Jim Langevin reaffirmed his opposition to a TPP deal. In February he and Cicilline signed onto a letter opposing it and yesterday he emailed this statement to reporters:

“The United States has been working with TPP negotiating partners for more than three years. This agreement could greatly shift global trading patterns and accordingly deserves the highest level of scrutiny to ensure it does not displace U.S. jobs or undermine our country’s competitiveness. While I favor expanding global trade, it is important that any free trade agreement places American workers and companies on an enforceable level playing field with foreign trading partners when it comes to labor rights, environmental regulation, intellectual property protection and other critical issues. For that reason, I am opposed to passing Trade Promotion Authority legislation with respect to the TPP.

“Congress has the responsibility to set trade policy, and ‘fast track’ procedures largely circumvent this important review. There is a better way to make decisions of this magnitude that significantly impact America’s place in the global economy, and that must include robust debate and discussion from all partners, including Congress. I will continue to work to ensure that trade agreements protect American workers and consumers and do not undermine America’s ability to compete in the global market.”

Reed, on the other hand, isn’t as vocal, according to spokesman Chip Unruh, who said Rhode Island’s senior senator “will take a look at the Finance Committee’s proposal, but he wants to ensure any trade agreement benefits Rhode Island consumers, workers, and businesses.” Unruh noted Reed rejected such TPA authority in both 2002 and 2007.

According to the Washington Post “most Congressional Democrats are opposed” but Oregon Senator Ron Wyden is pushing for a deal that he says has benefits for liberals.

In March the New York Times reported the “ambitious 12-nation trade accord pushed by President Obama would allow foreign corporations to sue the United States government for actions that undermine their investment “expectations” and hurt their business, according to a classified document.” The Nation called the TPP proposal “NAFTA on steroids” in 2012.

In fact, drone manufacturers are among Langevin’s most generous supporters, according to Open Secrets. The top 5 donors to Langevin’s 2014 campaign committee were:

1. General Dynamics  ($32,050)
2. Democratic Party of RI ($19,800)
3. Northup Grumman  ($15,200)
4. Raytheon Co.  ($13,250)
5. Sheet Metal Workers Union ($12,500)

General Dynamics, Northup Grumman and Raytheon all manufacture drones. This is not the first time I’ve brought up the issue.

“It is not surprising that Congressman Langevin’s work in Congress is of relevance to the defense industry,” said Meg Geoghegan, Langevin’s spokesperson. “General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon are key players in our local economy, with General Dynamics Electric Boat alone planning to add 3,000 more jobs at Quonset Point by 2020. In fact, the Rhode Island defense sector supports more than 32,000 jobs overall. ”

The issue isn’t the defense industry. The issue is a Congressman taking money from the industry he was exercising oversight upon. Is that how the game is often played in Washington? Of course. Does it make it right? No. Especially when lives are involved.

In the fall 2014 election, Langevin spent $782,691 against first time GOP candidate and contractor Rhue Rheis, who spent a mere $13,548, according to Open Secrets. Did the incumbent really need the extra money from defense contractors to win against a first time Republican candidate who served in no previous elected office and didn’t even raise even $50,000?

When on the House Intelligence Committee, Langevin voted against “an amendment to require that U.S. agencies involved in drone wars produce annual reports in which they account for all deaths in U.S. drone strikes overseas and identify the civilians and alleged combatants killed. The amendment already passed the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence” in 2013.

Geoghegan, Langevin’s spokesperson, said, “Campaign donations are accepted in good faith with no strings attached, and do not influence Congressman Langevin’s policy work or voting record. He remains a strong advocate for campaign finance reform and transparency, and he is beholden only to the people of Rhode Island.”

In response to the December 2014 Senate Intelligence Committee report which revealed heinous instances of torture, Langevin stood on the side of decency, arguing, “Human rights must be preserved in times of peace and war, and I sincerely hope we can learn from this dark moment in our history.”

But in response to the use of drones, Langevin’s record is more evasive. Drones are used as deadly weapons to track and kill suspected terrorists. At times civilians have been killed. Langevin served on the committee reviewing the drone program, while also receiving money from drone manufacturers.

With the new Congress, Langevin no longer serves on the House Intelligence Committee. To show he is “beholden only to the people of Rhode Island,” Langevin should return donations from the industries he exercised oversight- or give the equivalent amount to charity. His action can serve as an example to incoming members on the House Intelligence Committee.

You are the people I voted for to represent me at the federal level of government. And because I participate in this democracy, I authorize the federal government’s actions. I bear some responsibility, one vote’s worth, for everything done by the United States.

Therefore, I must say to you, in the strongest terms possible, don’t torture in my name.

I have felt shame and remorse for years now at the torture perpetrated during the Bush administration. I greeted Obama’s directive to end torture with relief. However, we now have the official report on torture from the Senate and we also have the reactions to that report from streams of torture apologists. It has become clear that much more must be done. Just because the monkey is off your back, it doesn’t mean the circus has left town. There is a culture of torture that must be dealt with.

Here are some things I’d like you to do. Phrased another way, here are some things you will do if you want me to keep voting for you. (Barack, in your case, here are some things you will do if you want me to donate to your post-presidency foundation.)

1. Dianne Feinstein is a national hero and every one of you should go out of your way to state so publicly. Get your picture taken with her at every possible opportunity.
2. Never use the phrase enhanced interrogation techniques. The person who controls the language of the debate wins. Here is what happened: some kid got picked up in the desert and taken to a secret prison. He was not charged with anything. He did not go to trial. There was a one in five chance that even his captors would admit to having taken him in error. He refused to eat his dinner. His captors put his food through a blender, anally raped him, and squirted puréed humus and crackers up his rectum. This was done to “exert total control over the detainee” and induce a condition of “learned helplessness.” This ain’t enhanced nothing. Never use that phrase again.
3. Don’t engage in the debate about whether torture produced good information. It doesn’t matter! I don’t want some guy water boarded in my name even if he gives up Bin Laden’s home address. If evil people get you to be evil, they win.
4. Identify anyone who thought up, authorized, signed off on, contracted for, wrote memos in support of, opined on the legality of, or in any other way brought about the culture of torture. Give them a chance to come clean and admit their culpability. If they don’t, prosecute them. I’m talking about a Truth and Reconciliation type procedure. Propose it, sponsor it, push for it.
5. Bruce Jessen and Jim Mitchell are the two “psychologists” who had the major contract for interrogations during which detainees were tortured. They were paid $80 million of my dollars! Get it back. They took it under false pretenses. Denounce them as sick bastards and war profiteers. Do this loudly and frequently.
6. Fire John O. Brennan. Hey Barack, Joe, doesn’t this guy work for you? Did you see him go on TV from inside CIA headquarters and totally contradict your anti-torture stance? Didn’t you feel a little disrespected? How come you’re letting him keep his job? How can the culture of torture be ended at the CIA when the director is a torture apologist? Wait a minute… When you say you are anti-torture, you mean it, don’t you?
7. Identify and acknowledge all the people who resisted torture in the middle of this despicable situation. They are national heroes. Give them the Medal of Honor.

There is a guy named John Kiriakou who is currently serving time for bringing torture to the attention of the press back in 2007. He was prosecuted in 2013 and sent to prison. Ah… excuse me… Barack and Joe, weren’t you guys in office in 2013? Are you sure you mean it when you say you’re anti-torture? Pardon John Kiriakou. Apologize to him. Compensate him. Is one to laugh or cry at the irony of this man, who has five kids, being locked up while Dick Cheney is free to rant and rave on Fox News?

So, Barack, Joe, Jack, Sheldon, James, that is my to do list for you. I know you got a lot on your plates, but, in terms of the soul of this country, there are few things more important than making sure nothing like this ever happens again.

See you at the polls.

Your constituent,

John Kotula

P.S. Obama, Nice job on Cuba!

(You can watch the David Cicilline v. Cormick Lynch CD1 debate here)

News, Weather and Classifieds for Southern New England

In the second segment, Langevin and Reis disagree on the minimum wage. Langevin says he’s open to lowering the corporate tax rate, but would like to see other reforms as well. Reis says Rhode Island doesn’t need to increase workforce training.

News, Weather and Classifieds for Southern New England

RI GOP’s Rob Paquin and I discuss:

News, Weather and Classifieds for Southern New England

• Cicilline, Lynch debate: long on one-liners, loud voices

Here’s his 15 minute speech:

Taking the nation’s temperature, The New York Times reports this headline: “Weary of War, but Favoring Airstrike Plan”. It could as easily apply to Rhode Island’s congressional delegation.

All four supported additional airstrikes and, for various reasons, agreed more troops on the ground would be counterproductive. Here are each of their full statements.

Senator Jack Reed (senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee):

“Tonight, the President made a clear, compelling case that denying these terrorists safe havens will require a targeted, smart, and sustained multi-national effort.

“Like many Americans, I am skeptical of deeper military involvement that could lead to an open-ended conflict.  I don’t want to see more U.S. combat troops on the ground because I think that is what ISIL wants: to try to bog us down in a bloody and costly fight that helps them recruit more terrorists.  Indigenous forces on the ground are going to have to step up.

“This President’s deliberate and thoughtful strategy ensures we will not repeat the mistakes of rushing into ground combat as we did in Iraq in 2003.  Instead, he developed a comprehensive strategy that includes our allies in the region, together with the force of our diplomatic power, intelligence capabilities, and targeted military might.”

Congressman David Cicilline (A member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Cicilline received a national security briefing from Administration officials on Thursday, before issuing this statement):

“Last night, President Obama addressed the nation and outlined a comprehensive strategy to defeat the terrorist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, including increased U.S. military action in the region and military and technical support for our allies. The President reaffirmed his position that our response will not include U.S. combat troops on the ground and the President made clear he has no plans to do so. I strongly support this position.

“It is clear that ISIL poses a serious threat to U.S. national security interests in the region and has expressly threatened the American homeland, and we must do everything we can to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil. We must also remain vigilant as a nation and ensure we’re fully equipped to respond to all threats against America or American personnel. The President laid out a thoughtful strategy to work with Iraqi and Kurdish forces on the ground, as well as a broader international coalition, to defeat this grave danger to U.S. national security interests and regional stability.”

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (Whitehouse visited Syria in January 2013):

“After a decade of war, I share the concerns of many Rhode Islanders about further military engagement, but I also share their alarm over the rising influence of ISIL and their horror over the brutal tactics used by these extremists.  I will continue to oppose the deployment of regular ground troops, but we must take seriously ISIL’s ruthless beheading of Americans, its threat to U.S. personnel and facilities in the region, and its ability to capture territory and resources to conduct terrorist attacks.  I believe the plan outlined by the President tonight – to build a coalition of regional partners and work with the newly formed Iraqi government to drive ISIL out of that country – is the right approach.  I also support expanding our efforts to provide military advice and airstrikes, and arming moderate rebels in Syria – a step I first called for after visiting the region early last year.  Syria and ISIL present a complex set of problems to which there are no easy answers, but I believe President Obama is pursuing the best set of options available to us at this time.

Congressman Jim Langevin (senior member of the House Armed Services Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence):

“The threat posed by ISIS demands the world’s attention and action. They are the very definition of extremist, and their brutality knows no bounds. They have perpetrated unspeakable acts of violence against innocent people, including women, children and religious minorities who have been targeted for their refusal to adhere to an extreme and dangerous set of principles cloaked in religious sentiment.

“Intelligence officials estimate that thousands of Americans and Europeans have joined ISIS fighters, and these individuals could return home with the intent of doing harm to the United States and our allies.

“This terrorist threat, combined with existing sectarian tensions and an Iraqi government that, until now, has marginalized too many of its people, has created a complex challenge in the region, and it will take a multifaceted, collaborative effort to ultimately defeat ISIS. That approach must include a more inclusive government in Iraq, and I am encouraged by the improvements we are starting to see on that front.

“Like so many of my constituents, I do not want to see the United States embroiled in another ground war in the Middle East. We have learned over the past 13 years from our mistakes in Iraq. But on the eve of September 11, a date so deeply ingrained in the minds and hearts of Americans, we remember where we have been, and can see a clearer path forward. Evil cannot be left unchallenged. I applaud the President’s speech tonight as a first step towards addressing this threat, and I appreciate his commitment to working with Congress and keeping the American people informed. Going forward, I expect to hear further details of the timing and scope of the strategy he proposes, and I will continue to exercise rigorous oversight of the military commitment to come.

“The challenges we face are tremendous, but in the face of this adversity, the United States of America is ready to lead a broad coalition of partners in the region and worldwide to address the threat posed by ISIS. And as we face this threat, I continue to be so grateful to the brave men and women of our military. To the service members here and abroad, and to the troops that will join this effort to defeat ISIS, thank you for your tireless commitment to preserving freedom and protecting our country.”