tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN February 25, 2015 6:00am-8:01am EST
does the federal reserve truth and resume data directives or suggestions or what? and what statutory basis does the fed have to implement the financial stability board form verbatim? do you think further the decisions are important enough that they should be fully vetted by the fs oc before being implemented? >> you can see the participate, including the administration of the regulators. nothing that is decided has a factor in the was relevant agencies proposals which are publicly that it to normal public comment process. those recommendations have no force.
unless we go through old rule-making process but there's a good reason for us to participate these international forms. financial markets are global. if we take actions to stiffen supervision and regulation states and other major financial centers that packets to get similar ways we just see activity out of our borders to other parts of the consistent systems so we do want to buy discussions that lead all countries to work harmoniously together to try to raise standards and maintain a level playing field which explains why we participate. and i think we play a lead
role organization. >> but you don't need to accept that recommendation verbatim, do you? >> we do not. and often we put in place separate standards. >> thank you. the "wall street journal" recently reported the federal reserve surcharge of the largest banks is hurting us banks because it is not on par with what form regulators are applying to foreign banks and indicated the fed proposal is going beyond an international standard, roughly doubling the surcharge. we all want our banks well-capitalized. does the fed proposal indicate its belief that foreign banks are not adequately capitalized? that has been said before. they are in deep stress.
>> i will proposal embodies our analysis of the cost to our economy and financial system of possible distress the largest and most systemic organizations. we chose to propose surcharges capitol surcharges is about that we are agreed to internationally because we think of this we will make a financial system safe. there are other jurisdictions that have similarly put in effect super equipment regimes. switzerland is an example and they're are other countries that have gone a similar group.
the proposal is out for comment and we look forward to seeing what happens but we think it is important for the most systemic institutions to distress. >> mdm. chair, some of of the large foreign banks that do business in the us do you hold them to the same capital standards you do our banks? if not, why not? >> we have just put in place a rule pertaining to foreign banking organizations that as they're are sufficiently large things that required to form intermediate holding companies that we will
contain their activities. as a way to subject the the same standards is standards as us firms doing business in our markets. >> in other words the foreign banks should not have an advantage with lower capitol standards that our banks doing business in. >> to the extent they are doing business in this country we are going to subject them to the same standards.
>> i appreciate your bringing attention to those issues with taxpayer workers we will benefit. trade trade is another one of those matters. ohio manufacturers are similar to indiana manufacturers must compete against foreign competitors subsidized. this needs to be addressed. the fdic seeing position to the plant oils as a nation's largest banks not sufficient instead they step back and together you asked for re- submissions of july. i have a couple of questions. i you prepared to declare a living we will submit is not credible, and what actions we will you take if they are deemed insufficient? >> we have worked closely to
give guidance in order to there original. they're are significant changes have asked for some pertaining to the legal structure of critical operations that support an entire organization to remain available to the firm in the situation of distress to simplify and make sure that they have a holding company structure that would be functional promote an orderly bankruptcy. we are working with the firms 1st make sure they
can you expect. we we expect to see the submissions of these plans by july to july of this year >> are you unwilling to accept any of these? you have given us enough information on what to do to comply. >> and if we don't see the progress we expect we are fully declared to declare living wills to be not credible. >> good to here. earlier this month the major story broke of the account holder dated data reveals that this was baking collaborated efforts by killed holders to engage in
tax evasion. i asked ms. coulter with steps have been taken. i gather some had been undertaken. last week prosecutors raided the private bank offices has as part of a knew money-laundering investigation. have a history of major us sanctions and money laundering violations and charges of facilitating tax evasion. you may be unable to address details, but summarize for the committee if you would with the fed would normally do to pursue allegations like these regarding tax evasion by a major financial
institution, how long you would expect it to take, again, not specifically here, but how you would normally do it how long it takes, steps you would normally take. >> we would have some responsibility for this fit effectively operations of a a bank in the united states. in this case the information has been provided for the justice department. the justice department has primary enforcement responsibility related to us tax laws along with the irs and the justice department normally cooperates with us and provides information to us if they think that we would have jurisdiction for the banking was a been violated the united states and that we should take action on the -- in this
case the justice department has not provided this information. >> do you ask them or must they make the 1st move? >> we have not been privy to any of this nation and if they thought it appropriate, we would expect them to reach out to us quex.biz reports suggest that they're is no harm but perhaps reason for you to ask the justice department for some of this, any of this information. >> this is pretty recent reports. >> okay. >> thank you for appearing before the committee. we look forward to further appearances. this we will conclude the hearing. [inaudible conversations]
he and i share a similar background because my mother also was an immigrant and the thought of our moms being ripped out of our lives is just untenable, and we're not going to let it happen, and i want to thank him so much because you know he has just been the -- i would say the grandfather of the whole dreamer movement. so thank you senator. mr. president, we all know republicans won in huge numbers in the 2014 election, and they took over the united states senate and they run it. they run it. or at least they are trying to run it. and let's be clear. less than eight weeks after they took over the senate, we're facing a shutdown, a shutdown of the very agency that protects the health, the safety, the lives of the american people. the department of homeland
security, we are four days away. and even if they come up with a continuing resolution small little patch here, they're shutting down the program that funds our police officers back home our firefighters, our first responders. so any way you look at it, this is a national disgrace. and think about what our friends abroad and those who are not our friends are thinking about this. republicans say we're in danger, we have to go to war put combat troops on the ground, but they're willing to shut down the department that protects americans here in the homeland from a terrorist attack. this is a self-inflicted crisis made up by the republicans. it is dangerous. it is the height of irresponsibility and it is unnecessary, and let me tell you how does it make sense in the
very same week that terrorists are threatening our shopping malls that we would shut down the very agency charged with protecting those malls. how does it make sense, at a time when we are facing serious threats to our national security to furlough 30,000, 30,000 department of homeland security workers and to force more than 100,000 front-line homeland security personnel to work without pay. why don't these senators go without their pay? give up your pay. you want to come to work every day and stand there and look for threats to our homeland and worry about how you're going to pay the bill for your kid? go without pay before you do this. you tell me how that makes sense, not to pay people who are
in charge of our security. it's a disgrace. give up your pay. give up your pay. give up your health care. give up your benefits if this is so important to you. oh no, they'll collect their pay. tell me, how does it make sense to shut off the grants that protect our cities, our ports from terrorist attacks? and how does it make sense to stop local communities from being able to hire police officers and firefighters? you know, the department of homeland security is very, very large. when it was created, i was troubled by that because it includes so many important things in one department, including fema, so that when we have a natural disaster such as an earthquake, fire and a flood that's the department that deals with it. so how does it make sense to destruct disaster recovery
operations like the efforts in california to recover from our devastateing napa quake and the rim fire near yosemite? so not only are they disrupting homeland security and the protection of our perhaps targeted places in america but they are disrupting recovery from -- from natural disasters and god forbid if we had another one. and here's the reason they're doing it. they're throwing a hissy fit because the president stepped in and has a policy to take care of immigration. and why did the president step in? because republicans refused to take up a bipartisan bill and pass it and take care of the immigration problem the way they're supposed to. they're paralyzed on that point. they can't do it.
we had a bill that garnered 6 votes in the last congress. all they have to do is bring it up pass it here, pass it in the house. it will pass by overwhelming majorities. the president will sign it and that would make his executive orders unnecessary. the only reason he issued executive orders is we're facing a crisis here with 11 million undocumented folks, some of whom are these dreamers which is the most important category to me of young people who were brought here when they were children. they know no other home. all they want to do is stay here and give back to america. they want to deport them and they want to deport their parents and they want to deport the parents of american citizens citizens. i thank god these people weren't in charge of the congress when i was growing up because they might have deported my mother. it took her awhile to get through her naturalization.
what if they had passed something like that? i thought they were the party of family values. show me where that's true. ripping families apart. i thought they're the party of economic prosperity. show me how that's true when we know from study after study that one of the greatest things we can do for our economy and job creation is get people out of the shadows so they can go and buy a home and hold a good job. they can't or won't pass an immigration bill. they will not do their job. so when the president steps in and does his job they say "oh this is terrible. let's shut down a totally unrelated department, the department of homeland security." now, again i say let's look at
fiscal responsibility. according to the center for american progress, it would cost more than $50 billion to deport the entire population -- to deport the entire population that the president is protecting protecting. and here's the deal. i never heard a republican -- and i will stand corrected if any republican corrects me -- i never heard of a republican complaining when president eisenhower used his executive order power to help immigrants, when president nixon did the same thing to protect immigrants when president ronald reagan their hero, protected immigrants when george bush sr. protected immigrants which george w. bush protected immigrants. they all used their authority. show me one republican that
stood up and said, "oh, this is outrageous. let's impeach the president." but it's president obama and they're annoyed because he won twice. sorry. sorry. wake up and smell the roses. he is the president. and he is doing the right thing for america because he loves america. and he understands that these are a people who are going to help america move on to an era of greatness and keep going. now, here are the people republicans want to support. there are young people like alex bux a 21-year-old student from central california. he's the oldest of three siblings. the younger two were born in the u.s. but he wasn't. okay? so these great family value republicans want to rip away the
oldest child from the family. his parents were farm workers in the fields of san joaquin valley. alexis received immigration relief under daca. in 2012. and he'll transfer to u.c.-san diego this fall where he will pursue his dream of a career in biomedical engineering. so tell me, republicans how is our country better when you deport a young man like this? he hopes to use his education to develop sophisticated medical applications and tools to help cure deadly diseases. all he wants to do is contribute to this nation that he loves. if the republicans had their way way, they'd deport people like anan albaran who left new mexico at aim age eight -- age eight they came here -- to join her brothers and sisters and her
parents. her parents worked 11 hours a day for a landscaping company in downtown los angeles. after ana received immigration relief she felt confident to begin applying for jobs and now she's finishing her final year at u.c.-merced so she can begin her career as a by bilingual first grade teacher. so tell me republicans be, how does it make sense to deport people like ana and split her up from her parents when all they want to do is contribute to the country that they love? how does it make sense? how does it make sense? because you're too incompetent to hold a vote on your immigration plan? you want to kick people out of the country? put it to a vote, let's go. you want to deport 11 million people? put it to a vote. don't hide behind the homeland security bill and holding the president's work hostage. you never did it to the other presidents. don't do it to this president.
how does it make sense to deport these moms, these dads, these young kids? i mentioned before that i am the daughter of an immigrant mother. you know, i try to think of what my life would be without my mother. she gave me my conscience. she gave me my values. she gave me all the love and support i needed to pursue my dreams. a daughter of an immigrant mother who never graduated from high school in the united states senate. but they would have deported my mother. i wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for my mom. so you tell me how it makes sense to deport moms and dads and rip apart the lives of children. our national security is at stake.
our national security is at stake. our family values are at stake. and the our economy is at stake here. so get over the fact that you don't like the president. we get it. you couldn't beat him. too bad for you. but you're in charge here in the senate. do your job. bring an immigration bill to the floor. let's let this homeland security bill go. it's a bipartisan bill. it's funding for the most important thing we're doing today. let it go. don't hold it hostage to your hatred of this president. and i use that word because that's what i think. that's what i think. in california alone the president's executive actions could boost california's economy by as much as $27.5 billion.
the president's action will aid our economy it will raise the nation's gross domestic product by up to $90 billion over the next 10 years by expanding the labor force and allowing immigration workers the flexibility to seek new jobs. why is that the case? why does every independent study show us this is the case? the reason is simple -- when workers come out of the shadows their wages rise they open bank accounts they buy homes they start businesses and they spend money in their communities. so i say to my republican friends there's a presidential race coming. forget this last one. get over it, okay? let's work together. listen, i served with five presidents. i'm a strong democrat. everyone will tell you that. but i had respect for the office of the presidency. if i didn't agree with ronald reagan, i came down here and
said it. but we had -- we had the respect back and forth. if we lost we lost, we moved on. and that went both ways. i know what it is not to like the policies of a president. i get it. but don't overdo it and make it so personal. get on with it. grow up. do your job. you know? do your job. have respect for the office of the presidency. don't suddenly say executive orders are bad when the president you don't like does it but you don't say one word when a republican president does the same thing. it doesn't pass the smell test. so three things couldn't be more important in this battle. we need to fund our department of homeland security especially at this time whether we face serious threats -- when we face serious threats to our security.
we need to uphold our family values and not split up loving families. and we need to protect and grow our economy. we can do this in the simplest way. first, bring up -- i say to the house leader boehner, speaker boehner, because under the constitution all funding bills start in the house. send us a clean bill the bill that everybody supported before you made it hostage to this immigration issue. send it over clean. let's fund everything in that bill to protect our shopping malls, to give grants to first responders to give grants to our local police and fire. send it over, we'll pass it. and immediately following bring up an immigration bill. we've got it all ready for you. it passed with68 votes. not much work to do.
and then the president's executive orders will not be necessary because we'll have taken the steps ourselves to fix our broken immigration system. let's stop the lawsuits. we've got one judge who said there was overreach. a next judge may say there's no no overreach. let's keep this out of the court. let's do our jobs. let's stop this self-inflicted crisis. let's stop this shadow that's hanging over the nation. let's do the right thing here. we can protect the american people from threats to our national security. we can protect and grow our economy. and we can treat hardworking immigrants and their families with the dignity and respect that they deserve. it all lies in the hands of speaker boehner and leader mcconnell. when you took over the senate you said, no more threats of
shutdowns. eight weeks later not even we're facing, you know, a shutdown of one of the most important departments. this is a disgrace. it's self-inflicted. all you have to do is talk to speaker boehner send over a clean bill. we'll vote it and then we'll take up immigration and you can show us all your great ideas on immigration. let's hear them. you want to deport the dreamers? come on with it. we'll have a vote. you want to deport the parents? come on with it. we'll have a vote. you want to kick 11 million people out? come on with it. we'll have a vote on it, we'll have a debate. but don't hold the department of homeland security hostage to this issue. if there's one thing the american people hate more than anything else is attaching unrelated matters to spending bills. i don't care if they're conservative republicans or liberal democrats or independent
voters. they think it is the dumbest idea, they really do. they don't understand it. pass your funding bills. then battle your ideological issues separately and apart from that. don't hold these departments hostage to your decision that president obama did the wrong thing. if you don't like what he did put forward your own bill. you haven't even done that. i've been here a long time. i'll tell you something i've never seen anything like this. a self-inflicted wound. and who gets hurt? not the republicans. they'll keep getting their pay. they're fine. but the people that we trust and we count on and the families that thought they could stay together, they were on the verge of that. this is what this party the grand old party the g.o.p.
this is what they have brought. but they can get out of it in five minutes. speaker boehner can pass a funding bill. it will pass in a heartbeat. send it over here. we'll pass it. we'll turn to immigration and have it out on that subject. i think it's worthy of a debate. but you don't hold an important funding bill hostage to that debate. it is ridiculous unnecessary destructive and cruel. and with that, i would yield the floor mr. cornyn: mr. president as my colleagues know, for weeks now senate democrats have repeatedly blocked the united states senate from even considering a $40 billion funding bill for the department of homeland security that would extend through the end of this fiscal year, the end of september. they've done it not once, not twice, not three times but four
times -- four times they've filibustered this department of homeland security funding bill that would pay the salaries of the men and women who protect our ports our airports, and our border. meanwhile, our friends across the aisle are telling the american people, no, it's not us that's blocking this funding; i.t. the republicans. don't the democrats don't seem satisfied with the ability to offer amendments to change it or modify it in any way that they can command 60 votes to do. their attitude is, we're not even going to consider it,
unless we get everything we want right up front. well i guess i can kind of understand why they are of this frame of mind. because over the last few years the united states senate has become completely dysfunctional where under the previous majority leader, there wasn't any opportunity to offer amendments and get votes on those amendments on llings sms it was either -- on legislation. it was a my way or the highway proposition. but what i'm saying is, in other words, the senate was broken and a after years of running the senate as an incumbent protection program voting only on poll-tested messages, the american people said last november that enough is enough. no more dysfunction let's have a senate and a congress that represents our interest, not the interests of protecting incumbents against taking tough
votes. so i think our colleagues who have blocked consideration of this funding amendment should be frankly ashamed of themselves. it doesn't seem like they've gotten the message. the senior senator from new york my friend, senator summer, a member of leadership told "the huffington post" recently that -- quote -- "it's really fun to be in the minority. i guess he means by that it's fun to block homeland security appropriations bills not once, not twice not three times but four separate times. but filibustering this critical funding for the men and women who protect us every day is not my idea of fun. nor is it, i suspect for the thousands of men and women who work in the department of homeland security from the coast
guard to the border patrol to all of the people that work day in and day out to try to help keep us safe in the homeland. when given the opportunity four times over the last few weeks to fully fund the department of homeland security, while rolling back the president's unconstitutional executive action four times senate democrats have taken the low road and continued to obstruct. now, we pointed out over the last several weeks the tough talk that came from some senate democrats last fall when the president issued his executive action on immigration. back when the president made clear his intent to follow through with a series of unilateral actions that he had previously said on 22 different occasions he didn't have the authority to do. 22 times the president said publicly he didn't have the authority to do it, and last
november after being encouraged to wait until after the election so it didn't have negative blow-back on people running for the senate, he went ahead and did it anyway. as i've noted before, some of our colleagues on the other side expressed their concerns at the time. some said it made them feel uncomfortable, and some said i wish he wouldn't do it. well no kidding. when the president usurps the authority given under the constitution to the legislative branch of government and seeks to arrogate to himself the power to unilaterally change the law they should feel uncomfortable. one by one these same folks who were so concerned and so uncomfortable with what the president did last november have come down to the floor and voted in lock step.
they voted in effect to reaffirm the president's actions. now, in justifying these votes we heard the common refrain we don't necessarily agree with the president's executive actions but an appropriation bill is not the proper vehicle to address them. that's what they said time and time again. so now we have a pretty simple and straightforward message to our democratic friends who were so concerned and so uncomfortable and who wish the president hadn't gone around congress on immigration. we're here to say here's your chance. this week the senate will take up a bill that would address the president's executive actions last -- that were announced last november. senator mcconnell, the majority leader made clear last night this targeted bill is not tied to department of homeland security funding. and under the regular rules of the senate, the process that he
set in order last night will come to fruition on friday and that will be the time for all of our colleagues on this side of the aisle and the ones on this side who expressed disapproval of the president executive action to vote for a bill that expresses that disapproval the so-called collins bill. now, my strong preference would be to pass the house bill that's been filibustered four separate times by our democratic friends because it fully funds the department while reining in the president's overreach. but since the democrats have refused on four different occasions to even allow the bill to come to the floor with the excuse that it's tied to department of homeland security funding, we're going to give them an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is. in other words we're going to see if they can take yes for an
answer. and if all the occasions where my colleagues said they were uncomfortable with the president's actions aren't enough if the 22 times the president himself said he didn't have the authority to issue this executive action, well, we now know during the recess from last week that a federal judge in texas has given us one more reason. a week ago u.s. district judge andrew hanen in brownsville, texas ruled in a lawsuit brought by 26 different states including texas that what the president the was illegal and he issued a temporary injunction blocking implementation of the president's executive action. now, if that were the end of it any amount of money that was appropriated by the congress to fund the department of homeland security could not legally be used to fund the
president's executive action because there is an injunction in place issued by a federal court that says you can't do it. and indeed, the administration has acknowledged that, they've stood down, but now they've come back to the judge and asked for a stay of the judge's temporary injunction. they say if they don't get they'll go to if you the fifth circuit court of appeals in new orleans and ask the appellate court to stay the judge's temporary injunction. judge hanane's ruling reinforced what i and others have been saying saying for a long time now, that the president acted outside of the law when he went around congress to unilaterally change our nation's immigration laws. but the judge's ruling gets to a broader issue and there's one part of it that i've found particularly important. in writing his opinion explaining his ruling, judge
hainen looked at the obama administration's case and imagined how you could take their argument and apply it across the board. now, it's easy to overlook an overreach by the president if you perhaps agree with what he actually accomplished. which is in effect to give legal status to roughly five million people. if you think that's a good idea you're likely to turn a blind eye to the way that the president did it. but if the courts establish the precedent that this president or any future president republican or democrat, can just figure pub and choose which laws to enforce what could end up happening? well it doesn't take a lot of imagination. judge hainen writes -- quote -- "then a lack of resources which
is the argument made by the administration then a lack of resources would be an acceptable reason to cease enforcing environmental laws, or the voting rights act or even various laws that protect civil rights and equal opportunity." that's what judge hainen said in his opinion in repudiating the argument made by the administration that the president had this authority. and talking about what kind of dangerous present it -- precedent it would set if it was accepted by the court as legal. now, i'm sure i'm not the only one who would mate eight to see our country head down that lawless path where the laws don't mean -- make any difference it's just what the preference of whoever's president that determines the direction the country should take. that's a dangerous path, completely inconsistent with who we are and a country that
believes in the rule of law. so now that the president's actions have been settled in the court of public opinion where they're deeply unpopular and ruled upon by a court of law my friends from the other side of the aisle need to take note because they have a very clear choice. they can continues to give excuses for why they are filibustering this $40 billion homeland security appropriation bill or as i said, they can put their money where their mouth is and vote to stop the president's 2014 executive action separate and apart from any issue of funding of the department of homeland security. at the end of the day the senate will make sure that the people who protect our borders and our ports and our skies get paid because that's the responsible thing to do. but senate democrats who were so concerned and so uncomfortable with what the president did last
fall are out of excuses and they're going to have a chance to vote on the collins amendment on friday or at some other time mutually agreed upon by the majority and the minority. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader is recognized. mr. durbin: mr. president i listened carefully to the remarks of my friend and my colleague from texas and i would like if we have a moment if he would join me and walk out this door take a sharp left and stop at the staircase and look up and you'll see this amazing portrait that has been copied and referred to over and over again. it is an incredible painting that shows president abraham lincoln signing the amen's paying proclamation in the midst of the civil war surrounded by his cabinet.
this proclamation freed three million slaves in america from involuntary servitude three million. was the president signing a bill that had been passed by congress? no. he was signing an executive order. the same type of executive order used by president obama to address the issue of immigration. all right senator durbin, you've found one moment in history, there couldn't be very many more according to the arguments you've heard on the floor. let's fast forward to the late 1940's with president harry truman. harry truman after world war ii decided to finally end racial discrimination in the ranks of our military. how did he do it? by signing a law passed by congress? no. he signed an executive order ending the discrimination and segregation taking place in our military. i don't argue that presidents can exceed their constitutional powers.
it's happened. but to argue that executive orders that have been used by president after president are inherently unconstitutional just defies any accurate, honest reading of history. here's some realities -- the immigration system in the united states of america today is broken broken terribly to the point where we may have 12 million, 13 million undocumented people in this country, where our borders are stronger now than they've ever been but still have to be fortified to make sure that we don't have the unnecessary migration of people into the united states and illegal status. there's so many things we need to do to fix this broken immigration system and we addressed them. 0 two years ago eight senators came together, four democrats four republicans i was honored to be part of it and we sat down for months and wrote a comprehensive immigration reform bill. we brought it to the floor of the senate, after considering 100 amendments in the judiciary
committee and it passed on the floor with 68 positive votes 14 republicans joining the democrats for a bipartisan bill supported by the chamber of commerce, the afl-cio conservatives and liberals across america. pretty good work for a congress that's blamed many times for being obstructionist. passed it with 68 votes sent it to the u.s. house of representatives where it languished for almost two years, never being called for a vote. neñ -- never. and at that point the president stepped forward and said, i have to do something to deal with the problems of illegal immigration in america. here's what he proposed: two things, basically. he said, if you are here in america, the parent of a child who is a u.s. citizen or the parent of of a child who is a legal resident alien, you can come forward pay about $500 as a fee subject yourself to a
criminal background check and if you clear it where you've committed no serious crimes and are no threat to america then we will give you a temporary work permit to be in the united states and work. we want to know who you are where you live. the members of your family, and where you work. that's what the president proposed and that's what they want to stop. and so we would continue the current situation with millions of undocumented people working without background checks, working without any registration to this government, so we know their whereabouts and what they do. that's what they want to end. they think the president went way too far in setting up this process. i think they're wrong. the republicans had a chance to pass comprehensive immigration bill and they refused. and in refusing, they left the president no alternative. he's trying to make some sense out of a broken immigration system. it would be better in the republicans joined us in the house and the senate in a bipartisan effort to achieve that but the last point i want
to make is this: i think one of the heartless things i have seen is the effort by the republicans to end daca. diddaca was the protection the president gave to dreamers, children brought to america -- children infants toddlers, young kids -- brought to america by their kids, grew up in america, went to school, have no serious criminal issues in their background who simply want the chance to be part of america's future. that's all they're asking for. the president's executive order gives them that chance to approve themselves, and the republicans want to eliminate that order. i don't understand it. if they would take the time to meet some of these young people, they'd realize what a waste it would be of of such great skill and talent and love of america. i'll close i see my friend and colleague, senator murray here. i say this: we are a i guess in a of immigrants. our -- we are a nation of
immigrants. our diversity is our strength. the people who are willing to risk everything in their lives to come to this country and be part of this great american experiment, they have a chance for a better life. that is what defines us. that is who we are. i stand here and i've said it so many times and proudly so, the son of an immigrant mother who was brought here at the age of two. she was the first dreamer in my house. and she raised this son to serve in the united states senate. that's my story. that's my family's story. that's america's story. it is time for us to fund the department of homeland security. and then have an honest debate about an immigration policy consistent with american values. i yield the floor. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i want to thank the senator from illinois for his passionate remarks that are -- ring so true to all of us and to thank him for all of his work on the dream act and making sure that young people who are raised huer in this country have the
opportunity -- raised here in this country have the opportunity that all of us do. thank you. mr. president, as we count down the final days before funding for the department of homeland security runs out i want to take a few minutes to talk about how we got to this point because as this deadline gets closer and closer, i've been continually reminded that we have been down this road many times before, and really this is a manufactured crisis, and it is no different than so many others we have faced in congress over the last few years. because, mr. president what is happening in congress right now is not a debate over government spending policies or priorities. the that much is certain. this is not a debate over how the department of homeland security should function, and it's certainly not a debate about our national security. this is, pure and simple, a political fight republicans are having with themselves across the two chambers of the capitol and across the different factions of the republican party. now, that's not the case for every republican here in the
senate. several members have said, clearly, we should fund the department of homeland security without any strings attached. but, mr. president the fact remains that some republicans are making it clear they are willing to hold hostage the basic operation of our government over right-wing politics and nothing else. and while this process might seem complicated it's actually very simple. democrats, along with national security experts, law enforcement experts state and local officials and three former secretaries of homeland security including two republicans, want to do nothing more than fund the department of homeland security cleanly; no strings or unrelated political amendments attached. but, mr. president because they are so angry about the president's actions months ago to improve our country's
immigration laws, some republicans are demanding to pass a bill that will tear apart families who are working hard to make it in america put our security at risk, and seriously threaten all of the work we've done recently, including the budget agreement i reached with congressman paul ryan to keep our government functioning. that's not only bad policy, it doesn't make any sense. the bill passed by speaker boehner and house republicans would be devastating to families across the country and it would make day-to-day operations for the department of homeland security needlessly difficult. for example t.s.a. agents who work to keep our airports safe and secure would be forced to work without pay. now, mr. president these men and women should not be worrying about doing their jobs, not -- doing their jobs, not whether they're going to be able to pay their bills and put food on the table much that's not what we want them worrying b but because
of political pressure from the extreme anti-immigration right wing of the party that's what republican leaders in the house are demanding. this looming shutdown of the department of homeland security has become, to them, nothing more than collateral damage. mr. president, the national impacts of national funding the department of homeland security have been discussed for weeks now, but you know what? this would also cause problems all the way down it individual fire departments in our local communities. right now the watt kin watkin county fire district an hour north of seattle, they are applying for assistance to firefighters grant, which is funded through the department of homeland security. this is a very rural fire district. they have only one paid employee happens to be the fire cheervetion alongchief, along with a volunteer fire fighting force and a volunteer e.m.t. force of six.
they have applied for a very small, $24,000 federal grant to realreplace their heavery used and outdated equipment everything from boots and helmets that are now over 11 years old. i have been working with them to get that equipment which protects those volunteers who put their lives on the line to save others. but if congress doesn't fund this department, those grants are at risk and that is unacceptable. and it's proof that this political mess that republicans have made isn't a hypothetical problem. it is something that will have real impacts in every one of our communities across the country. so mr. president my colleagues are not going to give in and let republicans play politics with the department of homeland security. for years now, by the way we've seen that that strategy doesn't work. it only holds us back. i am encouraged that the majority leader has said that they are willing to bring up a clean department of homeland security appropriations bill to
the floor. we need the same commitment from the speaker of the house of representatives. time is running out. the country is waiting. we need to fund homeland security. thank you mr. president. i yiel and >> and now live to look to forbritish prime minister's question time. each week the house of commons is in session we bring you prime minister david cameron taking questions from members of the house of commons live wednesday mornings here on c-span2. we invite your participation in the atwitter using hashtag
pmqs. prior to question the members are finishing up other business. and now live to the floor of the british house of commons. >> number 10. >> there's clear consent change is needed to address the anomalies in our arrangement, but no consensus on what forum is change should be. the solution must be fair to all parts of the united kingdom and strengthen the link between a family of nations so recently reaffirmed in the referendum in scotland. >> does he agree most scots unlike the labour party recognize the unfairness of intervening into english schools, english health and english council now those
matters have been defaults from scotland? >> i think i've already acknowledged, mr. speaker that there are substantial anomalies within our arrangements. i would caution him about being too enthusiastic about replacing these anomalies with one which could potentially be even bigger. >> order. questioned to the prime minister. mr. john woodcock. >> number one, mr. speaker. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this morning i had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this house, i shall have further such meetings later today. >> mr. john woodcock. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the report in ukraine -- combined efforts have been woefully lacking against president putin's naked aggression. when he leaves office in 70 days -- [laughter]
[shouting] >> when he leaves office in 70 days these content with his place in history to be the prime minister whose weakness -- years of conflict? >> at the end of this parliament i believe those on this side of the house can be proud of the fact that we closed the massive blackhole in our defense budget left by the party opposite. we can be proud of the fact that we see voyager airplanes flying. we can be proud of the fact we are building two aircraft carriers. we can be proud of the fact -- we can be proud of the fact that submarines are rolling out of his constituency and into the seas of the atlantic to keep our country safe. >> sir william cash. >> thank you very much mr. speaker. my right honorable friend strongly supported by
gentlemanly quality act last you to protect women and girls. my report on the credibility protect young girls and women at risk gain 272 votes. there were many deliberate extensions but it was defeated by a three line coalition with. following a lesson before they're part states several matters remained unresolved, i tried to intervene but wasn't allowed to do so. will my right honorable friend right to be and explain how these young girls and women will be fully protected under these guidelines under this act and otherwise a? >> first of all can recommend my right auto by fred for his bill and for the campaign that he has waged in favor of that bill and for equality in how we deliver aid and his final a? on the specific issue of the piece of legislation is referring to my understanding is that we believe that the law as
traffic comes a point that he's concerned about. i will of course right to the limit absolutely clear i think the work that we're doing, think support right across the house in terms of combating forced marriage and making sure that our real rights for women in our country across the world is a vital importance. >> ed miliband. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, the repetition of every member of this house is damaged when we see revelations as we have the last couple of days. can i take it from the government's amendment today on second jobs that is proposing a change to the current system? >> well, first of all let me start by agreeing very much with the right honorable gentleman that the allegations made against two very senior members of this house of commons are extremely serious. they need to be properly investigated. i believe that both the right honorable gentleman had done the right thing in terms of referring themselves to the
house of commons standards commissioner, in terms of having to whip withdrawn and to be retiring from the south. i think that is vitally important. i think the most important thing we can do, and assorted do, and that's what we don't rule out further changes, but the most important thing is to make sure we apply the rules. paid lobbying ban non-declaration address banned. making sure wrongdoing is investigated and punished. we are not making no change. we have just passed a lobbying act and we've also passed a recall out so people can sack they are mp. >> he doesn't rule out further change in the has a chance to vote for change tonight. this is why he wrote in 2009 being a member of parliament -- >> order. the questions will be heard and the answers will be heard. the very simple point which i hope everyone can grasp. mr. ed miliband. >> this is what he wrote in 2009, being a member of parliament must be a full-time
commitment. the public deserves nothing less. and he went on to say and i quote, double jobbing in piece won't get a looking when i am in charge. what changed? >> i think the difficulty -- in silico specifics. the difficulty with a specific proposal is it would allow, for instance, someone to be a paid trade union official but it wouldn't allow someone to run the family business or a family shop. like many of his proposals, it's not thought through, it's whipped up very quickly. if you thought it was such a good idea why didn't he put it in place four years ago? >> let's agree now that we will rule out anyone being a paid trade union official, a paid director, a paid director or a paid consultant. say yes and we can restore the reputation of this house. [shouting]
>> let me give them -- let me answer very clearly. [shouting] >> order. home your self. i say you are about to explode, man. get a grip. we must to the answer from the prime minister. >> it's not the only problem with this proposal. let me -- [shouting] let me take another problem with this proposal with his cap on earnings, and legacy this. let me take a specific example. let me take a very specific example. the honorable -- i've got as long as it takes as long as it takes. let you take a very specific proposal. the honorable member for stokes said was labour's education spokesman. now, he earned last year over a 10% cap in terms of being a college lecture. now, i happen to think that's a very good thing. he brings to this house some
outside experience and he talks upup that experience but i guess it's a pity it doesn't show up in his education policy, but nonetheless it is a good thing. it's fundamentally there is a disagreement between the right honorable gentleman and me. i think parliament is stronger when we have people with different experiences coming to our house. but we must impose strict rules and punish people when they get it wrong. >> definitely, let's agree to the principle of the captain we can consult on the level of the cap but what's in the motion today is something very specific. which is being a paid director for a paid consultant. now, i've said from this dispatch box that we've also been people being a trade union official. the offer he made to meet. i repeated the offer to him. let's get it done. let's a great to restore the reputation of this house. yes or no? >> the problem is the proposal in front of us allows paid trade
union officials but doesn't allow someone to run the family business. i have to say, mr. speaker mr. speaker, -- [shouting] the problem with this proposal is not just the nature of the proposal. there's also a problem with the timing of his proposal. the first put forward two years ago in the previous year and the done summer, the person with the highest outside of earning on the labour side was david miliband. [shouting] he hasn't thought it through. he has worked it out. it's totally inconsistent. it's almost like every other policy comes up with. >> ed miliband. >> so he's worried about the precise text of the motion. i'm very happy by whatever means we can, manuscript the amendment
to insert paid trade union officials, and he has a chance and all of this right honorable friends -- [shouting] this is a very big test. you can vote for two jobs or you can vote for one. i will be voting for one job. what will he be voting for? >> where, what i think leader of the opposition is absolutely right, and he put this in his letter to be this week is he says this. the british people need to know that when they vote their electing someone who will not be swayed by what they may out to the interest of others. and i think the biggest problem we have on that front is the fact that trade union movement owns the labour party lock stock and barrel. [shouting] >> let me, let me -- [shouting] so i make an offer to him. no more support for trade unions for the labour party then we've got a deal.
[shouting] >> if he wants to talk about party funding, let's talk about the party bought and sold by the hedge fund. [shouting] a man, a man who appointed a self-declared tax avoid or as his treasure. that's the conservative party. he's got one more chance. he talked a big in opposition about change. he is going to be judged on the way he votes tonight. he should vote for one job, not too. last chance, yes or no? >> the problem with members of parliament being swayed by outside interests is best seen in this one example. this parliament, the first in the history of britain has passed an act on lobbying. the labour party has been lobbied by the trade union to get rid of this act. what have they agreed? they agreed to scrap the lobbying act. that is what they have done.
they are owned lock stock and block a vote by the trade union. [shouting] >> thank you. [shouting] >> thank you mr. speaker, and thank you for the well. i have harangued the prime minister in many previous occasions to do more on nuisance goal. so it is right today that i thank the government for the announcement made on the subject this morning. but, of course moldable consumers will still be targeted today and tomorrow by vicious skimmers who will pay no heed to this announcement. so can i politely ask you will do all he can to help me set up a national scheme to protect these vulnerable consumers both in his constituency and denying? >> i will certainly look at the specific suggestion the honorable gentleman makes but
can announce today where changing the law to make it easier for companies to be hit with fines of up to half a million pounds if they pursue these nuisance calls. i think this'll be welcomed up and down the country. i say this as i'm sure parts on also that house will be doing a little bit of like telephone canvassing and talking to people but it should never be done nagging people are being a nuisance which is what can happen, and proper punishments are being brought in today. >> it cost 40% more to train a teacher in northern ireland than it does in england. does the prime minister share my concern that despite commitments to tackle the cause of secession and the agreement, other parties have blocked attempts to desegregate teacher training in a way that would -- and that's a suggestion as the destiny that the commitments to a future are not worth the paper they're written on? >> what i would say and i think we are in agreement to this is what we've got to do is make sure we do break down the barriers between communities
come and at us with a shared future agenda is all about the the agreement should make that move faster. wewe're beginning to see shared campuses for education institutions in northern ireland, but now i think we need to see the source of things she's talking about shared approaches a teacher train and other things which can reduce costs and deliver a better service to that's what the agreement should be about. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last friday was my fourth jobs there. and was attended by over 13 local companies and over 700 job seekers. with the prime minister congratulate all those who have got jobs are started apprenticeships since 2010 where on employment has fallen by 36% just the last you showing our long-term economic plan is working to. [shouting] >> i pay tribute to my honorable friend who works tirelessly to support his constituents and i think these job fairs that many members have taken part in and
run into huge amount in terms of making sure local people can see the opportunities that are being opened up by a successful and growing economy. the claimant count has fallen by 54% since the election with long-term use claimant count falling by 50% in the last year alone. that shows as the oecd themselves said yesterday britain has long-term economic plan, it's working, and we should stick to it. >> mr. speaker, as we've heard the prime minister and a leader of the opposition agreed that the repetition of politics needs improving, but would he agree that the latest format put for by the broadcasters for tv election debates will contribute to that, the broadcasters need to realize -- [inaudible]
so will he agree with us to go back to the broadcasters, demand a rethink on the basis of justice and fairness and that the come forward with a proposal that he and the rest of us can agree to? >> i have a lot of sympathy what the honorable gentleman says. my argument was you couldn't include one minor party without another minute party. and obvious i was referring specifically to the greens on that occasion, but now having decided to include the others, there does seem to be a difficulty in not addressing the question. certainly my party stands in every part of the united kingdom's i do think that is important but i'm sure his case will be taken seriously. >> following the chancellors significant commitment to london last week to create half a million jobs to build 100,000 new homes and 10 billion pounds
in transport infrastructure to with the agree this is just a long-term economic plan for london but a stark contrast to other parties who only offer london a mansion tax, with a great to make london the greatest capital city on earth? >> i think my right honorable friend is correct, because this plan for london is about being incredibly ambitious and trying to outpace the growth of new york adding 614 billion pounds to the london economy by 2030. that is what we trying to do to see a higher growth rate. we've created something like half a million extra jobs since the election in london. we need to keep on with the progress. as the oecd suggested, uk as a textbook case or is this becoming a best practice how good labour market and good product market reform can support growth and job creation. my message to you today is well done. well done so far but finished the job if you have a long-term
economic plan but you need to stick with it. that is the view of the oecd and the public should be back by everyone in our country. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last week three young women from my constituency left their homes, travel to -- >> order. stop this question again. the honorable lady has an extremely serious question to ask at it must be heard by members on both sides with courtesy. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last week three young women from my constituency left their homes, traveled to turkey and now thought to have been smuggled into syria. their families are devastated. i know the prime minister is making every effort to find them and encourage the return. will be set up an urgent inquiry into these events to usher families, schools, mosques youth clubs, and all agencies are guided on how they can better protect our young people? >> i think the honorable lady is
absolute right to raise this heartbreaking case which are also discussed in the house on monday. clearly anyone who saw the parents on the television talking about their children couldn't help but be moved by their plight. what i've done is ask the home secretary to look urgently with the transport secretary at all the protocols we have in place of that young people and traveling and what airlines do and what we can do. my understanding is that the police did respond relatively quickly in terms of informing the turkish authorities, and what the turkish deputy prime minister said about a three-day delay is not accurate but there are lessons to learn but i suspect the lessons will be not just that we can tie an arrangement on airplane and at our borders but also we all have a responsibility schools, parents, families, communities universities, colleges all have a responsible to fight this radicalization of young people's minds. >> thank you, mr. speaker. tomorrow the minister forces will be signing our local deal,
deal which will deliver to bridges for work and come infrastructure that has been much-needed for the past 30 years. will the prime minister agreed that i could finally addressing infrastructure needs like this demonstrate the commitment to the northwest which is completely lacking in the last government? >> i pay tribute to my honorable friend whose campaign consisted on this issue when it finishes his constituency within. he should be the difference that it is going to make to warrington south from the announcements being made. as a result of implementing the local bridge to expected able to pursue with construction of a high level bridge crossing the ship cannot come in high level crossing will open up a substantial area of land for development south of war into the town center. this will provide traffic relief, resilience am also jobs and homes and livelihoods, and that's what our long-term plan is all about. >> thank you, mr. speaker.
why did the prime minister didn't appropriate to -- outsource what his response to my constituents question would political correspondence manager housed in number 10 downing street. on a conservative -- its contents referring to a conservative manifesto and the conservative government's legislation and concluded in the hope that day, i presume the conservative party, mr. speaker could rely upon my constituents support for many years to come. no member of this house is permitted to use our polimetrix offices for political party campaigning. number 10 downing street does not become the property of the incumbent political party. so will the prime minister apologize not only to my constituents but to the country for the gross misuse of national sovereignty? >> i will take the honorable
lady, if the letter was sent from her to me to be answered, but those letters should always be answered by the prime minister to other members of parliament and i will look at what happened in the case but let me put on record how hard the correspondent unit worked because they get thousands of letters including from members of parliament every week of you but i will look into that and make sure she gets a proper reply from me. but let me say to all those living in hampton they will begin lots of letters from in the coming weeks. [shouting] >> last week my right honorable friend -- rail services, including -- [inaudible] he may be where some people in the house want a long review of franchise competition leaving possibly to re- national institution to railways but i wonder if interested the delays
and misery this would cause the commuter travelers in a switch, norwich, up and down the great mainline. if this were to ever happen. >> first of all let me take my honorable friend for the work that he's done and other mps have done to press for better rail services. we have a very clear view which was we want to achieve its which in 60 minutes, norwich in 90 minutes and that is what these reforms are all about. i think on this day because he uzbeks quite a lot of noise office is one thing happy birthday to the shadow chancellor. and part of the aim of this when he has plenty of time after the election he will be able to get these norwich city in just 90 minutes. i think it's only fair he getting a birthday present every week so i thought i would give him one today. >> extremely grateful, mr. speaker,. the united states citizens and
congressmen faced a cap on earnings of 15%, why is appropriate for them but not for us? >> i think this issue, if the cap is such a good idea why i'll win a voting on in the house of commons tonight? if you want evidence that labour's policy has been written on the back of a backpack it that tells you all you need to know. obviously, with plain paper packaging we're going to be helping to have more room to help their policies on. >> sir peter tapsell. >> may i assure my right honorable friend -- >> order. order. sir peter must be properly hurt. order. from start to finish. sir peter. >> may i assure my right honorable friend dot i am not a paid trade union official. [laughter] that i fear that these people in
this house are not allowed a second job, that membership of it will soon be largely comprised to the inheritors of substantial fortunes or too rich spouses, and were too obsessive crackpots -- [laughter] or to those who are unemployable anywhere else. [laughter] [shouting] >> i just want to be clear, the father of the house does not fit into any one of those categories. by think he makes an important point. i think parliament is stronger because we have people with different experience. when you look around this parliament we've actually got practicing doctors in this house, practicing dentist people who take part serving our
country in afghanistan or iraq, and we do the people who run family businesses or have other interest. what you want is a parliament that actually where people can come and share their experience and make some points but instead of just having a whole lot of trade union sponsored ciphers. [shouting] >> thank you, mr. speaker. i asked the prime minister this question for andy didn't answer. how many jobs should an mp have a? >> what i would say, at the moment i am both a member of parliament for west oxfordshire and i'm the prime minister. now, to be honest i do do constituency work every day but i will be misleading house if i said i spent more time on my constituency work then being prime minister. and i think that's worth reflecting on.
>> is being so successful, i wonder if my right honorable friend for the convenience of the house, and particularly for members opposite, could set out the details of our long-term economic plan? >> on grateful to my honorable friend. the plan is about the skills infrastructure, jobs cutting taxes. but above all it's about people's livelihoods. it's about securing jobs and livelihood for people across our country. and the fact that labour cannot talk about the economy in the week when they come to this house is because we have created 1000 jobs every day this government has been in office. they are keen to talk about second job because of the want to talk about the jobs revolution in our country. they don't want to talk with the print issue. they don't want to talk about the business creation. they don't want to talk about the oecd and the fact our economy year grew faster than
any other major economy in the west. they can't talk about economy because they've got nothing to say about it. >> mr. speaker is the prime minister aware of the results of a 40% cut in the disabled students allowance, many disabled students say that they will not be able they might have to drop out of the courses there in. will he undertake to take an urgent review of the problem? obviously i'm sure he doesn't want that to be the case. >> i have looked specifically at this issue in every constituency case connected to this issue and i will go back and look over it again. perhaps right to the honorable gentleman, but it is important recognized with reform of disability living allowance going into personal independence payment, there will be more of the most disabled people getting paid at the higher rate. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i know the prime minister shares my enthusiastic support and
cherish my joy that there's been a 63% increase, a wonderful gift that anyone can give to the task force in 2008. will he take an opportunity -- >> order. i apologize for interrupting the honorable gentleman. it is discourteous to erupt and honorable member in the middle of his or her question. let's hear what the honorable gentleman has to say. it's a matter of manners. >> thank you, mr. speaker. will the prime minister taken opportunity, should one arise earlier, to join me in helping raise awareness of this wonderful achievement and help drive on the creation of ever more and greater success in the future? >> i absolutely agree with my honorable friend but i think we've seen a very substantial increase in organ donation and that's been done without moving to a system of presumed consent
which i know the house discussed and voted on privacy which i was not in favor of but am in favor of doing more to lead by example, to make sure the best hospitals are pursuing the best practice. and has been a remarkable increase, so if there's anything i can do to help with his campaign i would be delighted to do so. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the lobbying act which was mentioned earlier in up fully nothing to affect those who were lobbying for commercial gains, specifically for commercial gains. will he now introduce a register a professional lobbyist so we'll all know not to stop a bus we all know what they are up to? >> first of all before answer his question and it personal congratulate him on being appointed future of the parliamentary labour party? >> here, here. >> where i hope helping 70 days sunday we'll to conduct an inquest into what went wrong. but let me say -- [laughter] answer his question very specifically. if he supports the lobbying act, can he explain why trade unions
in britain have lobbied the labour party to get rid of the act? if we want an example what's wrong with british politics, it's the massive money that goes from the unions to the labour party by their candidates, by the policies and the only reason their lead singer is a bunch of trade union barons thought he was more left wing than his brother. that's what's wrong with british politics and that's what needs fixing. >> thank you, mr. speaker. when the prime minister rates my local newspaper was he where according to the government somerset has 41% coverage climate -- [inaudible] means it will only be the only organization which is able to speak for the next connection which offers -- [inaudible] what's he going to do about that? >> what we're going to continue spending record sums on broadband rollout.
was in across the country it is almost double from the 40% that we inherited. there's more to do than most real areas including in her constituency. all local councils now have searchable websites of when expect broadband to get to the area and we need to look at creative solutions to make sure we get to the last 5% of its a very important part of our long-term economic plan and that can only be secured by a conservative majority government. >> i welcome the fact that the government has been forced to accept our demands for people to be protected when buying tickets on the secondary ticket market. if they have been as much of thousands of rugby world cup fans and ashes cricket fans would've been saved from having to pay over the face value of tickets. why is the government always on the side of people like bankers and tax dodgers and organized
gangs behind ticket scalping and never on the side of ordinary people in the streets? >> this is something that's happened after four and half years of the conservative prime minister that never happened after 13 years on the labour prime minister. but actually whose side we are on. we are on the side of working people because we are getting them jobs cutting their taxes, helping with childcare and we sit opposite a party that's a party of the trade union. >> does the prime minister agree with me that -- the welcome announcement that manchester will take control of its 6 billion pounds nhs shows the coalition commitment to local decision-making in manchester in stark contrast to the labour government -- [inaudible] >> i thank my friend is right to say this is an important breakthrough. it's made possible by our forms but it's going to help bring the
nhs and social care together. the shadow health secretary reasonably knew nothing about this, doesn't understand that eight labour authorities in greater manchester have been talking to us in working with us about how to make this a reality. what a contrast, people working together to improve the nhs instead of trying to weapon i said across the dispatch box. >> thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. last year more than 3000 desperate migrants drowned in the mediterranean. several hundred have died this year already trying to reach a place of safety. many people and absolute desperation turn to traffickers to try and escape the crisis in libya and many other places to get our victims of war, victims of oppression. the european union is closing down -- which is saved a large number of lives and instituting instant something that will only protect europe's borders not search and rescue people. will he go back and insurance
that europe a documentary approach of saving these desperate people and supporting these desperate migrants that are trying to survive that's all, survived in libya? >> i think the honorable gentleman makes a great important point but i'm afraid he statistics don't this is a backup the case he is making. it was a genuine attempt by the italians to try and help deal with this problem i think i'm right in saying more people died during the operation of that policy than when it was brought to an end but i think the our answers here. we need to make sure we press ahead with the modern slavery bill which is in huge amount, historic piece of legislation taken through by this government to do with the problem of people trafficking. and yes, we need to do more to stabilize countries like libya an education on the mediterranean from which many of the problems are coming. i only underlined the important work that our development budget does. >> order.
there's always next week. there's always next week. >> here on c-span2 we will not leave the british house of commons as members move onto other business. you have been watching prime minister's question time and life wednesday when part is in session or a reminder you can see this week's session began sunday nights at nine eastern and pacific on c-span. and for more information go to c-span.org click on series to get every program we've erred from the british house of commons since october of 1989. and we invite your comments about prime minister's questions via twitter using hashtag pmqs pmqs. >> coming up today on c-span3 secretary of state john kerry who was an is department budget request amendment and will likely speak about the president use of military force. ongoing iran nuclear
negotiations and combating ices. live coverage begins at 10 a.m. eastern. and then at 1:30 p.m. the senate foreign relations committee will hear from john allen on countering extremism. general allen is courting international efforts to combat ices -- isis. >> now a discussion on president obama's move to reestablish diplomatic relations with cuba. panelists include the de facto
former u.s. ambassador to cuba a veteran of the bay of pigs invasion was a cuban prisoner of war, and executive producer of the center for a free cuba. from florida this is one hour 10 minutes. >> thanks. i'm happy to be here and i'm happy, proud of the panel that you're about to hear from, especially starting with our moderator. tim padgett, frappucino his voice, you might know his name. he works for dubya outlawed in radio in miami and is the america's editor. is covered latin america for 25 years, both with "newsweek" and with "time" magazine. he has been to cuba at least 20 times over the course of his career. he is the kind of person you want asking questions. i've encouraged him to contribute his observations as we have today conversation, and with that let me welcome tim
padgett. [applause] >> thank you very much rosemary. thank you to the tower forum for this very kind invitation and this opportunity for this discussion, is very important discussion to a very timely one. i would emphasize that this is a constructive discussion. this is south florida. this particular issue can arouse passions he. i would just remind everyone, panel and audience alike that everyone agrees that our aim is to change the status quo in common is to cuba your the debate we are having is just one of the best ways to bring that about as we now near the end of the castro era, and so i would just remind everyone of the sign i saw across the street on the methodist church as were coming in that said, let us slander no one.
[laughter] it's there. you can check it out. and with that and i would like to ask our panel to please come up and let me introduce them come our distinguished panel i should say. at the end of the table they are is coral gables mayor james case and. user de facto ambassador in cuba as head of u.s. interest section in havana from 2002-2005. mayor cason was best known for widely traveling the island could help dissidents set up independent libraries and for his work as cuban government rewarded him with barring him from leaving havana. he was a 40 year career diplomat for the state department as well as an ambassador in country like paraguay, and then was elected mayor of coral gables in 2011. so let's please welcome mayor
cason. [applause] >> to his leftist frank calzon, the executive director of the center for a free cuba in washington, d.c.. the group promotes human rights and the transition to democracy on the island. he was born in cuba and is a strong defender of the u.s. trade embargo against the castro regime. he has been repeatedly featured in national newspapers such as "the wall street journal" and "the new york times," anticipate and television programs ranging from "the pbs newshour" to fox news. he has also testified before congressional committees and often speaks at universities here and abroad. thank you very much for coming, mr. calzon. [applause] to his left is alfredo -- alfredo duran. is also born in cuba and is a veteran of the bay of pigs invasion but he was, in fact
the president -- [applause] he was, in fact, the president of the bay of pigs veterans association, but conventional call for peaceful dialogue with cuba led to his break with that group. he is a former miami-dade school board member and a former chair of the florida democratic party. welcome. [applause] >> and to his left finally, mr. ricardo herrero executive director of cuba now which advocates engagement with cuba. he is an attorney and the son of hubinette cells. he was briefly the deputy executive director of a cuba study group in washington a former executive director of the miami-dade democratic party and served on the 2012 presidential campaign of venezuelan opposition leader henrique. his articles have appeared in the "huffington post," "usa today" and "the miami herald,"
among others, and disappeared quickly on tv, including cnn in asp and you'll. welcome, rick. [applause] >> i want to start with you and i sort of left off a few weeks ago during an on air congress who were having on wlrn that has to do with the central premise that president obama laid out for why he undertook this very dramatic very historic change in the u.s. policy towards cuba. and that premise was as he said in a state of union address as well if something isn't working after 50 years, you can't expect a different result to give to move on to a different approach. you pointed out, however, that that central premise you thought was wrong, that while the policy
of isolation, of isolating cuba and the embargo had not brought about regime change in cuba. the policy had still been a success but i was one if you can tell us why you think the policy in the past half-century has actually worked and, therefore, why the central premise of mr. obama's policy is flawed? >> first of all i i want to think that our forum for inviting me to participate in this. it's was great to talk about cuba. my views stem from my experience three years in cuba. my personal view is that nobody's policy is worked in cuba. if you look at what's happened over the last 55 years you find that all of the country in the world except the united states have engaged with cuba. they have traded. they have sent a terse. they've invested probably i would guess over $100 million
has probably come into cuba over that time. and the belief that engaging will change if local system, if that's what you mean by works if that's what you believe, it's failed. but i think it's a policy that unless there's something unless were exceptional american exceptionalism, iowa state and thus the democratic pixie dust the fact that americans are going to go there, most of them will be going in the future, probably don't speak spanish and so now the money will trickle down to the cuban people or the cuban government will change its determination to maintain the comment system and perfected, i just don't see. i hope it works but hope is not a policy. >> mr. duran, what led you a quarter-century ago more than a quarter century ago to come to the conclusion that engaging communist cuba was the best way to go? >> when the soviet union disappeared and the cold war was
over i came to the conclusion that if we continue on the same path that had not worked for so many years and that every president from kennedy to the present president have tried to negotiate with cuba the end of the embargo, every time she would do something so that the embargo will not end because the embargo is one thing that protects cuba and gives it an excuse for everything that is wrong with in the island and keeps it from doing what is right or denying civil rights, denying medical rights, denied everything because they alleged that they are at war with the united states because no friendly country embargoes another friendly country. therefore, they are at war and have to take extraordinary actions to protect themselves from the united states. when the soviet union disappeared, i thought there was about time that we cubans started talking to each other. the cold war was over but the difference between the united
states and the soviet union was over but i thought that the future of who -- what would be going on as it has come and i thought it was time that cubans started talking to each other in a civic dialogue that someday bring about normalization, civil rights political rights to the cuban people. unfortunately, that is not happened, and the reason why is it the same reason that the embargo is still in place. because the cuban government does not want the embargo lifted nor does it want to bring any opening to the political situation in cuba. so what is for a simple cuba and to do? continue arguing the point continue telling the we must have a dialogue with the cuban people, continue saying that after the two or three historical figures in cuba are dead, and there's only two or three that are still walking around, changes will come about and there will be generational changes to the united states government and the cuban people in exile must begin a dialogue
with those that are going to be the next generation of government of cuba. that's the only thing that will bring about a better cuba normalization, civil rights and political rights. [applause] spent if i could ask you to refrain from applause, please. mr. calzon, when president obama announced in december that he wanted to reestablish diplomatic ties with cuba, you have made the point since then he is actually couldn't have made this decision at a worse time here because cuba seems to be at one of its weakest points in terms of international patrons, that its latest patron venezuela is on the ropes and that therefore this was the moment to actually tightened the screws rather than engage cuba. and i was wondering if you could elaborate on why then historically this was a mistakes because first of all let me thank the forum for inviting. i, like most cubans, i would
like to see a day there's change in cuba. to be a group of folks like this, lawyers businessmen independent people that could get together to talk about an issue without being afraid of being taken away by the police. i think that's something that we have to keep in mind. what i said when the president made the announcement was a little bit more than that. i said, for example that the president had early on talked about transparency and he had conducted 18 months of secret negotiations and even key people in the state department didn't learn about until about three or four months ago. i also i also said frank levine a cuban that i don't know why the president thinks that by talking to raul castro would determine the future of cuba to the future capabilities to the cuban people. they have to be at the negotiating table. i also said that the president announced a policy that is full
of misunderstanding and misconceptions. he read somethings i guess from a teleprompter that are really nonsense, i'm sorry to say. when people say that the president wants to reestablish relations with cuba, the united states has had diplomatic relations with cuba since 1977. the american mission in cuba where ambassador serve, there are more american diplomats in cuba, and canadians or the russians but so it's not for lack of a diplomatic presence in cuba that we are where we are. then i also said and i will stop here, that the notion of saying well, if something hasn't worked, we've got to do something else. well, that's something else has to work. just because something doesn't work just because another option, and as the ambassador on the right has said, if french the canadians, japanese, the
spanish can all of them have sent millions of tourists to cuba. all of them have traded with cuba. that hasn't changed the repressive regime in cuba. so what the president is doing is changing from a policy that many people think it hasn't worked, to a policy that we know it hasn't worked. and that's my answer. >> mr. herrero, why do most cuban-americans of your younger generation believe that it's time to engage the island? >> civil but we lived under this policy our entire lives and we've yet to see a yield any sort of result whatsoever. you know, we've seen that for basically as long as i've been around almost as long as i've been around our policy towards
cuba has been dictated primarily by south florida politics, not by a sober assessment of what's the correct approach towards that country or what's in the best interest of the united states. and i've seen that process. i myself was when i grew up in a household where my parents were staunchly in favor of the embargo, believed that trying to choke that economy was going to be the best way to bring about change to the island, and i came up believing to say but it wasn't until i had an opportunity to visit the island in 2000 that i realized that our policy was grossly overreaching and was really aggravating the issue. i have to meet, i got to go on a family trip where i got to meet a couple young very entrepreneurial cubans in havana who were basically street hustling. they were making ends meet by working with tourists to drive them around, doing anything
negative to raise money so they cancould take it home and feed their families. and their dream was to start their own businesses in miami leave the island and start the businesses in miami. and i would ask them why. they would say there is absolutely no opportunity here. if everybody who is john with any sort of drive, initiative, if their dreams to get out of this country up this is never going to change. and i thought, well what are we doing to help remedy this? that's what i realized that the answer was absolutely nothing. our policy is only aggravating the situation. instead of being able to bring the international community together to help exert pressure toward the castro regime, with isolated our social and international community. they have run the other way because they don't want to be seen outlined with his overreaching policy. it's also done nothing to help civil society on the island.
to empower them in any way. it's given us no leverage with the cubans to help, to push for changes. they don't respond to basically anything that we say on this site. overall, it hasn't achieved its objective. it hasn't ushered in a democratic transition. so when you grow up your entire life seen this is the approach and it's not doing anything, yet you see also engage with cubans on the island from your sharing ideas. when you open up the flow of resources to them, they take every opportunity to try to get ahead on their own, then you see that there's an opportunity there to build something that can render the old testament irrelevant. and i think that that's why folks i ate seemed to be a lot more open to a different policy. >> that they can go back to the rationale for president obama's policy changes. he believes that while this new
policy won't make or democratize cuba overnight i think his ceiling is that it will at least position the united states more effectively to take advantage of change should it come when they castro's disappear from the scene. so if that's the rationale for the policy change, mayor cason you, however, made the point in a few weeks ago, and just a couple this ago i think that you think that normalization is really going to have a chance to occur under this process. >> yes. i don't think it will because and i think the cubans have said very clearly read my lips recently, that we are not going to let anything that you do to change our view of the and of what we want to do with the political system. they have been very clear. we want to take the money that you're going to get to the military, which runs the economy, and we're going to use it to continue to perfect communism and the system that we
have. there's a big difference between, diplomatic relations which are look up the definition a pinch of diplomats in each other's country. we've had that since 1977. we have basically the largest embassy except we don't have the name on the door and we can't use our flight got us a diplomatic relation getting this much. what we need is normalization and there are at least 15 things that have begun that i've come up with and i've been in conversations migration talks with the cubans over the three years that i was there. they need to allow our diplomats to normally pursue a diplomats do. part of what we do is always defending our values. the cubans just a couple days make clear that we don't want your diplomats to do what diplomats do. they restrict us to number 51 employees and they restrict the number of tv wise would have to make us we can't be effective. they don't let us travel outside of havana.
they interfere with our diplomatic pouch. they refuse to have postal service to they don't allow internet to reach the average cuban person to they harass our diplomats. they won't let if you're a canadian and you invite an american diplomat to your residence, cubans refused to go. nor will the cubans allow us to speak with anybody other than the head of the north american affairs who is minister of interior official disguise at the tip of the. and less we think they are done, they are not they listen to what the president says. he says we're going to do this because we're going to empower the cuban people. the cubans as if we will not allow them to be empowered to we will maintain our system. so the view that somehow they are so dumb as to not be they know they can control. they've controlled everybody else's efforts to do this to change the system and they will not allow normalization because
that would mean that our diplomats can travel around, we can bring in the materials we want as they do in washington. so normalization i predict will not happen. i hope it will. maybe someday when the castro's argonne i think there's a chance but until they began the cuban government grading institutions that allow cuban people to participate only they can empower the cuban people, not our foreign policy. >> did you have -- mr. calzon you want to make a rebuttal to what mr. herrero just that but if i could ask you first though to follow up on what the mayor the point you just made with another point that you have made, this can't work because we simply gave too much away to the cubans from the outset. we made too many concessions without asking enough from in return and that was when if you could address that point? >> if you like what the president has done and what the president is talking about
doing, is basically what the cuban government has been asking for a long time. when you hear some folks talking about cuba policy you have to put that on a blackboard and say, this is what the cuban government wants. a cuban government wanted the embargo lifted. the cuban government wants to be removed from the list of countries that support international terrorism, despite the fact that into the there are american terrorists who kill american police officers who went to prison and if you go to the fbi webpage you will see that one of those harris who murdered an american is one of the 10 most wanted. in the fbi list. cuba is the only country in the list of countries that support terrorism who has publicly acknowledged that there is a murderer of an american police officer who was welcomed there.
i think that has to be taken into account the the other thing that i just wanted to say something which is, again, when you hear the cuban government talk, they say, for example american foreign policy on cuba is based on south florida as if the cuban americans did not earn the right to have a point of view. ..