tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN June 29, 2016 8:00am-10:01am EDT
scotland. the way we manage to last nights meeting, we took a bit of a cue from what happens in this house as i sat out what i call the result of the referendum was and why. i set out what i blueprints and united kingdom seems would be. i explain how different parts of the united kingdom voted adult 27 other members of. at the end of the dinner, i answered all their questions than i do in this house when mr. speaker as fully as sacred. a little bit of british parliamentary practice was introduced and it's a good way of doing things. >> very good for the european council as well. ..
>> i did emphasize it's a uk decision but also the united kingdom will want to listen very carefully to all of the constituent nations into these other ministers and parliaments in setting up negotiation we want to carry on. as for this issue of free movement of people that were before the next prime minister and government and parliament to decide but i in no doubt that this is a difficult issue. it's a difficult issue inside the eu were you of all the ability to change things. it will be even more difficult for outside if you want access to the single market to secure change. but nevertheless, that's the challenge.
i explain that was my reasoning of the referendum. it was this coming together, concerned about free movement combined with a sense of control and sovereignty and i was reset as the result are i think economic case for state and was very strong but if we want to make this work whether out or and we are to listen to people and try and find a way through this. >> the prime minister, thank you for statement and wonder whether his discussion yesterday is he aware of the growing mood among heads of government across the european union, but given three quarters of the youngest people of britain voted to remain in europe, they should be permitted as far as possible to remain in europe. what can be done to make sure young people are allowed access to europe even over and above those of the rest of us? is the aware of the great concern amongst many communities depend upon european funding, most importantly i would say
britain's farmers? many of whom are deeply concerned at the loss of payment at some point in the next three years. can't he make a guarantee today to british farmers will continue to have direct payment to keep them in business even after we leave the european union, if we do? >> first of all on young people i think he's right that people want to those opportunities to work and to travel into study. one of the things the eu unit wanted to do is to work out the precise nature of the agreement like what access within have to them from the outside of the european union to on the issue of funding the european budget is set up between 2014-2020 including the amount of money for coastal farmers. what i can guarantee while we are in those payments continued and contracts will be honored but will be for a future government to become at the point of departure what payments we should continue to make to our farmers. if it was me, ma i'm keen to the living working countryside but
will have to go through the options and future partners will have to decide your. >> does the prime minister agree unanimously taken the other four affairs committee that the construction of article 50 means that it is perfectly like he that there will be no agreement on the other side of agreement regarding to envy from our partners and agreement of european parliament at the end of the two years? and that would mean though that we would still have access to the single market but we would be subject to world trade organization most favored nation drones. since that would mean that is no freedom of the people and we would not be paying into the budget, that would represent a perfectly sound by one foot united kingdom in the negotiation? and could the prime minister under this likely vote that other advances will be made on that before we arrived at the
deeper coverage of free trade agreement and could the prime minister also say, just tells about the fate of the british president next year, we will be a full member? >> we will be hearing from them very, very regularly given the a lot of positioned ideals. prime minister. >> i did look at the fort affairs select committee report, and while i'm not fully liberated and able to say what i think, i thought that the conclusions were -- [laughter] spent i was thinking of a place in london, but i won't go there. [laughter] so if we leave the eu and we have no deal in place, the tariffs offer things like 10% on cars, 12% on clothes, 36% on some very produce. this is not a good outcome for
the united kingdom. we will look at the committee as we get issued up and running and look at the alternatives, but i really think that is not a good outcome for the united kingdom. [inaudible] >> thank you, mr. speaker. that i thank the prime minister for service to this country, for his support for northern ireland and the northern island executor and very difficult time and also support the united kingdom in which him and his family very best wishes for the future. on the issue of the summit came the prime minister spell out again not least to reassure our european partners, our commitment to nato and our european partners who are now speaking somewhat ill of our decision last thursday, should be reminded that the uk is one of the main contributors to nato come as a firm supporter of european defense and security and that they should play a
greater role in stepping up to contributing to europeans defense along with the americans and ourselves? so in all of this the wider perspective needs to be looked at, the u.s. imported single market at nato into fits of security of europe not least in particulaparticularly in regarde aggression of russia needs to be borne in mind very, very strongly. >> i want to thank him for his kind remarks. he's right our commitment to nato continues. i think is also right that our spending being 2% of our national output is now responsible for a very large share of the overall european commitment and we should be encouraging others to increase their spending. we need to make sure that our membership of nato continues and we are not disadvantaged by being in one and out of the other. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my right honorable friend consistently made the case to british colleagues, indeed he made a last appeal to the country from birmingham which is
much appreciated. we agreed that reciprocity between the uk and eu seattle give protecting hundreds and thousands of children which depend on the access, the principal market? >> i'm very grateful to what my right honorable friend says that anyone who thinks that isn't something of a manufacturing renaissance taking place should go to that plant, that jaguar plan. seven or eight years ago there were 4000 people. you are now 14,000 people there and it's not just manufacture and assembly. it is designed. it's r&d, technology, that is taken literally of hundreds of apprentices ever you. is a magnificent car plant and is something we want to see more of. i think it's crucial for companies like that would keep the european market open and we keep companies like that investing in our country rather than investing in countries inside the european. that is an alternate for the
other think that's the importance of maintaining every store access to the single market. >> there's a difference between future reform and existing residents. prime minister said earlier we could confirm residency or employment rights for eu citizens who live here already until negotiations were under way. why is that the case? given this is being exploited by awful go home campaigns or repatriation campaigns. surely we should take a firm stand against this and pass some swift motion or legislation on immigration rule in this house before the summer recess to put an end to that speculation, provide reassurance to eu citizens who may have worked here for very many years. i urge you to consider this because i think this would be a wise decision.
>> i listen very carefully to what she says. i try to answer the question asked i could and as i could and as legally as they can because of course as we go into this negotiation, if we come out of the negotiation of a for instance, it will be a future government but arguing for visa requirements or restrictions on numbers or quotas or work permit or whatever for european nationals to come here, other countries might take action against british citizens trying to go and travel and work and live in other countries. i think even if that were to happen i think the answer i'm sure would be to guarantee the status of anybody here now, and we can say that while we are in the european union but i think it is for future prime minister to make that decision. >> really understand that negotiations will be protected on the economic issues. the last years have seen a big improvement in terms of our
cooperation, automatic cooperation on security, both formal and informal meetings. i can't see that should be much of a way of negotiating process. surely to make sense to ensure that those formal and informal meetings continue both in terms of dealing with terrorism but also dealing with economic ties spent i think he puts it through. there's a number of informal mechanisms that have grown up including the counterterrorism group of countries, mostly european union meeting very high level of our intelligence and secret services that are also quite a lot of now growing mechanisms within the eu such as the information system, the watch lists that are for people traveling between european union countries, some of which are bound very much in the eu institution and rules. people can rules. people are like that are not like that but the fact is that they exist and we had to work
out of how to maintain access to as much of that as possible in terms of our national security. >> could the prime minister explained to the millions of people who voted to leave why in the next few months while we wait for a new prime minister, this country -- [inaudible] all the professional they've got start talking and negotiating and formally perhaps with candidate come with australia, with malaysia to all the other countries who would be desperately keen to sign up to agreementagreement s with why can we not do some of these things? and if we are still paying into the union, are we still not going to send it to having signed every field director that comes through the next two years? >> first of all on the point about canada, australia, of course we can start those conversations. i think it's difficult to start full on trade negotiations because entering a relationship
between britain and the european union single market i think it's quite difficult to get into an intensive discussion but you can have some pathfinder discussions. on the issue of directives i think we have to be clear, we are members of this organization. we pay in and i continues until the day we leave and, therefore, think we have to obey the rules and laws just as we would expect other european union countries not to suddenly not obey the rules with respect to us. i think that's important. i think in terms of decisions that need to be made right now, the are those that have to be made for legal and practical reasons. there may be some decisions that can be put off for a month or two in order to have a new government that can think of in the context of the renegotiation but i don't wish to do anything to break the law. >> whilst we are naturally focused on our future role in europe, our friends in the baltic nations are concerned about the immediate risks across the border.
military and also arrive at space and my right honorable friend knows quite well. easy more satisfied that all the candidate is being done both within nato but also within the european union, to stand by our friends? >> i think my friend makes a good point to yes, i think enough is being done to we also have a summit coming up where we will be part of the plane a big role in making sure that are visible military presences in baltic states, we would be point our part and americans will be playing theirs. i think it's important we keep up that reassurance because for them this is the absolute key thing that britain brings to their security. >> -- [inaudible] i did not see the prime minister there. so i kept telling the most popular --
[inaudible] anuniversities have benefited greatly. what can the prime minister and this government and the future government do to make sure that funding or some funding is a secure? >> obviously i wasn't there because i was in brussels at the time. while i'm all for having your cake and eat it, i haven't been able to get how to be at two places at the same time. look, i think i said what i can say about funding for university. it's important to make it through the european union under the program while we are a member. we will support our universities. he and i have to be frank with each other that whales actually did not vote remain in the european union. in spite of the fact whales is a
net beneficiary, welsh farming couple out of your. i think the welsh steel industry will do far better if we are in rather than a. i take my share of responsibility that we didn't win this campaign. we've all got to think about how we, even now that we're leaving make better arguments about how britain can remain as engaged as possible. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can i think the prime minister not just for statement today but for all his work that he's in over the six years to protect uk. with respect to the meetings yesterday did my right honorable friend detect any regret on the part of other eu leaders, that they did not make more concessions when he sought to renegotiate our membership the? >> a very good question and one i'm kind of can-do edge of the sense and the european council
was that they have really bent over backwards to give a country that already had a special status out of the euro, things that they found profoundly uncomfortable. many of those countries really do believe an ever closer political union. they hated the thing to bring right, you are out of this. that really painted them but they did it. they take to dislike having to agree to cut welfare benefits for their own citizens because that is essential what they signed up to do. i believe and will always believe it was a good negotiation. it didn't solve all of britain's problems but it certainly address some of the biggest concerns the british people had. and i would say that i always want to know whether there's more that could've been done. that very strong sense i get into this issue awful access to the single market and reformed f free movement is very, very difficult to we achieved some reforms but i think the idea
there is an enormous change to free movement, particularly perhaps from outside the eu, i think is a very, very tough call. people have to think through that very carefully before we get into negotiation. >> give them the very grave damage that is already being done to our economy because of the uncertainty, would he call on all those in this house to lead this country to keep britain in the single market with full access? >> i think the honorable gentleman makes a very important point i think this is one of the key arguments. when i examined what i've always believed we are bette better ofn can't even though i wanted to see reform, to me it's always come down to this comes a single market exists where into it will go on existing even if we leave it and it has about the effect on our economic and business and political and national life. so i would certainly urge my
colleagues to want to aim for the greatest possible access but obviously they will have to think about what the benefits and this benefits of that route are. >> does the prime minister accept that wind negotiating with the eu we should remember our many strengths? one of the strongest economies, many competitive advantages would more than compensate for any tears which the wto will ensure cannot be punitive even if they were imposed while nations around the world are already including australia, including new zealand are already knocking at our door with regard to trade deals? >> no one is more impressed by the strength of the british economy than me. i think it is strong. it's got many advantages, many key industries that are admired the world over. and we have to recognize its going to be hard and difficult negotiations in many ways
because we are negotiating with a block of 440 million people. but sort of we should make the most of our strength. i think this idea that terrorists can be compensated for in other ways is quite dangerous talk to if you think about the car company and others who invested a want to come and invest year and then pay tariffs. i think they are all on the whole to be avoided. >> this campaign undoubtedly made -- [inaudible] the evolving exposed accordingly. but coming back to the issue which has been raised a number of occasions today, does not somewhat responsible for the result live with the eu leadership, the way in which they show no effect whatsoever? my part which have the honor to represent, the issue of the free movement. eu law, it will come down to 10 commandments. >> for once i have great
sympathy with the honorable gentleman. that is why i chose to aim at this issue by saying people could come here and work but they couldn't get full accept our welfare system for four years. i think that address the concern his constituents have and my constituents have about there should be something for nothing. the point we have to understand is that european union countries see the single market as consisting not only of the free movement of goods, people, services and capital, they see those bound together but they also see the single market include the payment of the country back into the eu to strengthen the weakest members of those that are recent recovered from communism. and, of course, one can try and negotiate amendments to these movements, and i did, but one has to think about that mindset as we go into negotiation. >> the prime minister will be aware that the voter to vote in
the eu, many of our businesses rely on a single market. many of my constituents work in london in insurance, financial services and legal work. does he agree that part of this negotiation must be about the passport arrangement which has tabled the service interest to do so well? i don't know if it's mentioned at the european council but i want to thank him for everything he has done. >> i think this is your passport in is going to loom very large for the reason financial services 7%, two-thirds of the jobs are outside london. we are the financial center for europe, 40% of financial services in europe. as we will be strong in the area whatever the outcome but it is untrue the passport does help britisbritish firms and it helpr countries firms come to bring the one of the reasons the swiss banks are here in such large measure is they don't get
passporting rights as switching the it is one of the issues about what access the single market actually means. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. coat i thank the prime minister for all his efforts? does he agree with me though to be fully recognize the very difficult position northern ireland, we voted tuesday. we want to stay, yet we are hostage to mistakes of others who were misled by false promises. unlimited funding for images and farmers. does he recognize that northern ireland would need to open up opportunities to protect their interests and obtain a close relationship with europe can't to protect, has he time to give any thought, -- the good friday accord is undermined by much of legislation that hinges on the eu?
>> obviously we'll look at the specific questions he raises closely. that's something official in northern ireland and westminster can start with straight away. but i want us to get all the benefits we've had from the common travel area and i think what we'll have is the closest possible cooperation with the government of the republic of ireland. a very moving speech about how britain and ireland have been fighting a just i think he said since 1169. i haven't checked out my dates but i think i've got that right. he then went through some of the key elements of, some of the key elements of the conflict in which i'm sure probably relevant will probably evolve but who knows? but pointed out on i'm proud, he says to dave relations between the united kingdom and ireland have never been stronger. we must not let that go. >> my constituency is a number of significant manufacturing and technology businesses. businesses play a major role in
our local economy. what reassurance can be trained three give me that this trade -- prime minister -- trade will continue to grow speak with i think this goes back to the issue, i thank my friend for his remarks. this comes back to manufacturing annexes to the single market. i think this loom so large in negotiation. nothing changes for the next probably two years at least while this negotiation carries on but we need to make sure as the come out at the end of that article 50 process that we have this access to proper situps or manufactures know what they are doing. >> can i think the prime minister for his strong condemnation of the attacks on the polish community and others? can i pay tribute to for the respect and commitment that he is shown to britain's ethnic minority community over the last six years? and, indeed, for creating the most diverse administration of
any conservative prime minister in history. and respect to the summit yesterday was very discussion of the comments made by the mayor of -- or the french economy minister that the juxtaposed borders be taken out of friends and returned to united kingdom but does he agree that this is a deal made between britain and france, at has nothing to do with the referendum? >> first of all let me thank him for his comments about my support for britain's minorities and the diversity we see on these benches. that has been very important. [inaudible] we didn't discuss last that the juxtaposed border control issue with remarks of the mayor of calais. this is between britain and france.
we hope the french do but i i don't resolve printing a second referendum campaign about the risks there are. we need to redouble our efforts to try to make sure the borders remain where they are. >> can the prime minister confirm that the 100,000 migrants is about unlike some number of people that they are willing to accept at the moment it's especially outside london and the home counties? >> i wouldn't put like that. the point of because i think we should have a sense of what the net migration should be. in a moderate advance world and immoderate defense country like britain you have often well over 100,000 to many hundred of thousand of british people in eu nationals here moving to europe or elsewhere. you have european nationals coming year. i think measuring in at number which is imprecise and difficult because people do for all different reasons is a good way of measuring the pressure on public services.
go back to 2008, the number of people leaving the uk at the number of people arriving from europe was actually a little bit negative and that's what i've always focus on this net migration issue here. >> does he recognize whoever becomes the next prime minister will have no mandate to negotiate on behalf of of the people of this country, not least because the campaign failed set out any serious plan what brexit looks like and, therefore, the clearest thing would to go for early general election? >> i would argue we are a parliamentary democracy and so the new prime minister in the cabinet should draw up a negotiating mandate based on the work the committed over the next few weeks and months to set out all the alternatives and they'll have to bring it here and defend and explain in this aspect that seems to me the right way forward. >> thank you, mr. speaker.
formal negotiation will start when article 50 is taken but would he agree with me that our first piece of negotiating leverage is when we decide to go to article 50? there is no reason and that we've got the site month by month of what would happen if the next 24 months? >> i think my honorable friend is right that clearly british decision when to trigger article 50. i think it's important to recognize that our european partners have concerns, too. the economic problems that we are currently suffering and may have moral or also second in the dutch prime minister said he thought his growth rate would be materially affected by the position in britain and the uncertainty. so i think given negotiations are yes, hard work and hard for us but to rely on a certain amount of goodwill.
i think you don't want to put too much of that goodwill risk in terms of how you proceed. >> -- with a future trading position unknown. with the unity of the uk itself under threat and appalling racist attacks happening on our streets, does the prime minister not agree as a response to the referendum, the setting up of the unit in the cabinet office under the number for west is simply not up to the task in response to what is, after all, the greatest change in britain's position in the world since the end of the second world war? >> first of all let me agree with him on the issue of racist attacks. when you take urgent action, in terms of the stephanie to take but there is i believe a limited amount that you can do before i knew prime minister and cabinet arrived but you shouldn't be little that because a lot of
this is cold hard facts about what the different alternatives are and what the difference costs and benefits are. there's a world of difference between a referendum campaign where the league side were on all sorts of things that went with the new status, hypothetical status, know the real facts about those things look like. that actually something that needs to rethink the methods we're putting in place will help with that. >> prime minister said we're taking all the benefits of membership until the point at which we live. can't i quantify his access to funding, created to safeguard a 10,000 jobs and 83 million pounds, as a long-term conditions -- [inaudible] >> what i can say is any contract entered into before britain leads the eu should be
honored in full in terms of eu funding for research or four regions of our country. the status we have with respect to the eib will have to be determined as part of the negotiation but again that's a technical issue that a widely unit can look at now and see what the options are so we can discuss them in this house. >> thank you, mr. speaker. they have recently wiped much of the -- and removed a key point that made during the campaign promise. i disagree with many of the claims made, but does the prime minister agree with me that the public will never forgive politicians to form part of the new government if they now break those pledges? there will be no hiding place and still be held to account on those overblown promises in the next government.
>> one thing we all experience and share in this house is that when we make commitments and promises, we are held to account for them. in this house that is discussed botches -- dispatch boxes. i would say long may that remains the case. >> the renegotiations will clearly be difficult and take some time, but one area where we must take action now is improving the jobs, skills and infrastructure in our market, towns and coastal areas where many people feel they haven't seen the benefits of growth. so can ask the prime minister to work with local council leaders to make sure that devolution deals being struck across the country deliver for these areas and not just at great metropolitan cities? >> i think she makes an
important point, not only do pledges fight are 3 million apprentices actually help address the issue of immigration, because that means training of our own people but they also offer hope and help to our regional economies that attaches is not just the city economy. we should continue with all the deals. they are popular with local authority leaders. they have real teeth and we will carry on with that work. >> thank you, mr. speaker. prime minister, northern ireland voted to remain within the european union. my constituency which is a border constituency -- [inaudible] and particularly depend on free access to goods, services but the essential access to markets for 46% of what the export and import comes from the south of ireland. out economy depends on membership of the european union. how can that be guaranteed?
>> the vote in northern ireland was very, very strong you know, not least respecting the fact that the part of the first minister wanted to leave the european union. very strong statement i would argue that all of the constituent parts of medicaid in need to make their voice heard. that i think this process over the next few months of drawing up the different blueprints is an important opportunity to influence debate in this country and to benefit of the injured about what the outcome should be. the example she gives in terms of cross-border trade in northern ireland isn't a good example to inform this debate. >> -- the polish ukraine border taking part in the largest military exercises since the end of the cold war. he has committed 1000 british personnel to participate in nato's very high readiness for any that have been russian aggression, and the cease-fire in ukraine is on the brink of
collapse. can i urge him to use his final appearance as a nato prime minister on the eighth and ninth of the warsaw summit to urge all of our european colleagues to continue to press for sanctions against putin's russia and not to give in to russia's aggression in ukraine? >> i think she's right. we've done a lot to reassure on our polish and baltic friends and allies that is why the troops taking part in this exercise. we are taking a lead role in this conference. we are going to make sure we provide visible the troops. hours will be stationed in estonia. i think america on countries will be taking on the other baltic states. so that people can see that window looked over these borders they don't just see us to the troops or latvia trips. they see british troops are american troops of french troops i think that is absolutely right. >> mr. speaker, several weeks ago in the lead up to the referendum i asked for the
personal commitment -- prime minister gave a full commitment to since the referendum we have heard comments from suggested from scotland that may be in doubt due to a new tory leadership in the near future. what i would like to ask is can he reassure that this cd will be delivered in terms of funding regardless of who will be the prime minister or the prime minister in the near future of? >> i can't find fans of my successor but i will say to any of the candidates that the city deals have been a great success throughout the 19 at i think it has been quite a marketing that actually, although scotland now has a powerhouse parma they have popular and successful whether being tried in scotland and no make that clear. >> on the wto a canadian staff free trade agreement, clearly wouldn't be the best possible deal for our country but i think
it is irresponsible of some of the leading league campaigners to suggest during the campaign that i was somehow a good alternative to our membership. but isn't it also clear from what european leaders said both in february, and yesterday, that if his successor prioritizes stopping free movement in light of the referendum that we will not have the same unfettered access to the single market? the parameters of the toys are pretty clear. >> i think she makes a strong point. and i can add to it by saying one of the things although is a relatively successful meeting yesterday, it is what point out that a canada free trade deal is not yet agreed. that our countries in the eu data getting very nervous about free trade deals. i happen to think they are wrong but i think that is worth bearing in mind. but what she says about access to the single market, if that's the most important thing, there are trade-offs you have to
consider and that's the way i would see this negotiation. >> thank you, mr. speaker. denmark voted in a referendum to reject the treaty. a year later they voted and a second referendum to accept it. in the fine european traditions of keeping voting until you get the right results. result. we know that many millions of people in this country felt they were deceived by the exaggerations and allies and the campaigns of both parties, and they now feel themselves cheated by that result, and millions of people are protesting. isn't it right that we look again at the possibility of a second referendum in this uncertainty that all second calls are always superior to first thoughts of? >> i think we're to accept the result and i'm not planning a
second referendum. what we have to focus on is it the closest possible relationship between britain and your. we can start to work in shaping the debate. we can start that debate right now. >> i'm getting a bit bored with this lame duck attitude. take control. a lot of things that he could still do. we could to pass emergency legislation to make it absolutely clear that every eu citizen that is living in this country now is entitled to live here and stay here into the future. that would stop some of the horrible and campaigning that is has been happening. he could set up a royal commission to make sure we bind together as much of the country as possible, both houses of parliament, and to start creating a consensus but what we should be lobbying for is the best deal in the future. why doesn't he take control? i thought that's what it was all about. >> i have to say to the right honorable gentleman, i've never believed you take control or
take rapid decisions by setting up a commission. i think that is, as i said, they take minutes and the last for years about what would happen in this case. i will look very carefully at all these issues of how to reassure eu nationals batter he. i've tried to set out the legal position and given the strongest possible condemnation. but i think frankly he and his colleagues have got something they need to take control of and its of their party. i think, well he did, you know -- [laughter] it is a topsy-turvy world. i've never felt greater support for my part and i'm leaving and i've never seen the opposition anwithout support, and he is staying. [laughter] as someone about to enter the political greater, perhaps i could misquote my favorite band and say let's meet at the cemetery gates. [laughter] >> thank you, mr. speaker.
-- thinking of emigrating -- [inaudible] can the prime minister confirm that -- [inaudible] >> what needs to happen is for negotiation to be completed. up until been the capital payments that are set out in 2014-2020 to continue and then a future government, the uk government but also now the scottish parliament with its powerhouse financial cost to decide the payments it wants to make to scottish parliament. >> thank you, mr. speaker. we and the prime minister got back from brussels last night, was there any message from the member about where to find the 350 million to the nhs?
>> it was pretty late by the time i got back and it wasn't time for anything. >> i join you acknowledgments due to the prime minister. i don't really think he fully appreciates and certainly his secretary of state doesn't come that when we negotiated the good friday agreement, membership was taken as a given in the fabric of that agreement. also at the core of that agreement is the principle of content. out of the people of northern ireland find that they've been dragged out of the european union against their consent. as express when they voted for the good friday agreement and has expressed in a referendum last week, sony 8.5% in my own constituency. can he say no to negotiations will take place will sort things out for us? is clear english politics doesn't have a ma map for wherew fight is over you is simply telling us that we have to tailgate with impulses and prejudice of english politics dragged to next the we need to
get a better situation to protect the access and benefits of the eu for our constituents. >> i totally understand the honorable gentleman's passion about this, and he and i were on the same side. but my reading of the history of this is different, which is that the good friday agreement, based on the principle of consent, was it that the united kingdom would continue to northern ireland would be part of the united kingdom. this is a sovereign decision for the united kingdom. now the job of the united kingdom government info collaboration with the first and deputy first ministers in northern ireland is to get the best possible negotiation and, therefore, northern ireland place so that relations north south can be a strong as they can. >> lord hill brings a european commission has decided to step down. as the prime minister in plans to appoint somebody if only on an interim basis speak with yes,
i think we should appoint a new commissioner. we pay our dues in full but we should have a uk commission. commission. i discussed this yesterday with the president of the commission and we hope to come forward with a nomination shortly. >> mr. speaker, as a proud son of irish immigrants who encountered both sides no dogs and no irish, we once again see fear stalk the streets. a polish women told to go home. the kashmiri driver told we don't want you muslims here. the aggressive individual is said to a train guard, don't you close those doors until i tell you, we make the rules and now. all of the consequence of xenophobia being put mainstream in the referendum campaign. does the prime minister agree with me that it can never be right that someone, because of the accident or the color of their skin, they should fear for their safety, and that we will never ever allow this great,
dynamic, multicultural britain to be divided by the evil of racism? >> i agree with every word that the honorable gentleman has said. i never wanted to see those sentiments appear in our country again that i think the difference between now and the 1950s and '60s when these things happen is the state of our laws is far stronger, the understanding of our police is far better, the ability for prosecuting authority to take action is much stronger and we need to make sure all those things are brought to bear. >> as far as the uk -- perhaps he should let the scottish government to host to the opinion you. but does he understand the concerns expressed by my constituents about the impact of breast on the front of relatives who are uk citizens that live in the eu, taken as regards access to health care and other social protections? how will this be maintained in the future? >> of course i understand people's passion a country.
e-health did you see exact issue which didn't loom as large as i wish you would because i think there are some big retail benefits from being in the eu, the ability of mobile phones without roaming charges can the story of digital content, the acts of two health services, cheap airfare to i think it's the issue that it was a unit can look at, what are the rules in terms of access to health care, what can you secure in europe but outside the european union? and started with a 42 people can what the future holds. >> 17% of those who voted last thursday voted to remain -- 70. hundreds have written to me since fitting for the jobs, stability of our local community where 50% are eu nationals or even their personal safety. what should i say this government is doing to reassure them? >> what i would hope he would say is rightly we have to accept the democratic will o of the people and a properly
constituted a referendum vote on it six to one basis in the south but we should do everything we can to reassure people. first of all that hate crime has no place like we discussed today but didn't will conduct a negotiation based on the best available evidence about what we can do to achieve the closest possible relationship with europe on the basis of trade and cooperation and security. that is our goal and help that will provide some reassurance but, of course, in any referendum debate with a decision like this there will be those who are disappointed by the result. myself included. we've got to now make the best weekend of the new situation we are in. >> mr. speaker, they already doggie economic have been fatally undermined did by the decision to withdraw from the european union. can i suggest i it is looking to salvage something of a legacy he pulls the plug on this enormous falling? >> the logic and the economics behind hinkley point see are
that we need to have some base load noncarbon energy in order to have any ability to make a very challenging targets we have to reduce carbon emissions and our country. i am for addressing the massive expansion of renewable energy since i've been prime minister. my favorite statistic is that 98% of britain's solar panels have been installed since i've had this job. but you do need solar power by nature an admin and you do need some base load power and that's why think the case for hinkley continues. >> thank you, mr. speaker. he might want to the presence of for the body my third try, i know it's over. [laughter] part of labour parties concerned there is a light and it never goes out. >> here, here. >> mr. speaker, in bristol on friday elected mirror convened a
meeting of key stakeholder to try to work out what this means. clearly very many worthy people. can he assure us that the voice of the international stage will not be dimmed during this negotiation speak as i certainly would've a thing i can to stand up for bristol. i wa was interested the labour party was interested the labour parties favors long as there is a light that never goes out because it involves a double suicide. i think the lyrics are if a double-decker bus crashes into us, there's a fine the way than by -- i think i think i'm right in saying. i'm not sure that's wholly reassuring to the front bench. i think the next verse is if a 10-ton truck crashes into us. [laughter] you try one after the other. you got inspiration elsewhere. spent i did not the prime minister has quite such compendious knowledge of popular music. [laughter] extraordinarily impressive. >> i'm not going to ask the prime minister remember anymore
lyrics today, but he will have heard honorary members and white on the members from both sides of the house talk about imports of manufacturing to the midlands. and people have also have heard in prime minister us questions refer to the comments of saudi can't about london having a deep voice both in the preparation for negotiation and the negotiation themselves. i absolutely agree with that but can he say something about the mechanisms he envisions to allow our reasons outside of london to have a say in preparation for negotiation and in negotiations itself? >> what i can say apparat unless in more detail for the house litigation is we need to find mechanisms. we have some already are listening to the constituent policy of united kingdom. we need mechanisms to make sure the voices of our nations and regions can be heard as we design this renegotiation. i absolutely commit to that.
>> thank you. order. statement, the parliamentary under-secretary of state at the home office. >> monday them a foreign policy expert at the medi-cal to discuss the future of nato. a recent atlantic council report restoring nato's power dedication. friday marks the 40th anniversary of the museum and american history tv live coverage starts at 6 p.m. eastern on c-span3. we want to a museum and see what other kind aviation and space artifacts including the spirit of st. louis at the apollo lunar module plus license at the front of the building. learned more as the dock with its director, at a museum curator, and the chair of the museummuseum's space history department. you can join the conversation as we'll take your phone calls, e-mail's and tweets. the 40th anniversary, the museum by friday evening beginning at six eastern on c-span3's american history tv.
>> former national security advisor to president obama james jones and former nato ambassador under president george w. bush nicholas burns talked about the future of nato at an event at the atlantic council today. this is about one hour 15 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. why we're going to get started. my name is damon wilson, executive vice president at the atlantic council and delighted to welcome you today for the launch of a very important report on data. we are here four days after the british electorate has decided that they believe the european union. while we are all trying to digest the outcome and
understand what it means and what applications are, i think our community believes one thing is for certain. that no matter what, our alliance will become more important. it would be the glue that helps keep us together across the atlantic within europe and the vehicle to help defend our way of life. we are here to talk about a report restoring nato's power and purpose that was led by two great americans who serve on atlantic council board, general jim jones and ambassador nick burns. thank you for your leadership, thank both of you for your service and for being with us here today. we are delighted they are joining us for a conversation with one of our senior fellows, avalon farkas. we are here for this conversation on nato after brexit and we are being joined by a much larger audience online and on tv. we encourage all of you to contribute to this conversation submit your thoughts, questions using the hashtag future nato. but also the hashtag stronger
with allies because that is what we believe here. today's product as a result of atlantic council strategy about a year ago we set out to labels happening on both sides of the atlantic. concerned about america's role in the world and our ability to desire will come continue to play a leadership role. but at the same time what was happening in europe, the forces of fragmentation were undermining the solidarity among our allies in europe. brexit has delivered that message in very sharp terms. but what brings these two sets of issues to get is that we come together to nato, through our alliance. in the context of this uncertainty the issue of brexit, uncertainty of where european project is headed, we do believe the u.s. role in europe is going to become even more important to help ensure a sense of predictability or i'm going to leave the report to ambassador burns an and general jones delaf the conclusions and findings but i wanted to put in context for four reasons why the atlantic
council move forward on this report at this time. even before the latest debate there was concern about perhaps the marginalization of nato, it was no longer at the center of our national security and foreign policy. there's a lot of talk about nato and then, we refer to them across the atlantic. in europe, we refer to them as the americans. if you don't own this alliance it will wither. i think that's one of the boys want to make a call for leadership and imagination. particularly american leadership. second, we are headed to warsaw which were put in a very significant sum of for this alliance. but our point is that what's happening right now in terms of european security, we need to be prepared for the long term. this is not just a turn over a short period. if you look at our budget, look at political resolve and we are not yet postured for long-term reality we will face. i think we were as our response
is commensurate with the challenges we face when you look to the east and the south and to look at internal challenges. third, there's beginning to be a very strong narrative. justifying russia's actions. been an exercise in public, the baltic states. first of all it's provocative. i think we felt there was a problem, that if we could not actually demonstrate the reality that we would be negligent with our responsibility. so i think in the coming theme we'll see about as a way to frame the public perception is warsaw which is responsible or is a provocative overreached and beginning to make the case for easing even sanctions against russia when it was her own transition. finally, in her own debate the
atlantic council has been one of the strong voices gone on our european allies, canadian allies to do more in terms of its investment that will continue. but differ only debate through this alliance of the united states as one of burden sharing, we're going to undermine that sense of understanding of the value of our alliances. we believe fundamentally our alliances are force multiplier's for our values and/or interest, and it is one of our greatest strategic assets that are ambitious only wish they had with that i'm going to invite have a lent farkas up to the ste to whatever fills, a strong voice on these issues will in and out of government and a former key advisor to nato to moderate our conversation. invite general jim jones and ambassador burns to join a. general jones was is it just atlantic council itself, former national security advisor for the purposes of the support a former supreme allied commander
in europe. he currently is at the gym of the brent scowcroft said at atlantic council and head of the jones group ambassador nick burns who also served on atlantic council board serves as undersecretary of political affairs in addition to being our permanent representative to the nato alliance and ambassador decrease is from a professor at harvard. without the need to over to get the conversation started. >> thank you all of you for being here today. i am very honored to be a with these two gentlemen to discuss this report i think it's quite timely. i am hoping that maybe this is report and through this discussion we can transform the discussion and make the discussion about nato and institution a little bit more sizzling and perhaps we can make these two gentlemen like the spice boyz of internationalism. we're going to try to keep it a little like an interesting because of bernie sanders can do it, i think you guys can, too. so let's make it a little more conventional and approachable. i think it's important to bring
forward a little bit and view de of the work that dana discussed about values and defending our way of life. i think the support why looks like a very dry, the usual presummit report on nato, right? both of you -- do it. so both of you have read a lot of these reports. the reality is i think what doesn't and they often wouldn't have these conversations is actually about our values. widely of these institutions? widebrimmed collective psychic with enough have some understanding of history, what we are trying to prevent, but it's also about the drinking democracy, protecting our economic freedom of navigation, freedom of commerce. these are not to be taken for granted. ..
the fastest growing think tank in washington goodman fred damon took it over, it had fallen on hard times. it is now one of our most influential centers for learning and for debate in washington. congratulations you read, damon and if we're not the atlantic council. second, what a pleasure spent to work with general john jim over the last eight months on this report. we worked together at a tough time after 9/11 during the iraqi and afghan wars have tremendous respect and thank you for your
and we need to establish against and that's our number one recommendation is nato troops in those areas. i can't comment the united states and canada and europe should maintain economic sanctions among russia. those sanctions are now in question. prime minister ramsey went to the st. petersburg summit and that we have a trademark of russia. we should question the sanctions and maybe take them off in december. it's a big debate in germany and we thought in berlin on thursday of reggae between two political
parties. the spd and the cpu on whether they should maintain sanctions against the russian federation. european accent honestly, but in december and the middle by a presidential trend edition commits some europeans are never to return to business as usual with russia. thankfully, chancellor merkel has given every indication that she negotiated that m.i.t. appears to them to the letter, germany under her leadership is not going to relax sanctions, but there will be a big battle in europe and across the atlantic on this issue and legally sanctions should be maintained. that's what effect their deterrence is. third, obviously we have got to have a stronger nato as we move forward with deterring the russian federation and president putin. right now exactly five of the allies spent more than 2% of gdp and a friend. that is the floor, by the way. those are the minimal
expectations. it is to be 3%. he spent 2% of gdp in rents. it is true that 20 of the allies have inched up in their defense spending, but not many close to 2% and so we believe that germany and 1.1% of gdp in spain, italy, netherlands need to do more. in response to the crisis in europe. when donald trump, mp3 to say this because i'm opposed to donald trump, has hit a chord with the american public that somehow we are being taken up in a just because allies don't spend enough on defense, that maybe is the center for the europeans to do more for their own defense and collectively in nato. we also have other recommendations and that is to be much more proficient and our cybercapabilities coming to fully deploy a missile defense, to be active teenagers out in places like morocco, tunisia, jordan, iraq and training the air force is at the request of
these countries. there's a big set of challenges ahead and we believe that requires american leadership. i will end on this point. we are the leader of this alliance. we always have had and the alliance desperately need leadership. when president obama goes to the warsaw to the warsaw summit in 10 days time, he's going to be going there in the wake of this theory to matter consequential and historic british boat to leave the european union. why it's too early to know exactly where this is fitting because some bright spots have a second referendum to counteract the first, if britain does leave, we have that can potentially add a fractured united kingdom with the scotland question and the irish question coming back a century later to the double constitutionally the future of the united kingdom. we certainly are going to ned to see the united states embraced the united kingdom and our special relationship.
if the fifth-largest economy in the world. the second strongest military nato and will still work with nato, but we won't have the british to be the tough-minded pragmatic voice of the e.u. council on issues like to continue sanctions against russia. so therefore, we talked about this in berlin on friday morning. the united states will have to seek a deeper relationship with germany. germany is the dominant country of the european union with the most respected leader, angela merkel relationship is one in this administration and the next. thank you very much. >> evelyn, thank you very much for being here. i would like to also echo the importance of this report and certainly acknowledge my predecessor twice removed at nato, general george allen has here, mentor, great friend to
all of us who are privileged following is the sense that i would also like to underscore the work in writing this report. thank you very much. her performance was extraordinary. i think this nato summit sees nato facing for strategic challenges are the first one was obviously with regard to russia. the chaos and the disorder emanating from the middle east, a less than certain u.s. leadership of engagement policy, which doesn't just start with this administration. it actually started before this administration and then a european union that is the best weekend, made may be fatally so. the time will tell.
the summit in 2014 about for sharon's. the warsaw summit 2016 is about deterrence. a lot of people talk about deterrence and i think as nick berg pointed out a couple minutes ago in a private lunch, if you want protected dialogue, the first thing you have to have his deterrence otherwise they're not much of a conversation. that's extremely important. i am pleased to see the shift towards deterrence. the highlight of the summit will be made as enhanced for president of the battalion stationed in each of the baltic countries and poland and also the use of basis. quadrupling reassurance funds of $3.1 billion is extremely helpful in the fact that nato is moving tories an official domain
is also quite useful. but as the report points out how many effectivity and levels of ambition need more emphasis in certain areas. the first one that comes to my mind is white nato is going to be used for the 21st century and the defensive react to alliance and the nature of the threats that face us in the speed at which these threats are coming out of it used to be nato must come a more proactive alliance be a guy that i don't mean starting wars or trickery and everywhere. i mean preventing wars from preventing a predictable disaster from happening so we wind up in another amnesty and for a decade or more.
the productivity speaks well to a house program involving partners started years ago. i think we need to do more of that but on a grander scale. migration is a big problem and it is causing incredible tensions politically and may have had something to do with brexit as well obviously. but preventing this uncontrolled movement of millions of people in some end that i think the grand alliance of plenty of countries should be focused on and should be doing something about and preventing those kind of colossal movements of people is something we should worry about. i think nato's first job is to enhance the security of the south and also to help other
like minded countries in africa and other developing countries figure out how to assure their security so they can move into economic development governance and rule of law. so i think this proactivity is a new word in nato and i'm glad to see it's included in the report because i think it speaks well to what nato can and should be in the 21st century. spending i think nick covered very well if we don't achieve this 2% gdp, shame on us. this was agreed to at the prague summit of 2002 that is now 2016 and we still have too many countries falling short of what they agreed to many years ago. if we don't achieve that in nato's credibility i think is suspect. u.s. leadership i want to do while i'm out little bit. it is clear that the u.s.
leadership day in and day out over the history of nato has been essential. it doesn't mean that we talked down to our allies, but it means that a u.s. president has to be engaged in what nato is about. we cannot simply walk away from a 28 member nation including mass and pretend that it is not useful. it is terribly useful and the potential for nato and the rest of this century is far ahead as i can see is tremendous. it has to be used correctly and it won't be unless the sitting u.s. president devotes a fair amount of time to making sure the secretary-general of nato is recognized almost a head of state level and is as important allies thus important ally if
any single country. the nato secretary-general walks into the oval office at the voice of 27 cover entries. that is important. how we react to that is also very important. i would hope that the summit will see every assertion that u.s. farm commitment to not only supporting the alliance and leaving the lion and also making sure that the numbers were up to what they've agreed to do. they nato e.u. relationship is always one that has been slightly uncomfortable. we have never figured out how those two organizations coexist. mostly at the political level. this is not a military problem. it just remains to see if it's politically acceptable. we cannot afford to have two separate military and two separate hierarchies of those
militaries and we have proven that in the balkans and made militarily can proven again. especially at this time, very important for the united state's leadership and nato to come together and figure this out once and for all and i think it is possible. does it the the points i would make. >> that is great. i will read up the names, but well before the summit, a very high-ranking nato officials said to a very high-ranking u.s. official, deterrence before dialogue. it was interesting that the trans-atlantic unity i'm not the least among these individuals. we are seeing that now come to fruition. i will ask a macro question and then you guys can take a look in the interest of saving time and also getting a few other things out there into the discussion
which the audience can pick up upon if they like. if you had to take all of these 10 recommendations, leadership and being you. if you have those elements coming you can take care of the other rate. there are a couple other items and of course you can't fit everything into one report and you did touch upon some of these lately in your comments here, both of you. but there are three other areas where i think we want to think about how we can use leadership and be proactive. one of them has to do with expansion. if i were to make a recommendation to the heads of state going into the new summit, i would say make a big deal about the fact you are expanding. damon has said this before. institutions don't expand. they don't allow members if they feel insecure. the fact that montenegro was being admitted into nato is not
going to contribute the nominally, i should say, to nato's defense, it will contribute to its own defense and has been contributed all night to nato operations in an announcer. the question of expansion is important because right now you mention the dialogue the russians pushing back. they are pushing back on nato expansion and this is somehow countering russia when in reality and those of you know very well because you lived through this comment neither expansion was actually aimed at spreading the purity and stability throughout europe and as such is an unfinished piece of business for nato. if you like to comment on that, it would be useful. we still have four aspirin and if you have a message for them. the other element touched upon a
bit in the report that could be fleshed out is the issue of hybrid warfare, unconventional warfare, little green men or demonstrators. that is where the e.u. comes into play. if you have anything that requires law enforcement and strategic communications, those are areas that it does not competency and would have to work with the e.u. on. i believe that the summit they will make a statement about that. i would be interested by the read if you have any comment on what more we could do in that area and in particular working with the e.u. finally, we mentioned being proactive in the middle east and africa. and you mention the refugees. hanging out for all of us here is really the event is syria, the cause of the refugee flow. is there something that nato could or should be doing. those are my three big ideas out there. you can pick and choose as you like. ambassador, i will start with
you. >> i'm not going to answer all your questions. let me just say a couple things. first, it was really striking to be in europe last week gave damon and i went to brussels to present this report to a lot of the ambassadors and public and went to berlin to do the same thing. the europeans are quite relaxed and to be too truculent with president putin. the bumper sticker that emerges on russia is deterrence and dialogue. many of the europeans right is enough. you americans need to believe in those two equally. my response was i don't think so. i don't worry about dialogue with russian federation. secretary of state john kerry who i deeply admire it is on the phone cause i peered there is no absence of discussion between the u.s. and russia. there's an absence of productive work on the part of the russian
federation. one of the things i learned as a diplomat is that you must often can succeed in diplomacy when your position is strong strategically. and so, deterrence move troops into the baltic states. by the way, these are modest levels but to show placement and that we will be true to our article v commitment to protect this country should that be necessary. that is vital. if he believes that we are powerful and unafraid to exercise the power, he will be much more likely to engage in productive dialogue. my advice to german friend a great friend of ours was they are both in port in deterrence and dialogue, but deterrence in this stage given what putin has just done is much more important. we need to stand up and i hope that will be the message from warsaw. sakic, there's a very aggressive russian propaganda campaign very well financed under way across
europe, trying to insinuate that if the united states has caused the problems is that in europe, not russia. so i was personally dismayed in the german foreign minister said publicly a week ago saturday that nato exercises in the baltic states. it's exactly what the russians want the european public to believe. unfortunately, angela merkel came out when dan said she supported these exercises and she felt that germany shed for the first time put together a plan to get to 2% of gdp and german defense spending in the future, which is a very welcome message. to accuse the nato allies of protecting their own territory and the saber rattling with the invasion of crania.
and the invasion of georgia. the fact that the russian federation as the europe treaty does not respect dean any of the core. the purpose of arms agreement that we negotiated in the 80s and 90s and after 2001 to secure europe. and the great gorbachev ronald reagan and we have to be clear about what the problem is. we have the opening of the german elections of 2017. a german friends kept telling me they only sent out because the election. and be clear about what we are trying to do to protect security in europe, are of vital interest
there. last on nato expansion, a very positive development and positive in tangible terms, symbolic terms to the rest of us. we have always been an open alliance of democracies. we never said this, and that underwriting -- underline a nato history as a repudiation of yalta, we are not going to trade one country's future over their heads with the russians. we are not going to do that on georgia and we shouldn't do it on ukraine. since the end of the cold war, i think all of us in every administration believed that every european nation should get to choose from has the right to choose its future. a lot of us in this room worked on this together in the clinton
administration and the george h.w. bush administration and the obama administration. they wanted to be part of the e.u. and they were a part of nato and they were happy to take the security void in central europe, left with the collapse of the warsaw pact. imagine where we would be today had we not expanded nato under the baltic states. president putin would have his forces read up on the river, separated in estonia and russia is not over the river and those states would be historically decision by democrat and republican to do this. there's a lot of people who blame us. if we had an expanded nato, >> thank you. that's very eloquent.
>> i completely agree with the last statement with regard to the current russian president in 2009 at a breakfast in moscow that there was an agreement that nato would never take into its membership any of the former warsaw pact countries and that we violated that agreement. we have been looking for the agreement, but somehow it is hard to find. there was no such agreement, but it is interesting that the president of russia deeply believes that there was such an agreement. that complicates issues if you don't look at history. largely, i think one thing they might want to consider is to take a look at the enlargement
and the partnership program because they are all kind of lumped together right now and i think they are two vastly different things. i think it is for the alliance to determine when a new member is eligible and has met the requirements for membership. in my book, new member should bring value to the alliance and not problems that value and we should have common value. when nato decides to do that, we should do that. on the partnership program, starting years ago, this is a potential to our enormous influence bought people are waiting to become members, the possibility of expanding the partnership program and membership program for that particular aspect is off the page and it ought not to be limited to just european
countries. i would suggest that it may be possible to reach out to moderate arab states, even african countries, even countries in the far east who want to have interoperability with nato in common tactics training and procedures to respond across the board and the family of threats from the humanitarian mission to other kind of missions. i think it is important to do that when you think about the middle east. you think about a collection of countries that have common language, generally common religion, common values, common culture and you kind of wonder if nato could be an interesting example for them to follow as an organization. nato could be very helpful in helping arab states develop their own kind of security treaty organization.
i am for enlargement and i'm also for taking a look at the partnership for peace program. on the hybrid question, this is a very interesting question and one that we really have been addressed very well. this is where i think nato and the e.u. could really work together because part of the mission and that type of so-called warfare would be definitely in the e.u.'s wheelhouse. this is something that we should work on. i think nato ought not to be impervious to cybersecurity threat and also at energy security and even economic security, but be part of the dialogue. >> you can watch the rest of this program on our website at c-span.org we are going to leave it here to go to the start of today's senate session. members today we'll take a date
or break a debt restructuring bill and vote to advance that bill is scheduled for 10:30 eastern this morning. officials said they will be unable to make a nearly $2 billion debt repayment that comes due next month. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. god, our deliverer, as the tragedy in turkey reminds us of the dangerous, discordant
and demonic forces in our world, we look to you, our light and salvation, show us how to please you. as we remember that righteousness exalts a nation and sin destroys. may our lawmakers make obedience to you the bottom line in their labors. teach them to know and comply with your commands, as they never forget that obedience brings blessings. lord, give them the wisdom
to make an absolute commitment to honor you above all else. provide them with the strength to defeat temptation as they remember that you always provide a way of escape from every test. equip them for whatever task and challenges they must tackle. we pray in your strong name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: yesterday our nato ally turkey suffered a devastating terror attack at istanbul's main airport that quickly brought to mind isil's attack in brussels earlier this year. we do not yet know if this attack was launched by isil or the p.k.k., but we do know that our intelligence community will do all it can to help the turks combat terrorism and defeat this threat. as c.i.a. director john brenner
reminded us all earlier this month, despite all of our progress against isil on the battlefield and in the financial realm, our efforts have not reduced the group's terrorist capability and its global reach. in recent days, turkey has taken diplomatic steps to improve bilateral relations with russia and israel, and now the united states must extend our hand to our nato partners and ensure them that we will stand with them in the face of this attack and work together to defeat isil. now, mr. president, on another matter, let me read you some headlines. senate democrats blocked zika agreement ahead of recess. senate democrats block house zika funding. and here's what that last article goes on to say -- quote -- "senate democrats blocked a critical funding measure needed to combat the spreading zika virus, a move that will now make it impossible for congress to send legislation to president
obama before july fourth." now, our democratic friends are working hard to spin this, but families don't want excuses. they want action. yesterday, senate democrats listened to the demands of a partisan special interest group and turned their backs on women's health and fighting zika. first, they demanded congressional action on zika. then in the midst of mosquito season, democrats chose partisan politics over $1.1 billion in critical funds to protect pregnant women and babies from zika. after -- and listen to this, colleagues. after democrats voted for the same $1.1 billion funding level just last month. yesterday, senate democrats listened to the demands of a partisan special interest group and turned their back also on supporting our veterans. first, they demanded more funding for veterans.
then just before the fourth of july, democrats chose partisan politics over significantly increasing resources for veterans health care. in the coming days, democrats will hear from constituents back home who want to know what they're doing to keep them safe from the threat of zika and what they're doing to support our veterans. democrats will have to explain why they chose not to do their job instead of blocking funding for the zika crisis and for our nation's heroes. now, i have moved to reconsider the legislation and we'll give everybody on the other side a chance to think about that during the fourth of july, and we'll get back to that when we get back. now, on another matter entirely, the u.s. territory of puerto rico is in crisis. it owes billions of dollars in debt, and it could be forced to leave residents without essential services like hospitals and public safety
resources without prompt congressional action. if we don't act before the island misses a critical debt payment deadline this friday, matters will only get a lot worse. for puerto rico and for taxpayers, president obama's treasury secretary warns that puerto rico could be forced to lay off police officers, shut down public transit and close medical facilities, and this could very well result in a taxpayer-funded bailout. today, however, we have an opportunity to help puerto rico in the face of this crisis and prevent a taxpayer bailout by passing the responsible bipartisan bill before us. this bill won't cost taxpayers a dime, not a dime. what it will do is help puerto rico restructure its financial obligations and provide much-needed oversight to put in place needed reforms. it achieves this with an audit
of the island's finances and the establishment of what "the washington post" has called an impartial panel of experts to bring desperately needed transparency and reform to puerto rico's fiscal operations. puerto rico currently spends over a third of its budget on debt payments alone. by restructuring puerto rico's financial debt and helping reform its operations, this bill will allow the territory to invest more of its resources and growing the economy and creating more opportunities for its residents. obviously, the bill isn't perfect, but here's why we should support it. it won't cost taxpayers a dime. it prevents a bailout. and it offers puerto rico the best chance to return to financial stability and economic growth over the long term so we can help prevent another financial crisis like this in the future. in short, it's just the first step as the governor in puerto rico said in what will be a long
road to recovery for the island. but it's the most responsible taxpayer-friendly step we can take right now. so let me remind my colleagues puerto rico faces a critical deadline this friday, two days from today. this is the best and possibly the only action we can take to help puerto rico. as secretary jack lew put it, doing nothing now to end the debt crisis will result in a chaotic, disorderly unwinding with widespread consequences. it's the surest route to both a taxpayer-funded bailout of puerto rico and a humanitarian crisis for its people. these are all things we should avoid, so doing nothing is not an option. we must act now to prevent matters from getting worse. the house already passed this bipartisan bill with the backing of nearly 300 members. now it's the senate's turn to
send this to the president's desk immediately. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democrat leader. mr. reid: often the republican leader comes to the floor and complains about the battle against isis. without ever offering a word as to what he would do that's not being done by president obama and the rest of the allied forces. but let's talk a little bit about the progress that's been made. is it all done? of course not. we're working on that every day. since the height of the isis power, u.s. and coalition forces have captured about 50% of the land isis once held in iraq, and they're losing land every day. isis has lost 20% of the land it held in syria.
ramadi and particular route wery victories. iraqi forces captured the city of future in the last few days and are now working to put out the next few pockets of resistance in that key anbar province town. as we speak, kurdish and iraq special forces are making preparations to retake isis key strongholds in mosul, in iraq. we have killed more than 25,000 isis fighters and 120 key isis leaders. we have cut isis funds by up to one-third, and some say approaching 50%. we have drastically slowed the flow of foreign recruits from a high of about 2,000 a month in 2014 to 200 a month today. the same goes for the young americans who have sought to travel to join isis abroad. a year ago, about ten americans
a month -- it's hard to comprehend that, but it's true -- were leaving to join isis. that's now numbering about one a month. at home, the f.b.i. is cracking down on recruits. they are doing a good job. it's a tough job, are they going to be able to get it all done quickly enough? we don't know, but they are doing their best. over the past two years, the f.b.i. has arrested 80 individuals on isis-related charges. the prosecution has gone forward. with rare exception, they have all gone forward successfully. mr. president, the republican leader came here yesterday, came here again this morning talking about zika. mr. president, i understand how the house of representatives works, and it's stunningly republicans over here accept what they do in the house. in the house of representatives, they have what is called the
hastert rule named after a congressman from illinois who was the speaker of the house for a number of years. he created what was called the hastert rule. what that was is that you had to only deal with legislation that had enough votes to pass it with republican votes. they didn't want democrats to be involved, and they're still that way. even though hastert's in prison, they still follow the hastert rule. as a result of that, in the dead of night last week, republicans in the house -- and i mean the dead of the night. remember, the house had been taken over by the house democrats because they were upset about what had not been done with guns. the event was interrupted for only -- probably less than a minute when the house called back into session the house, and
they passed with no discussion whatsoever the conference report dealing with zika. well, as could only be understood by understanding what the hastert rule is, here's what they did. they had to get all of the crazies over there -- i'm sorry to use that term. that's a term that speaker boehner used, and i think the more i see of this, i think he had it down pretty pat. they did everything they could to go after all the pet projects of republicans. they hate planned parenthood. they patriot it, even though millions, millions of americans get their care there. this zika, young women are concerned about birth control. for a majority of young women, this is the only place they have to go. what did they do? they said we're going to restrict funding for birth
control provided by planned parenthood. why would they do that? only to get votes from the crazies over there. it exempts pesticide spraying from clean water. mr. president, what we need to do with these mosquitoes, in addition to inventing vaccines and other medicines to fight this plague, we also have to kill the mosquitoes, and we do that by spraying. that works better than anything else. of course republicans hating environmental laws went after the clean water act which has been in business for decades. and just to make sure that they covered all their bases, they whacked veterans funding by $500 million below the senate bill. anwhat do we hear complaints about? processing claims? well, they took care of that. they want to cut $500 million from secretary mcdonald's budget so he can't process
claims quickly. cut ebola funding by a million dollars. rescinds $543 million from obamacare and for good measure, mr. president, i guess they had to make sure they had all the southern votes. they said what we're going to do now is strike a prohip big -- prohibition on displaying the confederate flag. if they got their way, you could fly confederate flags on any military cemetery you wanted. and of course it sets a terrible precedent by offsetting emergency spending with offsets like obamacare, cutting ebola money. so, mr. president, we did the right thing. all the press, you might find a headline some place on some right-wing blog but the fact is that the republicans know that they failed on funding zika and all the press indicates that's the case. okay, mr. president. now the question at hand. today we're going to finally consider legislation addressing
puerto rico's economic crisis. for the past year and even longer, democrats in both houses of congress have opposed legislation that would empower puerto rico to adjust a significant portion of their debt. every time we've tried it's been blocked by the republicans. and as the weeks and months passed without a solution, the situation in puerto rico has worsened and that's an understatement. in "the new york times" this morning, the editorial board stressed the importance of congressional action, and i quote what they said. "the fiscal crisis of puerto rico is also a humanitarian crisis. the senate now has an opportunity and an obligation to address both. it is scheduled to vote on wednesday on a bill already approved by the house that would restructure the island's debt and could create conditions for recovery." the bill loses, puerto rico will default on friday on a $2 billion debt payment. creditors will keep suing for full repayment and essential services on the island including
health, sanitation, education, electricity, public transportation, public safety will continue to decline, closed quote. the economic crisis is a humanitarian disaster. medical services diminish. hospitals don't pay their bills. puerto rico's largest hospital has closed two of its wings, closed them. reduced the number of beds by 25% and cut pay for all employees. electricity at one hospital, the santa rosa hospital, was suspended for lack of payment. can you imagine one of our hospitals having to close because electricity bill can't be paid? puerto rico's only air ambulance company had to suspend operations. at the pediatric center at puerto rico's primary medical center, pharmaceutical providers are only going to supply chemotherapy drugs c.o.d., cash on delivery. how troubling is that? children being deprived of cancer treatment medication.
the effects of puerto rico's debt crisis reach beyond health care. already the puerto rican government has been forced to close 150 schools and leaders anticipate closing a total of 500 schools. that would be half of all public schools in puerto rico in the next few years. businesses have shuttered. labor force participation is substantially below the u.s. average and puerto rico's islanders are fleeing. even $70 billion debt and forced to take on austerity measures, republicans in congress dithered. they continue to waffle. finally this spring congressional republicans agreed to negotiate and address economic and fiscal emergency. before us -- the legislation before us is far from perfect. oh, is it far from perfect. what they've done to labor, minimum wage, the oversight board, environmental, bad stuff.
so it's far from perfect. i share my cool leagues -- i share my colleagues' really deep concerns about this compromise legislation. if republicans were serious about pro-growth measures, they should have addressed some of the disparities puerto rico faces under federal programs. they should have worked with us to fix puerto rico's unequal treatment under medicaid and medicare, extend key refundable tax credits to the island's government. republican shoes have extended overtime rules, minimum wage. so i take issue with the oversight board and their excessive powers and appointment structure. for all the republican leaders' promises about open amendment process, democrats have not been allowed to offer amendments to improve the bill. the tree is filled. how many times did we hear the republican leader come to the
floor and say oh, it's terrible. fill the tree. well, shy have waited and taken some lessons from him. the republican leader's growing list of not keeping his word such as the budget and the tax credits that are so vital to renewable energy projects. if democrats had written this bill, it would be very different than what we are voting on today. i'm going to vote for passage of this bill because we must help puerto rico before july 1. otherwise we turn that island nation, country i should say, all american citizens, turn them over to the hedge funds and they'll sue them to death and that's too bad. we must do something now. as democrats stated in a letter that every member of our caucus sent to senator mcconnell earlier this year, puerto rico needs a workable debt restructuring process. while there are many things we do not like about this conference report, at the end of the day this legislation provides tools that allow puerto
rico to survive, to hopefully structure a meaningful portion of its debt. i wish we had something better. secretary lew said in a letter to senator mcconnell and to me puerto rico's only hope for recovery and growth is legislation that authorizes the tools necessary for better fiscal management and sustainable level of debt, closed quote. while much work still needs to be done, the legislation meet, the treasury's criteria and it's a step in the right direction. not acting today would put puerto rico -- will have dire consequences and worsen the debt. puerto rico's only elected representative in congress, commissioner pay grow pierliusi said it best in a letter to me. and i quote that letter. promesa which is promise in spanish is promises the only
realistic means -- to protect regular citizens, pension plan participants, bond holders, to stem the tide of puerto rican families moving to the states to enable the puerto rican government to regain access to the credit markets and to lay the groundwork for preek came's economic economy to grow. the resident commissioner is correct. three and a half million american citizens who call puerto rico home need this relief and they need it now. we should pass this legislation today. give preek came the relief it so desperately needs. mr. president, will you announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the house message to accompany s. 2328 which the clerk will report. the clerk: house message to accompany s. 2328, an act to reauthorize and amend the national sea grant college program act and for other
purposes. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until the cloture vote will be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: parliamentary inquiry. how much time do we have before the vote? the presiding officer: 36 minutes remain prior to the vote. mr. durbin: 18 minutes aside. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. durbin: is that divided on position on the bill or on a partisan basis? the presiding officer: between the two leaders or their designees. mr. durbin: thank you. i see the senator from oklahoma seeking recognition. mr. inhofe: i thank the senator from illinois. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, first of all i've been told take i'll have the time -- our time that i can use and i appreciate that very much. we heard this morning from the ranking member and from the --
from both sides. i'm going to bring some up here that everyone agrees on. that is with the things that we do in our committee, we passed a highway bill. we passed the tsca bill and now i want to talk about the wrda bill coming up. i want to address the urgency regarding water infrastructure. my nearly five decades in elected office, i watched the impacts of congress prioritizing and failing to prioritize our nation's water system. in 1986, congress enacted the cornerstone wrda legislation that set cost-share standards and created a harbor maintenance trust fund and the waterway, trust fund following this bill. it was intended for congress to reauthorize wrda every two years. wrda means water resources
development act. when we talked about what happened in 1986, not many people are aware of the fact that in my state of oklahoma, we're actually navigable. we have an inland waterway it was our intention at that time to have this bill every two years because it's just a significant -- just as significant, really,s a the highway bill is. then the trend came to a halt and between 2007 and 2014 the wrda bill went seven years without a wrda bill, water resources development act. now, we got back on track two years ago and so this is as important because now we're getting back on track to get into the two-year cycle. our coastal ports are grossly behind in their deepening projects to accommodate post post-panama vessels. the flood walls are inadequate and below the necessary levels
of protection. our water infrastructure has become so deplorable that the communities don't have the necessary resources to provide clean, safe drinking water. you can see in this chart, this is not a partisan problem. this is a national crisis. you know, a lot of things we're going to be talking about around this place. we'll see it today are partisan. this is not. the last wrda took on the major reforms and now two years later it's time for another wrda to help clear up the logjam, the core projects, the corps. engineers and address concerns of aging infrastructure. too often we take for granted how water resources and water infrastructure projects affect our daily lives. some will argue unlike the highway bill that the wrda bill is not considered a must pass bill, that there's no shutdown of a program. however, i would argue that the wrda is -- the bill is a must pass bill. without wrda there are going to be 27 chief reports included in
the bill for port deepening, flood protection, ecosystem restoration. it will get put back on the shelf and the construction will be delayed even further and it will cost much more money later on to make that happen. look at the aging infrastructure, the lead pipes. we saw what happened up in michigan. we are addressing these things, this kind of a problem. i have a letter here addressed to leader mcconnell and major -- majority whip cornyn with 31 signatures if my fellow republicans asking the leadership bring wrda 2016 to the floor in the next few weeks. i know my colleagues, senator graham supports wrda. he's been fighting to authorize the deepening of the charleston harbor for several years now, as you can see right there. any further delay in this project is going to cause economic loss to his state and the nation as we prepare for the
increased use of the post post-panamex vessels that are on their way. the same can be said for several of my other colleagues who have vested interest in their projects in this bill. the port deepening projects in florida, alaska, maine, texas would be better positioned for those states to capitalize on increased import and export projections over the next 20 years. flood projects in kansas and missouri would provide for communities in their states the necessary assurance that homes and businesses won't be flooded by the next storm. ecosystems restorations in florida, illinois, and wisconsin would stimulate recreational and commercial economies otherwise left behind, as we can see here. and that is florida in our chart. senators vitter and cassidy also support the passage of wrda. their states have experienced
more catastrophic disasters from storms and flooding in the past decade than any other to have a project proposed for flood protection that had been studied for nearly 40 years. you can study something to death and never get anything done. if this project had been prioritized and constructed in the early 2000's, as we intended, then st. john's parish in louisiana and the surrounding communities would not have endured a $600 million damage from hurricane isaac in 2012. and that's just a snapshot of what's been included in the wrta bill. water resources and water infrastructure projects are integral in our everyday lives, as we see in this chart, that's the next chart i think we need. the levees to protect our communities fro