tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 30, 2014 4:00am-6:01am EDT
credibility legitimacy to the government, which is very -- it's in a very dicey position right now. they need to deliver. and their ability to interact ith the saudis will be greater if they can deliver a deal and substantially less if they can't. and with that, i'm afraid we're running out of time because secretary burns' schedule is quite tight. may i ask you please to grab a drink and grab a box lunch. in fact, come back to your seat and we will be starting promptly. an update on airstrikes against isis in syria and iraq. remarks by house minority leader on the 2014 and midterm election.
followed by maryland governor speaking in new hampshire. >> coming up, congressman tom cole of oklahoma. and a look at the midterm elections with representative donna edwards. and later, a look at the conference at ohio state university. journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> through after the election cycle, we will bring you coverage of debate all over the country. tonight, coverage of the second and final debate between the candidates for texas governor. the democratic 20 davis and
republican greg abbott. a look at some of the advertisements running in texas. >> a guy in a wheelchair can move faster than traffic on some roads in texas. i am a great abbott. my plan adds billions. paid for by ensuring the money dedicated to roads will be spent only on roads. theore taking money from highway fund. elect me and i will get the texas moving. >> in a texas courtroom, greg abbott made a case against our children. he fought for $5 billion in cuts in education. he is proposing against standardized testing to for your all. heard enough? wendy davis will reduce the number standardized test and cut
waste and davis will use education to build an economy for all of texans. you decide who will be best. is embroiled in scandal again. as a state senator, she use her influence for contracts. then voted on bills to help her own law firm. davis profited from her day job by voting and twisting arms and in the senate. she crossed from potential. legal work is part of an open at the investigation. unfit to be governor. >> he was a texas surgeon. two patients died and others paralyzed. victims soon. weeks after accepting a campaign contribution from the hospital's
chairman, greg abbott got involved in using his office to go to court a different the victims. greg abbott, another insider. andn you can see the second final debate between the candidates for texas governor. when wendycoverage davis faces greg abbott. c-span's --:00 on 9:00 on c-span. airstrikest the u.s. against isis in syria and iraq. major general jeffrey harrigian gave reporters an update on monday. this is 30 minutes.
experience and professional air men that are working closely with our joint coalition to operate. further, it is important to remember as a chairman recently remarked, the campaign against isil will be a persistent and sustained campaign. it will take time. importantly, we see air power as one of the fundamental components of the conference of strategy. also recognize that air power alone will not destroy isil. have beend that, we working with our coalition partners and services for years to develop a full array of capabilities that will bring into the fight, leveraging our lessons from both combat and training to execute the current operations. we will continue to do all that we can to combat a clear threat that isil presents. having said that, i will like to
come to air power as part of a broader campaign. in to the recognition that this campaign will take time. i offer to you in this current phase, air power is being decisive in a couple of key areas. preventing the massing of forces on large-scale, degrading isil's command and control capabilities, and working to impact isil's finances. bottom line is, airpower and target a action is disrupting isil's control and their logistics and infrastructure and in their freedom of movement. many of you have asked specifically what is the air force accomplished? i would like to lay out some soups -- some specifics for you. 74% of the more than twitter 40 havees in iraq and syria been accomplished by the air force with approximately 50% of
the strike in syria thus far. than 3800 -- in syria and iraq. 95% of the almost 1300 tankers which are is central to the persistence required for this operation and in the range requirement that we have. and ultimately, more than 700 isr's in support. as of the chairman has indicated, we are part of an integrated coalition effort in this broad coalition will continue to be the cornerstone of the strategy against isil. from an airman's perspective, we have worked for years to develop relationships across the theater with our fellow airmen like our sister services have done. training with them both in better and in the states to allow us the flexibility to
thelessly integrates into operations we have executed and in sure what the necessary to execute together. most importantly is the trust and confidence we have been able to develop by working closely with our partners. , proven expertise and that have allowed for the planning and execution of operations ongoing as part of the coalition campaign right now. ultimately, airpower offers a broad range of capabilities to the combat it and president. beyond airstrikes, we will contain to provide that isr, ands, platforms humanitarian assistance as required to meet in the end during and emerging requirements that will occur over the course of the operation. meanwhile, will work closely with our coalition team and the team to develop options clearly
working closely with central and the necessary planners out there to remain a ready to execute across the full spectrum. ultimately as it are men, we have a responsibility to bring our air mindedness, our unique capabilities from the air, space and cyberspace, and we plan to continue doing just that. with that, we will open up to questions. >> if you could say your name and your affiliate. >> i had a question about [indiscernible]
my question is, can you give any more specifics? >> right. thanks for the question. specifically as the planners took a look at the threat that syrian lay down, they wanted to ensure they use the right capabilities and right locations. as you are probably aware, 22 stealth capability with speed and ultimately, will i would offer is the greatest capability
the f-22 brings. industries avionics that facilitates awareness, not just for the pilot but for the entire package. as of the planners looked at the mission and the threat environment they would be operating, they fought the best way to a sure the first night they were able to deliver the f-22 needed to be a part of the package. >> can you go over your assessment of the effectiveness of [indiscernible] what metrics might you have? >> as we worked with -- to take time to understand what has been ongoing, we do not have any's civic metrics after the air
force -- any specific metrics that what described the effects. unlike what do you are seeing back in the german, isil has -- in a june, isil has been on able to amass the necessary group of what you could almost look like a conventional army. additionally, as you have looked at to their command and control capabilities, the ability for them to communicate across the area of operation, again, has been degraded. , debt financing piece will take some time. that will in fact require the whole of government approach and it will take time before ultimately we see the effects. we are just in the beginning portions of the campaign that will allow us to see those specific effects that will take place, long-term to ultimately
see the effectiveness. >> could you talk about the role of the arab partners a little bit? [indiscernible] what kind of missions they are given? specific --t in the excuse me, specific portions of the plan. if i could go back to the capabilities of the airframes. to lookners are going at and the specific targets and determine desired effect and it is best to allow the partners to talk of what they've been able to achieve was the and of the planning which the planners are involved in, they are taking a look at what the capability can bring and the appropriate effect wants to be achieved and match those up. >> what are the limitations of
air power? what can airpower do in this case? it is important to look at it from an airpower perspective that ultimately, as we look at this operation long-term, there are specific effects we can bring to the battlefield. particularly from a connecticut perspective -- connecticut -- kinetic perspective. a parcel ofas we this comprehensive of strategy, we will figure out where we best fit in to that strategy and determine where with our capability we can bring through our holistic approach and capability and desire. >> what to do you mean ground
forces? >> ultimately, it will be defined on what the comeback and an national agendas are. i would has a day to get into the -- i would hesitate to get into the specifics. those final strategic objectives are, we will try to determine how we best fit in. chris can you turn your desk >> can you turn your cell phones off? we are getting bad feedback. .> associated press today in the news, allegations of civilian casualties and of hitting empty buildings, can you talk about the challenges of that environment? first, from a targeting perspective, we are using
multiple assets to gain a better understanding of the operational battlefield if you will. with that, there are going to be times when we have persistent view of the battlefield and times when we are getting a picture and updating ourselves. as targets are developed, if it looks as we work to the process there is a valid target, that will be generated and in certain situations, there will be time lapses. we have to work through with a process that i would offer as very robust. there are several checks and balances as it works it way -- as it works its way up. we have capabilities to do what we call a time sensitive type situation, where we now locate a something. we have a process that allows us to verify what did a target is and determine if we want to go
after it. quickly. come back i think as of the chairman wen't said, -- has a said, do not have anything that will lead us to believe there have been civilian casualties. process andbust coordination with the joint staff to work through that should there be a valid allegation of civilian casualties. not the same as saying that every person killed was determined to the [indiscernible] >> correct. >> can you tell us how much more effective you would be if you were on the ground?
>> first, what i would offer, i think we are being very effective right now. the way we are leveraging on controllers is a mechanism on where they are still in the film will. -- they are still in the loop. the information is passed. they are in a position such that particularly when we are working with the iraqi security forces, iraqi determining via the security forces where their location is a feeding it back to the option to validate that to ensure we are appropriately targeting. to where web and targeting in syria, we have been leveraging the overhead assets and isar to determine whether the appropriate target and necessarywith the
weapons to gain the effectiveness we are looking at i would like not to go into those specifics right now. i will let you know we are working very closely with setcom to understand the requirement. this situation continues to develop and will -- and with a better understanding, where we need assess and when we need access and that continues to be a discussion. >> [indiscernible] >> can you elaborate on how you are seeing isis airstrikes? is there evidence and they are dispersing into urban environments? >> on what i would offer to you is probably much like you have seen.
instead of the callings of yokels you had previous -- if you post you had previously -- vehicles you had previously, they are a smart adversary. they have sent that does not effective for their survival. they are now dispersing themselves to allow themselves situations to be more survivable if you will which requires us to work harder to locate them. situation tohe properly target them. >> the issue of civilian casualties. kitzhaber -- [indiscernible] >> it is not for us determine as an air force. , it you say that air force is going to be central command that works in that issue. if they need to us from air force percent -- perspective to support them an understanding
may be what we were looking at at that particular time via , we would feed support that. specific. [indiscernible] >> there are certain capabilities we would bring to support. >> [indiscernible] hmm.mm- >> [indiscernible] and they will use a passive threat. i would offer to you we still .re very cognizant and worried clearly, we are sent our air man and two while could very quickly be a hostile environment.
n and to what could very quickly be a hostile environment. correct. >> please identify yourself. >> [indiscernible] >> we have joined controllers in the operating center that remain ,onnected with the iraqis depending upon the support is so we know the frontline. as those targets are developed or passed to back, were able to deflect.
>> [indiscernible] the targeting. partnersoalition sharing information or are you sharing with them? >> we are planning with them and working closely with them. as what they are specifically doing, i have to leave that to the partners to talk about that. i continue as a coalition effort, we are working closely with them to parse out the targets and determine what we are seeing so we have the right platform with the right target. it will be as we seen what that target laid it down look like, we are sure on that to ensure they understand what target they are going after. i am not sure exactly where that it's happening.
there's probably a couple of different places. >> will go over here. >> [indiscernible] theyu expect that experience in iraq, that type of aircraft will change from fast jets? >> i really do not want to speculate. we will continue to work closely. our job as the air force is to ensure that these requirements the and we have done thoughtful analysis to offer what would be the best capability to get after what the specific threat might be. as of the situation continue to develop and will work closely with them to look to provide down the greatest capability fed as an f was we can bring.
-- as quickly as we can bring. >> [indiscernible] >> on the first question, one of the capabilities the f 2-d two really brings, i talked about that, situational awareness and integrated avionics and huge sensors. might be upaircraft there and what we would call in air role, they are doing a lot more than that with -- ensuring whatever that commendation of aircraft is that are out there at that particular time. they are able to provide situational awareness as to what they are seeing and then build morehat other aircraft a
situational awareness about what is going on. that is a specific capability that an f-22 is really tremendous at. as with integrated over the years, it is bringing into the fight. in reference to your second question, yes, that tax is more applicable now and in the fight that we got ongoing inside of iraq. correct. >> u.k. percentages about the number does you you gave percentages about the number -- you gave percentages about the number. i wonder if you go break that down. >> will have to do some math. i will work the team to ensure
we can bring that down. >> is it b-1? anything on that scale? >> i need to research it. i do not want to give you bad data. >> over there. >> [indiscernible] >> a great question. there is a very robust battle damage assessment process that central command works through. i do not want to talk first century command on how they are specifically doing it. i will say that process allows them to go back and relocate targets and determine if they
achieved what they wanted to achieve and then, if not, do they need to go back to strike it again? , maybesed on what we see isil has a part of a location. process very iterative that it may work through every day to determine what they need to do to follow-up. we asked the air force are in support of central command. we have assess we provide to central command who then they use to target those specific areas that they generated. >> a day for martin with cbs. i think we saw one video. -- chris i am dave martin with cbs.
-- i think we saw one video. >> the planner looks at the civics of each mission and determine if they need it or not. -- it willermine depend on the targets and where they are. i will use the term environment, whether day or night, those types of things to determine if it is necessary to slow the f-22 to the package at night. they may not be dropping weapon. yes, sir. >> has in the f 22 been flying before? i would not say specifically that is the f-22. as you look at some of the packages of that have been put warfare, there has been , part of the packages. depending on what target they are going after where the
targets are located. maggie? u.s..com -- >>d in said u.s.. -- usa.com [indiscernible] have not had anything and the way of casualties. are you talking a different processes? assessmentle damage is always ongoing. going after targets had that have a specific process that is laid out, that a again depending on what the target is out what asset that will use take a look at it. as there's a civilian casualty allegation, there's almost a separate process that would
occur based on what the allegation was. they may use some of the same type of video orphanage they for for the battle damage that civilian casualty allegation. doesn't that make sense -- does that make sense? en -- we will go here and then end. >> [indiscernible] together, youy mean a mixed formation? i am not sure. want to really speculate. i understand right now, and is being separate target areas. it would generally lead me to believe in you will have situation where the partners will have their assets twined
together. barbara?er -- >> what have you been able to achieve a concise will and cyberspace? >> and that is a capability, across the joint force bring you to the commander. i do and i want to speculate about the specific capabilities given the operational impact that it would have on the ongoing operation. it is something that we bring forward an macatee to bring forward as options. forward asbring options and continue to bring forward. it would not be appropriate for me to call met. >> thank you, everyone. thank you, general. >> thank you, everybody.
>> the supreme court ruled that early voting would be allowed. the court issued its order, would nott justices have granted the stay. >> coming up, congressman tom cole of oklahoma. and then a look at the 2014 midterm elections with a representative donna edwards. exam later, looking at the conference continues at ohio state university with executive vice president. livengton journal is a every morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span.
you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. chris this morning jeff zients is a featured speaker at to the economic club of washington dc. will row covers of his remarks at -- we will have coverage of his remarks at 8:25. chris c-span competition is underway. this nationwide competition for middle and high school students totaling 100izes thousand dollars. create a documentary on the topic the three branches and eu. videos need to include c-span programming, show varying points of view and be submitted by jay demerit 2015. grab a camera and get started today.
>> and throughout the election cycle, we will bring you coverage of races from all over the country. you can see the debates with covered at www.c-span.org. a look at some of the ads running in oregon where john kitzhaber faces dennis richardson. tremendousas potential. we have emerged stronger. took office as it cannot -- as oregon face an economic crisis. improved access to health care for hundreds of thousands all while closing the budget gap and balance the books. we are not done yet. we can crate an economy that works for all of us. we will fulfill the promise of oregon for everyone. >> at the same independent rs drivehat drove pionee to dennis richardson today.
a decorated helicopter politics, dennis richardson cap race -- carried follows soldiers from the battlefield of vietnam. he came back to succeed in business. -- road to a better future. >> my brother-in-law was shot and killed at the mall. the worst moment of my life. >> i am a gun owner. we needed to keep the guns out of the hands off folks that should not have them and the first place. this election i am supporting john kitzhaber. >> every town for gun safety is responsible.
club the world's leading organization to journalist. i would like to welcome those watching on cspan as well. thank you for coming. after the speaker's presentation i will open the floor and q and a sessions. please identify yourself when recognized and your organization before asking your question. no speeches, please, except from or speaker. the national press club is proud to offer a forum for political leaders to give their views. it goes back to the founding in 1908. today we will talk about why the republicans shou-- democrats sh
take over the house. he has been elected to the democratic parties leadership in the house since 2003. first the majority whip, then the leader and now the majority whip. he is the second ranking member of the house democratic leadership and is charged with leading the vote on important legislations and shaping had house democrats priorities and delivering the democratic message. thank you for coming to the national press club. i am pleased to yield floor to you and look forward to yielding it back to me for remarks. >> thank you very much. i am pleased to be at the press club. a group of journalist and
friends and i want to thank you for giving me this opportunity. i want to say the president and i had an opportunity to discuss this coming weekends activities. when maryland will play ohio state from which he graduated and was chairman of their newspaper "the lantern" i am pleased to be here and hopefully will be pleased on sunday. in five short weeks the american people will make the decision about the direction they want to go and chose the government they want. one characterized by gridlock or one that achieves progress. a government on their side or one that tells them you are on your own. congress, many americans feel with justification, isn't on their side anymore.
congress hasn't also been this dysfunctional. congress can do a great deal of good. in the 1950's the republicans and democrats worked together to build the highway system. and they passed the higher education act so millions can afford the higher education that their parents and grandparented only dreamed of. it led to the enactment of social security and medicare as well. it brought us the civil rights act and voting rights act 50 years ago. in 1990, congress came together
to pass the americans with disabilities act and open the door of opportunity to millions. they worked on a bill to balance the federal budget and created unprecedented surpluses. five partisan compromises is no myth. it happened. it worked. it can work one more. american people deserve a congress that tells the middle class we are on your side. as voters prepare to elect the next congress they have a clear choice. maintain a republican house majority that made obstruction and partisanship its policy. or elect a democratic party and
end the gridlock and make progress. we need to make progress. according to a gallop pole -- poll -- 4-10 americans don't think it matters who leads congress but in fact it matters a great deal. voters should be concern about continuing the republican majority for two reasons at least. they have ignored the will of the people by refusing to address the issues that american care about. secondly, they have overseen the least productive and most closed congress in modern history and contradicted the pledges they made. in their book, "young guns" they
wrote woo we pledge to stand on principle, lead as adults and serve as responsible stewards of the public trust by listening to the american people. when speaker boehner assumed the gravel he declared above all else we welcome the balance of ideas, encourage it, and engage in it openly, honestly and respectfully as the chamber closest to the people, the house works best when it is allowed to work its will. how much better off would we be if the house was able to work its will? the house of representatives hasn't lived up to its title.
71% of americans want to increase the minimum wage and 61% of small businesses support an increase to $10.10 an hour. that is according to a july poll. house republicans, however, won't allow it to come to the floor. more than 7-10 support immigration reform as surveyed in may and a poll in june showed a majority of republican voters want a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants if they meet certain conditions. but instead of listening to the american people, the republicans refuse to allow the house to even hold a vote. when women ask for legislation to occur equal pay for equal work republicans said you are on your own.
on one important issue after another, house republicans, who control the agenda, refused to allow the people's will to be considered on the house floor. on september, 18th, speaker boehner dlifrn delivered a speech saying the house is more tra transparent and open. you can bring your ipad to the floor they said. but you cannot bring a bill to raise minimum wage to the floor or institute unemployment insurance continuation or a bill to expend the terrorism risk insurance act. dave camp, republican committee chairman, can't even bring his tax reform bill to the floor.
of course, you can bring your i-pad so you can read about the bills but you cannot consider them on the floor. as a result of the republican majority walking away again and again, congress is less productive and more divided than other. under the house majority and the 113th congress just 165 laws, the fewest in history have been enacted and only 26 were major legislation pieces. compare that to when george bush was president of the united states in '07 and '08 and the democrats led the congress. 460 bills were enacted to make america better, to serve the american people. and we are on target this year
to be in session for 107 days only. they earned the title of the do-nothing congress. the american people deserve a do-something congress. in fact, they deserve a do the right thing congress. this is exactly what house democrats are ready to do by working across the aisle to achieve results and we know it is possible because we have done it. there have been a number of moments over the past four years when speaker boehner frustrated in his conference turned into democrats to pass key legislation. we supplied the votes to keep the government open and reopen it after the october shutdown. we pushed the budget control act over the finish line to avoid defaulting on our debt. and after hurricane sandy,
devastated families, farms and small businesses and 179 republicans walked away from the victims of sandy and said you are on your own. but 192 democrats voted for the disaster relief package which is the only reason it passed. same true for the violence against women's act, highway bill and the farm bill. when president bush was in office, democrats worked to pass a new gi bill, a bill to increase energy independence and legislation to prevent another great depression. today we see a republican majority that automatically opposes anything president obama present ever n though the country needs action. "atlas shrugged", the ann rand
involved that ron paul sights often says this about congress: again "atlas shrugged"/ann rand quote there are two sides to every issue. one is right and one is wrong. but the middle is also evil. but the middle is also evil. comprimise isn't evil. it is the necessary pursuit of those who govern responsible in a agreement. we listen to each other. the american people are not looking for people that will not compromise. they want us to do this in a
bipartisan way that demands comp compromise. it isn't hard to imagine the results if that were the case. according to a study in 2011, had the republican majority worked with accurates that year to pass the job plan, the gdp would have grown by as much as 2% and 1.9 million jobs would have been created. sadly, they didn't. it was a missed opportunity and real shame. even without help from the congress, the president received significant progress over the last years. as he pointed out on saturday, by nearly every indicator the country is doing better today than it was when president obama took office. 10 million new jobs have been
created in over four years. $800,0 $800 billion in health care and the most significant decline in poverty since 1966. think about how much more progress could be made if congress were a partner with the president not an obstical. a congress led my democrats would make sure people felt we were on their side. we would be centered on taking action to jump start the middle class and expand the middle class and restore faith in the promise if you work hard and take responsibility you can access opportunities such as home ownership, higher education
and the secure retirement. the way to achieve that is for congress to enacting precisely what republicans promised in 2010 but failed to deliver. and that is i quote again a plan to create jobs, end economic uncertainty and make america more competitive. rather the republicans created more uncertainty rather than ending it. no certainty for doctors treating medicare patients that they will be paid adequately and continue to see the patients. democrats have proposed giving doctors and seniors that certainty. no certainty for states and localities seeking to build bridges and highways while democrats supported a long-term plan to invest in the
infrastructu infrastructure. democrats want to provide that certainty with a long term re-authorization of the export/import bank. and democrats want to fix the system through reform that keeps talented graduates here and enables the right for employers to hire the permanent and temporary workers they need. there is an agreement about the issue. the list goes on of course but not brought to the floor. house democrats would work to provide certainty in these ways and making the economy more competitive through our make it in america plan. in addition, we will work to jump start the middle class by expanding the minimum wage,
expanding access to education, helping student loan borrowers refinance, and making sure women get equal pay for equal work and making sure affordable childcare is available to those that need it. this isn't giving america a handout but a leg up. that is how we jump start a strong middle class and build a stronger national economy. and it is what our people want their congress to focus on. not partisan gains. not on obsessions with repealing the affordable care act. not lawsuits against the president or government shutdown. americans want a bipartisan effort to achieve results for the middle class. not a congress that stands in the way. that is what democrats are
campaigning for. a congress in which america's voices are heard. we will move forward with make it in america to expand manufacture, increase employment and open doors of opportunity. republicans block immigration reform but we believe it should be passed and signed into law. the chamber of commerce agrees with that and growers and farm workers agree with that. faith community agrees with that. unfortunately it hasn't come to the floor. while republicans allow discrimination efforts to keep minorities, seniors and students from exercising their right to vote, we will work to restore the voting rights act and protect and facilitate the ability of every american to cast their vote and have it
counted. while republicans try to resend patient protections and critical benefits we will protect a affordable health care for all-americans. while the republicans add billions to the deficit with tax cuts, we will work in a bipartisan way with no threats of shutdown or default. we must make sure social security, medicare, medicaid and other critical programs will be there for our children and grand children when they need it. while republicans spent $3 million of taxpayers dollars defending the defensive marriage act, we will work to prohibit
employment discrimination on sexual and gender identity. we will support the development and deployment of clean emergency and manufacturing technologies. and we will, as we have stood by in the past, we will stand by our veterans and maintain a strong national defense that can meet the challenges we face from terror groups from al-qaeda and isis, from iran's nuclear weapons, and from the destabalizes actions of putin and russia. america deserves to believe in a government that works. not one that can do no good and should disappear. we know congress can affect positive change because it has been done before.
over the past four years, the house of representatives created a government that is missing in action. it took many coming together to end the shutdown of the government last october. 144 republicans voted to keep the american government shutdown. i know what they thought about it and i fear what people around the world thought about it. it will take democrats, independents, and republicans who are tired of gridlock to come together in a vote five weeks from tomorrow to end the four-year shutdown of their congress. this shutdown of congress has been under taken by a republican majority in the house and a republican minority in the senate that used their rules to
obstruct and filibuster. the past four years have been proof that elections matter. america's stockholders, our voters, surely know they need new leadership on their bord of directors which we call the congress. america's challenges demand a serious majority that won't tell the middle class you are on your own but that reassures them we are on their side. one that reminds them of the good congress can do when it takes responsibility and translates the will of the people into the meaningful progress. in "young guns" kevin mccarthy said this: should we regain the
american people's trust we will insist our feet are held to the fire. if given the opportunity to govern we will deliver on our commitment. if we don't, i am competent the american people will send us packing. demonstrab demonstrablely the republicans haven't delivered on their commitment. in a gallop poll, 59% of the american people said they disapproved of congress. they disapproved of congress' performance because it isn't working for those it represents. time to send them packing. on november 4th the american people will have an opportunity to head mr. mccarthy's advice and take their congress back. in order for that to happen, the majority of americans, who have
been silenced in this congress, must speak loudly in the election clotted. they must speak with their vote and elect the democrats that will permit the house to work its will, listen to the american people and act on their behalf. they must chose a leadership that is committed to building security, opportunity and certainty. certainty for our economy, certainty for our middle class and certainty that the people of the house will always be on the people's side. thank you very much. >> thank you. if you could just stay here i will try to moderate based on the ground rules i laid out. if i could just use a
presidenti presidenti presidential question. every election watcher in washington expects democrats to lose house seats. why do you think that is? >> i think the context is historical. people say democrats are on the downside of history. but i have been around the country. been to 83 districts in which we are having contested elections and we have an example of amazing people running people respond with the agenda i have laid out. if i think they analyze it as i
>> josh turner. you alluded to isis here yet what do you think would be the parameters for possibly calling the congress back? pretty clear about saying we may have to have american boots on the ground. we -- do you think that is a realistic possibility and what is the conflict inside with democrats who say we need authorization, no we don't? >> i think the fact is this matter will be considered in the lame duck, whether it will be passed in the lame duck, i don't know. i think it is incumbent upon the united states -- the congress of the united states to reconsider the authorization of the use of force passed in 20 01 and 2002. i do not believe it is either necessary or do i believe it will happen we will come back for the lame duck but my expectation we will start debate on the circumstances that exist today. i think they are not allowed in the caucus. we have very thoughtful debate. the party was divided. the republican party was divided. i thought that was one of the more thoughtful debates we have had during the course of the past few years in which the house did work its will and it
listen to the american people. to that extent it was unlike the balance of the session. i think the party, although divided, there was no acrimonious debate within the caucus. a thoughtful discussion. i think there is a large majority that believes we need to consider the thoughtfully and appropriately in a timely fashion. >> i am a club member and freelance op-ed. steny made the point about jobs that there are over a million jobs and 1% additional unemployment rate and yet the message stays and the policy has stayed for the last decade of rich tax breaks as a way to create jobs even though sierras and 5:jobs create jobs. why is that the case that
message is stuck for rich tax breaks and also wired their 50 million fewer voters in the off year elections than in the presidential presidential election? i does your voters? >> you have vows to question. why is it that we give tax breaks to the wealthiest in america and tax breaks don't necessarily create jobs. frankly we didn't do that in 2007 through 2011 when we are in charge of congress and the united states. the republicans have done that frankly all the time that i've been in the congress the united states. i came in 1981. the result most dramatically in 2001 and 2003 when the republicans promised large tax breaks for the best off in america would result in an extraordinary growth and jobs. this stock market went down and ushered in the deepest
recession, december 2007 that i've experienced in my lifetime and anybody in this room has experience in their lifetime. our policy has been continues to be to have a fair tax policy. we need tax reform. you heard dave camp who offered a reasonable, thoughtful bill making the tough choices that have to be made. he couldn't get his own bill, this is that the republican chairman of the ways & means couldn't give his own bill to move forward. they couldn't even discuss it and debated and considered. we need tax reform to grow the economy to ensure we are more competitive. the president said that in a couple of his state of the union address. secondly in a recent poll a significant percentage of the american public was not sure there was an election on november 4. what i'm arguing is that elections make a difference.
we need people to come out to the polls. my proposition and one of the reasons republicans around the country trying to make it more difficult for people to vote is because their premise which is accurate my opinion is if everybody votes democrats when and i would urge every american to set aside a time to come to the polls. in maryland they can come to the polls seven days before november 4, the 23rd through to the 30th and i would urge them to do so. if they want their voice heard in the congress of the united states, if they want to make sure that the republican leadership does not refuse to bring to the floor of the house of representatives that would clearly mirrors the will of the american people they need to go to the polls and vote. we celebrate next year and we recognize next year is the 50th anniversary of the john
lewis march across the edmund pettis bridge in which he marched to register to vote from selma to montgomery. he was beaten and bloodied as were others in that line of marchers. shortly thereafter we passed the voting rights act. the voting rights act simply says you have the opportunity. you must seize that opportunity if you're going to make a difference. >> we will go over to the side of the room. >> eric with the fiscal times. steny did is talked a lot about the need for the war on isis but there has been little discussion about the potential cost to the government and taxpayers with this. what is your take on a likely impact of a long-term battle and what would that do to the democrats agenda?
>> i think we have to look at that honestly. i think we need to have a mic in iraq where the administration contracted less than 100 billion in costs and spent over a trillion in costs. general shinseki pointed out there's going to be a lot mor more -- we need to have careful hearings and realistic assessment of the costs of doing what the president and the american people think needs to be done and that's prohibiting isil from terrorizing not only his own region but posing a national security threat to ourselves. we need an honest assessment of that. we have not done that at this point in time but i would hope we would and would urge and not with rose-colored glasses that realistic -- realistically given our past experience.
>> what about the agenda? >> for the economy? i think growing the economy and defeating terrorism are not mutually exclusive. i think america can do both and must do both. we need to grow the economy if we are going to be strong. we need to create jobs for our people. i feel confident that america is going to be a country they want to be and they will have the security they want. i think we have to do both. we are the richest country on the face of the earth and also the strongest. we have the will to come together and work together and we can accomplish those two objectives. >> when we take one of the back here and we'll move over this way. >> cindy with the voice of america. with americans very concerned about terrorism what world do you think foreign policy will play in the upcoming elections and do you think it could possibly even be a game-changer?
>> i certainly think foreign-policy is more discussed than it was six months ago. i think the threat of isil and the takeover the crimea illegally by putin and russia threaten ukraine and the threat of a nuclear-armed iran and the chaos if you will in the middle east have all elevated policy consideration however i believe the american people are still very focused on the economy, on their future, them and their families and i think they have more confidence today than they had six years ago when president obama took office. i still think it's a major
concern. there's there is no doubt the foreign policy and the threat posed by isil, russia and ukraine and a nuclear-armed iran have raised focus. of course today as you know the president, today or tomorrow his meeting with the new prime minister of india mr. modi and they think they will have significant discussions about the partnership with india. the largest democracy in the world and the oldest democracy in the world can play in the global picture. i think the fact that that is occurring at this point in time, india has its own concern about terrorists. i think you point out the relevance of your question that foreign-policy is going to be a significant concern.
my own view is the continuing economic concerns and as i posited today the lack of effectiveness or willingness by the majority in the house of representatives to bring to the floor to consider the wish of the people will be a major consideration. >> i know you are not conceding anything in terms of the midterms that the growth areas further publicans tend to to be a swing state seats york, illinois, california. how would the republicans wanting those feeds change the way that conference operates with concern about 2016? >> well mr. boehner seem to be pretty optimistic in this discussion over the weekend but
i'm not sure that those seats would change the very hard line that is in control of the republican party. after all is not only the seats that control the republican republican party, to the club for growth and heritage action, the koch brothers and others whose fast contributions of money have had a real impact on the republican party not only the 45 or 50 or 60 hard-liners in the republican conference. after all had boehner been willing to walk away from that group as i pointed out on numerous occasions when he was willing we passed significant bipartisan legislation. he's been unwilling to do that so whether or not notwithstanding the fact that the majority of the caucus do not fall in that very hard line segment of their group.
>> hi i write for tax know so this will be a ways & means committee question. one of the challenges your caucus is based in the committee in the last year and a half or so have been focused on tax reform by the chairman and a lot of policy areas even within the context of tax so with the new chairman coming in and the potential for pills outside of tax reform moving how do you think your caucus even if it would remain a minority could have more influence on tax policy in the house? >> well i'm not sure who the new chairman is going to be. of course i quoted at was shrugged -- "atlas shrugged." after all as i pointed out the chairman of the ways & means committee worked in a bipartisan fashion as they think you now including democrats and
republicans in discussions of various aspects of the tax code. now wasn't a bipartisan bill that he presented but from our perspective and you heard the president say this and you certainly heard leader pelosi and i say this, that he presented a bill that was an anonymous though. what do i mean by back? he made the trade-offs. however, the speaker's response to a real pill making real trade-offs was blah blah blah in response to the question what are you going to do about that though? completely dismissive. what did they bring to the floor? they brought to the floor built which would create almost a trillion dollars in additional deficit and debt and not pay for any of it. some of those we were foreign somewhere against every pointed out you were going to explode the deficit one more time as you did in 2001 and 2003 under your
tax cuts which you did not pay for. so the answer to your question is we need tax reform. i think there's a bipartisan consensus that we need tax reform and in order to get tax reform they only buy you get it, which is what we did in 1986, is in a bipartisan way where republicans in the congress and democrats in the congress and a republican president ronald reagan worked together with significant help from others in the reagan administration to achieve tax reform. that's what we have got to do and that's what we'll try to do and i think we can do when the democrats are elected and we have leadership on the ways & means committee. somebody who believes that working together is in fact what you need to do. >> sometimes a lame-duck session
is used to approve free trade policy. is there any -- in any -- and this lame-duck? >> i don't think so. probably leadership has not mentioned it at all and i doubt that it will come up in either the pacific or the europeans. i doubt that will come up. >> from the standpoint of the hospital that is the prospect of the senate elections securing a democratic majority? >> we have been the matured -- the majority in the question is can we keep that majority of course in the answer is yes. there's a long analysis in the "washington post" today about 13 districts. i believe the senate democrats
will hold their majority. there's an interesting race going on in kansas as you know, or you may know, but i think when you look at those 13 races i think democrats can win sufficient numbers of seats so that we will have over 50 members of the united states senate and we will keep the senate in my view. >> we will stay over and on that side of the room for a few minutes. >> hi andrea wolf. i've noticed as i'm sure everybody else has that both parties are discussing the women's vote. how do you feel the women's vote is going to affect the election and how deep you republicans approach in trying to capture view the women's vote which is historically gone to democrats.
>> i don't know if the women's vote is historically gone to republicans. >> to democrats. the republicans have eyes then -- obviously been capitalized on aiming to try to bring in more votes. >> the problem is they have such a record of opposing issues of real importance to women, children and families and i think all those issues motivate women and men, but women in particular who are very focused on their families and very focused on their children, very focused on how women are treated and whether they get equal pay. republicans have refused to bring that to the floor. millions of women are trying to support themselves living on minimum wage. the minimum wage is lower today by about 45% that was in 1968. the last time we raise the
minimum wage was when we took back the house. we need to raise the minimum wage. we need to provide affordable childcare. so i think that women, when they come out to vote, will look at the records. not about talking about it but you have to act in vote. so i think there is no doubt that women voting in significant majority for democrats and i would urge them as i have urged everybody in this speech to come out and express their voice so that their issues will in fact be brought to the floor of the house of representatives for consideration. right now it's shut down. >> i am mary burger with washington daily. i want to follow up on a
question about trade and asked you if you've heard anything about the possibility of trade promotion authority coming up in the lame-duck and then on the u.s. import-export bank which was mentioned in the speech. what's your strategy for getting a a long-term rappers asian xt or? >> as you know mr. cantor and i worked for three or four months in a bipartisan way on a few issues in the last congress that we did in a bipartisan way. mr. cantor and i worked on them we brought that bill to the floor and every democrat voted for it. 93 republicans voted against it. republicans in the congress have refused to bring it to the flo floor. i talked about certainty in my speech. the republicans had one of the things they wanted to bring to congress with certainty. mr. hensarling is very much opposed to the export-import bank. we believe it has a very
positive effect on job creation and makes money. the irony is the party that wants to balance the budget projects a mechanism that makes money for the treasury. my expectations are and i have urged the business community large, medium and small who are affected by the export-import bank dorf facilitating the creation of jobs and selling products by the operations of the export-import bank to enga engage, democrats and republicans, on this issue. my own view is that if that bill were brought to the floor it's another instance where not bringing a bill to the floor precludes its consideration of the will of the people which is of course what mr. boehner and the young guns that they were going to do.
41 republicans wrote a letter to the speaker saying we want a permanent rasterization of the export-import bank. it was never brought to the floor. what we now have is the extension to june 30 as you know. that gives uncertainty. it gives some certainty to lenders and borrowers into purchasers from across the oceans of american products as to whether or not that assistance is going to be there in the future. so the question what am i going to do, i'm going to work hard to see it reauthorized as soon as possible to give certainty to all of those entities in the near term. tpa, i think tpa was incorporated in your question and i think it's essential essentially my response. i don't think right now there is a consensus in either party to bring that forward.
as you know, i have been historically a very strong supporter and continue to be. >> hi. i'm from the national disability rights network and my question and i know the answer already because i know how you feel but i want to put it out there. the voting block for people with disabilities, people with disabilities have barriers. people and institutions can't vote and not having ballots in braille and not be able to register to vote in all of those things. where do you see those people and what are your plans to help that block? >> one of the things i mentioned is to facilitate, to facilitate equal voting. this democracy is better the more inclusive it is. the more people that speak, i.e.
vote, the better america will be in to the extent that we facilitate all people voting, america will be better and certainly as sponsor of the american disabilities act and a co-sponsor of the disabilities act i'm a believer that we need to adopt reasonable accommodations of the language of the disabilities act which facilitates people with disabilities voting either ask us to polls, braille ballots, other ways to communicate their choices maintaining the secrecy of the ballot is what we need to do. i will continue to work on that and we need to pass a voting rights act response to shelby versus folder which is adopted a premise that is not sure that somehow things have changed to the extent that we no longer
need protections that were included in the voting rights act passed overwhelmingly in 2006 by republicans and democrats and signed by george bush. >> the announcement you are going to be speaking and taking part generated number questions from outside of the press club for members who are not living in washington. the crowning achievement of the last democratic congress they think you would agree is obamacare. how do you think it has turned out so far and what impact if any will that have on midterm elections? >> the affordable care act as i call it, the president points out correctly that it will be -- republicans will call it obamacare right up until the time that is widely received in working well and then they'll call up the affordable care act. the affordable care act is working. like any large piece of
legislation, it was difficult to implement and continues to pose a challenge. however millions and millions and millions of people now have access to affordable quality health care. millions of people are not shut out because of pre-existing conditions. being a woman is not treated as a pre-existing condition on the affordable care act. in fact we have seen stories which indicate premiums are coming in. the competition is up and running out the marketplace. the irony is it was perceived as somehow a socialist system. these are all private-sector providers. all we have created is a market for which consumers can go and compare shopping. that's what the free market is all about. so i think at worst the affordable care act is going to be neutral and in my opinion mostly a positive and certainly as the years go by it will
become a more positive aspect of american life because more and more and more americans will have access to affordable quality health care, which they need, what they want and which i think increasingly they see the affordable care act as an accomplishment. >> this is your 33rd year in congress and i wonder from that perspective i would just like to ask another question that we received but this year has featured one government if you like to screw up after another from the va scandal to the irs scandal to the intelligence failures that made the growth of isis seem like a surprise. given all that how much faith should the american people have in their federal government? >> well i think as i've said we need to restore the faith that has been shaken by the
unwillingness of the congress of the united states, republican leadership in the house of representatives in particular, to consider the issues the american people feel are important and by pulling data overwhelmingly support. i think if the congress were working the trust level would be substantially heightened. now we have some real challeng challenges. when frankly things don't work correctly, democrats came out very strongly with reference to the va issues, with respect to the altering of statistics in terms of veterans waiting times. all of us were very angry about that and the president has put in a new leader who is making very substantial reforms to make it work as well as veterans deserve, which means making sure
they have access to the va health care system in a timely basis which provides them very good health service, which they agree -- on the irs, i think the hearings that have been held on that are pretty clearly indicating this is not the direction of the administration. it was corrected at some point in time but not timely enough and democrats have made it very clear that what happened or what appeared to have happened is unacceptable. no american, whatever their views, whatever their party, whatever status they find themselves and politically or otherwise should have their tax issues related to any of those taxes other than what they
legitimately owe as taxes, period. >> i know you feel strongly and confident that the democrats will maintain control of the senate, nevertheless i would like to ask how would things change for the house democrats if republicans were to gain control of the senate and how would things change for president obama if the republicans were to gain control of the senate? >> well i think we would see exactly what the american publ public -- more gridlock, more confrontation and more partisanship. they all indicate they don't want any of that sell my urging to the american people would be elect people who are going to work with, cooperate with the president of the united states. you may not agree on every issue
but we are separate and coequal branch of government in the united states that we need to reflect thoughtful consideration of the president's proposal. we are after all part of one branch of government that proposes policy. the executive carries out policy and that's the context in which we have to operate but having said that i think the american people ate it very clear they think the obstructionism is largely the responsibility of the republican party. thomas mann and norm ornstein one with the brookings institution one with the american enterprise institute wrote a book in a book and essentially the same of their book was there is gridlock, there is confrontation, there are certain refusal to compromise and while they say they criticize republicans in the past and democrats in the past at this point in time there only conclusion is the
responsibility of the republicans both in the house and in the senate which have led to this confrontation, refusal to compromise. remember alice shrugged, iran said compromises in the middle. if you believe in is simply my way or the highway or my way or no way then you will get the gridlock in competition the american people hate. my proposition to the american people people in his speech and when i go anyplace in country if you don't like what's going on elect a party that will work with the president to create a better economy and a more secure country. >> congregants -- congressman hoyer i thought it would be too partisan if we were to exchange mementos representing our respective universities, ohio state in the university so i chose more of a neutral memento
to present to you the traditional national press club mug and we thank you. [applause] >> thanks a lot. wish me good luck on saturday. [laughter] >> tuesday night at 9:00 eastern, we'll have live coverage of the second and final debate for texas governor. democrat wendy davis and republican greg abbott. next, wayne slater of "the dallas morning news" gives us an update on the race and previews the debate. >> with governor rick perry
stepping down at the end of the year, it is an open seat in texas. state senator wendy davis the democratic nominee and attorney general greg abbott are running. >> great to be with you. >> what do the polls tell you in this race? >> the polls are all over the place except in the regard, the republican is in ahead, now is the republican ahead by double digits maybe as many as 15, 16 points? some polls indicate that. there are some internal polls the race may be in single
digits. but in every case the republican greg abbott is ahead, has held a durable lead and frankly in a state where every statewide official is a republican and where no democrat has won the governor's race since ann richards in 1990. it would be an enormous feet -- feat if a democrat won this year. >> there is a third party on the ballot. does that have any impact on the race thus far? >> probably not. that's not really what's happening here. the funny thing was with respect to 1990, that was the year ann richards did win, a lot of people at least on the democratic side saw a year ago that there was some expectation that this could be the year that a new ann richards, wendy davis, this woman who stood up last year and -- in a filibuster against some abortion regulations became a national celebrity on the left. was this going to be the new ann richards, the new person who could begin the process of turning the very red state of texas blue? that has not happened for a whole lot of reasons.
it's not impossible for her to win. but she's had real problems in her campaign. they've had two or three shake ups. again, it's a long shot, not impossible, but a long shot that she could do this in november. >> what is her message to voters? and consider do you think she resonated up until this point the way you and many others thought she might have? >> i think part of the reason she's not ann richards. she's very smart, harvard educated attorney who frankly when you see her in the first televised debate and the upcoming debate comes across as scripted. even when she's not scripted, she's extraordinarily reserved, confident but that doesn't make for good red meat politics.
the strategy that she decided to push was first a personal narrative. she was up from the boot straps woman who was living in a trailer with a child and sort of earned her way through harvard law school. that was going to be the secret of her success. when some stories raised question about not the fundamental legitimacy of that story, but some questions whether some of the facts in this narrative were blurred a bit, it took the shine off that campaign. the campaign also has chosen fundamentally to offer as a message that the republican opponent is a political insider, part of the rick perry republican machine that's been in power for 15 years in texas and they help themselves but have not helped you. it's a message that kind of sounds good, at least the consultants thought it sounded good, but there's very little indication in the polling and
many texas voters that it has resonated very successfully. >> in terms of a personal narrative, greg abbott has been very open about his condition. he's a paraplegic. he was injured in 1984 after an accident when a tree fell on him when he was running following a severe storm in texas, and he has used that in part of his campaign ads. >> he has. here is a person in a wheelchair to the extent and that any voter might wonder if he has the physical ability, has the stamina, as has the ability to be the governor, he has demonstrated absolutely that he can. in one of his cam feign ads, he not only showcases the fact that he is in a wheelchair, he is taking the wheelchair up, up in a parking garage as a kind of met for about how he is -- metaphor about how he has
overcome odds in his life and he hasn't given up. one of the issues in the campaign, education, transportation, and others, overcrowding highways, one of his ads he is in a wheelchair along a gridlock section of highway going faster than the cars and making the promise that if he's elected governor he would fix all this gridlock, and that's a brilliant way of dealing with his personal issue and also an issue in the campaign. >> bottom line based on what you saw in this first debate, wayne slater, what do you expect to see in this second and final debate? >> there's only two things that are going to happen, one, greg abbott was very successful and appearing very likeable.
he will try to ignore wendy davis as much as possible. he will try to talk about what he wants to do, fix education, do things for highways, make texas great, the economic success that the state has. wendy davis has no choice but to go after abbott on issues, especially ethics issues, questions about money he's gotten from campaign contributors and the benefits that he's gotten in office. it's not the best route for wendy davis because when she does that, she hurts her likeability quotient, but she has no choice. she must attack. he must appear to be above the fray. >> wayne slater joining us from austin. senior political writer for the dallas morning news. thank you very much for joining us. >> great to be with you. coming up on c-span, governor martin o'malley o'malley. at theton journal looks
24 team midterm elections. >> house judiciary chairman talks about executive powers to bay. starting atit live 5 p.m. eastern time here on c-span. tonight, you can see the second and final debate between the candidates for texas governor. while have live coverage when wendy davis spaces greg abbott at 9:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> c-span's 2015 student cam competition is underway. this competition for middle and high school students will afford
-- road 150 prizes. documentary onn the topic "the three branches and you are cope. be -- grab a camera and get started today. >> now, a look at the debate between the candidates for iowa's seniors senate seat. can see this debate and others in their entirety at c-span.org. >> is joni ernst too extreme for iowa? >> i do not support a federal minimum wage. >> joni ernst does not think there should be a minimum wage. ernst believes iowans can
survive on $15,000 a year. extreme ideas, wrong for iowa. >> want to know what i care about? i care about protecting social security for seniors, like my mom and dad, about good schools, good-paying jobs, and health care we can afford when we need it. i'm joni ernst, and i approve this message. i will go to washington as a mom, soldier, and someone who really cares about the iowa we leave our children, and i cannot think of anything more important than that. >> do women have a right to make your own choices, or should public figures in washington make those decisions? i'm talking about your right to self-defense. it should be your choice, your right. congressman braley voted against your right.
>> the nra political victory fund is responsible for the content of this advertising. >> joni ernst promises shut down the department of education, hurting iowa students. >> [indiscernible] >> joni ernst, promises for them, too extreme for us. >> gov. martin o'malley spoke last week at a fundraiser for state senator marcia clark, during his visit to the state. it is just over one hour.
>> i am really honored to have governor o'malley here. when i was looking at all the things they wanted me to say about you, i realized -- >> they have things they wanted me to say? >> they will in a minute. say we have a few small things in common. i worked for many years to protect and promote the character of the city so that we would have a strong economic and that we would have a good quality of life. i know that you did the same thing when you were the mayor of maryland from 1999 to -- yes. >> you really helped move that city forward, to enhance the
environment is so that more businesses would go there. you put enormous effort into protecting chesapeake bay and bringing back the crab population up. we are going to give him a lobster time before dinner. in the romanian western tie. chesapeake bay is the third largest day of environmental significance. we are dealing with nitrogen pollution. we are losing our oysters. we are losing the e-mail grass. reverse thatg to problems so that we can also save the bay, which is a key component andur
the vitamins and nutrients to support the finish in this part of the country. just to be a little facetious, i brought you a photograph that my husband took. live inery fortunate to these terrific houses with great staircases and i believe you were in our house over the small and i cannot be there. and i happened to be in his house earlier this fall as well, to have someone who appreciates outstanding architecture coming here. giving this to you, you're going to sign it for me. [laughter]
you have done a truly outstanding job as governor. >> thank you. [applause] i am just going to speak a little bit about his role as governor and also some of the other things that he has done. in the past you served in the maryland legislature. for senator mikulski. statee was appointed attorney for the city of baltimore. as you heard, he served on the baltimore city council from 1991 to 1999. so chris and jim, look out. you never know what your future will be. and he was head of the