tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 30, 2015 9:00pm-11:01pm EDT
with the full sanction of international law. pursuant to these procedures in syria over the past year, the coalition has been conducting nearly 3000 airstrikes against isil targets. we are now in position with france, australia, canada, and this is what we will do. over the coming weeks we will be fights in turkey to apply constant pressure on strategic areas held by isil in northwest syria. we will be sustaining our support to anti-isil fighters. these efforts will put greater pressure on iso's operational areas and we will ensure through precision airstrikes isil leaders do not have sanctuary anywhere on the ground in syria. i civil seen face increasing
pressure from multiple directions across the battlefield in syria and iraq. as we have said from the start, this fight cannot be one in the military sphere. it will require a political solution to the crisis. one thing is certain. the vast majority of states around this table know the isil forces, isil itself, cannot be defeated as long as bashar al-assad remains president of syria. it cannot happen by definition of the lines of this battle, because who is lined up with whom, and the nature of these protagonists. the reason is defined in the beginning by how this fight itself began. this fight began when young people, young syrians looking for a future wanting nothing
more than opportunity and jobs, and education, when they went out to demonstrate for the future. and to claim the aspirations of young people. assad sent his thugs to beat them up. they were outraged by the fact -- theirldren where children were being not. they were met with bullets. that is how this whole thing began. people in a country looking for a future who were instead met with repression, torture, gassing, barrel bonds, assad will never be accepted by those he has harmed, never possible to become a legitimate leader in the future, never possible to lead a reconciliation or reunification of a country. that could not happen until he makes clear his willingness to
heal the nation, in the war, and declined to be part of the long-term future. today we must be focused on finding the solution that will stop the killing and lay the groundwork for a government the syrian people themselves can support. we know the terrorists can neither unite the country nor govern it. we know that assad can neither unite the country nor govern it. neither extreme offers the solution that we need and want. what is more, our ability to develop a credible international political process would be a farce from the beginning, incredible enough it will not stop people from fighting. if it were perceived as a way to extend or strengthen assad's hold on power. as obama said on monday the united states is prepared to work with any nation, including russia and they ran -- and iran
to resolve the conflict. there cannot be after so much bloodshed and carnage a simple return to the prewar status quo. my colleagues, the government of russia has argue with must support assad to defeat isil. hasreality is that assad rarely chosen himself to fight isil. as the terrace made inroads throughout large swaths of syria and iraq, raping, enslaving, murdering civilians along the way, the syrian regime did not try to stop them. faithfully -- they focused on moderate opposition groups fighting for a voice in syria. make no mistake. the answer to the syrian civil war cannot be found in a military alliance with assad. i'm convinced that it can be found.
it can be found through a broad support diplomatic initiative and at a political transition that has been accepted by the security council and participants of the arm five -- perm five. in conclusion, i call on all concerned governments including russia and syria to support a human initiative to broker a political transition. further delay is unconscionable. the opportunity is before us. if we can succeed in marginalizing the terrorists and bringing the country together, we can do exactly what this was set up to do. the security council and this institution. we could strike a huge blow
against extremism in syria, also in iraq, across the middle east and around the world. nothing would be more in keeping with the purpose for which this council was created. nothing would better serve the interests of the people that all of us are present. i hope we can achieve that. thank you. >> later, john kerry and sergey lavrov spoke to reporters about the russian airstrikes. they spoke at the united nations. mr. lavrov: we met with secretary kerry for the third time in a few days.
to whated our meeting our president agreed when they met here on the 28th of september. us torst instructional make sure the military the united states, the coalition led by the united states and the military of the russian syriation now engaged in at the request the syrian government get in touch and establish channels of communications to avoid any unintended incidents. we agreed the military should get into contact with each other soon. number two, we discussed what the president told us about the voting political process. we all want syria democratic, united, secular. a home for all groups.
whose rights are guaranteed. we have some differences as for the details on how to get there. we agree there are some steps we togeundertake very soon ther with other countries including the united nations on creating the conditions for the appliedto be used to be to promote the political process. is aieve that this meeting very useful occasion, to promote constructive and safe approaches to the situation in syria. we have agreed to remain in touch with john and always we're available for contacting each other. thank you for a much. kerry: he has
described the meeting we had which we would concur as a constructive meeting. i relayed and reiterated the concerns i expressed in the course of the un security council meeting led by russia concerns that we have of the nature of the targets and the need for clarity with respect to them. targetinging to be isil. we are concerned that is not what is happening. you, we agreedto on the imperative of as soon as possible, as soon as tomorrow, as soon as possible having a military to military d confliction. whatever can be done as soon as possible.
emergency ofhe that d confliction. number ofcuss a different ways to try to address the conflict itself. agreed totions were be further discussed. i need to take those back to washington to the president and our team. i am sure sergey will discuss them with president putin and his team. we will follow up on that for certain. we also agreed that it is imperative to find a solution to this conflict to avoid or seat and intensified by forces beyond anyone's control. the foreign minister agreed there is, even as we don't yet have a resolution with respect
, weome critical choices think we have specific steps that may be able to help lead in the right direction. that needs to be properly explored. we agree we have a lot of work to do. we're going to get to doing that work as rapidly as possible. isunderstand how urgent this . we need to see syria kept unified, secular, democratic. those are big agreements in that regard. touch istay in close continue to work on this. thank you all very much.
>> next, committee chair bob corker talks about the russian airstrikes in syria. syrian refugees, and the nuclear deal. -- interviewed by ben rose of the washington ideas forum. >> good morning. it is my honor to talk to the -- rman of the senate >> texas would not exist without tennessee. >> and ou an architect of the iran nuclear agreement. i believe we have to start with
the situation in syria. obama talkesident about a managed transition for the assad regime. a very different tone than he has taken when he said assad had to go. is there a shift? is it a smart thing to do this? mr. corker: there continues to be an evolution. assad is the singular poll for isis in if you look at what is happening there, we had a hearing yesterday. of of us see the tragedy what has occurred. in many ways we are reaping what we sowed as we were talking backstage.
tenurethe yugoslav episode, 10,000 people were killed. 4 million were displaced. we have blown by those numbers in a short time. 240,000 people are dead. 11 million people displaced. this is a human tragedy of epic proportions. obviously we have missed opportunities when it was evident we could make a difference relative to what happened on the ground. particularly in august and september of 2013. operation, no boots on the ground, no flags over syria that could've changed the momentum met at a time when we did have a moderate opposition. opportunities to
support them in an appropriate way. beeni know there have memos on the president staff to deal with the border of turkey which would have served two purposes. to seal the border of turkey, people are flying into turkey and syria and iraq. we could have provided a place for aid to be given inside the country. as we continue to miss opportunity after opportunity, no doubt things are evolving. one then you have to say about he -- knowing he is going to get no pushback, continues to thrust out. we have people all the time and they reset conversations they have with him.
they asked him why he has been so overt in foreign policy with so many domestic issues within his own country. he sees no pushback, no price to pay. what it is doing is raising his popularity within the country as they see russia coming into greatness from their perspective. that is continuing on the ground. we continue to let things evolve and make their own course. things are changing. i don't know where this goes with russia and iran. we are at least open to discussing the future with them. susan: thinking about the changing role of russia, russian warplanes have begun bombing targets in syria. should we have u.s. push back to that? mr. corker: we have received reporting this morning, i don't know if it is true or not, we
have received reporting even instead of targeting isis, we have received reports by some people that they are even hitting rebel camps. not people affiliated with isis. , obviously things have to be de-conflicted. somehow us andat other western friends and sunni alleys -- allies will create areas within syria or humanitarian aid can be given, where you can coalesce be taking back of territory by those people who are not extreme. but i see as things evolve it is unlikely the administration is going to take steps to do that. susan: critics say obama has mishandled the situation in syria from the start. defender say it is an impossible
situation destined to generate -- [indiscernible] at -- i read look those stories this morning. i know there is always going to be a day virgins of opinion. i believe during that timeframe in 20 where there was a moment, an opportunity, during a 10 hour operation to degrade his ability to deliver chemical operations from the air, which would have bombs deliver the barrel we are dealing with now, there was a moment where there was the free syrian army and it was real. i don't think anybody would debate that. it israel. action, itaking that
took the wind out of their sales. lap.mped in putin's a the administration talks about doing away with the declared weapons. assad has not declared them all. he is using chemical weapons now against his citizens. that was the biggest moment of opportunity. i think it was mishandled. they pushback. i think they created consternation. the west, our friends in europe and ourselves, we could have taken some action that would have made a difference, and in most people's opinion we didn't.
i will say something else that has been damaging, we have lost so much credibility. i'm in the region constantly. it heard us significantly as far as people believing they could rely on what we as a country say . i stood with the president. i believe when the president says there is a redline, it is something that whether you are republican or democrat, you should stand behind. authorization during a recess. we came back at a high moment of the foreign relations committee. we did not take those steps. susan: one of the consequences is the flood of refugees we see in europe. given our role in the world, and the role in this conflict, does the united states have an obligation to do more to address this crisis, not only sending money and a but accepting a
significantly increased number of refugees? mr. corker: we are the largest contributor of aid. people need to understand that. the countries together in europe now have surpassed us. as a country, we are the largest. we are the largest taker of refugees each year. each year we taken 70,000 each year. the administration has proposed we take in 85,000 instead of 70. in the next your we taken 100,000 instead of 85,000. congress will look at that. the likelihood is it will be supported. assad -- almost if façade. millions of people are flooding into europe. we are not dealing with people you are seeing on the tv
screams. this is a huge disconnect. it takes 18 months to two years to vet people and bring the men. the amount of syrians that will be part of that 85,000 number is 2500. at the end of the day, what you would think is that we and others would want to do, the syrians are people like you and i. they want to raise families and dignity. hope for visions of the future like people in this audience. you would think we would try to deal with the root cause. instead of this thing that is occurring relative to people coming in because of the procedures that take place, that we would want to you with the root cause on the ground.
no foreign entity will conmen and change the dynamic on the ground. when you know that he is the root cause of all of this that isg, he is the one torturing people in manners that i have stop saying in public because it is so grotesque. things that took place a thousand years ago but he is inflicting that today as we sit here in this nice theater, he is doing that. i would hope our efforts would be more toward dealing with syria and such a fashion that syrians can live in their own country. susan: let's talk about afghanistan. the taliban have captured control in the north. it is their biggest military victory in a decade. does this mean that the united states should reconsider the plan to withdraw most u.s. forces from afghanistan by the
end of next are given the lessons of iraq? is it going to be necessary to make a longer-term commitment? mr. corker: certainly, this was a major change on the ground. we have not had this activity and a long time. grounditary folks on the understand that if we take it down to 3-4000 troops, all they are doing is the military has a huge footprint. they are there to protect their own people. that is their first concern. but we have the ability to protect them, to care for them if they have injuries. takes a big footprint. if you take it down to 3-4000, all you are really doing is protecting yourself. we do have to rethink that. the turn of events on the ground
that is being gained by the taliban is hugely disappointing. we have to rethink it as we see the momentum taking place on the ground. >> all the human resources, all the casualties, how does anything change so when we look forward, when one day we do with, how do we make things different there? i visited where we have been training. --ill tell you it is pretty when you look at the people we are training and their allegiance to deal with the issues, it is disheartening to see the amount of dollars spent in those training operations. when you see sometimes that we care more about what happens relative to things on the ground and they do it is disheartening. certainly -- if you
break it you own it, he is going to be here later, our nation and others have learned a great deal from that. there is something to be learned from breaking it and leaving it, which is what the administration did in libya. we are in it. we obviously the footprint is majorly different. the casualties are being taken on by now. i think more patience and persistence is warranted with the changes being taken place. susan: you negotiated a bipartisan bill that got through the senate in the to approve numbers to provide congressional review of the iran nuclear deal. you were supportive of the disapproval, unable to get a vote on that. did you achieve what you had hoped to achieve when you devise
that bill? rememberr: you have to when we devise the bill none of , hadd any idea, most of us no idea what the agreement was going to say. if you look at where we have been, the executive branch has consumed power away from the legislative branch. most people has eroded this over time. it was an effort to bring power back. the president would negotiate an executive agreement. decideat means is he can , and it doesn't have the force of power after he leaves. that is the way most presidents are doing things now to keep from coming to congress. the strongest is a treaty.
many presidents are moving away from those types of agreements. was going to go straight to the un security council without congressional approval. because congress has played such a role in bringing iran to the table, we passed sanctions that many people believe for the most crippling sanctions, and because we have played that role i was able to convince thankfully people on the other side of the isle it was appropriate that before those sanctions were to at least have a vote of approval or disapproval, to see the agreement, to see the classified annexes, so yes we achieved a step in the legislative branch beginning to take back power. the american people understand this agreement more than any
agreement that has taken place in modern times. the fact is we understand it. it is a long-winded answer but the agreement is obviously going to take place. this, a givese of congress oversight. if you look at north korea, a deal was done, nobody paid attention, they have a nuclear weapon. , theagreement gives us president has to certify every 90 days they are in compliance. there is a host of documents that have to be given to us. it keeps us in this in an oversight capacity forever. susan: we are out of time. thank you. [applause]
>> please welcome deputy national security advisor ben rhodes. [applause] good morning, everyone. en, i've always wanted to get you on the couch, actually, so if you want to lie down, psychoanalyze -- mr. rhodes: everybody else doing this. tot: i would love to get up 30,000 feet as quickly as possible, but we have to talk about the news of the morning and of the week. engaged inpparently airstrikes on what it says are isis targets. hasppears that russia formed an alliance with iraq,
iran, our target, syria. there is a feeling and republicans circles and in washington that putin is the activist in the middle east, that your boss is risen -- is withdrawing as quickly as he can, with possibly dire consequences. tell us the thinking in the white house right now what you are doing and, more to the point, what you are not doing. mr. rhodes: with respect to what russia is doing, they are not forming anything new in terms of an alliance. they had decades long relationship with the government of syria. a have had a long-standing relationship with the government of iran. those are their partners in the region. the fact is they are a -- their assad, as seen in his country collapse around him, so we are just seeing an escalation of that, military support to assad.
we said to president putin the notion that russia would want to isil is we could work with. wouldalition against isil be welcome, if they are constructive. the main determining factor for us was did they understand parallel to counterterrorism efforts, there has to be a resolution of the conflict in syria. otherwise the fighting will not stop. you cannot make the two thirds of the people in a country who in sunni accepted outcome which he is still the leader of the country. which moves quickly to the second part of your country. i think what president obama has been very deliberate about in the middle east is we have to protect our core interests. that means denying terrorists safe havens, protecting allies and partners, but we have to recognize there are not military
solution and u.s.-imposed military solutions, or for that russian-imposed military solutions. mr. goldberg: is there something about not allowing russia to build on nato southern flank? mr. rhodes: they had a base in syria. this is nothing new. everybody is looking at putin as if this is an offensive maneuver. they have had bases in syria for a long time. this is their principal client in the arab state world. they are collapsing. he is trying to prop it up. i think that is hardly somebody in a strong position. that is the same in ukraine. they had a client and not a nokivich, andn ya they are not trying to prop them up. this is not so many operating from a position of strength. this is somebody who has seen two of his principal partners in the world in a lot of trouble. mr. goldberg: why is it
interpreted as we are on the back foot a little bit rather than russia and this alliance? mr. rhodes: again, i would rather be us than russia. our economy is growing. we are expanding our footprint in the world enriching into asia, africa, and the americas in a new way. russia is contracting, hollowing out in many ways. i think the reason why, for too long, the way in which foreign-policy issues are viewed in the city, frankly, is number one, you show your strength through military force. and if we are not somehow filling certain vacuums with american military power, then we are not serious. but the fact of the matter is, not only do we think that is not good in terms of our resource allocation and risks to our troops, we don't think there is a military post in syria. if you put military troops on the ground in syria -- mr. goldberg: but you want to one against isis.
mr. rhodes: we want the world to win against isil. everybody focuses like a laser on the middle east. we spend more time and resources than any other region. we cannot continue to be in a cycle world of our resources and attention is trying to fix fundamentally broken societies in the middle east, when you have a big world out there where we have enormous interests. is the largestc emerging market in the world. that will matter a lot more to the american people in the 21st century than middle east is. now, we have grave threats in the middle east we have to deal with, not to minimize that, but there is a certain mentality that every problem is in the middle east, every problem is a nail and we only have a hammer. yes, the military has to be part of it. mr. goldberg: do you think we are paying a price for an action at the beginning of the syrian war, when we did not engage, when isis was not what it is
today, the predecessor groups? mr. rhodes: again, the question is, what are the options available. everyct of the matter is time the president looked at this, and we looked at it repeatedly, we did not see a viable military option that could resolve the situation in syria. and so, yes, you could have taken action earlier, but that does not mean there would have been the same fundamental effect. you have a sectarian war taking place, you have a sunni majority, other minority populations are concerned about their positions. you have external actors arming the country. the notion that airstrikes or support of one opposition group was going to eliminate those factors i don't think is borne out by the reality of the middle east. the fact is, what we have always stressed to our partners, is there has to be equal accommodation.
without political accommodation in the country, there will not be a solution. mr. goldberg: would you rather at this point see assad stay in power that have isis march into damascus? mr. rhodes: no, we do not want isil to march into damascus - mr. goldberg: can we at least agree on the name of the group? mr. rhodes: the point we have made on assad is he is the initiator of this conflict. he is the one who started dropping barrel bombs and brutalizing his people. mr. goldberg: with a lot of help from iran. hezbollah anda iran, primary sponsors of hezbollah. it is not just a matter of we object because of our values, which we certainly do. it's the fact just from a realist's perspective, how do you restore stability with the guy who has lost control of his country because his people rejected him? isil has benefited from his
actions. one interesting thing, assad is not really gone after isil. he has preferred to brutalize the broader sunni groups. nihilism in is this parts of syria, clearly assad's actions have been a magnet for foreign fighters, for jihadists across the region to come there. is nossages, look, there outcome that is truly stable if he is still in charge of the country. thatid back in the process we would have to negotiate something that would be implemented over time, but the outcome would have to be change in leadership. mr. goldberg: how important does president obama think putin is in the world, and how much does president obama not like putin? [laughter] mr. goldberg: like if there is a
scale, the french president, netanyahu, putin, where do they fall on this spectrum? mr. rhodes: i don't think there is any way i can answer that. mr. goldberg: i think you should try. [laughter] mr. goldberg: extremely controversial statements. mr. rhodes: in terms of personal he isonships, you know, what you see. when they sit down together, when they talk on the phone, it's not like they are getting into arguments. they are disagreeing with one another and their having very straightforward conversations about how they differ. in terms of his role in the world, look, when russia -- mr. goldberg: in many ways, he is the first cold war president. i think when russia
works with us on international problems, it is easier to resolve them. for instance, russia worked with us on the iran deal. they were basically in lockstep with us through those negotiations, except a couple issues. that was enormously helpful in a cop wishing what we believe is a very successful deal -- in accomplishing what we believe is a very successful deal preventing iran from having a nuclear weapon. when syria, russia has not worked with us and it is become has difficult because assad been a long-standing client for them and many wasteful. the way the president views this -- the more russia invests itself in essentially the international system that works back and resolve problems, the easier it is for us to advance our interests in areas where we overlap with the russians. in terms of the threat they pose, look, this is not a
country that is resurgent, that is going to take over vast spheres of influence. the theaters where they are operating are the places where the notion that russia is having to try to assert itself in eastern ukraine, having completely lost the hearts and minds of the people in the rest of the country come into europe, again is not inoffensive maneuver -- is not an offensive mover in a strategic concept. the fact that min pushing these boundaries is undermining the rule that govern the international system, he gets away with that in the ukraine without paying a price. other people look at that and think, i could do that, too. the basis of a lot of what we're doing in the ukraine, the sanctions we are imposing that are having a significant impact, is to help resolve the situation for the ukrainian people so they can determine their own future, but two, it buttresses the
international system. but one thing i was struck by, mean, which ik, i completely understand given what the chineseng, but president came to washington, too. i think china will play a more significant role in the 21st century, and sometimes that is lost. russia and the middle east have been a touchstone of our foreign policy so many years that is often where the attention is. that is incredibly important, but there is also a big world out there. mr. goldberg: i would love to keep pressing on this, but we are limited in time. we are coming to the end of the obama presidency. we are beginning to see patterns in what we might call obama doctrine. obviously, to your critics, obama doctrine is about a version to the use of force in
the middle east, things like that. from your perspective, and i ask u.s. sort of the leader inside the white house of the opening to cuba, talk about if you can for a minute the white house approach to this idea that you of thisone of the goals administration has been to take adversaries and neutralize them as adversaries. the obama to name doctrine, would that be it, or is there something else? think,des: again, when i -- what i think, if you look at the totality, it is about positioning the united states to be a leader going forward in the 21st century. that may sound trite. to fill that in, though, with that means is, number one, we are rebuilding the strength of our own foundation, our economy. number two, we are extricating in norm asrom the allocations of resources we had when we took office in iraq and afghanistan.
we had a hundred 50,000 troops, spending a trillion dollars. we are husbanding the resources necessary for the united states. number three, that we are using diplomacy to neutralize potential conflicts. with iran, we successfully prevented them from getting nuclear weapons and avoid a potential costly war in the middle east. mr. goldberg: it is a huge risk, though, to try to extricate yourself from the middle east. leftould argue that we iraq too early and bad actors fill the void. as the president learned that you cannot get out? that you cannot leave, no matter what you try to do? mr. rhodes: one could argue that going into iraq, invading that country and eliminating the apparatus of the state and creating the initial vacuum, that we are still dealing with that. mr. goldberg: every president inherits bad policy. mr. rhodes: this is a pretty big pile. [laughter]
mr. rhodes: the point i make the agency assigned to the united states in these matters, that we have to be realistic about. , which wasps in iraq the potential optional the table, with no legal protection because the iraqi government was not going to support it. the notion that that would make all the people in iraq get along and not have sectarian conflicts and not have isil emerging out of the ashes of al qaeda and iraq, which is basically the same organization, what with those 10,000 troops, how would they have made the iraqi people resolve their differences? they have made nouri al-maliki not the leader of the sectarian leaders? how would it have not created a vacuum for isil? it's the notion that if we have a certain number of troops somewhere, somehow they will be
stable. that is just not the nature of the lessons we take away from the last decade. the fact of the matter is it is not about extricating, we have to deny terrorist safe havens. we have to train better partners, frankly, to do that on the ground with us. but again, all the united states is doing in our foreign policy, the obama doctrine, to our , whatever is often the worst places are in the world that day is our policy. and we did it. is not al-assad, somehow it is our agency. the fact is it is a challenging world. by the way, i think it will be that way for long time in the middle east. the structures there do not make sense to the modern world, and a lot of states. we cannot allow that to deter us from the fourth point i was going to make, which is we need to refocus on other areas of the world as well. the asia-pacific, where we have enormous interest, economic
interests that dwarf anything in the middle east. latin america and africa. these are emerging regions. ofs is where the front lines democracy are, where we are trying to consolidate democratic progress. has theberg: in short, president decided that all you can do in the middle east's disaster mitigation and asia is where the future policy lies for america? mr. rhodes: we still have to mitigate threats in the middle east. we have affirmative interests there, partners there that we would like to see stronger. those are first and foremost. we would like to see a resolution to the underlying conflicts that are taking place in the middle east, which are sectarian and political as much as they are rooted in terrorist activity. but i do think there is a certain component of american policy that will have to be mitigation. we have tried the affirmative
project of building democracy there. the fact of the matter is we cannot determine for people by force how their society will be organized. provide incentives and disincentives for people to pursue models in which there is a political accommodation and stability. unless we realize that, we will find ourselves i think repeating a lot of errors that would be very costly. mr. goldberg: ben, thank you very much for doing this. appreciate it. mr. rhodes: thank you. [applause] >> house speaker john boehner announced he is stepping down as speaker this month. we spoke with daniel webster, who is running to replace speaker boehner. joining us from capitol hill is daniel webster, republican from florida, and a candidate for speaker of the house. "the tampa bay times"
you are running a hard, so how is the campaign going? mr. webster: i have been in a few leadership races in my life. either one-on-one or phone calls or face-to-face. plodder.ll myself a i take everything as it comes. we are working our way through the conference and hopefully will have success. speaker boehner announcing the elections will take place next week, october 8. are you satisfied with that date? yes, i'm happy we will get an opportunity to share why i'm running. of that will move up some those things. people are being more inquisitive now. i'm running because i want to have a principal-based, member-driven congress. i think we have one base now on power. the floridan legislature before i became speaker in turn those things upside down and made it a
principal-based house, and it worked. i will like to do the same thing here. host: based on the power of whom? mr. webster: a few people at the top of the pyramid of power usually dictate the bills. in a lot of ways, with the woman them or debate them. that is a power-based system. what i want to do is push down that pyramid of power, spread out the base away every member a chance to be successful. that empowers the general membership and empowers the committee, empowers individuals so the policies that we make is good policy, because it has been vetted by so many people. the second is the most important part of doing that is you have to take up the most important issues first. because the way power works, they hold everything until the end and you run into this exponential train wreck and there is only one solution. and because you have that one
solution, at the end, you have to either vote yes or no annual not solving anything. the continuing resolutions in the florida legislature used to hold the budget, major bills, until after midnight on the last day of the session. then people just wanted to go home. so they voted for them. a lot of times the debate on multiple issues, hundreds of hundreds of pages of bi lls, would be and 10, 15 minutes, done. i reverse that. i began taking up the most important issues first, and saved the bridge naming and road naming until the end. it makes the opportunity to negotiate, to talk about, to keep everybody on the even playing field, including the governor or the president, in .his case, or in the senate the unintended consequences are
thetotal poll numbers, themes as far as favorability, turned right side up. host: let me follow up on standing firm on principles. is there room for compromise with those in your own party and with your colleagues from the other side of the aisle? can you do both? yes, but power and principal cannot coexist. it can't. you either base thing on the principle that everyone's vote grouportant, or you let a of people make all the decisions for the members and they are required to stay in line and vote for whatever it is that comes from the top down. so if you were to talk to people that were of the democratic side or the republican side, they would tell you it was a great including debbie rosman schultz, but also conservatives.
yet they both like the way it worked. host: in his appearance on "face the nation," speaker boehner warned about false prophets within his own party. do you think he was talking about you? don't think so. this is not a personality issue. this is a process issue. this is a philosophical issue based on whether or not you operate the house of representatives on principle or power. he was talking about making promises they cannot fulfill because they would be working on issues or putting on amendments that would force the senate to take and so forth. that is not what this is full stop this is about a process that keeps us out of those situations, so we don't have this exponential train wreck at the end of april creations an appropriations process or the reauthorization of a bill or running out of money and raising the debt ceiling. they should be done up front,
early on. then the options are far greater and the opportunity to work out the differences between us and the senate and the president are much higher. host: based on news accounts and some may say conventional wisdom, leader mccarthy is favored to be the next speaker of the house. i imagine you want to dispute that. i would say he should be favored. he has a position come he has been accepted by the membership. but i think i'm the other when he was experience and having a principle-based legislative body. and if the membership wants to stay with a power-based system, they can certainly do that. my campaignssion, is not against an individual. my campaign is against a process by which power or principal controls. -- i'm forcible principle, others are for power. to me, they cannot coexist. host: how do you campaign for
speaker, what is your personal process? the best,r: one is sometimes, phone calls. but what i just explained to you is something that takes a while to explain to each member. it would be foreign to most members, except those who served in the florida legislature. takes a whileit to that, face-to-face is the best. websterngressman daniel is a republican from florida, also running for speaker of the house. congressman, thank you for your time. mr. webster: things for having me on. >> -- thanks for having me on. >> a senate committee investigates the environment the mine. that starts at 10 a.m. eastern, on c-span3. looks atsenate panel the obama administration policy to reset all syrian refugees in the u.s.
the state department and homeland security officials testify. from theive coverage senate judiciary subcommittee on immigration at 2 p.m. eastern, also one c-span3. >> sunday - >> the supreme court is about more than just its opinions. you need to know about the backgrounds, personalities, foibles, personal dynamics with each other and with clerks. >> the national law journal supreme court correspondent and author of "landmark cases," tony auro, sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific. monday, as the supreme court starts the new term, c-span debuts its new series, "landmark cases: historic supreme court decisions."
we look at the real story between the famous marbury versus madison case, delving into the battle between outgoing president john adams, the new president thomas jefferson, and the newly appointed chief justice john marshall. >> john marshall established the court as the interpreter of the constitution. the famous decision that he wrote, marbury versus madison. >> marbury-madison is probably the most famous piece. joining the discussion, a yield all school professor and the author of "the great decision." "landmark cases," exploring 12 supreme court rulings by exploring the life and times of the plaintiffs, lawyers, injustices. that premieres monday at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio. for background on each case while you watch, order the companion book, available for
$8.95, at c-span.org/ landmarkcases. >> the house passed a temporary 51 vote.bill by a 277-1 they also approved a resolution that would defund planned parenthood. the senate did not take up that resolution, so the final measure includes planned parenthood funding. in a moment, we bring you some house floor debate. then a panel looking at the threat of islamic extremism in russia. here is some of today's house debate on government spending. chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: i rise today to present h.r. 719 a short-term continuing resolution to keep the government open and operating after the end of the fiscal year on september 30. this necessary measure funds
government and services at the current rate through december 11 of this year. as in previous years, the c.r. also includes a small across the board reduction to keep within the fiscal year 2016 cap level set by the budget control act. mr. speaker, this is a responsible measure that prevents a harmful government shutdown while allowing time for a larger budget agreement to be reached and time to complete the full year appropriations work for 2016. it also includes a few responsible provisions to prevent disastrous, irreversible damage to government programs or to current -- to address current urgent needs. these changes are limited in scope and noncontroversial. for instance, these provisions extend the authority for critical department of defense
activities that fight terrorism, increases funding for the department of veterans' affairs to help address the disability claims backlog, and provides emergency funding to the forest service to help respond to the disastrous wildfires that are devastating our western states. while i firmly believe this legislation is the best path forward at this time, it's also my strong opinion that congress should do its job and enact actual line-by-line separate appropriations bills ahead of our september 30 deadline. clearly this is not an option at this time, so we must resort to a temporary measure like this c.r. but a c.r. doesn't reflect our most current budgetary needs. it creates uncertainty across the whole government. it does not adequately address
our national security obligations. and it causes needless waste and taxpayer dollars are spent inefficiently and ineffectively. so it's to my great dismay, mr. speaker, that we've arrived at this point once again requiring a temporary band-aid to buy us time to do our constitutionally mandated duty. the house beginning our appropriations work at the earliest date since 1974. the current budget control act's anniversary. and passing six of our 12 bills by july of this year. my committee reported out all 12 bills for the first time since 2009. and yet the senate refuses to act. gives us -- giving us no choice but to try for a continuing resolution.
now with progress stalled, it's clear that all sides must come together to find some sort of agreement that addresses our current fiscal situation in a comprehensive way. and this c.r., while not ideal, is the next step toward that end. keeping the government's lights on as we work to find a solution. with current funding set to expire in just hours from now, i urge my colleagues to do the responsible and reasonable thing and support this continuing resolution today. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york is ecognized. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i ask as a much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, we may temporarily avert this most recent crisis if we can get
this bill to the president tonight, just hours before the entire federal government shuts down. but it is certainly not a cause for celebration. this very short term continuing resolution avoids the most immediate crisis, but what is step two? after we enact this stop gap measure, are there any firm plans to begin negotiating the full year appropriations bills we should be passing today? remain deeply concerned about the potential of finding ourselves facing a government shutdown again in december. the stakes are very high. we have an economy that is general which win -- genuinely recovering, unemployment is dun, -- down, economic growth is up, but we still have progress to make. the uncertainty and unnecessary tumult of playing games right up to the brink of a government shutdown is not helpful to our
fragile economy. the last shutdown cost the onomy $24 billion in g.d.p., according to standard&poor. this continuing resolution buying us 10 weeks and takes care of only a handful of the most pressing federal responsibilities. provides desperately needed emergency fire fighting funds to address the cat clissic fires rage -- cataclysmic fires raging in the west, providing additional resources for processing disability claims at the veterans' administration, increases the authorization in the small business loan guarantee program to ensure new loans can bed a a ministered to help small -- can be administered to help small businesses across the country, and extends several expiring authorizations for programs within the department of homeland security.
notably the continuing resolution does not address other key priorities that could bolster our economy such as the expired authority of the export-import bank, which has 1.5 d or sustained $-- million private sector jobs at no cost to the taxpayer since 2007 and supported billions in american economic activity. by settling on the short term extension, we fail to provide proposed increases for medical research at the national institutes of health, and the nation's aging transportation system and infrastructure. the president's request for defense funding is shortchanged which would put our national security at risk in a long term c.r. leaving our federal agencies on auto pilot without the line by line, year by year adjustments
that should come from this committee and this congress. this is irresponsible and hurts our ability to grow our economy, create jobs and give hardworking families the services they need. yet with the republican dysfunction that has driven a change in the majority's leadership on the brink of a government shutdown, the prospects for forging a reasonable, responsible solution by december are not good. one more indication of the dire tlook is the cynical gimmick and enrollment correction the majority has put forward today to supposedly defund planned parenthood. fortunately it will have no practical effect on the c.r. for two reasons. first, the senate will ignore it. and second, there is no need for a correction since, as my friend mr. cole noted this weekend, there's no money in
this c.r. for planned parenthood. politifact even confirmed this claim. i will strongly oppose this attack on women's health today, as i support the temporary continuing resolution and urge all of my colleagues to do the same so we can at least avoid a worst case scenario. i again implore outgoing and incoming republican leadership to please engage with the president and house democrats immediately on an agreement to replace the sequester level caps, avert the next crisis, just weeks away, stop playing political games with women's health, and invest in american economic growth and security and i reserve the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i yield such time as he may consume to a very valued member of my committee who happen also to be the chairman -- happens also to be the chairman of the labor-h.h.s. subcommittee, tom
cole. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: i thank, mr. speaker. first i want to begin by congratulating both my chairman and my ranking member for the exceptional job they've done this year in getting all 12 appropriations bills through the full committee for the first time since 2009. so we really have on the appropriations committee done our work. six of those bills have come across the floor. and frankly, i think we would have had more across the floor if our friends in the senate, who are blocked by the democratic minority, had an opportunity to bring their bills to the floor. i think we're here in part because of inaction by the minority in the united states senate. it's ground the whole process to a halt. but i'm very pleased to see both my chairman and my ranking member here making the argument to keep the government funding -- funded. i think we all know that shutting down the government is always a mistake. it's a political mistake, frankly, for people that want to use it to achieve some
political tactic. but more importantly it's simply the wrong thing to do for the american people. they send us here expecting us to get our work done and the fact that some amongst us have kept that from happening is regrettable and i think a disservice to all of our constituents. i also believe, in this particular case, that we have an opportunity, if we pass this continuing resolution, for those that, as i like to say are above our pay grade, that is the president, the speaker, the majority leader, the two minority leaders, to have time to negotiate the framework for a larger deal. for a larger understanding. that would allow us to move ahead and actually have an omnibus bill where we actually, not as good as moving across the floor, but a a large bill where we looked at -- but a large bill where we looked at every line, we made concessions to one another, we made
agreements, we moved the ball forward, and it could open up a possibility for a normal appropriations process next year. in that regard, i was very heartened by majority leader mcconnell's recent remarks that he's interested in a two-year deal. somewhat similar to ryan-murray in terms of its duration. that would allow this house next year to move appropriations bills across the floor one at a time in a give and take bipartisan manner. i think that's extraordinarily important. if you look at where this committee was at in terms of frozen activity before my good friend, the chairman, became the chairman, you know, he, and again with my good friend, the gentlelady from new york, have brought us back a long, long way. if we don't finish that journey in the next 2 1/2 months, we've got several things that are going to happen. the worst of which will be a sequester of $40 billion roughly on the american
military. that is an unacceptable outcome. and frankly that's something that the commander in chief and the respective leaders on both sides of the aisle in this body need to make sure doesn't happen. i promise you -- i promise you, if the administration, the senate and the house can get to a larger agreement, i have no doubt that my chairman and my ranking member and their counterparts in the united states senate will then introduce a normal negotiating process and we'll get to the right place. so, we have a moment, an opening, a little bit of bipartisanship here, i would expect when this bill is actually voted on we will have large majorities on both sides of the aisle that actually support it. so i urge the other members, again, both democrats and republicans, to seize this opportunity, to not just focus on where there are differences but focus here where we've come together, bought the time, and
where they can, use their influence on both sides of the aisle, in both chambers, and with the president, to make sure that an adequate deal is arrived at. and that we spare the country and certainly the men and women in uniform that defend us each and every day from the agony of dealing with the second sequester. this is not the time for that to happen. it's a dangerous world. we've got russia relitigating the borders of eastern europe, we have china building islands in the south china sea, we've got isil having established a caliphate of sorts in the middle east, we have a dangerous iran. the worst thing in the world would be to not do this c.r. and then not carry it through to a fuller agreement and undercut our military. so i think the stakes what have we're doing are very, very high here and i want to conclude again by commending my chairman, the committee, our ranking member, for working together as they have this entire year so we can get our bills across as they're doing
now -- across, as they're doing now in this process, to buy our leaders time and, frankly, as i now they will do in a normal negotiate on an -- negotiation on an omnibus bill and hopefully on a regular appropriations process next year. again, i urge my fellow members on both sides of the aisle to pass this important piece of legislation. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield to a distinguished member of the committee, the lady from connecticut, ms. delauro, five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized for five minutes. ms. delauro: mr. speaker, i'm disappointed in this bill. we are faced with this continuing resolution in order to avert a government shutdown.
this is no way to govern. america deserves better than a month to month government, forever on the brink of a shutdown and held back by needless budget constraints. those who call this a, quote, clean continuing resolution are mistaken. in fact, it puts in place yet more indiscriminate cuts. it cuts .2% across the board, for most discretionary programs. and apparently we have not learned our lesson about mineless austerity. instead of fighting over women's health care, we should use the next month to negotiate a budget agreement that addresses the single biggest economic issue that we face in this country.
today working men and women in the united states are in jobs that don't pay them enough money. we need to stop spending hundreds of billions of dollars every year on tax loopholes for the wealthy and for big corporations. we need to invest once more in education, in job training, in health and all the other priorities that american families hold dear. and right now we cannot meet their needs. poor children are struggling, their vocabularies are on average 1/3 those of their middle income peers. but since 2010 we have cut over $1 billion in real terms from education. workers need help learning the right skills. finding work in a tough economy. so that they can support their families.
but we have cut more than $1 billion from job training programs. millions of americans depend upon life-saving medical research to cure disease and to improve the quality of their life. i stand here as a survivor of ovarian cancer and i'm here because of the grace of god as biomedical research and yet we will continue to cut biomedical research. we have cut more than $3.5 billion from the national institutes of health. the list of failures goes on and on. we are failing our workers, we are failing working families, we are failing students and medical researchers and first responders and veterans and families and millions of others. our job at this -- in this body is to provide opportunity for people and during his economic strug -- this economic struggle
that we have, we ought to be focused like a laser on the issues that work to better the economic situation of working families in this country. and what we do here is to continue to hold a cap on what we need to move forward and more importantly than that, what we do from the other side of the aisle, threaten a shutdown over the issue of women's health. who are we? what are we about? where are the great values of this nation that help to provide an opportunity so that families could join the middle class of this country and continue to make it strong? that's what our job is today, to do, not to be involved in these mindless exercises that the other side of the aisle continues to move forward on. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from new york reserve the gentleman from kentucky is recognized.
mr. rogers: i yeered -- i yield such time as he may consume to a gentleman from our committee and coincidently chairman of the house ethics committee, mr. dent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. . dent: i rise in support of passing a clean continuing resolution. we should do that. it would be utterly reckless to let the government shutdown for any reason, regardless of one's feelings about planned parenthood is beside the point. we should not shut the government down over that or any issue at this time and it's imperative to pass this c.r. to give thinks time and space we need to enter into a broader budget agreement, hopefully for this fiscal year or the next. so that we can then also pass the appropriations bills as our very fine chairman rogers mentioned. i'm the chair of the military construction and v.a. committee.
this c.r. is essential to make sure that veterans' services go uninterrupted and make sure we can continue moving forward on many of the projects that are ongoing within the v.a. system through the ano, ma'am his but nevertheless we need to move forward on this for that reason. i also want to make a point that we need to stop lurching from one budget crisis to the next and the events of the last few weeks have been dismaying to me personally. that said we're not going to have a government shutdown, that's good news, but we need to get on with the business of this budget agreement. i heard my friend and colleague from connecticut point out that i made a comment about biomedical research in the bill we passed out of the labor, health, human services subcommittee, we did increase funding for the national institutes of health for $1.1 billion and i do hope, in the event we come to a budget agreement and move the appropriations bills we will be able to see an increase in funding for the n.i.h.
be able to provide for our veterans, in my case also the military construction projects. also our friends who are serving overseas, our men and women serving overseas in the armed forces are very much depending on us to do the right thing, to pass appropriations bills, a long-term continuing resolution, not the one we're voting on today but if we do one after december 11 that would have real impacts on our force readiness and our ability for our troops and our men and women overseas to do the jobs that we've asked them to do. so for all these reasons, i'm urging people to vote for this c.r. today, keep the government functioning, do our duty, and then set up a process where we can complete the appropriations process in december and take care of the responsibilities that have been entrusted to us. i want to thank chairman rogers, also ranking member lowey for their strong leadership on the appropriations committee, for doing all they're doing to try to help us work together and
make sure that congress maintains its power of the purse and does exactly what we promised the american people we would do and that would be govern. with that, i thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. israel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. israel: i thank my good friend and colleague from new york, the ranking member. mr. speaker, i have a tremendous amount of respect for the chairman, the gentleman from kentucky. and great personal admiration for him and his leadership. i thank him for his earnest and hard work. what we're doing today is a disappointment to the american people and a disappointment to those of us on the appropriations committee. skiss can't be defined as avoiding catastrophe. all we're doing today is avoiding catastrophe. the majority's triumph today is
not shutting down the government. mr. speaker, there's not a small business owner anywhere in america who would say he had a good -- who would say, i had a good day because i'm not shutting down. i had a good day because i'm not throwing my employees out of work. had a good day because i'm not telling my customers they can't come for service. that's not success. that's failure. that is by itself a catastrophe. mr. speaker, the managers of those small businesses are judged by their performance and success. the managers of this congress, the majority, are judged in the same way. they're judged by their ability as the majority to produce bills, to pass budgets, to do the work of the american people. it's time for them to do their jobs, to stop the gimmicks, to pass a long-term budget that invests in the education of our children, that supports job skills for people in careers,
that protect ours veterans and our national security. it's time to do their johns, mr. speaker. with that i yield -- to do their jobs, mr. speaker. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: i'm pleased to yield -- i am very pleased to yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the appropriations committee from minnesota, ms. mccollum. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minute. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you ranking member lowey. mr. speaker, this republican majority has driven the expectations of the american people so low that the very act of funding government operations has become a significant achievement. unfortunately, the cost of the distraction by the republican extremist for this three-month clean c.r. was the resignation
of speaker boehner a good man who has served this house honorably. passing the c.r., however, will keep the federal government working, which is critical to american families, our economy, and the safe and security of our nation. it continues to protect by providing health care coverage for women. in 2013, when the republicans shut down the federal government for 16 days, the u.s. economy lost $24 billion and more than 100,000 americans lost their jobs. the american people cannot afford another republican shut down. passing this three-month c.r. is the first step toward responsibly meeting the needs of the american people. as a ranking democrat on the interior environment appropriations subcommittee, i am pleased that this bill includes $700 million in emergency funds for forezest service to fight wildland fires in western states. this this is critical funding. the c.r. will keep our national parks open to the public, keep
native american health care and education programs operating and prevent the furloughing of tens of thousands of federal employees in the department of interior and e.t.a. i'm going to vote to pass this continuing resolution and i applaud all the democrats and republicans who will vote to pass the c.r. but, we need to work to find a bipartisan path forward to fund the government for the coming year. our job is to serve the american people. the american people expect congress to do their job. today i hope all mens will do their job and vote to pass the c.r. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is ecognized.
gentlelady is prepared. mrs. lowey: i was thinking about that except i believe we have some distinguished members of our committee who are running a little late. mr. as going to -- chairman -- mr. speaker and mr. cannot , i fwather we both reserve while we're waiting for some distinguished members of the committee to arrive so i would just like to say, mr. speaker, that i'm very pleased that we're here today and i do
hope that there will be strong bipartisan support for the continuing resolution. this has been a difficult year. i know how hard our distinguished chairman has worked trying to put together a bipartisan appropriations bill. and although i'm very pleased that we are passing a continuing resolution today, it's really amazing that we should be celebrating in the united states of america the most december -- of america, the most distinguished country supposedly representative of our great democracy, and we are celebrating that we're keeping the government open. i feel very confident, mr. speaker, that if members of the appropriations committee, both democrats and republicans, would sit down very seriously, we
could work out an arrangement whereby we would lift the sequester, just as we did with murray-ryan, or ryan-murray. i was on that committee with some distinguished members of the party and we had some good discussions. we had some differences of opinion. we had some lively debates. but at the end of the day, we came up with a product that we could be proud of. that chairman, i do hope after this continuing resolution is passed, and i think you have another speaker who would like to speak while we're waiting for our speakers. oh, i am very pleased to yield, mr. chairman, time to our
distinguished leader and in closing i would just like to say that i am cautiously optimistic that after the c.r. is passed, we can really do our work and come up with a good, strong omnibus bill that reflects our values and now i'm very pleased to yield to our leader one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i thank her for her leadership as well as that of our distinguished chairman, mr. rogers, to bring this to the floor today where we can vote in a bipartisan way to keep government open. without doing harm to women's health in our country. to shut government down is really bad decision for this congress to make. the last time we did that, we lost $24 billion. last time this congress voted to
shut down government, we lost $24 billion to our economy, 120,000 jobs, our work force, our federal work force which contains more than 30% of veterans in its composition were furloughed or worse. the american people deserve better. so as we go forward from this continuing resolution, which is a good outcome of the conversations that have gone back and forth, a strong bipartisan vote in the senate, i hope a strong bipartisan vote in the house. let us take heed of the words of pope francis who just not even one week ago spoke to us in this chamber. he asked us to work together for the good of the people, for the common good of the people, he urged us that a good leader would have a spirit of openness and pragmatism, again, to get the job done for the american
people. so as we go forward, we'll have some difficult choices to make. we all share the values of strengthening our national security, investing in our children's future, reducing the deficit as we go forward, but as we do so there's some important differences that we share. let's hope that we recognize a good idea wherever it springs from but let us also recognize what our responsibilities are to the american people first and foremost. so i consider this a very positive action taken today. i wish that we were finished all of our appropriations work as an appropriator, i know that that's always the goal of our chairman and our ranking member, i thank congresswomanmber lowey for her leadership and for the optimism she just expressed that as we go forward we'll do so in a timely fashion, maybe long before deless 11, so we'll
have removed all doubt in the public's mind that government will work, that it will function as the pope had asked us for the good of the american people. there are important decisions ahead, though, in erms -- in terms of what our priorities are, and the budget should be a statement of our national values and what is important to us should be reflected on how we allocate those resources. . so we have the omnibus bill to deal with. we also have investments in our infrastructure of our country and our transportation. that will be an important bill that we will be debating at the same time, but has a relationship in terms of how we offset, how we pay for that. and then we have the issue, the ex-im bank, a great job creator for our country, and yet still unauthorized, long overdue for us to authorize it. and then before thanksgiving probably we will have the issue
of a vote on honoring the full faith and credit of the united states of america. the last time that was put into doubt, it was unfortunate because it lowered our credit rating. even though we didn't follow through with it, even though the full faith and credit ended up being honored, just the hreat, the suspicious -- suspicion that it could be undermined lowered our credit rating. so we have really important work to do for the good of the people. again, let us honor our responsibilities in the beautiful spirit of pope francis, i say saint francis because that's the patron saint of my city, of san francisco, and the namesake also of pope francis. but pope francis said, he instructed us as to what good leaders do and good leaders have a sense of humility, to respect the views of other people and not be condescending in terms of our viewers are the only ones that matter.
in that spirit i look forward to working with you, mr. chairman, with the speaker, with others, and certainly the leadership of our distinguished ranking member, congresswoman lowey. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky voiced. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i yield such time as he may consume to a member of our committee, mr. jolly of florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida voiced. mr. jolly: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, and my compliments to the chairman and the ranking member for shepherding us thus far into this year. you know, i often say the first job of congress is to govern. and that means keeping the government open. and i think what we are doing today is honoring the responsibility we have, our article 1 responsibility, to keep the government open. we talk a lot about congress having the power of the purse. but with the power also comes responsibility. and so as we have hard conversations as a country and as a congress about whether we
fund certain programs, whether we fund certain entities, that is an appropriate conversation to have and i think we have handled that appropriately thus far. you sometimes would not know that based on comments on the other side of the aisle, who continue to try to score political points and use political capital to suggest we are on the brink of a shutdown. the simple fact is we are not. our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have acknowledged today that they intend to vote for what is a responsible continuing resolution that will ensure that our government remains funded. and the irony of some of the criticisms that often come, and colleagues on our committee, is that you know, to finally reach a deal, to finally have responsible governance, it takes a willing partner on the other side of the aisle. and it takes intellectual honesty on both sides of the aisle, of every member of our committee. i would respectfully point out to those on the other side of the aisle who serve on the committee that we had a debate over and over and over with each markup about the budget control act. and the caps that are in place by statute.
there were very good suggestions from both sides of the aisle. about where taxpayer dollars should be invested, which programs they should be invested in, interest defense to transportation to education to health care research and so forth. the irony is that for each good idea on the other side of the aisle about where to invest money, there was a willful ignorance of the fact that in the additional -- that any additional investment must come with an offset under the budget control act. there were good amendments in the committee. frankly many of them would have passed if they'd included responsible offsets. but there were no offsets. and i point that out only for this, not to relitigate all the markups we had in committee, but to suggest that somehow it is the republicans' issue that somehow we have to resolve this. we have not had a willing partner throughout the markup of all of these bills. so just as the spirit of cooperation is here on the floor, and rightfully so, and
we are going to pass a c.r. that funds the government and keeps it open, that highway of goodwill has to go both ways. and rather than just talk about what is not funded, let's talk about how we are going to operate under what is a statute, what is a law of the land that was signed by this president and frankly recommended by this president. as we talk about where spending comes between now and december 11, we have to recognize and be honest with the american people that we operate under a budget agreement that has statutory caps signed by this president. and so there are great ideas on both sides of the aisle about where to spend money. but if we ignore the fact that they are required to be offset, then we have not advanced this conversation one day. it is important that we keep the government open. i am glad that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and enough colleagues on this side of the aisle are saying, yes, we have to keep the government open. we have to keep the department of defense funded. our men and women in uniform who carry the flag for us every day, we have to ensure that they are funded. our first responders, d.h.s.,
coast guards men and women, our transportation programs, education, critical health care research is all that we will continue to fund through this responsible continuing resolution. we all wish we had a full year bill that we were considering today but we do not have that. and so the responsible action by this body is to pass this bill, have sufficient numbers on both sides of the aisle, and i would charge those on my side of the aisle who care deeply about certain extraneous issues involved in the debate this week, we have responsible ways to continue to address how we provide critical nonabortion-related women's health care services in underserved communities while we still act today to keep the government open. and as a responsible path forward, i thank you for bringing this forward and for the time. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, as i yield back the balance of my time, i just want to reiterate
again to my colleagues that i look forward to working in a bipartisan way with the distinguished chairman of the appropriations committee and move the process forward. i particularly think, because it was just mentioned by the previous speaker, that for us not to increase the appropriations of the national institutes of health, this is just one area of the bill that came through the committee, in the committee process. this means research for a whole range of illnesses, whether it's autism or diabetes or heart, we have a responsibility to lift these caps, negotiate a really good bill and provide adequate funding to the american people. this is important for their health, for their work life. we have to be sure we're investing so we're creating
jobs and keep the economy moving. i look forward to that process and a i yield back the balance of my time. -- and a i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: -- and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i shall be brief. i appreciate the work of my colleague, mrs. lowey, ranking member on the committee. and all of the people on her side of the aisle. and of course on our side of the aisle as well. this is a good bill. it's a responsible bill. it does not do anything controversial. but it does do one important thing and that is keep the government operating. we can't afford to abandon our soldiers, particularly those overseas, in harm's way. we can't abandon the people that depend upon the programs that our federal government provides. and so i urge members to vote yes on this bill. it's a good b i may
consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. roby: i rise today in strong support of house concurrent resolution 79, a concurrent resolution directing the clerk of the house of representatives to make corrections in the enrollment of h.r. 719. this resolution directs the clerk of the house of representatives to make several corrections in the enrollment of h.r. 719, the continuing appropriations act 2016, including by adding at the end of the text of the house-passed version, h.r. 3134, the defund planned parenthood act of 2015. the house passed h.r. 3134 by a te of 241-187 on september
18. the bill precludes any federal funds interest being authorized or appropriated for one year, for any purpose to planned parenthood federation of america or any affiliate or clinic of that organization unless entities certify that affiliates and clinics will not perform and will not provide any funds to any other entity that performs elective abortions during such period. the bill also redirected funding from planned parenthood facilities to federally qualified health centers to provide women's health services. this resolution and the related enrollment process sends a signal about this house's commitment to bar funding for planned parenthood and gives the senate the opportunity to limit funding in the continuing resolution. mr. speaker, this is actually the exact same language in the defund planned parenthood act sponsored by my friend, diane black, of tennessee, which the house passed earlier this month.
diane is a tireless defender of the unborn and i have been privileged to work with her in several pro-- on several pro-life measures, including a very similar defund correction to spending bill back in 2011. so why this correction? my colleagues might be wondering if i just saw what happened in the senate. why take up this bill when the votes just aren't there in the senate? the answer is simple. because i believe, as long as there is an opportunity before us to defund planned parenthood, we should take it. because when it comes to this fight, i want to leave it all on the field. i understand that so far we have lacked the votes in the senate to include defund language in the continuing resolution. and i realize this is a last-ditch effort to do this and the chances of this correction maneuver succeeding in the senate are low. but i believe, mr. speaker, i
believe that we have to fight until the very end. i've always been up front with those i represent about the low likelihood of defunding planned parenthood, especially in a stop gap spending bill. pro-life advocates in my state and around this country understand the math and while they hope that the senate democrats will change their hearts, they don't really expect them to. what they do expect is for us to try, to fight to the very end, to exhaust every possible option in our effort to stop tax dollars from flowing to this organization. . that's why, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues in the house and in the senate to support this defund correction and to join me to fight until the very end to defund planned parenthood. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from alabama reserves her time. the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized. ms. delauro: mr. speaker, i yield myself two minutes.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. delauro: this, quote, enrollment correction, is yet another procedural maneuver. it's designed to destroy health care for millions of american women. it is unacceptable, and we will not stand for it. the disgraceful right-wing assault on reproductive freedom has become an all-out war on the health and the well-being of millions of low-income american women. each year planned parenthood provides 2.7 million people, en and women, with life-saving services. i would hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would open their hearts, open their hearts to health care services for women who don't have the wherewithal to go to the same kinds of private
doctors that the men and women of the united states house of representatives have the opportunity to do. open your hearts, because for many, planned parenthood is their only way of receiving these health care services. the president of the american congress of ob-gyn's have warned without planned parenthood, many patients will be left without a doctor, and that's what these attacks are designed to achieve. the right wing does not want poor women to have health care, period. it is spiteful, it is cruel and it is wrong. we know what happens when funding is taken away from planned parenthood. scout county, -- scott county, indiana, they triggered a full-scale h.i.v. epidemic that health declared a epidemic. do we want to see that repeated across the country?
they say they will not accept bills that compromises reproductive freedom. let us in this body respect and trust the health care decisions that women make. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. delauro: i yield myself for 10 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 10ekds. ms. delauro: let's trust the health care decisions that women make. we must respect their wishes. i urge my colleagues to vote against this disgraceful bill, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut reserves her time. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from alabama. mrs. roby: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: reserves. and the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from new york, a -- someone who has spent her entire career working at issues that help working families and their health care and particularly women. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for two minutes. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, this resolution is mere political theater. all sound in fury, significant
anyfying nothing and going nowhere -- signifying nothing and going nowhere. we are proceeding to this resolution even though there is no money, zero money in the c.r. for planned parenthood and even though we all understand that if the senate also adopts this resolution, it will effectively shut down the government, slowing economic growth and job creation. planned parenthood provides essential preventive health services, including birth control, life-saving cancer screenings, well women exams and advice on family planning to nearly three million women each year. community health centers are not an alternative to planned parenthood. the california primary care association noted, eliminating
planned parenthood from our state's comprehensive network of care would put untenable stress on remaining providers. we do not have the capacity for such an increase in care, end quote. i urge a no on the resolution, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york yields back. the gentlelady from connecticut reserves, and the gentlelady from alabama -- mrs. roby: reserves. the speaker pro tempore: reserves. the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. adams. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. ms. adams: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today as a woman who is angry. these attacks on planned parenthood aren't about some deceptive videos. it's about a woman's right to
make decisions about her own body. women's reproductive rights are decisions that she should make. it should be between a woman, her doctor, her family and not a male-dominated congress. so let's be clear. attacking planned parenthood is part of a ploy to roll back women's rights. what hypocrisy. i wish my colleagues on the other side of the aisle cared as much about the millions of women and children who go hungry every day, or the educational inequities that exist in our most vulnerable communities. i stand with planned parenthood for the services they provide. last year they served more than 2.7 million across our nation and more than 31,000 in north carolina. just through nine centers. more than 21,000 patients received safe contraception. more than 18,000 s.t.i. tests were conducted and more than 2,500 breast exams. real women getting real preventive care. i will continue to advocate for
women's comprehensive health care and their right to control their own body. the war on women must stop. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentlelady from connecticut reserves. the gentlelady from alabama continues to reserve. the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: i'd like to inquire how much time is left. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut has five minutes remaining. ms. delauro: at this time i'd like to yield one minute to congresswoman barbara lee from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. first, i want to thank you, congresswoman delauro, for yielding and for your tremendous leadership on so many issues important to women and our entire country. i rise in strong opposition to h.con. rizz 79 which would -- h.con.res 79 which would attempt to defund planned parenthood for one year. this would leave millions of women across the country without access to critical health care services. this shameful resolution is the 15th anti-women's health vote this year.
15th. we know that planned parenthood centers are essential to the health and well-being of women and their families. they serve as primary care facilities for women seeking birth control, comprehensive family planning services, cancer and s.t.i. screenings. according to an institute in 21% of counties where planned parenthood operates health centers, it is the county's only family planning provider. mr. speaker, for these communities, there are no other options. defunding planned parenthood would hurt the communities that need help the most -- low-income women and women of color. politicians have no business interfering with a woman's personal health decisions that are best for her and her family, and she needs family planning centers to exercise all of her options as it relates to her health care. so this resolution is deceitful. it's wrong. it is past time to end this war on women, and it's time for republicans to listen to the american people. develop a responsible budget and stop their attacks on women's health.
vote no on this very backward, egregious resolution. it's going to harm women, it's going to hurt women. it does not protect the health and safety of women. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from alabama reserves her time, and the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized. ms. delauro: at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the distinguished delegate from the district of columbia, ms. eleanor holmes norton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from the district of columbia is recognized for two minutes. ms. norton: i thank my good friend for her incredibly excellent work on this bill. look, a threat to shut down the government over funding planned parenthood's contraceptive and preventative care measures looms again in three months. although 73% of the public is against forcing a shutdown over planned parenthood. i am grateful for the high-quality coverage planned parenthood gives women's health across the board, including abortion services not funded by the federal government. the district of columbia is the only jurisdiction congress
denies the full reach of roe v. wade to low-income women by denying the local government the right to spend its own local funds on abortion services for women. for the nation to cut government funds for medicaid, family planning and preventative care would cut off our collective noses to spite our faces. every public dollar spent on family planning services alone saves $7 in undesired births and other preventative care. for all the heat generated by republicans, planned parenthood is regarded more favorably now than it was before the current fight began. the reason is for nearly a century, planned parenthood's incredibly effective work for women's health has a strong following across our country
from both parties. i thank the gentlewoman for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized in as much as the gentlelady from alabama reserves. ms. delauro: at this time i would like to yield one minute to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentlelady from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentlelady from connecticut for her kindness and as well, let me thank the chair and ranking member of the appropriations committee, because we know the work they have done. and let me just simply say that i am very disappointed that we are now settling for a c.r. that continues to have a sequester that cuts across and denies border patrol agents, secret service slots and leaves
the american people vulnerable. so first order of business is that we are not doing what we're supposed to do in providing for the american people. now we move to another unseemly legislative initiative that is attacking women's health. and what does that mean? we use it under the guise of planned parenthood. planned parenthood, which has any number of clinics in almost 50 states that deal with women's health, contraception, sexually transmitted disease, places where women who are impoverished can go where they could not go anywhere else. in a hearing yesterday, someone was debating, why didn't they do mammograms? well, those of us who are women know that the doctor refers mammograms, and so this is a bad bill. it's against women's health. the sequester is bad. vote down both bills. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from alabama reserves. the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized. ms. delauro: i'd like to recognize the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, for a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: for how much time? mr. hastings: i rise in strong opposition of this measure and
ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: can you just tell me how much time is left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut has a minute and a half remaining. ms. delauro: thank you. what we're facing here today and what this is about, this so-called enrollment correction , is -- this is a procedural maneuver because the united states senate sent over a continuing resolution that continues to fund planned arenthood, but because the majority is interested in defunding the opportunity for health care services for women, they have asked for this procedural maneuver to defund planned parenthood.
it is simply about taking funds away from american women. think about it. think about shutting the government down because of women's health. the lack of care, of concern, first and foremost, about the 2.7 million men and women that planned parenthood serves every year, that is a grave consequence. but in addition, shutting down the federal government, which the last time cost $24 billion to american taxpayers that held up disability checks for eterans, that in fact held
back people's i.r.s. rebates the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. delauro: this denying women's health is crure, it's spiteful, it's wrong and does great harm to this great nation. vote against this bad piece of legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from alabama. mrs. roby: thank you, mrs. roby: not everyone in this country is pro-life like i am, but those whor should not be forced to have their tax dollars fund an organization that aborts more than 350,000 unborn babies every year. federal law has long prohibited public funds from being used to actually perform abortions. however, planned parenthood gets millions in grants and reimbursements for other servicha