tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 1, 2015 2:00am-4:01am EDT
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. obviously the footprint is majorly different. the casualties are being taken on right now. i think more patience and persistence is warranted with the changes being taken place. susan: you negotiated a bipartisan bill that got through numberste in veto proof 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 d that bill? mr. corker: you have to remember
when we devise the bill none of us had any idea, most of us, had 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, you know this was eroded over time. it was an effort to bring power back. the president would negotiate an executive agreement. what that means is he can decide, 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. there is a sex that was called congressional agreement. -- thee is a second strongest is a treaty. many presidents are moving away
from those types of agreements. the present 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 aisle it was appropriate that before those sanctions were relieved, 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. 21% of the people in our country
approved of it. the fact is we understand it. it is a long-winded answer but the agreement is obviously going to take place. the other piece of this, a gives congress oversight. if you look at north korea, a deal was done, nobody paid attention, they have a nuclear weapon. this agreement gives us, the president has to certify every 90 days that iran is 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. senator bob corker thank you so much. [applause] ♪
>> please welcome deputy national security advisor ben rhodes. [applause] >> good morning, everyone. ben, i've always wanted to get you on the couch, actually, so if you want to lie down, psychoanalyze -- mr. rhodes: everybody else is doing this. host: i would love to get up to 30,000 feet as quickly as possible, but we have to talk about the news of the morning and of the week. russia is apparently engaged in air strikes on what it says are isis targets. it appears that russia has 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 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 their former client, 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 go after isil is we could work with.
any nation the most to join with a coalition that wants to go against isil would 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 are sunni accepted outcome in which he is still the leader of the country. which moves quickly to the second part of your question. 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 solutions and u.s.-imposed military solutions, or for that matter, russian-imposed military solutions. mr. goldberg: is there something about not allowing russia to
build basis on nato southern flank? mr. rhodes: they had a base in syria. this is nothing new. one way to think about this is 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 principle client in the arab state world. it has been 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 in yanukovych, and 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 principle 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. -- there is a military solution that you could impose on 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 spent a lot of time, 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. the asia-pacific is the largest 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?
the fact of the matter is every 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 conflicts inside of syria. you have a sectarian war taking place, you have a sunni majority, other minority populations are concerned about their positions. you have got external actors arming the country. the notion that air strikes 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 -- has to be a political 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. mr. rhodes: via hezbollah and 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 t 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.
and the fact is this nihilism in parts of syria, clearly assad's actions have been a magnet for foreign fighters, for jihadists across the region to come there. our message is, look, there is no outcome that is truly stable if he is still in charge of the country. we said that could be a managed process that 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 -- [laughter]
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 relationship, you know, he is 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 they are 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 am curious is how he views russia as a threat? how he viewsus as russia as a threat?
mr. rhodes: 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 accomplishing what we believe is a very successful deal preventing iran from having a nuclear weapon. on syria, russia has not worked with us. it is become more difficult because assad has been a long-standing client in many ways. the way the president views this is if russia -- the more russia invests itself in essentially the international system that works 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 places where they are operating -- 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 an offensive maneuver in a strategic concept. -- strategic context. the fact that min pushing these boundaries is undermining the -- the fact that putin 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, jeff, last week, i mean, which i
completely understand given what putin is doing, but the chinese 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 take -- one of the goals of this administration has been to take adversaries and neutralize them as adversaries. if you had to name the obama doctrine, would that be it, or is there something else? mr. rhodes: again, 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 ourselves from the enormous allocations of resources we had when we took office in iraq and afghanistan. we had a hundred 50,000 troops, spending $1 trillion. 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. one could argue that we left iraq too early and bad actors fill the void. has 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 . mr. goldberg: every president inherits bad policy. mr. rhodes: this is a pretty big pile. [laughter] mr. rhodes: the point i make here is the agency assigned to the united states in these matters, that we have to be realistic about.
10,000 troops in iraq, which was the potential optional the -- the potential option was on 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 would those 10,000 troops -- how would they have made the iraqi people resolve their differences? how would 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 detractors is often, whatever the worst places are in the world that day is our policy. and we did it. it is not al-assad, somehow it is our agency. the fact is it is a challenging -- the fact is it is a very difficult world out there. 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. this is where the front lines of
democracy are, where we are trying to consolidate democratic progress. mr. goldberg: in short, has the 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. israel 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. we can 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] >> a senate committee investigates the financial impact that the gold king mine river has spilled on local businesses. we'll hear from a business owner and local officials from southwest colorado affected by the spill. watch live coverage from the senate small business committee starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three. later a senate panel looks at the obama and ministrations policy to resettle syrian refugees in the u.s.. we have live coverage from the senate judiciary subcommittee at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span
nation's best dressed. many eisenhower, this sunday night on c-span's original series, first let -- first ladies. examining the public and private lives. from martha washington to michelle obama. on american history tv on c-span3. >> a signature feature of book tv is our all-day coverage of book fairs and decibels with top nonfiction authors. the southern festival of books and nashville. the week and after that, we are live in austin for the texas book festival. at the end of the month, we will be covering to book festivals. it is the wisconsin book festival in madison. the boston book festival.
at the start of november, we will be in portland, oregon, foreword stock. at the end of november, we are live for the 18th year in the row for the miami book fair international. that is the view of fairs and festivals this fall on c-span's book tv. >> the house passed a refunding vote.y 277 to 155 they approved a resolution that --ld defund a resolution they approved a resolution that would defund planned parenthood. in a moment, we bring you some of that debate. then a panel looks at the threat of islamic extremism in russia. here is some of wednesday's house debate on spending. rol 30 minutes. the 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
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i am prepared to close, i have no further requests for time if the 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 >> the final measure includes planned parenthood funding. here's a look at the house debate on that resolution. resolutionnt directing the clerks of the house of representatives to make corrections in the moment of hr719. the clerk of the house of representatives will make several corrections.
adding to the by -34, thehe text, hr32 fund of planned parenthood 2015. the bill precludes any federal funds from being appropriated for one year for any purpose to planned parenthood. for any affiliates, and less thety certified that affiliates or the entity will not provide any funds to any other agency that provides selective abortions. the bill also redirected funding to federally qualified health centers to provide women's health. this sends a signal about this house's commitment to bar funding for planned parenthood
and gives the senate an opportunity to limit funding in a continuing resolution. mr. speaker, this is actually these the exact same planned in the defund parenthood act, which the house passed earlier this month. of thes a defender unborn and i have been privileged to work with her in several pro-life measures, including a very similar defund correction to the bill and 2011. so why this correction? my colleagues might be wondering if i just saw what happened in the senate. 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 services that they provide, like pregnancy tests, birth control, pap smears and s.t.d.'s. of course, low-income women should have access to these critical services. why is it necessary for those services to be funded at the nation's largest abortion provider? it isn't actually but the abortion industry and its supporters -- it's what they want you to think it is and they talk about women's health because they dent want to talk about abortion or how ugly it is or how painful it is, not just the mother making a decision but
the unborn baby who doesn't have a voice or a say. when it comes to funding they like to present tevend abortion doesn't exist and planned parenthood is the only place where low-income women can get health care. taking away funding from planned parenthood means attacking womens' health. that's not true. there are more than 13,000 federally-qualified and rural-health centers throughout this country that offer low-cost health care to women. in fact, these sent iris outnumber planned parenthood clinics 20 to one. if those who defend federally funding of planned parenthood truly just wanted to make sure that low-income women have access to health care and not abortion, then why not simply
support these noncontroversial community health centers instead? if this argument is really about making sure women have access to health care, then we would all agree right here, right now, to support these community health centers. but you see, mr. speaker, that's not what this is about. you see, while federally-qualified and rural health septemberers provide a wide range of medical services, they don't perform abortions. and that's what they really want. they want to preserve the pipeline of funding to the nation's largest abortion provider. this talk of women's health is not -- nothing but a charade and a false pretense that more and more americans realize is phony. i urge my colleagues to sup
>> the house and senate approved a bill before the midnight deadline. we'll get your comments on the funding measures. colorado congressman ken buck will join us to talk about the republican agenda, speaker boehner's resignation, and the upcoming gop contest. and ted lieu will give his take on the continuing resolution to fund the government through december, and the debate over planned parenthood. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" on c-span. >> joining us from capitol hill is congressman daniel webster, republican from florida and a candidate for speaker of the house. congressman, thanks for being with us.
>> thank you for having me. >> how is the race going? >> i take everything as it comes. hopefully, we will have success. >> speaker boehner announced that a leadership elections will take place on october 8. are you satisfied with that date? >> yes, i am happy to share why i am running. that is going to move some of those things up. people are being more inquisitive right now. i am running because i want to have a principle-based, member driven congress, and i don't think we have one now. i think we have one based on power. i saw that in the florida legislature before i became speaker, and i turned those things upside down in the florida house of representatives, and i would like to do the same here.
>> based on the power of whom? clerks the power of a few at the top make all the decisions. a lot of bills, even if you can amend them, or debate them, whatever it is, that is a power-based system. i want to spread the base so that every member has a chance to be successful. that empowers the general membership and committees. it empowers individuals so that the policy we make is good policy, because it has been vetted by so many people. second is, the most important part of doing that is you have to take up the most important issues first. the way power works, they hold everything to the end then you run into this exponential train wreck and there is only one , solution.
because you have one solution right at the end, you have to vote yes or no, and we are not solving anything. in the florida legislature, they used to hold the budget and major bills until after midnight on the last day of session. then people just wanted to go home, so they voted for them, and a lot of times, a debate on multiple issues of hundreds of pages of bills would be in 10 or 15 minutes, done. i reversed that. i began taking up the most important issues first. naming's andridge the road naming's for the end. it gives you the opportunity to negotiate, to talk, to stay on an even playing field, including a governor, or a president in this case. our poll numbers, which were in
-- which were no better than the house poll numbers we have now, which are in the teens, got turned right side up. >> from your standpoint, 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 what i can tell you is that power and principal cannot coexist. they can't. you either based things on the principle that everyone's vote is important, or you let a group of people make decisions for all the members, and they are required to stay in line and vote for whatever it is the comes from the top down. if you were to talk to people on the democrat side or the republican side, they would tell you it was a great system, including debbie wasserman schultz and bill posey, one a conservative, one pretty liberal. yet, they both liked the way it worked.
>> speaker boehner warned about false prophets within his own party. do you think he was referring to you? >> i 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 can operate the house of representatives on principle or power. he was talking about making promises they can't fulfill because they would be working on issues or putting on amendments that we would force the senate to take her so forth. -- senate to take or so forth. that is not what this says. this is about a process that keeps us out of those situations so that we don't have this exponential train wreck at the end of an appropriations process or end of the reauthorization of a bill, running out of money and having to raise the debt ceiling, all of those things. those should be done up front, early on, and then our options are far, far greater.
the opportunity to work out the differences between us, the senate and president are much higher. wisdom, on conventional leader mccarthy is favored to be speaker of the house. i imagine you want to dispute that. favorite but i can tell you i am the only one who has experience in a principle-based legislative body. if the membership wants to stay with the power-based system -- legislative body. if the membership wants to stay with the power-based system, they can do that. but my campaign is not against an individual. my campaign is against a process, by which power principle controls. -- by which power or principal controls.
i am for principle. others are for power. to me, they cannot coexist. >> with a week before the conference meets, how do you campaign for speaker? what is your process? >> one-on-one is best. sometimes phone calls. what i just explained to you is something that takes a while to explain to most members. therefore, it takes a while to do that so face to face is best. , >> congressman daniel webster is a republican from florida. he is also running for speaker of the house. thank you for your time. >> great to be on. >> the c-span's city tour. visiting cities across the country. this weekend, we are joined by comcast. to learn more about the literary life of santa rosa, california. consider part of apple wine country. we look at the evolution of the wine industry in sonoma county. becausegan with wine, the first wines planted here
work by general vallejo. the mission in sonoma in the late 1820's or early 1830's. they were mission grapes and nobody in their right mind could -- would make wine of -- make wine out of them. 1980's and 1990's, we were beginning to be better and better known. first purchased the ranch in the late 1950's, they did not know it was -- they saw quite a change in the ad ag industry.n the it is not always been the wine industry. we have a wonderful agricultural industry here. >> we also visit the jack london
park. it was once home to jack london, author of call of the wild and white fang. >> this is where jack london lived until his death in 1960. jack london probably would've been writing longhand when people came upon him. he was very productive year. two thirds of his writing was published after he moved here. books like white fang were published in 1906. valley of the moon was published while he was living here. little lady in the big house was published while he was living here. jack london claimed he worked two hours a day writing. i think a lot of his time was spent, because he was trying to build the ranch with good intentions, so that it could be a model. that took a lot of his time. >> see all of our programs of santa rosa, sunday at noon
>> there you go. boy, you could hear that. so, this afternoon, we will hear testimony, expert testimony, on a topic not thought to be, but in reality of great concern and importance, the threat of islamic extremism inside russia, and what that might mean to the united states and global security. islamic terrorists have declared war on the modern civilized world. their barbaric actions in syria remind us daily of their depravity. they must be stopped, and they must be defeated. the future of america, russia, and yes, western civilization, depends on that. the lives of millions will be in jeopardy if we don't do what is right today. given the global nature of this fight, it is in the interest of our national interests to understand the growth of extremism in other parts of the world and in other countries such as russia. it is alarming to read reports of muslims living in peaceful and free democratic countries
being attracted or recruited into radical islamic terrorism. this frightening reality is happening in europe and elsewhere. media reports indicate that over 2000 russian born fighters may have traveled to the middle east to join isis. our collective inability to stem this tide is both shocking and unnerving. this afternoon, i look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses. i know dr. erin. we are pleased to welcome back as a witness. he has some unique insights regarding the spread of extremism into muslim populations in russia. we do not normally associate this behavior with russian ethnic groups like the tartars and others, but we do need to know what those details are. we will learn about this and other things in your testimony.
in the aftermath of the boston bombing in may of 2013, i lead a --gressional delegation please join us -- i lead a congressional delegation to russia where we met with the russian government and intelligence officials and discussed the threat of terrorism and how our governments could potentially cooperate. i have been disappointed that -- due to up he will pheaval in ukraine, moore has not been achieved in -- upheaval in ukraine, moore has not been achieved in this area. extremists continue to plot attacks in the united states and russia. it seems plain to me that if we work together we will be better able to protect our people, stop attacks, and kill violent terrorists, something i am personally in favor of.
as a matter of policy. please let me note, our discussion today about russia and the question of finding possible areas of cooperation in no way down plays or overlooks the disappointing situation in ukraine. as a result, our government has imposed sanctions on russian officials and institutions. even with that millstone around our next, our two governments still managed to achieve -- our necks, our two governments still managed to achieve cooperation in other areas, such as the international space station. perhaps we might also make a joint effort to stop the spread of islamic extremism and the terrorism that flows from it. without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit written questions or extraneous materials for the record. i will introduce the witnesses
this directly contradicts with u.s. diplomatic roles. to have bashar al-assad transition out of power. it is unclear whether russia's motives are self-serving or stem from growing concern over her those fighting in north syria who could pose a serious problem to moscow should they return to russia. given that the u.s. and russia are at a crossroads on how to extremist, islamic look forward to hearing from our esteemed panel of witnesses on the possible outcomes and solutions to the current challenges. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. brooks has no opening statement. how about mr. weber? do you have a short opening statement? mr. weber: no, let's go. [laughter] chairman: he's great.
so, i will ask the witnesses to summarize your prepared statements, and then hopefully, we can have a dialogue and have questions and answers. first, i am going to introduce the witnesses. dr. leon aron is a resident scholar and director of russian studies at the american enterprise institute. he joined the organization that oversees operations of international broadcasting, such as voice of america, and he is a widely published author who earned his phd at columbia university.
simon saradshyan is the director -- the assistant director of the u.s.-russian initiative to prevent nuclear terrorism. he worked as a journalist in russia for 15 years, where he covered several major events, including the terrorist attack -- in the salon. next, we have mark katz, a professor of government at george mason university. he has authored many books and articles. he is the author of books and articles, for example, "leaving without losing," "the war on terror after iraq and afghanistan." very fascinating, thank you. he earned his phd from the massachusetts institute of technology, so we have an esteemed group of witnesses
today, and we appreciate you being with us. again, summarize in five minutes and we will have a good dialogue. dr. aron, you may proceed. dr. aron: thank you very much. on the morning of july 19, 2012, gunshots rang out in russia's largest autonomous republic and home of its largest muslim ethnicity. the bomb went off under the the car of the chief. he was badly injured. another was killed. appointed only a year before,
both men were moderate clerics determined to strengthen the traditional moderate up, one of the five major branches of sunni islam. lest anyone miss the terrorists point, the cavalcade of cars under the black-and-white banners of global jihadists raced through downtown shortly after the attack. i think the july 19 attack, in retrospect, could be viewed as a watershed. two decades after the first chechen war, the russian jihad may be reaching a tipping point at which the center of gravity of militant islamic fundamentalists is shifting from north caucuses to the more densely populated european and russian heartland. the home of 13 million muslims, russia's second-largest muslim group is very close to tartars both ethnically and geographically.
if this trend continues, the consequences or the largest muslim country in europe has an estimated muslim population of 20 million. it could be ominous. let me mention five underlying factors, all of which continue to operate today as risk factors that increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks in russia and heighten russian vulnerability to such an attack. number one, russia has not been able to evade the pan-european phenomenon that is to islam a fraction of the european muslim population. two, the exposure after the fall of the soviet union of an estimated tens of thousands of russian muslims in the course of theological studies in the middle east. in their return, some of the newly minted imams have increasingly turned away from the traditional moderate views.
according to russia experts, imams preach at dozens, over 1000 mosques. russia is now home to millions of guest workers, muslims from central asia. an estimated 2 million. there are an estimated 2.5 million of only registered migrants from central asia and now alone, making the russian capital the largest muslims to the in europe. often without work permits, marginalized culturally and ethnically, and often subjected to abuse, extortion, and racist violence, many of the men understandably turned to the faith and the faith of their grandparents as a means to sustain their dignity. unfortunately, as reported in russian media, at least some fall under the influence of radical clerics and recruiters from isis. according to reports from
russian media, most if not all fighters from central asia have been recruited at construction sites in russia, including rat -- especially moscow, including uzbeks- including fighting in syria. all were recruited outside uzbekistan. number four, given the permeability of borders, the recruiting and proselytizing efforts at has been doubled and tripled by isis in central asia, given the flow of people, such efforts are likely to result in increasing radicalization of the elements of the central asian the aspera in russia -- central diaspora in russia. adding to other risks of putin's
decision is also the fact that the probability of retaliatory terrorist strikes inside russia are increasing. final point, the secretary of the russian security council said that at the moment, russian authorities do not have the means to stem the flow of volunteers to isis. the russian foreign ministry estimates there are around 2400 russian speakers among the jihadist's in syria, while total russian nationals and those from the former soviet union in the ranks of isis could be as high as 5000. russian is the third most popular language in isis after arabic and english. how long will it be before veterans of isis coming back to russia decide to fight for a russian caliphate? let me conclude with this.
like overwhelming majority of muslims everywhere, most russian muslims practice peacefully, a poor violence, and are good citizens and patriots. yet as we have learned since 9/11, the radicalization of even a small minority not registered in public opinion polls can cause incalculable damage and cost thousands of lives. if the evidence i outlined today does not amount to a significant increase in national or international terrorism, i will be the first to acknowledge and celebrate my error. in having largely missed acknowledging the rise of al qaeda and isis, i would rather be safe than wrong. thank you very much. mr. saradshyan: thank you for
inviting me to participate in what i believe is a very important event. i will represent my view for the prospects in countering terrorism, and i will start with an observation made by winston churchill, who is often quoted as saying that russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. if you remember the remainder of that saying, which is that perhaps there is a key, and that key is russia's national interest. there is no strategic document or statement that would offer a hierarchy of national interest, but i have taken the liberty to distill certain statements into a hierarchy.
of these interests, at least three of seven vital national interests in russia are affected by the political violence in the middle east. of these three interests which andent insurgency in russia terrorist attacks on russia, save lives, and prevent weapons of mass distraction from getting to these countries. at least three of these interests converge with u.s. national interests as for mated by the commission on american national interest -- formulated by the commission on american national interests.
both countries share an interest in ensuring that the dual threat is contained. that comes to countering the rise of isis, continuing to his mental -- dismantle or keep al qaeda on the run as well as denying any terrorist organization access to weapons of mass destruction, in articular nuclear weapons. i should note that although there are 30,000 recruits reportedly from foreign countries in isis, and many are estimated to come from the est, russia and its allies are more exposed to the threat posed by isis if only because of proximity. as dr. aron pointed out, the latest estimates eight when a hundred russian nationals are in isis -- estimates 2400 russian nationals are in sis.
we should not discount al qaeda, which has its own unit from russia and the republics of central asia. that unit counts about 1500. imagine what would happen if all these individuals came home, whether because isil prevails or because isil was defeated but these individuals were not apprehended or eliminated. i should note that both isil and al qaeda have maintained ties with insurgents and terrorist networks in the north. this summer saw isis establish a province in the north caucuses. the emirate caucuses, the umbrella terrorist organization operating in the north caucuses has had long-standing ties