tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN October 20, 2015 5:00pm-7:01pm EDT
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i move that the house suspend the rules and pass house resolution 348 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: resolution supporting the right of the people of ukraine to freely elect their government and determine their future. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the
gentleman from california, mr. royce, and the gentleman from new york, mr. engel, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i ask that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and put any extraneous material in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, it was two years after the conflict in raine began a week ago and russian aggression remains there almost a daily, regular occurrence. the fighting has taken over 8,000 ukrainian lives and that number is growing as russia continues to provide weapons of support to separatists in eastern ukraine. last year, along with ranking member eliot engel along with
members of the foreign affairs committee, there were eight of us, if i recall, including the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline, the author of the resolution before us today, we traveled to ukraine to see the situation on the ground. we californiaed to kiev, and we traveled to the east and we spoke with local officials, we spoke with representatives of civil society, women's groups, wyers' groups, local government, different minority groups, a broad range of individuals. leaders of the to ther community, leads of the jewish community there. and even former supporters of their former president among many, many others. and we heard that same message among everyone, that they were committed to building a peaceful, united ukraine that's free to determine its own future and they want to do it without
outside interference. and now there's a new effort to bring peace to this war torn region under the so-called minsk agreements. these specify a number of measures that must be implemented by all sides, one of which is to hold local elections by the end of this year. ukrainian government has scheduled these for october 25, which is this sunday. unfortunately, they cannot be held in the areas controlled by russian-led separatists because intimidation and manipulation make free and fair elections impossible in these regions. but they will take place in the rest of the country where independent observers will ensure they meet international standards and this is to be welcomed. their hopes for success will be a real world demnstration that ukraine is continuing to implement the democratic reforms that the ukrainian people are determined to bring peace into their country with. and i urge my colleagues to vote for this bipartisan resolution
and reaffirm that america's commitment to ukraine's independence and the right of the ukrainian people to determine their own future is strong, it is enduring, thank you, mr. speaker, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of this measure and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: i want to thank mr. cicilline for drafting this resolution. with its passage, we'll again be signaling that the united states stands with the people of ukraine, that we want them to chart the future for their own country, and that we reject the aggression and unlawfulness of russia's actions under president putin. let me also thank our chairman, ed royce, the hallmark of the foreign affairs committee is our success in advancing good, bipartisan legislation and this resolution is a prime example of business as usual for our committee.
i'm very proud of it. our interest in ukraine is nothing new. over the past year, our committee has focused a great deal on this crisis. we've passed legislation aimed at assisting ukraine. we want to see a successful democratic transition. we want ukraine's territorial integrity to be restored, and we want to deter russia from further aggression. the cease fire in ukraine seems to be holding. that's good news but i still have deep concerns. first of all, while the upcoming elections are important, not all of ukraine's citizens will have their voices heard. only area's under kiev's control will be passing ballots and russia has a history of sticking its nose in ukraine's elections. putin has said he won't interfere with the vote but i'm not holding my breath, nor should anyone else. we'll be looking for specific benchmark.
for instance, minsk requires -- the agreement in minsk requires that elections in two areas be held after russia draws downforces there. not just russian personnel but all military equipment, all mercenaries, all support for proxies must be out of these areas before the elections. it's critical that the osce mount a full-kale observation mission and be permitted to monitor every stage of the process. we'll be keeping a close eyen this as well. yet even if minsk is followed to the letter, a cease fire followed by elections, followed by restoration of kiev's control over its own eastern border, the order will remain compromised. this agreement doesn't address crimea nor does it hold the force of international law. and as much as we talk about
minsk, we shouldn't forget prior and far more important agreements such as the helsinki final act and the budapest memorandum which reaffirmed the core prince polve the final act that the territorial integrity of states is inviolable. you know, ukraine was part of the former soviet union and when the soviet union collapsed, ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons. and as part of giving that up, ukraine was guaranteed etc. territorial integrity, guaranteed by the united states, by russia, and by others. certainly they're being betrayed right now and we should not stand for it. and lastly, we should have no illusions that this agreement will deter president putin's aggression. indeed, if moscow dials up intervention in the middle east and syria, ukraine is looking more and more like just one element of a much larger scheme
by president putin to destabilize countries on russia's borders. that's what putin wants to do, he wants to keep ukraine unstable, destabilized. with this resolution we affirm our support for ukraine. e express our hope that that minsk will keep the peace and we make clear we are keeping a watchful eye on russia an that we are ready to continue ssisting ukraine to focus on democratic gains and assist them. ukraine wants to be democrat ex. ukraine wants to look toward the rest. ukraine doesn't want to be dom nayed by russia. we should give them all the support they deserve. that's what the united states does. that's what the united states is all about. and that's what this resolution does. so i urge my colleagues to support this measure and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time.
the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: it's my pleasure to yield three minutes to the gentleman who is the author of the resolution, mr. cicilline of rhode island. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. cicilline: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding and rise to support house resolution 348, supporting free elections in ukraine. i want to thank chairman royce and ranking member engel for their strong support and co-sponsorship of this legislation which i was proud to introduce and which shows congress' unwavering support for free elections in ukraine. i think many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle -- thank the many of my colleagues who have signed on as co-sponsors of the bill. this remains one of the most vital efforts the united states can take to combat russian belligerence and demonstrate ours unwavering commitment to promoting democracy and human rights around the world. next sunday, the people of
ukraine will head to the polls to exercise their right to choose their own government. however because of the continued defiance of russian-led separatists, not every region of ukraine will be able to participate in these elections. the illegal occupation of crimea is a clear violation of international law. the minsk two agreement was an important step toward ending violence and unrest in the country. it's now on the governments of ukraine, russia, and our allies -- and the u.s. and our allies to ensure its execution. the existing cease fire is a positive development but it must be accompanied by three elections. ukraine has local elections scheduled for most of the country for this sunday. this resolution demonstrate this is congress' steadfast commitment, supporting the right of the people of ukraine to freely election their
government. to ondemns any attempts affect the election in any way, including violence or interim deags. these tactics were used in ukraine's last elections and they cannot be used againism in of these actions must be met with swift and certain action. it's essential that the united states and our allies continue to demonstrate firm support for ukrainian territorial integrity, sovereignty and the light of ukrainian people to participate in free and fair elections. america has a long history of supporting free and fair elections and the right of people to decide their own future. this resolution was passed by the committee on foreign affairs with overwhelming bipartisan support. i urge my colleagues to support its passage today and thank the gentleman for yielding. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york
reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my good friend from new york and the distinguished chairman of the committee. i rise in support of h.res. 348. the people of the ukraine have the right to hold free and fair elections within the sovereign territory of their own country. the routeless tyranny of russian military aggression in the ukraine must end. and we must never agree to a settlement that even hints to president vladimir putin that the borders of europe are up for sale. the resolution notes the forceful and illegal occupation of crimea. the united states must make it clear in both our words and our deeds that crimea is within the
sovereign territory of the ukraine. and we will not recognize its forcible and illegal an ex-ation by russia, ever. this resolution is clear on that account. i thank the author, mr. cicilline, for it. the senate and house of representatives recently passed the fiscal 2016 national defense authorization act conference report. that text included an amendment i author to prohibit the authorization of funds been obligated or expended in order to implement any activity that could be construed as recognizing the sovereignty of the russian federation over ukraine's crimea. crimea is not an issue we can allow to fade into the background, ever. as the resolution notes, in just its second clause this was
putin's original sin in the ukraine. if we are to deter, mr. speaker, in er russian separatists the eastern ukraine, we must never yield in the crimea. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i reserve the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: i'll close now. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized to close. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to voice my strong support for this resolution and again thank mr. cicilline for authorizing this measure and his leadership and thank our chairman once again. even with the cease fire in place, the crisis in ukraine is a major threat to the internabble order. the united states stands with the people of ukraine as they try to chart the path forward for their country and restore their territorial integrity. so long as president putin's aggression continues, we need to
stay focus thond serious challenge. i urge my colleagues to support this measure and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: thank you. in closing, let me again thank eliot engel along with mr. cicilline and mr. connolly, co-sponsors of the resolution with myself and other members of that committee but mention in particular that the decision we ade to go as far east in the ukraine as we could, we traveled o the border of the area of where we flew in. one of the great advantages of having with us is the ranking member who knows the country well and the people well. mr. eliot engel is the fact that
both his grandparents on his mother's side are from the ewe yain and both his grashtes on his father's side are from the ukraine. it's a reminder to us the long strug, the long, ar dent effort for independence, for some modicum of freedom that the people of ukraine have struggled for all these years, a dream that finally seemed realized and now in the wake of that you have the occupation of the eastern and southern part of the country. . i think it's a reminder to all of us of just how situations surprised e can be on the world stage. the united states, in my opinion, could do more in this particular case to end the aggression. as people told us and we were and mr. engel
ngel during passover -- e spoke during passover, women's groups, different civil society groups. you know, we can handle the fact that every skin-head that putin can recruit, he radicalizes and he trains and he sends them here and we capture them and hold them until the end of hostilities, but what is a real challenge is the russian armor. that russian equipment out there. we can't match that. we need anti-tank missiles. now, anti-tank weapons is what .hey've asked for want to in congress give those people on the front line the armaments they need to defend themselves and the house
has gone on record taking this position, and i think it would be a deterrent against russian ggression. that has brought so much suffering. my hope is that we convince the administration as well. the local elections scheduled for this sunday are a concrete example that ukrainians are determined to do all that they can to achieve peace throughout the entirety of that country and by overwhelmingly adopting this bipartisan resolution, i think the house will send a clear message to the ukrainian people that the united states remains committed to their right to have ukrainians choose their own government and choose their own destiny. and i want to thank the gentleman from rhode island for authoring this particular bill and urge its passage and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 348, as
amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- mr. royce: mr. speaker, on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.
josh: we'll try to get this moving along so we can see the game, i know how interested you all are in game four. i think first pitch is at 4:00, not that anybody is keeping track. i actually do not have anything at the top so we can go straight to your questions. >> great, thanks. will you give us the whougs view on the canadian election results? josh: speaking of things happening in canada, i guess, the united states and certainly president obama congratulates prime minister designate justin trudeau on yesterday's elections. i expect the president will have an opportunity later today to call mr. true doe and congratulate him -- mr. trudeau b and congratulate him. i'd be remiss if i didn't point out that both the president and the country are deeply appreciative of prime minister's
harp -- prime minister harper's act to build a strong u.s.-canada relation. president obama had a number of occasion to meet personally with prime minister harper over the course of his tenure and i'm confident president obama will speak with prime minister harper at some point in the not too distant future as well. >> do you know if the president will invite justin trudeau to come to the white house? josh: i don't know that but if an invitation is extended we'll be hour so -- sure to let you know. >> does the white house think relations with canada will get ease year under prime minister-designate true toe? i know prime minister harmer was annoyed by the time it was taking to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline. josh: i think it would be shortsighted to reduce our relationship to just one issue.
there were a number of times when the united states and canada worked together to advance the efforts -- advance the interests of both our countries. canada made contributions to our counter-isil coalition. canada has been an important part of making the transpacific partnership a reality. canadian negotiators engage in that process in an important way and made an important contribution in bringing those talks to a conclusion and we believe that completing that agreement and implementing it would be in the best interest of the u.s. economy and u.s. middle class families but we believe it will have a positive impact on economies across the partnership include anything canada. canada also made a substantial and important commitment in advance of the paris climate talks. we believe it's possible that there's more that canada could do in this regard but the fact that they are stepping up and
indicating, making a commitment is an indication of the important role that canada plays not just in their relationship with the united states but in terms of their leadership around the world and the united states is fortunate to have such a strong and close partnership with a country like canada that does have global influence. and our bilateral relationships have enhanced the security and prosperity of the american people and we certainly are appreciative of prime minister harper's efforts to strengthen that relationship and we look forward to building on that kind of progress when mr. trudeau takes over the prime minister's ffice. a vice president biden
question. he said he called -- he spent seven to 14 hours with the president. seven hours seems like a long time to spend with one person. josh: i'm just kidding. >> outside of the presidential briefing, the lunch this afternoon, and some of their joint public apeerns how would you account for the amount of time he says they spend together? josh: it's not unusual for the president to convene broader national security meetings or domestic policy meetings. i think the meetings you ran through would account for about three hours every day. it's not unusual for the president to have another hour or two of meetings on his schedule that would also include the vice president. this is also subject to the president's travel schedule and the vice president's travel schedule so this is not a daily occurrence.
but the timing window that he laid out seems generally accurate to me based on my reading of public schedule. jeff. >> a followup on the canadian election. now that it is over, does this clear the last remaining hurdle on the keystone x.l. pipeline? josh: my understanding is that secretary kerry addressed this, which is appropriate because the sec retear of state leads the agencies conducting the review of the project. my understanding is secretary kerry indicated the completion of this election would have no impact on the timing or final determination of the project. this is a review that is still under way at the state department and based on what secretary kerry says it doesn't sound as if the canadian election will have an impact. >> does the white house have an expectation of when they'd like to see that? josh: at this point no.
the president has already said that he is expecting that he'll be able to complete this policy process prior to his departure from office. that's still 15 months away or so. so hopefully we'll get it done well before then. >> you mentioned that the united states -- josh: we need a reason to stop talking about it. >> you mentioned the united states would like to see canada do more on climate change. the prime minister designate said in his campaign he wanted to set up a standard for carbon pricing and would like a north american agreement on clean energy and the environment. do you see this new leader and this election and the result of this election as an opportunity to engage on some of those ideas and perhaps get further commitments from canada on climate change? josh: i think it's too early to judge exactly how mr. trudeau will follow through on some of
the policy debates that occurred in the context of the campaign. i'll confess i didn't follow those policy debates particularly closely but the united states, and the president, has played a role in the conversations, let me say it this way. in each of the conversations the president has been having with world leaders of late, he's been making clear that he considers commitments in advance of the paris conference a high priority and has been encouraging the leaders of those countries to make important contributions to success in paris. and obviously that was part of e discussions with president pak when she was here. it's part of the discussions the president had with president chi a few weeks ago. it's part of the pope's visit. and the president has been talking a lot about this in the context of the nation's general assembly.
just off the top of my head, it seems in each of the significant engagements that he's had with world leaders over the last several weeks, this has been high on his agenda. and i think that would be the case when the speaks with mr. trudeau as well. >> lastly from that campaign, mr. trudeau said he would withdraw from iraq and sir yasm how does the white house feel about that? josh: obviously the obama administration and -- will be in talks about the counter-isil effort. they've made an important contribution thus far and we're deeply appreciative of them lending their talent and skill and expertise to that effort and we hope that we can continue to count on their ongoing support for this very important mission. we certainly value the contributions that we've received from the canadians thus
far in terms of our strategy to degrade and ultimately destroy isil. we certainly are hoping that they'll continue to play that important role they've played thus far. >> josh, as winter begins to bear down on eastern europe and the immigrants, the migration, refugee crisis there, has the president had any updates, any new conversations with the leaders, including angela merkel in terms of additional support? we know the u.s. is number one in providing that kind of monetary support, we've discussed that. but is there any new initiatives that this white house is beginning to prepare for? josh: i don't have anything new to announce at this point, j.c. the united states continues to e the largest donor of humanitarian assistance to this effort. and the president continues to be concerned about the
significance of this humanitarian -- humanitarian crisis. the skill of this crisis is historic, even. and it certainly should stir the conscience of people around the world in responding to it. the united states has stepped up, the u.s. government has stepped up to make a substantial contribution. the white house recently did organize this online portal so that there are private u.s. citizens who are interested in making a financial contribution to ongoing humanitarian relief efforts. there's information about that on the white house website and will steer you to charitabling or 234iization involved in responding to this crisis. >> some of the past issues in that part of the country are coming out, resurfacing. does that cause the president
any moral pain when he thinks of this kind of thing coming back to face europe? josh: i think part of this, there is a natural human reaction that i think does not reflect in any way the majority, the prevailing opinion of either -- prevailing opinion either across the united states or across europe about the fact that these individuals who are fleeing violence in syria are human beings. they have the same worries an concerns and dreams and ambitions of other -- that other human beings do. our humanity calls on us to recognize that humanity inside of them. that certainly is reflected in the policy approach that the united states has pursued and i think it's reflected in the kind of reception that most europeans
have offered when these individuals have arrived in europe. that's not to diminish the significance of the challenge and providing for the needs of these individuals and making sure it doesn't, or at least minimally disrupts the order in those countries and the day-to-day life of those citizens. but to diminish or ignore the humanity of these individuals fleeing a desperate situation, fleeing terrible violence in their home country is something that -- that i'm glad that only a small number of people have done. george. >> in the debate with mitt romney in 2012, the president said that vice president biden had advised him against going after lane. the vice president has now changed his story on that. is the president similarly changing his recollection?
josh: george, i was -- i was not in the room when these decisions were being made or when the president was consulting his advisors about this very difficult foreign policy call that he made. there have already been books written about this, i'm confident that there will be more, or at least there will be more books in which we'll be able to read about this moment in time in american history. so i'm going to leave the dissection and the oral history if you will, of those days to those who were actually there and to the extent that there's some greater clarity you'd like to seek, maybe you'll have an opportunity at some point to ask those who were in the room. >> but as far as you know the president is sticking with what he said in the debate with romney. josh: i don't have any new information to share with you on the president's recollection. >> just a simple question, vice
president biden said that he advised the president to go forward with that raid. is that true? josh: john, on many occasions i've declined to provide insight into the private conversations between the president of the united states and the vice president of the united states other than to tell you that the president deeply values that advice. i'm not going to get into the substance. >> so you can't say if the vice president was telling you the truth. josh: i don't have any insight to share with you about the private conversations between the president and the vice president. >> what are we to make of the fact that his -- that leon panetta said point-blank in his book that biden came out firmly in favor of waiting for more information that robert gates said biden was against the operation, hillary clinton said biden remained skeptical. biden himself has said that he was against the decision. you said point-blank that -- he
said, point-blank, my suggestion is mr. president don't go. what are we to make of the fact that all these people said exactly the opposite, including biden himself? josh: i'm not going to be able to provide a lot of insight between the president and vice president. >> let me ask you about something else that was not private scommune cases. the president said you have veto power over anybody in my cabinet. is that true? did the president give vice president biden veto power over all cabinet nominations? josh: again, i am not aware of then nversations that senator obama had with then-senator biden about him coming onboard as a running mate. i don't have the information about that. >> you work in the campaign, you've been working in this building for six years.
ever heard any suggestion that the vice president has veto power over cabinet nominations? have you ever heard it suggested? josh: i'm not privy to the conversations between the president and the vice president. you know, you'll have to take it up with one of the two of them if they're willing to talk about it publicly. >> what do you think we should make of the fact that today as we wait for biden's decisions, he talks about spending up to seven hours a day with the president, he's talking about being in favor of a raid he previously said he was against, what is going on? josh: again, you guys are the ones who know the political scene. what i'll say from my perspective is the fact that we're spending a will the of time discussing the presidential prospects of a candidate who is essentially saying he would get in the race to try to advance the president's agenda, that the president himself has been fighting on for seven years, that's a luxury for me not a
burden. and if we spend this much time talking about people who were trying to -- who were vowing to block the president's agenda, that would be a lot more difficult for me than having an opportunity to discuss how viable and, you know, possibly influential, a candidate could be by running, saying he looks to advance the kind of ajeb da we have been fighting for her. >> you just called him a candidate? do you know something we don't? >> no, i guess i meant potential candidate. >> were you surprised when you heard the vice president say he advised the president to go forward with the raid? josh: i wasn't following it closely, i was following it on twitter, actually. >> were you surprised when you saw it on twit her josh: not particularly. >> a followup, how much influence does the vice
president have over the president? josh: i think the president himself when talking about their relationship has talked about the -- has talked about vice president biden being one of the most consequential vice presidents in the history of the country. and i think if you take a look at the contribution he's made on a range of domestic policy issues including the implement -- the implementation of the recovery act and his influence on a range of foreign policy issues, particularly managing hot spots like ukraine, that clearly vice president biden plays a really important role in conceiving of and advancing the agenda of the obama administration and of the obama white house. so there's no denying his significant influence in this building. >> it's come out of the white house that many are waiting for his decision as well as the american public. josh: that's been true for months. >> has anyone urged him? i'm understanding that you're
waiting to hear what he says, one way or the other whether you support him that way in his run or bid or just move on. josh: well, i feel confident that we are -- i think the president himself has acknowledged that he has no immediate plans to offer an endorsement of any candidate for president. that could change down the line. but that's what he said. and he's made clear that that's going to be his position regardless of the decision that vice president biden makes. so i'm not sure, yes, there is an element of, like all of you, waiting for the vice president to make what is an intensely personal decision about whether or not to run for president, but it's not as if it has a day-to-day impact on the important work that goes on around here. >> on another subject, on the
benghazi hearing today, i understand that david kendall, the attorney for hillary clinton, as well as trey gowdy and elijah cummings will be meeting to set the ground rowls or thursday. josh: breaking news, everybody. >> trey gowdy is proposing to follow -- to say he wants each member of the committee to have four questions, which will be up to eight hours. what do you, what does this white house want to see when it comes this tissue comes to this particularly sensitive hearing, especially as it relates to benghazi, that the families of those who died want answers still amid all this controversy. josh: i think what we have seen from a lot of the families is not just a desire for answers but a desire to not see the terrible tragedy used for
partisan political gain. unfortunately, that's exactly what we've seen from the committee you don't have to take my word for it. there are two different republican members of congress who arrived at the same conclusion including the majority leader. i do think, as i mentioned yesterday, that republicans on the committee are going to be under intense pressure to justify their very existence, justify the existence of this committee. and to prove to the american people that this committee is not just another arm of the republican national committee. you would hope that something this serious and this important would not be so freely subjected to partisan politics. unfortunately, that's precisely what's occurred. and you know, given that pressure that i'm sure that republicans on the committee are feeling, they're going to come loaded for bear. and they're going to come out, you know, with aggressive, hostile questioning of the secretary of state, trying to further the goal that leader mccarthy laid out which is
driving down poll numbers. so that will be, well, i expect it will be something that will be closely watched by at least people in this room and again, i think republicans on the committee will be engaged in a very vigorous, aggressive effort to try to justify the continuing existence of the committee. >> does the president believe his administration is under a microscope and his job as well when this hearing takes place thursday, because she was his secretary of state? josh: not anymore than he is every other day. connie. >> thank you so much. can you hear me? josh: yeah. >> israel and the palestinians, did the administration ever consider refusing aid, military aid? josh: i'm not aware of anything like that being contemplated at this point.
the u.s. position has been that a two-state solution is the best way to resolve the conflict between the two parties and the only way to arrive at the kind of negotiated settlement that results in a two-state solution is for the two party to sit down face-to-face and negotiate directly. as you know, secretary kerry and many secretaries of state before him have expended significant effort and energy to try to bring both sides to the table and try to bring them to conclusion around those conversations. unfortunately, that's not occurred. i say unfortunately because we believe it is both clearly in the interest of our closest ally in the middle east for the situation fob resolved in this way and that it would be in the interest of the palestinian people to resolve this conflict in that way and that would vons the security interests of the united states. i'm confident that both sides, the leaders of the palestinian
people and the leadest of the nation of israel are under pressure from their -- from the citizens. from their people from their constituents. to end this conflict. neither side is well served by it. it's taken a toll on the economy, it's taken a toll on the security in both palestinian and israeli neighborhood and t's -- the significant loss of innocent life is just tragic. and hopefully both sides will be able to summon the political courage at some point relatively soon to come to the table and finally make the kinds of tough political decisions that will be required to resolve their differences. >> has it stripped israel of any rights including the western ? ll
josh: i'd rougher you to the am what bass dor's office for this. >> you said it would be a luxury not a burden to have someone running for president to uphold the policies of this squad mrgs. josh: i should say another one. but yes, another one. >> so you don't see how joe biden getting in the race could make it more difficult for the democrats to win the white house? josh: there's lots of analysis that has been done and will be done around that specific uestion. again, the -- i think the view around the white house is that the democratic voters across the country will choose the person that's in the best position to represent the democratic party in the next election. there's a lot of confidence in the white house in the ability of voters to do exactly that.
you can be sure that whoever the democratic nominee is, as both someone who will understand the importance of building on the important progress that we've made over the last seven years but it's also a candidate that can count on the strong support of the incumbent president of the united states and i'm confident that we'll spend a lot of time this time of year next year advocating for that democratic presidential candidate. >> you have not wanted to onsistently said you weren't privy to conversations between the president and the vice president are having about this topic but is the president staying out of this, essentially? >> the president is staying out of it in that he understands the vice president has to make his own personal decision about this and the president is staying out of it with regard to his understanding that this is only a decision that vice president biden can make for himself and
his family. i think the president is simp at the toik how difficult a decision like this is to make. ultimately the president understands that this is a decision that can be made by vice president biden and by vice president biden alone. >> which is not to say he's not offering advice. josh: i'm not going to get into their conversations. they're having lunch today, maybe even right now, but -- and i wouldn't be surprised if questions of politics came up. but i'm not previ to the details of those conversations. >> let me ask you about another -- about another topic, a -- about guns a poll came out want more at 60% rules, but 33% want the rules to remain the same. where does the president stand, and what is the white house
doing actively to see changes? josh: the president in a news conference about a week later acknowledged his team was going back and scrubbing through the law to determine if there were additional authorities that could be used by the president of the united states to try to have an impact on some of these rules. the president has made clear that he'll do as much as he possibly can within his power to try to prevent those who shouldn't have guns from getting them in the first place. and the president believes strongly that we can do that without undermining the fundamental constitutional rights of law-abiding americans. the most important impact we could have in this area would be for congress to pass a commonsense law that would close the gun show loophole and ensure that everybody who tries to purchase a firearm even at a gun show would be subjected to a background check. >> is there actively work going
on with influential members of congress in this regard? josh: as it reals to congress i think the president has been cleared about what will be required before we see significant change in congress. we're going to need to see the american people step up and make their choices heard you mentioned this latest polling data, but there's ample data out there and has been for quite some time to indicate that a vast majority of the american people holds this commonsense view and it won't be until that commonsense view is strongly conveyed to members of congress and until members of congress understand that the votes that they expect from their constituents will be contingent on them holding that same commonsense view and until that political effort has been mobilized we're unlikely to see congress take the kind of action that the president believes is long overdue. >> i know you'd love to comment on what the republicans are
saying. donald trump said last night that president obama is working on an executive order to take americans' guns away, something that's getting a lot of press particularly in conservative media. do you want to comment? josh: the president has made no bone about the fact that he's me -- d to use every everything in his authority to make sure criminals don't get guns he's also willing to protect american's second amendment rights. those are facts about the president's records and his authority. we welcome others who share that commonsense view for making their voice heard. >> so trump is liing or misinformed? josh: i have no idea what donald trump is doing. >> i have a couple of things, the first one, quickly look back on the biden thing and ask if it's possible you could talk to the president or vice president about this because there is a precedent actually of white
house spokesmen commenting on this very your predecessor and there are people who say the vice president has advised the resident not to go after lane. can you clarify that? >> next time you have the opportunity to question the vice president or president, ask him directly. >> on that note, director brown, his email was hack and the hackers were able to obtain sensitive data forwarded from his white house email address including names of people visiting the white house and possibly sensitive information. i'm wondering if that has led to any investigation here at the white house about his use of his white house email and
transferring sensitive data from his white house email to an obviously less secure personal email. josh: i haven't seen the specific reports and i'm not aware of any ongoing investigation. i feel confident saying that director brennan understands as well as anybody in the federal government the need to handle sensitive data with the ppropriate level of caution. you know, i think what is clear is that this underscores the importance of government officials, and it sounds like director brennan did, using their official government email address for official government work. but it does highlight the risk that all of us face when it comes to the security of even our private emails and certainly
this is the kind of environment, this cybersecurity environment we're currently operating in, is one that requires vigilance. those ofon the part of us, all of us, who have private email addresses but also on the part of the company responseable for administering the security around those private email systems. and many of the best practices that this administration has advocated, the kind of things that would bolster cybersecurity not just in the government space but the private sector as well. >> i want to ask if you could find out later this week, i know the president kind of vaguely referenced the need to end sanctuaries for terrorists, for taliban and other terrorists .
if there are other kind of agenda items the president hopes to raise. josh: i don't have a comprehensive preview of their cushions at this point. obviously, as i mentioned yesterday, the united states has some important security relationship with act -- pakistan that our security forces have in a variety of ways been able to effectively coordinate our efforts in a way that enhances the national security of both the united states and pakistan. obviously, there are extremist elements inside pakistan that have committed terrible acts of violence and terrible acts of terror inside pakistan and i have on previous occasions read condolence statements on behalf of the american people to the pakistan people because of those extremist elements. i cite that only to note that this is a shared priority of our two countries, that this risk that we sense emanates from this
broader region is a risk that -- or is a threat that pakistan has had to deal with firsthand and it underscores the importance of our security relationship with the pakistanis. >> the other thing the president mentioned was the need to push the taliban back into peace negotiations in afghanistan. thatondering if you expect if the p and also president expects to sanction a top taliban official. josh: one of the early rounds of reconciliation talks between the afghan government and taliban was hosted by the pakistani government inside pakistan. it's clear the pakistan government recognizes how prnt those reconciliation efforts are and we're pleased they've
stepped up in trying to facilitate constructive conversations. as it relates to the treasury, i'd refer you to the treasury department about the individual that was sanctioned and what activities earned that individual the special designation. >> a couple of things the vice president said today, he said every vice president's job and relationship to their president is defined by the president himself. do you agree with that? josh: well, i -- again, based on what i saw on twitter which can be dangerous -- >> that's the way it works, the president defines your job when you're the president? josh: i agree with what the vice president said that a lot of authority that you have as a vice president is based on what the president says. i think all of you have observed the closeness and respect that's
included in that relationship between this president and this vice president. >> so this vice president's role is defined by the president? josh: it sounds like that's exactly what he said so he would know better than i. >> you would agree with that? josh: it's hard for me to disagree with that. >> i bring it up because if the vice president runs, and he's already begun to describe his role and there's no other person we can ask directly other than the president and you about what he did and what he didn't do and this is going to put you potentially in a position of litigating what his role was here vis-a-vis the secretary of state, so what i'm going to lay before you is are you going to take up that role? you're trying to dance around it today because he's not a candidate. but if he becomes a candidate, are you going to answer these questions as directly and fully as you wobal can? josh: i think what i will do is this, and this may be getting
ahead of ourselves, but this is what i would do, i should say. each of these candidates, particularly secretary clinton and if he chooses to become a candidate, vice president biden, will be responsible for going out there in public and making their own affirmative case. if there's an instance in which the president's interests are at stake, then it's my responsibility to go out there and make sure that his interests are properly and well represented. in a debate like this one, that has emerged, based on the vice president's public comments today, it's raised questions among all of you about the vice president's role, what his views were at the time, those are all questions you can ask the vice president or his spokesperson. i have had lots of positive things to say about the vice president because of his important contribution to our nation and our administration's success. but if he chooses to become a candidate for vice president, he will have ample opportunity to make his own public had case about why the american people should promote him to the top job. reporter: when he says, as he
did today, that when he traveled around the world, world leaders know that i am speaking for the president, is that true? mr. earnest: i think that is true. those world leaders know when they're receiving the vice president of the united states they're receiving him because they know that the president's asked him to go. reporter: and that should be interpreted as him being a more significant voice as the secretary of state or defense secretary or someone like that? mr. earnest: i think the same thing that could be said about a senior official that is representing the interests of the united states government. they're there to represent the interests of the american people and they're there to represent -- tro try -- to try to advance our priorities. and i think that's true of everybody. reporter: the vice president suggested he was speaking more powerfully on behalf of the president than anybody else in the cabinet. mr. earnest: i think when people are receiving the vice president, they understand that they're receiving somebody who has a very close personal relationship with the president and somebody that has a very
detailed understanding of the president's views and priorities. so, i understand why other countries are eager to have the opportunity to receive the vice president. but -- so i guess to that extent, that's the significance of the vice president's visit to another country. reporter: when you were being asked about what to make of all this, you said you'll let us read the political tea leaves. and when he was asking about -- and what he was asking about was operational debates or advice or things that were said within the confines of this white house. it wasn't a political question. i wondered why your answer went to politics. do you think that this has become a political debate, even when it goes to what the vice president said to the president or what his role was in regards to cabinet or veto power? those are prathesal questions. they're not innately political questions. mr. earnest: earn i don't
remember exactly john's question in which i gave that answer. i do believe it was a question about the political consequences of it all. but, look, when we're talking -- i think there's a couple of important things to separate out. yes, these conversations are operational and that's the reason that we've talked about them, you know, even in the immediate aftermath of the successful completion of the mission. what's also true is the reason we're talking about it now is because of politics. and so, you know, separating that out in some cases may be a little bit in the eye of the beholder. but what i will do moving forward is what i've done in the past. which is to do the best that i can, to try to help you understand the president's view on things and to represent the president's interests when they come into question. but if the question is purely of politics, it only has an impact or interest on the president, then i'll at least be less likely to weigh in. we'll see how this moves going forward. reporter: the president knows
and respects, jim cly born said today that it is his opinion and point of view that the vice president should not announce that he was going to run for president. he should say he's available if necessary. what do you think of that? mr. earnest: that's cretive. look, everybody's entitled to their opinion and certainly somebody like mr. clyburn, who has been a close observer of presidential politics for decades now, based on his -- the prominence in his home state and the process of choosing a democratic nominee, so, mr. clyburn certainly knows what he's talking about. but with all due respect to somebody as significant and as sophisticated as mr. clyburn, there's only one person's views who matters and in this case it's the vice president of the united states. reporter: is there a feeling back on pakistan, from the administration, that they're not doing enough to tamp down the extremist interest in that country? and how would you describe u.s.
-pakistan relationship now? are we frenemies? mr. earnest: is that a technical term? reporter: is there any lingering friction over the bin laden raid or anything? mr. earnest: i think that it's been well documented that there have been some peaks and troughs in the relationship between the united states and pakistan. hen it comes to our -- the relationship between our two countries. i thinking is similar could be said about the united states -- i think something similar could be said about the united states and our relationship with a variety of countries arbleds the world over the past few decades -- around the world over the past few decades. what the president hopes to do is strengthen the relationship between our two countries, based on our shared interests. as i mentioned, there is a shared interest that the united states and pakistan have in countering extremist forces in that region of the world. that are -- this ising is
pakistan has to deal with -- this is something that pakistan has to deal with on their door step. and to the extent that the united states can be helpful in that regard, we would like to be. prainably because we believe in it's our -- principally because we believe it's in our interest for pakistan to succeed in their fight against extremist elements and to make their country safer. we've been supportive of their efforts to do that. reporter: there's not a feeling that they haven't done enough? on their own? mr. earnest: again, i'm confident that this is true, with even our closest allies, that we're always encouraging them to do more. even our nato allies, we regularly get into this debate about how much more of a financial contribution we would like to see our nato allies make to their defense budgets because we believe there is more they can do to strengthen our alliance. i'm confident that the president will come to his meeting with prime minister sharif with some ideas about
what more the pakistanis could do to strengthen their relationship between our two countries and to advance the security interests of our two countries. reporter: has the president met -- [inaudible] mr. earnest: i'm not aware of any individual meeting that they had. but we can look into that for you. reporter: thanks, appreciate that. now that trudeow is leading canada and australia and france also have progressives leading the way, what does that say about the jog left among some of the major economies in the world? mr. earnest: i think it's hard to compare those broader trends. i think ultimately these are citizens that are casting votes based on the political climate in each of their individual countries. i think it's hard to -- maybe there's somebody who knows more about -- who knows something more about current until politics than do i, who might be able to draw a line between
all of those elections. my sense of politics is that each of these electorates is responding to things inside their own country. reporter: keystone, we've talked a great deal about it. does this tamp down that division or that divisiveness between this administration and the canadian administration now that trudeaux will be moving into power? mr. earnest: my sense is that the strength of the u.s.-canada relationship is based on all of those areas where we've been able to effectively work together to advance our shared interests. and whether that's making commitments to the climate rocess in paris, to fighting isil in iraq and in syria, or, you know, working cooperatively with 10 other nations in the asia-pacific to advance our economic interests in the context of the trans-pacific partnership, each of those represents substantial areas where the united states and canada have been able to pursue
our joint interests. reporter: keystone is not a big deal, is that what you're saying? mr. earnest: what i'm saying is that all three of those other things i just named are a bigger deal. ultimately a decision will be rendered on the keystone project. but i'm confident that, regardless of what that financial decision, is i have confidence and will continue to have confidence in the strength of that u.s.-canada relationship. reporter: jim web steps out of the race in the democratic side. do you feel like his is a voice that has a place in democratic politics and why do you feel like he didn't resonate for whatever reason? mr. earnest: well, again, i'll let you all speculate on the -- on what senator web may have been able to do differently. to try to get a little bit more traction inside the democratic presidential primary race. obviously senator web is somebody who has made a substantial contribution to you are a our nation's national
security, both his service in our military in vietnam, to his service in the reagan administration, but also his service in the united states senate. and he's had quite an interesting career. i think like many people i'm quite interested to see what he's going to do next. reporter: ndaa making its way here perhaps as soon as this evening. is that your understanding? mr. earnest: that's my understanding. they could come in the next day or two. i'm not sure exactly how to -- to what to attribute the delay in delivering the legislation to the white house. but maybe some of our republican friends on capitol hill could explain that. i think we all know the outcome here. reporter: are you troubled about this biden question and the things he said today about having some importance. but i mean, the reason is so interesting is because it's different from what we've heard from other people before. it goes directly to, a, what happened that night exactly, who felt what about it, and
what kind of pressure the president was under. and the president himself talked about it in that context when he said, even the vice president wasn't for this. so is there any reason to doubt that what the president said when he said those words, wasn't access? -- wasn't accurate? mr. earnest: no. i don't think i'm trying to indicate a change in the president's view. i think what i'm suggesting is that the people who were in the room at the time are the ones who should be consulted. but ultimately the decision that mattered was the decision that was made by the president of the united states to carry out a mission against osama bin laden and thanks to the courage and professionalism and effectiveness of our men and women in the intelligence community and our men and women in uniform, that mission, that daring mission, was successful. reporter: that is again why it's interesting. because the people who were in that room are saying all kinds of different things. today the vice president said
that there were only two people who were definitive in their views. but that's different than what we've heard from hillary clinton. so, when the vice president said that today, is there any reason -- he was in that room. is there any reason to doubt what he said? mr. earnest: i think historians would probably tell you that this is not the first time that a significant political venegas prompted differing recollections from people who participated in it. that is not to call into question the integrity or honesty of anybody who participated. i think it is an acknowledgment that, particularly when the stakes are really high, and the pressure is on, that in hindsight the situation looks different. you'll have to talk to people who were in the room. reporter: this being one of the most important moments in the president's term anding is that he's talked extensively about, is there a concern that there might be some mystery going on here on the part of the vice president? mr. earnest: for an accurate
accounting of what happened, year going to have to talk to people who were in the room. reporter: in general, let's just say generally speaking here, if somebody was going to jump into a presidential race at this point, we can look at anything generally, right, and numbers were showing that about 1/3 of all democrats didn't think it was a great idea and another 1/3 didn't care, would you ever think that it was a good idea for that person to get in, or would you not possibly think it might be bad for the party, for somebody to -- mr. earnest: i don't think it's bad for the party. for somebody who has spent a career fighting for and even advancing the priorities of that party, and of the country, for making a decision to get into the race. but ultimately the vice president will have to decide for himself if that's the right call for him personally and for
his family. reporter: follow-up on the ndaa. speaker boehner indicated he's going to sign that bill today. so does the white house have a sense of when president obama will actually veto the bill? mr. earnest: i don't. but we'll let you know when it's done. reporter: any chance it would be a pocket veto or him actually vetoing it? mr. earnest: i would not anticipate we're going to wait around 10 days, even if republicans waited at least 10 days to send it up here. reporter: are republicans in congress friendses, the way the vice president says yesterday, or enemy, the way hillary clinton said last week in las vegas? mr. earnest: well, i guess they have their own individual views on this. reporter: [inaudible] mr. earnest: obviously the -- you've heard me talk quite a bit about how disappointing it has been to see republicans in congress engage in a strategy to reflexively oppose, strictly
for partisan reasons, everything the president has tried to advance. in some cases that has led republicans down a path of actually opposing ideas that they've previously supported. and i think what republicans found is that in the short term, that ended up being a particularly effective political strategy. ter all, they won some significant congressional elections as a result of it. it did not, however, succeed in accomplishing leader mcconnell's stated goal at the timex which was to ensure that -- time, which was to ensure that president obama was a one-term president, so in that regard that strategy failed. and i think when you look at the longer term national prospects for the republican party, this sfradge has been quite corrosive -- this strategy has been quite trosive. to say nothing of the impact it's had on the broader country.
so that all said, there have been some areas where the administration has been able to work with republicans. the most recent example of this would be, i suppose, the trade promotion authority legislation that passed over the summer, that paved the way for us reaching an agreement on the trans-pacific partnership that we hope will be approved in bipartisan fashion in the congress. i think the fact that the president is championing an agreement that we expect will get strong support from republicans in both the house and the senate, indicates the president's willingness to actually work across the aisle to getting is done. this is a priority that -- get something done. thanks priority that's held by more republicans in congress than democrats. but yet the democratic president is aggressively pursuing it. and i think that is a quite clear illustration of the president's willingness to work with republicans, to advance shared objectives. even if the republicans are not willing in general to extend him the same courtesy.
reporter: what do you think the vice president meant yesterday when he talked about darrell issa a in the context of clean energy? he seemed to make a note of it that republicans are friends, republicans can be, you know, useful in these kind of situations. mr. earnest: i think that what vice president -- i didn't see his actual comments. so i can speak to the president's view of this and that simply is, this is -- we're in an era of divided government and the american people in their wisdom elected a republican majority in both the house and the senate. and that means that if we're going to advance the nation's priorities we're going to have to find way to do it in a bipartisan fashion. that we're going to have to choose policies that can get the support of some republicans on capitol hill and earn the support of the democratic president. that means the democrats and republicans have to work together to advance our shared interests. the president has long been committed to that principle and unfortunately we have seen too many republicans on capitol hill long resist that principle. that's been a disappointment to the president, it's not been
good for the country, and i think over the long term it's not one that has advanced the political interests of the republican party. but that's just my opinion. reporter: so if it's friends is it friends without too many ?enefits or frenemies [laughter] mr. earnest: i don't think i'm going to go there. reporter: thank you. just back to justin trudeaux. could you clearing is up? while he is a progressive, his position in the campaign was he was for going ahead with the keystone x.l. pipeline. no different from prime minister harper. save for the fact he wanted to do environmental standards that he thought would bring president obama and the administration along. but do you say that that will have no affect on the report from the state department or the administration's position? mr. earnest: secretary kerry has indicated that the timing of the election and the outcome of the election would have no impact on the timing or the
outcome of the ongoing review of the keystone pipeline at the state department. so i take him on his word at that. reporter: the other thing is, a few weeks ago, i know you made very clear the administration's opposition to politically based riders that would try to defund planned parenthood. congressman mike kelly has taken a different course, calling on the i.r.s. to audit planned parenthood. different from the defunding effort. what's the administration's position on that? mr. earnest: the i.r.s. is an independent enforcement agency. this administration has worked hard to ensure that the i.r.s.'s activities are not influenced by the political debate. and that is a principle that we have worked aggressively to uphold and certainly one that i believe that every member of congress should respect. chris, last one.
reporter: at a recent town hall in new hampshire, hillary clinton acknowledged her evolution on the issue of same-sex marriage. saying, personal relationships -- [inaudible] -- for marriage equality. she didn't declare her support for same-sex marriage until 2013, after she left the administration. are you aware of any reason why secretary clinton couldn't have endorsed marriage equality during her time as secretary of state? mr. earnest: i'm not but i didn't work at the state department. so i wouldn't have sort of the most keen sensitivity to what pressures she may have been under in that role. but you can certainly check with her campaign and they can give you their sense of that. reporter: do you think it's fair to tpwhreem that because she did not say anything about the issue, she did not support same-sex marriage, even after president obama came out for it? mr. earnest: i don't know what her views on the topic are so you should check with her campaign. reporter: do you think given the president's own evolution on this issue, do you think her changing views on marriage should be seen differently than
her other positions that have changed, such as keystone x.l. or the trans-pacific partnership? mr. earnest: i think there is an understandable tendency to try to want to make all those things the same or to try to divine some element of her personality by looking at her views on arranged topics. but when it comes to her views on same-sex marriage, i take her at her word. that she -- that her views on this topic underwent the kind of change that a lot of people's views have over the last several years. i think many people have noted the significance of this changing debate in our country and the changing debate in our political system. and the president certainly believes that it reflects important progress that our country has made. thanks a lot, everybody.
[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> and the house in recess right now. they're coming back in just about eight minutes or so. at 6:30 eastern. today they considered six bills, several dealing with homeland security and protecting against threats from chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear material. we expect votes on three of those bills coming right up. thursday hillary clinton is in front of the house select committee on benghazi. that committee investigating the 2012 attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi, libya. but the former secretary of state says it's a partisan effort to damage her presidential campaign. the hearing starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern, thursday, we have it live on c-span3, c-span radio and c-span.org. like we said, the house comes back at 6:30 right here on c-span. live. until then, a conversation from
this morning's "washington journal" about the federal aviation administration's plan to regulate drones. he reports on issues. tell us a little bit about this decision by the faa. faa announced and yesterday that they want to create a registry for all drone owners. the folks that fly commercial drones for aerial photography, pipeline inspection, they have been registering already. so really this proposal is targeted at the hobbyists. the recreational flyers who have their own remote-controlled aircraft. it's to try to get a better handle on who they are and where they are. host: are we talking things you could buy at a toy store? is it a certain dollar level that we are talking about? set of.est: they haven't yet
they asked a task force of two dozen people of industry leaders and regulators and airline pilots to come up with the detailed provisions. what information they would ask for, where it would be stored, how it could be accessed. to come back by november 20. we will have to wait and see what the specific proposals are. the transportation secretary anthony foxx said he wanted to register all drones. the hobbyists say that it is not worth registering small drones. so small that they wouldn't go above the height of a house. so we will have to see the details about how small they do go. host: mr. jansen, some of the factoids coming out on this decision are highlighted. 7000 or and are expected to be purchased this year and about 100 sightings or close calls with drones take place on a
monthly asis. can you expand on both of those and what it means for this policy? guest: yes. the close calls is sort of a disputed area. the faa is getting reports, about 100 reports per month from pilots of aircraft. whether it is airliner's poor little -- or little generak aviation aircraft. people seeing what they think are drones out the window. the concern is potentially you could have a collision or cause some damage to a plaintiff they ever ran into each other. that's why they want her own operators to fly safely and people and from airports. the hobbyists have taken a look at those actual reports and found that in very few cases are drones actually very close to planes. like within a few hundred feet
of a passenger plane. but they find many reports where it might have been birds or it might have been balloons. so there is some dispute about how many of those reports are actually a small remote-controlled aircraft. however many the number is, there is great concern. nobody wants a collision. so they are coming up with these rules to try to encourage safe flying. you say how big a problem is it -- there are estimates that already hundreds of thousands of these sorts of aircraft have been sold already. and because they are getting so popular, they are cheaper. they fly with high definition cameras now. you can get a pretty good one canas little as $40 or you get really fancy ones for a couple thousand dollars. availableecoming very and the estimates run from
anywhere from 700,000 to one million might be distributed around the holidays as gifts. host: has there been reaction from the industry itself or members of congress that serve on transportation related committees? guest: yes. the lawmaker reaction that i got chairman of the aviation subcommittee of the supported this proposal. senator markey of massachusetts also supported the proposal. been concerned about privacy implications from too many drones flying around. so the lawmakers are all in support. but they have also focused almost entirely up to this point on the commercial drones. the people flying them for a reason, for a job. up until now, the hobbyists have not been regulated. they do not now have to
register. and so that is the question. how many of these hobbyists are the registry going to apply to? hundreds of thousands of these have already been sold to secretary fox said he just wants to register the ones that are already out there. figure outl have to how to do retroactive registration for the ones people already own. host: what happens if you don't register? threat if you fly unsafely or if they catch you flying unsafely and you are not following rules -- which are basically stay lower than 400 feet, don't go within a few miles of an airport, flight only during the day, keep the drone within sight of the operator. if you are not following those rules, you could potentially be vulnerable to fines up to $25,000 and also potential criminal charges if you interfered with an airliner
flight. so the charges are little bit vague, but they would have this in their toolbox of enforcement. if uber flying unsafely -- if you were flying unsafely, that would be one more penalty they could tack on. host: bart jansen is a transportation reporter with usa today talking about [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] there this sunday night on q&a, "new york times" national political reporter shares her experiences from hillary clinton's presidential campaign. and compare what is it's like now to back in 2008. >> to be honest, i was a lot younger. i was sort of the traveling person, i wasn't in a senior role. and i also, you know when you're traveling all the time, i got to know the people that traveled with her, i felt like i got to know her pretty well because she'd come back on the
plane and talk to us. but at the same time i didn't have the same sort of sources at the campaign and high level people that i have now. and whether that's a function of being at the times or a function of just in a more senior role. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q anderson a -- q&a. >> and we're just a moment or so away from the house coming back to work on three votes tonight. a vote on a bill that would authorize the homeland security department to detect illicit material in urban areas and two other bills along those lines. live down to the floor of the house. live coverage on c-span. fiscal year 2016 for military activities of the department of defense for military construction and for defense activities for the department of energy to prescribe military strength for fiscal year and for other purposes.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i send to the desk two privileged reports from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the titles. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 480, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 10 to re-authorize the scholarships for opportunity and results act and for other purposes and providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 692 ensure the payment of interest and principle of the debt of the united states. report to accompany house resolution 481. resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 1937, to require the secretary of the interior and the secretary of agriculture to more efficiently develop domestic sources of minerals and mineral materials at strategic and critical importance to the united states economic and national security and manufacturing competitiveness. the speaker pro tempore:
referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 0, proceedings will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed. r. 3350 by the yeas and nays and house -- h.res. 348 by the yeas and nays. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote, remaining votes will be five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the motion on the motion by the gentleman from new york and pass h.r. 3 93 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: a bill to amend the homeland security act of 2002 to establish the securing cities program to enhance the ability of the united states to detect and prevent terrorist acts and other high consequence events
utilizing radiological materials that pose a high risk to urban areas and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: will the house pass the bill and pass the bill as amended. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 255, a bill to require terrorist threat assessments regarding the transportation of chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological materials and within the united states and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]