tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN January 23, 2016 4:00am-6:01am EST
host: are fetal tissue sales legal? guest: for profit body parts sales of any kind are not legal. host: cecile richards, because of the tapes, this is what she had to say. [video clip] >> planned parenthood has been in the news because of deceptively released videos by a group dedicated to making abortion illegal in this country. this is just the most recent in a long line of discredited attacks over the last 15 years. the latest smear campaign is based on efforts by our opponents to entrap our doctors and clinicians into breaking the law. and once again, our opponents failed. to set the record straight, i want to be clear on four matters. first, using fetal tissue in life-saving medical research is legal according to the 1993 law
93-4 and the senate based on recommendations from a blue-ribbon panel created under the reagan administration. second, currently less than 1% of planned parenthood health centers are facilitating the donation of tissue for research. third, indo centers donating fetal tissue is something many of our patients want to do and regularly request. finally, planned parenthood allah sees not only comply with but go beyond requirements of the law. the outrageous accusations leveled against planned parenthood based on heavily doctored videos are offensive and categorically untrue. host: david daleiden, cecile richards, president of planned parenthood, was talking about you. guest: she was. one of the main talking points for planned parenthood has been the videotapes are heavily edited or "deceptively edited."
in this case, she came out with what they really mean to insinuate that we have doctored what is being said. , we haved of the day been more transparent than any mainstream media organization in the way these were produced. we have put out full conversations with top level everyone can compare the full conversations to the highlight some reversions we present and see for themselves --summary versions we present and see for themselves. throughout the four points she mentioned, not once did she deny any of the statements on the video are made by planned parenthood senior-level leadership. we did not put those words in their mouths. those are their own words captured on video for everyone to see. host: did it hurt your
legitimacy to go in under false pretenses and edit the tapes in the first place? guest: i don't think so. every news report you will watch on tv, even a live broadcast, is in some way edited or produced to make it more easily presentable for the public. i think most people realize that. most americans think undercover work is important part of law enforcement and journalism. it is an important part of life and discourse. host: how did you get involved in this issue? guest: with abortion specifically with the baby parts issue? host: however you want to answer that? ? guest: i have probably an eight or nine years of experience doing investigative journalism type work with a focus on the abortion industry and planned parenthood. i have encountered the baby parts issue specifically about
five years ago for the first time. i do think there is something about it that is particularly disturbing to people and also throws into stark relief our underlying -- the underlying conflicts the regime of abortion on demand we have in america now presents to some of our core american and human values of human dignity and equality. i am a proud millennial. we grew up in school learning about the history of slavery in america and how there is a dark stain on our history where people used to be part -- bought and sold in our country. you turn around and see companies buying baby parts from planned parenthood. even sometimes turning around and selling entire fetal cadavers, and people are still being bought and sold in america today because of that. i think that is a contradiction to the values we hold dear and something most americans don't support. host: you are a graduate of claremont mckenna college in
california. are you from california originally? guest: yes. host: is this a religious issue for you? guest: i don't think so. my friend and a representative recently authored an op-ed in "time" magazine. thehe end of the day, pro-life movement and our position on abortion is not a religious movement and is not necessarily a political movement. this is a movement about love and compassion for other human beings and for the smallest human beings, for the human fetus. in most states, fetal homicide laws are on the books. in almost every situation, the human fetus is considered equal to another person. , andnly exception for that most constitutional scholars would agree is a big equal protection violation, the only exception is in the case of legalized abortion. host: david daleiden, are you in favor of outlawing all abortions? of,t: what i am in favor
and i have to be a little careful because we don't do model legislation or legislation advocacy. behink the ideal law would similar to laws on the books before roe versus wade. host: david daleiden, center for medical progress, is our guest. final question. i have to follow up on that. what were those laws? guest: the laws in most states before roe versus wade criminalized doctors who would perform abortions, by which they meant feticide, anything that would intentionally kill a fetus. there were always exceptions for the life and health of the mother. it is interesting. those laws were made exceptions -- made clear that women would
never be prosecuted in those situations. it was criminalizing the conduct of unethical medical providers who would do abortions. host: let's take some calls. joseph is calling from fort lauderdale, florida, on our independent line. joseph, you are on with david daleiden. caller: good morning to both of you. let me start off by saying i am a father of two. i raised my teat of children by myself. their mother had mental issues. i raised my kids by myself for 16 years. life, valuey entire the life of children. i wanted to ask a question. i did not get an answer from the lady earlier. if a murder is committed when a lady is pregnant, you get charged with two murders, right? if so, what is the difference if you have an abortion?
isn't that murder? host: david daleiden. guest: sure. my understanding is i think in thereimately 40 states are fetal homicide laws on the books that do make it equally criminal homicide if you kill a fetus in the process of an assault on a print woman or you kill a pregnant woman and kill the woman and unborn baby, that you can be charged with two murders or fetal homicide. the bourneral level, life protection act also provides the same equal protections to unborn children in all stages of gestation. host: diane is in tennessee. she is a democrat. please go ahead with your question or comment for david daleiden. caller: good morning. incest ands with
rape? you said you are right for life. there are babies starving. people have been killed who are already here. you are not saying anything about that. there are little children everyday killing children. do you say anything? no. you are sitting up there now. you don't have to carry that child. thank you very much. host: david daleiden. guest: sure. for the first question about rape and incest, i think everyone has a lot of compassion for any person who is a survivor of asexual assault. thing a pregnancy in that situation creates is that if there was a way to do an abortion without killing a baby, i think nobody would have a problem with what is going on. at the end of the day, that is the problem. i don't think anybody wants to
punish someone whether they are a woman who is a survivor of an attack or a child completely innocent. nobody wants to punish them for something that is not their fault. as to the second issue, my concern and other pro-life americans' concern about unborn children compared to our concern for other children in bad circumstances, i think if we cannot have compassion for and respect for and protect the smallest and most innocent children, there is no way we are going to be able to effectively take care or have that same concern for those who are in more difficult -- less-than-perfect situations or less than innocent situations. i think compassion begins with the very smallest and the ones who are so tiny there's nothing they could do to oppress us in any way. if we cannot have compassion for them, we will not be able to have compassion for bigger people. i believe there was a third
issue, but i have forgotten it. host: i wrote down the first two as well. i apologize. guest: the third was something along the lines of i am a man and will never carry a pregnancy. i was a fetus. i have the child of a crisis pregnancy situation. my parents got pregnant with me their junior year of college and got married after graduation. there were people who said i should be aborted. i'm here today because their voices did not win the day. i think at the end of the day, abortion -- is not totally correct to say does a woman's issue because it is a human issue. host: is there any middle ground? that is the question we asked donna crane earlier. between the pro-life and pro-choice position? guest: i think there is middle onund in a political sense
what sort of policies we are going to have. i think it is clear from pulling data and testing the attitudes of the ever -- average american that most americans are not in of abortion being practiced in situations where it is most commonly practiced. most americans are ok with abortion to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest. in most other cases, most americans do not favor abortion. most americans are in favor of no abortion after three months of pregnancy. that means no abortion in the second or third trimester. i think there is a lot of room for commonsense policies like that where we can move forward as a country. unfortunately, we are largely prohibited from enacting a lot of those policies because of the row versus wade supreme court decision that persists even though in many ways the
precedent is unsettled and we will see interesting things happening at the high court in their future. --in the near future. for the past 43 years, there has been an institutional barrier for democratically grappling with that common ground. host: lara is in pennsylvania, republican line. go ahead. caller: thanks for c-span. i want to applaud david for your courage. you have had to go through amazing, scandalous remarks about what you have done tearingng the unjust apart of unborn babies. but doing it in a specific way to harvest their organs. for planned parenthood to say youhave doctored the tapes, did not put numbers like the liver is going to get so much,
manipulating the procedure to get the highest value is disgusting. the person who said what about those innocent, babies who were the product of that, they are not rate this -- rapists. their fathers were rapists. i know two people who had repressed -- rapist fathers whose mothers in them up for abortion. you should not have to abort the baby because of the way it was conceived. guest: it has been interesting that it has been six months since cmp started releasing the first undercover tapes. planned parenthood has yet to tell us how much money they have received from companies like stem express in exchange for harvesting fetal tissue. they have yet to explain why one of the chief medical officers was endorsing a stem expressed advertisement for financial benefits to the clinic.
they have yet to explain why their senior director of medical services was talking about flipping a baby on ultrasound to harvest more intact fetal organs. the talking point from planned parenthood that the tapes are edited, by which they mean to insinuate they are doctored, is a disingenuous talking point in an attempt to distract what is on the tapes because they cannot deny what is there. host: since you started releasing tapes, are there more tapes coming out? guest: there definitely are. there is a large body of footage from the national abortion federation annual meetings under a tro in a court case now, they temporary restraining order. host: is that because of the planned parenthood suit against your organization? guest: that suit predates the planned parenthood suit. it is a little different but a lot of similar allegations and issues in play.
there are more planned parenthood tapes as well. there is no injunction or tro against those so some are being prepared for production and presentation. host: did you participate in any of the undercover interviews? guest: i did. host: were you with the woman from planned parenthood or somebody else? guest: in most of the tapes we have released so far, i was present for those interviews as one of the undercover actors. there are a few older tapes were i was not one of the actors. but for most of them, i was present. host: adam is in easton, pennsylvania, independent line. i amr: i would like to say amazed in 2016 we are still having this debate about what someone can and cannot do with their on body. i find with groups like your guest, they are more than willing to tell you what you can and can't do, but as soon as you tell them what they can and can't do, they are up in arms. we have to understand women have a choice to do what they want.
if i had told this gentleman what he could do or could not do with his body, i'm sure he would fight me tooth and nail. we have to understand abortion nowadays is not something that is accepted as a whole but sometimes is a necessity, and it is your right to have access to that necessity. ultimately, what does it matter to these people that are fighting for this issue? host: adam, sorry. thought you were finished. david daleiden? guest: it is interesting. if you choose to look at abortion only as an issue of what someone does with their own think you are necessarily going to be ok with the for-profit sale of baby body parts because those just part of the woman's body anyway? and so there should not be a problem with on the hearts and lungs and livers of unborn children.
i think what the guest is saying is out of step with what the majority of americans believe. all of usircumstance, have limitations on what we are able to do in a society where we live together and have to get along. the really extreme pro abortion position he is staking out would permit abortion -- abortion up to nine months of pregnancy, which is permitted in states like colorado and new mexico. it really cuts against the grain of what the public is comfortable with. i don't think that is a winning talking point or issue for the abortion industry. in please guy tweets ask david daleiden why not one federal, state, or local agency has found wrongdoing at planned parenthood. guest: i don't know that is correct they have not found wrongdoing. it is correct to say there have not been indictments filed or full on prosecutions yet.
there are ongoing state, federal, and local criminal investigations. we will see what comes of those in the next year. host: when will we get more from these court cases? are they in the discovery mode right now? the lawsuits. guest: those cases are at different places right now. it is a little complicated. they are probably not likely to yield anything quickly. i think the timeline is going to be stretched out for both of them. whetherainly i do think more information comes out through the select committee congressional investigation or through some state and local criminal investigations or through the discovery process and litigation process of the lawsuits ongoing, i think you will start to see in the next year a lot more primary source document type evidence corroborating a lot of what was on our videotapes. host: what is posted on your
website? posted are the full media release videos cmp has put out so far, both the summary highlight versions and full footage of those conversations that went into the highlight versions. we also have a document vault that has a lot of primary source documents we received from whistleblowers and others who work inside the abortion industry. also, that we gathered at different industry trade shows. there are a few other pages of a blog with press releases and contact forms. things like that. host: how are you funded? guest: we are a nonprofit, tax-exempt recognized by the i.r.s. we are funded by donations from the public who has been generous so far. host: is there a timeline for any tapes to be released? are they all under restrictive order now? guest: the only tapes under
restrictive order of those specifically from the national abortion federation's annual meeting in 2014 and 2015. the national abortion federation is the trade organization of abortion providers in the united states. another, thatly would be 40% of the footage we gathered in the two and half years of the project. we have released approximately 20% of the significant footage so far. there's probably another 30% of footage unreleased now. we are working on producing that now. host: would we see that in the next couple of months? guest: definitely. host: db, democrat, go ahead. caller: i am an old lady. i have had experience with this issue, personal experience. what strikes me is women have the power, and that is what the men resent, that women have the power to decide whether they want to have a child or not.
i think they should have the power. i wonder about this fetal tissue stuff. does it have any value? these youngdn't girls giving up their fetal tissue, shouldn't they get the money? thank you. host: phoebe, are you still with us? caller: i am. i know it sounds like a nazi. but on the other hand, when i had my abortion, the someone wanted to buy the body parts, i would have said fine. i needed the money then. i had my abortion a long time ago. you don't really have to go to a doctor. that is what i learned because there were not anyone i did it myself. host: before roe v wade? caller: absolutely. it was a most in the last century now. it is a shame. it is a real shame women are put in this position of having to go
to some higher authority when they are taken care of themselves at a very emotional time. host: david daleiden, what do you hear from her? guest: i'm going to strike out a little bit on a limb on this one. orhink people watching listening this conversation can hear some of the pain in her voice talking about that experience, talking about all of the stigma that goes into unintended pregnancy, some of the fear, the need for a solution to try to get out of that situation. i think that is something we all need to be honest about and need to have a lot of compassion for that kind of situation. it is not just men. pro-life men and women and men and women across this country, i don't think we resent but are horrified by the idea that any person can choose another person lives or dies. and that any person could go on
to sell the body parts of that person who we are choosing to kill or not kill. at the not just rhetoric end of the day when we talk about the humanity of the unborn baby and what that means. you want to talk about the value of fetal tissue for research or extermination. what about the value of the human fetus in all of his or her integrity as a human being? you can say harvest the brain, keep the brain intact so you don't destroy it. planned parenthood will get $75 that specimen. $700 andess might get some researcher will use it for a study. how much more valuable with that beef it was kept in the child and the baby was allowed to live and contribute to society? i don't think any of us are doing and have ourselves a service if we deny that real, physical reality. i think that comes through in the pain you hear in the voices of people like phoebe who have
been through that experience. there is an expense we have to be honest with. otherwise, we will never heal and be comfortable as a country. host: it was 43 years ago the roe v wade decision was decided by the supreme court. this past fall, c-span did a series of landmark cases that this country has faced. we finished up with the roe v wade case. we are going to re-air the program tonight at 630 -- 6:30. it looks at the history and the result. 6:30 tonight on c-span. richie in butler, kentucky, republican line. caller: how are you doing today? i want to thank the gentleman for what he is doing. of this newpart generation of christian leadership is worrying more about selling the next book on how to feel good about these things.
78% of americans claim to be christians. yet they sit silently while all these things go on. but they say it is the law of the land. we are the law of the land. in a democratic society, we vote. we don't allow people to stand by and say that. ministers today sitting at home worrying about the next lines they are going to read on the pulpit next week. they are not on the steps of the supreme court fighting these things. thank you for listening to me. keep up the good work. maybe the christians of america will finally wake up. host: anything for that caller? guest: i hear a feeling a lot of american share now, that there is a crisis in leadership. maybe in spiritual leadership. i am a catholic and a follower of post francis -- pope francis. pope francis has spoken out
several times about the issue of fetal tissue trafficking and has had strong words about that. i think it goes hand-in-hand with his emphasis on the importance of compassion and mercy, even for people in difficult situations, and showing that by accompanying people in difficult situations. america is a great enough country that we have been able to put men on the moon. i think we can find better solutions to unexpected pregnancies than the violence of abortion. host: patrick tweets in to you, cmp is partially funded through 501 tax-free status but fights against the use of tax money for planned parenthood. guest: i am not sure i completely understand the question or objection. it is true cmp is a 501(c)(3). it is true we think planned parenthood is engaged in a lot of unethical and illegal
activities that ought to be investigated and prosecuted and perhaps remedied by a loss of federal taxpayer dollars. i don't see a contradiction in those two statements. organsf i donate my after death, is that selling body parts? guest: no, donations are not a sale. what is supposed to be allowed, the way things are supposed to work, is you are allowed to donate your organs or tissues. nobody is supposed to be making money off your body parts. that is where the problem comes in. host: mike is calling in from akron. caller: i'm glad you and i have two things in common. we are both catholic and pro-life. we differ in one main way. my definition of pro-life may not be the same as your definition of pro-life. as an historian of the catholic church, i realize the catholic church is one of the reasons why
so many europeans came to this country centuries ago because of its repressive ways towards the people. thank god the catholic church has changed his attitude in many ways. i think the pro-life as somebody who i don't care what your views are on abortion or guns as long as you don't go around killing other people. you may not be the best example of pro-life, but you are pro-life enough for me. here is my question. i know a catholic. he and his wife go to church every week. they would never have an abortion but they believe a woman has a right to choose like me. if my friend went into a burning building, same people, two kids in his arms, could you look him in the eye and say i am pro-life and you are not? guest: sure. i don't think it is pro-life to be in favor of abortion on demand up to nine months of pregnancy, selling the body
parts for profit afterwards. i don't think that is pro-life according to anybody's definition. i think if you support activities like that, it is a huge contradiction to any other area in your life when you're claiming to respect human beings or value their dignity. i think it puts you on a slippery slope as to whether you're going to be able to continue to extend that same compassion to other people. it is a deliciously vague phrase when people talk about the right to choose because we are talking about a spectrum of nine months of pregnancy, all kinds of different development of the unborn baby going on, and all kinds of different factors and outcomes that can crop up off of that, like selling body parts for profit afterwards. i get a little impatient with a lot of the word games coming from planned parenthood or their allies because i don't think it is very honest. host: jenny is in tallahassee, florida, democrats line. caller: yes.
i have a proposal that is a middle ground proposal and also a question for you. order toal is that in make all of this argument moot, why don't we enact a law that we identify the fathers of each of these children that women are pregnant with? that the fathers will be required to pay half of the medical costs and the cost of while theythe women are carrying these babies, that they pay half of the cost of raising these children. and the children be required to be raised at the same level the men and women are living.
they also are required to take care of any medical costs and costs of anything that involve most children while they are -- those children while they are growing up. and also, my question to you is, do you have any children out there that you are not taking care of? host: that was jenny in tallahassee. mr. daleiden. guest: that is a great comment and question. i think her proposal is excellent from a policy standpoint. i think it is something people could creatively build on. as to the question, i don't have any children. i think the broader take away from her question and comment, it is interesting to me that if you insist on making abortion
only a women's issue, you're kind of making unintended pregnancy only a woman's problem and obviating any kind of male responsibility for those situations even though there is a lot of mail responsibility for those situations, or maybe we should say irresponsibility. host: have you ever had a friend who wanted to get an abortion? did you accompany her? did she talk to you about it? do you know anybody who has had an abortion? guest: i know a lot of people who have lots of different expense of abortion in their lives. people who are survivors of abortion, people who have had abortions themselves, people who have considered abortion. definitely. i have yet to meet someone who this really honestly say was a happy part of my life and something i grew up wanting to do. nobody treats it that way. i think that says something about what it really is.
host: the path you have taken in this professional path you have taken, what has it done to you in a personal way? take that question and see what you can do with it. know, i say you sometimes i am the product of the public school system in the state of california, which my kind of surprised people. gravew up learning about human rights injustices of the past, slavery, the holocaust, and also the brave people who fought against them in the civil rights movement and the underground railroad. i remember always thinking, wouldn't you want to be one of the people? if you lived in a time like that when something like that was going on, wouldn't you want to be one of the people who stood up and said this was wrong and shout it from the rooftops -- shouted from the rooftops?
if you realized it was going on today, wouldn't you want to be one of those people who is different? that kind of brings me to now. is in aransas pass, texas, republican line. please go ahead with your question or comment for david daleiden from the center for medical progress. caller: yeah. it has been my experience that no matter what i believe, the truth had the power to change what i believed. every time i have run into the truth with a powerful belief, i got knocked down hard. i want to ask you, is there any aborted babies that will be children brought to jesus? host: a religious issue for him, a christian issue for him. guest: i guess i am not sure if i know how to answer or that i'm qualified to answer. i am not a priest, and i am not a spiritual authority. i don't know that i can make that judgment.
every singlek aborted child, and i have encountered aborted children in planned parenthood's we visited, it is a really different, moving experience. some planned parenthood medical directors have written about it themselves and that is something we share in common with them. every single one of them is someone who was a human being, who was valuable exactly as they were. we would have loved them whoever they would have been. she tweets into you that you even stall someone's miscarriage video pretending it was from planned parenthood. guest: that is not true. i think she is referring to some b roll footage filmed of a born alive infant at approximately a 19-week abortion. one of the interesting things i
learned in the course of the undercover work we did, talking with lots of planned parenthood medical directors, lots of different abortion providers, is that in the practice of second trimester abortion, it is not unheard of and not uncommon that you sometimes, depending on the patient's individual characteristics and how they respond to the procedures, it is not uncommon you might have a precipitous delivery before the procedure begins and have the fetus come out intact and you have a born alive infant on your hands. it does not happen every day or every time. it is something that is not unusual. i think that argues for a lot more strict oversight and scrutiny for the abortion industry. host: last call for david daleiden comes from todd in beachwood, ohio, independent line. caller: i would like to know if you would consider this as a possible alternative to people even getting into this -- the situation of being in an
unplanned pregnancy. if the government and planned parenthood in your group worked to build and intensify programs in the taxpayer-funded neighborhood public schools that taught the actual cost of bringing a child -- bringing a pregnancy from conception all the way up to the year 18 in various counties. for includes medical costs going through the pregnancy, the cost of raising a child in the different areas where the individual may be, and giving them incentive to learn what it to get the kids in the schools to understand that as well. our country is built on the strength of our families. our country is built on the strength of the direction of our families. if you want to keep people from getting abortions, ideally you want to keep them from getting into unplanned pregnancies. that is the best way -- host: i think we got the idea.
guest: i think that is an excellent proposal. i think you might have difficulty getting planned parenthood on board with that because the model does not encourage a lot of communication about those issues and strengthening of social ties. planned parenthood is about breaking down social ties and seeing people as individual automatons whether or not those connections. it does remind me of a talking point some people put out to say planned parenthood does more than any other organization to prevent unintended pregnancies because it puts out so much contraception or birth control. if you look at planned parenthood's own numbers in their annual report, according to their own estimates, the number of abortions they prevent per year is around 200,000. but they do over 300,000 abortions every year. planned parenthood does more abortions than they prevent every year. host: david daleiden, are you
we will take your facebook comments and tweets. washington journal live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. this week, we heard members of congress share their thoughts on the 23rd anniversary of roe v the way. here is some of what was said from the senate floor beginning with oklahoma senator james lankford. sen. lankford: it is a basic
american value, families. love our families, we love our kids. it has been one of the struggles we have had as a nation to receive this collapse of the american family. this basic value that we see that unit struggling. families begin, a husband and wife, and that incredible moment when a lady looks at a pregnancy test and sees that little line, and realizes there is a baby on the way. 43 years ago as a country, there was a decision made by the supreme court, decision forever changed the structure of our families. forever change the value within the country. because, you see, the values shifted 43 years ago, and it changed from "there is a baby on the way" to that family gets to choose if that is a baby or not.
to literally be able to say based on the preference of the mom if tissue or if it's a baby. you handle those two things very different. i remember distinctly in my family 19 years ago now when we saw that little line on the pregnancy test and we started having a house ready, and we started getting things organized, and we started trying to figure out how to get our finances in order and everything ready to go because there is a baby on the way. in those first moments before my wife could even feel she was pregnant, we found out that she was. and that was a child coming to our family. she has a name now. her name is hannah. in the first of our two
daughters, between hannah and jordan, who understand full well how things started and what things were like in the day. so much of the conversation out is around preference. if we don't do something to reach into the room and take the child out of the wound, what planned parenthood and other folks would say just remove the tissue, that if something wasn't done from that moment on, there was a baby coming, a baby that would look up in our face and would smile and have a name. americans have lost track of this basic thing. it is not tissue in the womb. when a pregnancy test comes up positive, that is a baby, regardless of the preference of any individual. that is a baby on the way. cells are dividing. for many don't find out for a couple of months, even, if they begin to figure out some something is changing here and they do test and sometimes when they do the test there was a beating heart that is there. they look in on the sonogram and count 10 fingers, 10 toes. if you were to reach in and do a dna test, you would find out
that that lump of tissue that is in there is not tissue. it has dna different than the mom, different than the dad. that is a child, and it is a unique life. and that life is not determined based on preference. that life is determined based on the dividing cells child with 10 fingers and toes. i cannot think of anything else we have an america where anyone can just save based on the preference i choose for that to be a life or not to be a life, based on my preference. i cannot just look at this desk and say i choose to call that a life. because we don't like that basic criteria. dividing cells function on its own. reproduce. it is life. we know what life is. we can't casually say one thing his life and one thing is not, just like we casually don't just try to fight off the destruction of tissue in other ways. i always smile when i hear folks on the other settings arguments say they want abortion to be safe, legal, and rare. i hear it all the time -- safe, legal, and rare. i always ask the question -- why rare? if it is just tissue, why does it matter if you remove it?
no one has a big national movement to fight off individuals with warts on their hands, because everyone knows if you have a wart on your hand it is just tissue and that really is your body. it is a wart on your hand and it doesn't look good so take it off. everyone is fine with that. but for some reason they are safe, legal, and rare when it comes to abortion. i believe inherently that the folks who say "safe, legal, and rare" know that it is not just tissue, or you would not have to say rare. it is in incredibly painful, difficult decision a mom is making, because she knows in her gut that is not tissue. that is a child. a child that would one day have a name, and a smile. that is a child.
in china, the government gets to decide whether it is just tissue or a child. because the government will step in and say that if you have a second child, you can't have that. you have to destroy the child. now in their benevolence they say you can have up to two children in certain areas and regions, but if you have a third one, you have to destroy that child. in america, for whatever reason, individuals with the freedom to be able to say "i prefer for this not to be a child." and suddenly somehow our culture says ok, you can pick. the supreme court in 1973 looked at this issue, and the argued a lot about viability, what they called quickening. this conversation about viability circled around with states make laws protecting the life of children once they reached viability?
in 1973 viability was very different than what it is today. there are many children born in a nicu unit, neonatal intensive care unit, and you find a very large area in most hospitals -- you ought to go by and visit and go into a nicu area, because you find many rooms, and many beds there, where decades ago that wasn't true. because children at 22 and 24 weeks didn't survive before, and now a higher and higher percentage are. you see, there are children in oklahoma city right now, in the nicu, that way just a tiny bit more than 2 iphones. that is their weight when they are born. just a tiny bit more than 2 iphones in weight. and yet they are growing up to be healthy, productive kids. they are children.
we are getting better in nicu as well learning how to produce oxygen so their lungs develop. i visited the children hospital over christmas break and with the physicians there and said what have we learned from what have we gained? we feed different now than we used to feed it did decades ago because we understand how they are developing and we want their digestive system to develop. things are different now and science is forcing the country to rethink an issue again. when is a child a child? in our basic american values, should we stand up for them? i believe we should. and i'm amazed at the number of moms that if they would get a sonogram and see the picture of the child in, they understand clearly that is not tissue, that is a face looking back at me,
fingers and toes i can count. there is a beating heart there. that is not random tissue. i don't know if you knew this, mr. president, but they can now do 3-d sonograms and send sonogram to a 3-d printer and actually print out a model of what the child is like in the womb in that exact position. not only is that cool, as a parent, to be able to say i can hold a model of what my child looks like now at 20 weeks of development, 28 weeks of development, and be able to see and look at their face, but it is revolutionary for physicians that in 20 weeks are reaching into the room, giving anesthetic to the child, and they can actually see exactly what the imperfections are so that when they do surgery, they can practice from the outside before they reach into the inside. the technology continues to advance.
i say to my colleagues, at what point will our law catch up with our science? how long will we deny the clear science here? and understand that's a child? i think in the decades ahead, our nation will catch up to the science. and we will look back on the season in our country when we ignored the obvious, when a pregnancy test says positive, that is not positive for tissue. that is positive for a baby. mr. president, i also want to affirm the thousands and thousands of volunteers around the country, many of them coming this week to the march for life, that serve every single week in crisis pregnancy centers around the country, that lovingly want
with moms through some of the most difficult days of their life, as they make hard decisions. and with great compassion, they walk them through a tough pregnancy, and they are with them in the days after delivery, bringing diapers to them, bringing formula to them, helping them in those early moments. thousands of volunteers around the country do that every single week. good for them. good for our country. good for our value for life. i am always proud when americans stand up for other americans, no matter how weak they are. >> the senator from washington. sen. murray: thank you, madam president. thank you to my colleagues who are joining me today and so many other efforts to stand up for women. the 43rd anniversary of the supreme court's historic ruling in roe v. wade is tomorrow, so
this is an important time to remember how much this decision has met for women's equality, opportunity, and health, why it is so important we continue defending the hard-won gains that women have made, and why we need to keep pushing for continued progress. why it's so e continue defending the hard-won gains that women have made and why we need to keep pushing for continued progress. for anyone who supports a woman's constitutional right to make her own health care choices, this has been a tough and trying congress. , i gave my republican colleagues the benefit of the doubt. i hoped that in the majority, they might focus more on governing and less on trying to get inbetween a woman and her rights. unfortunately that didn't last long. since this congress began, more than 80 bills have been introduced in congress that would undermine a woman's constitutionally protected right to make her own choices about her own body.
the house and senate have voted a total of 20 times to roll back women's health and rights. and that's not all. republicans have pushed budget proposals that would dismantle the affordable care act and slash funding for family planning. and after a summer of using deceptive, highly edited videos to discredit planned parent mood and try to take away -- parenthood and try to take away health services, the house has doubled down by launching a special investigative committee to keep up the political attac attacks. nowhere is that clearer than in texas. where an extreme antiabortion law could force 75% of the clinics statewide to close. if that law stands, 900,000 women of child-bearing age will
have to drive as far as 300 miles round-trip to get the health care that they need. madam president to, to be clear a right means nothing without the ability to exercise that right. and laws like hb-2 in texas driven by efforts it to undermine women's access to care is without question aimed at women and their rights, especially women who can't drive hundreds of miles just to get health care. later this year the supreme court will decide whether to uphold texas extreme antiabortion law and in doing so they will decide whether women can l act on the rights they are afforded in the constitution. this law puts women's lives at risk. it is the biggest threat to women's constitutional rights in over a decade. that's why i'm working with many
of my democratic colleagues to call on the supreme court do uphold roe v. wade and protect a women's right to make her own health care decisions. today as we head into a year that is absolutely critical for women, i've got a message for those who want to turn back the clock. those efforts to undermine women's health care are nothing new. women have been fighting them for generations and we're going to keep fighting back today. we're not going to go back to the days when because women have less control over their own bodies, they have less equality and less opportunity. and as we defend the progress we've made, we will keep pushing for more, from continuing to expand access though that where a woman lives doesn't determine what health care she can get to expanding access to affordable birth control and family planning, to fighting back against domestic violence and sexual assault which disproportionately impacts women. we're going to keep pushing for
progress because we believe strongly that the next generation of women, our daughters and our granddaughters, should have stronger rights and more opportunity, not less and my colleagues in the senate are going to keep working every day to bring women's voices to the senate floor to show when women are stronger, our country is stronger. thank you and let's keep up the fight. madam president, i ask unanimous consent to put into the record the statement from my colleague, senator boxer, from california. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: madam president, i rise today to mark the anniversary of roe v. wade, 43 years ago, within the lifetime of most of us here, the supreme court's decision effectively reversed draconian state laws prohibiting abortion and gave women power over their own health care decisions.
before roe v. wade, nearly 5,000 american women died every year seeking abortion care that was legally not available to them. that number dramatically dropped after the decision because women were able to get abortion care from trained medical legally out in the open. the court found that a woman's right to access abortion care is a fundamental constitutional right. while as with many constitutional rights not totally unfettered, this decision enabled women to gain control over their own bodies and, in turn, their futures. if the government interfered in other patient-doctor decisions the way that state and federal governments have interfered with women's reproductive rights, there would be a national uproar. why is it different when we talk about a woman's body as opposed to a man's? can you imagine if states passed laws restricting fundamental decisions about a man's medical
care? why is it that women have to defend deeply personal decisions over our own bodies in court and in legislatures? i recognize that there are deeply held beliefs by good people on both sides of this issue which is why the right to choose should be left to the individual woman and her doctor. yet ever since the roe v. wade decision, state and federal lawmakers have attempted to chip away at a woman's right to make her own health care decisions. hundreds of laws have been passed by states to place limitations and roadblocks to a woman's right to choose. restrictions such as mandatory delays, unduly burdensome regulations, and unsign civic 2s are all attempts to undermine roe v. wade. in congress, we continue to see unprecedented attacks on women's
reproductive health. destructive policy riders in spending bills, attacks on providers, and efforts to reduce women's access to health care services. all in the name of prohibiting abortions. these attempts are not based on facts or science. they do not advance any public policy goals in the interest of women, which is why many of us characterize these efforts as part of a deeply antiwomen agenda. moreover, these restrictions disproportionately impact women of color and low-income women. apparently it is not enough to remove funding for reproductive services. the antiwomen agenda includes reducing funding for maternal health programs and services for infants and children. the lawmakers writing these restrictions are not the ones who will have to live with their negative consequences. it's the women across the
country who will have to live with these consequences. and, of course, the legal battles continue. for example, the u.s. supreme court will be hearing arguments later this for example, the u.s. supreme court will be hearing arguments later this year on a texas law that severely restricts the ability of a woman to access safe reproductive health care. my colleague from washington touched on the problems and challenges that this texas law imposes. again, this law, which disproportionately impacts low income women, has already severely affected the ability of women in texas to get the reproductive care they need. the rhetoric around this case, as well as the rhetoric employed by abortion foes, has become increasingly dangerous, leading to attacks on providers, clinics, and women seeking care. i hope we can all agree to not return to the pre-roe v. wade
landscape, where women endanger their lives seeking reproductive care, and thousands died doing so. i urge my colleagues to join me in assuring that women can continue to control their own destinies for the next 43 years and beyond. sen. leahy: madam president, tomorrow marks the 43rd anniversary of the u.s. supreme court's ruling in roe v. wade. recognizing a woman's constitutional right to liberty and personal autonomy in her decision whether to have an abortion or not. this landmark case not only recognizes those rights, but is also responsible for saving countless women across the country from the devastating outcomes of back alley abortions. i want to speak to that because i have personal knowledge here. i was young states attorney in vermont before roe v. wade.
i will never forget getting a call from the police, and went with them to the emergency room of a local hospital. a young woman was there who had nearly died from an unsafe illegal abortion because she could not legally receive that care a doctor. i want to speak to that tragic history today because i feel the current effort in many states to roll back roe vs. wade by denying women access to doctors could drive women back to those dark and dangerous times. tors could drag women back to those dark and dangerous times. in the years leading up to the supreme court decision roe v. wade, i was the state's attorney in chintlin county, vermont. abortion was illegal in my state of vermont. despite the state ban many women
sought this medical care and some doctors risked their freedom and livelihood by providing women with abortions in local hospitals. these were safe abortions in medical facilities. they saved women's lives. they protected their health. knowing this, i made it clear to the doctors in my county that i would not prosecute any of them for providing this medical attention to women in a medical context. i did, however, prosecute to the full extent of the law others who preyed upon women's fear and desperation by back alley abortions. of there are 100 senators in this body. i am the only united states senator who has ever prosecuted somebody in an abortion case. and i vividly remember that
horrific case. the spring of 1968, and i was called to the hospital to see this young woman, as i mentioned. she had nearly died from hemorrhaging caused by the botched abortion. and i prosecuted the man who arranged for the unsafe and illegal abortion that nearly killed her. after that case and witnessing firsthand the tragic impact that the lack of safe and legal abortion care had on women and families in my state, i talked to the local doctors about challenging vermont's abortion law. a year later a group of women and doctors brought a class action case to overturn the law. the case was styled as a suit against me as a state prosecutor , but this was a test case against the law and i publicly welcomed the case. even when the state attorney general's office told me that it lacked the resources to devote
to any defense in this case, i decided to file supreme court briefs on my own. i filed briefs on my own, but the case was unable to proceed because none of the plaintiffs were seeking abortions at the time. the particular nature of the constitutional claim to abortion, which is by its nature a time-limited claim, made it extremely difficult to bring actionable cases before the courts. later that same year we got another chance. a case where i represented the state and i did the briefs, the case was beachum vs. leahy and quickly made its way to the supreme vermont supreme court. at that time our state's high court was comprised entirely of republicans, but these five conservative justices understood what we had been arguing all along. the statute's stated purpose was
to protect women's health, and yet denied women access to doctors for their medical care with sheer and dangerous hypocrisy. the court's opinion was in question. where is that concern for the health of a pregnant women when she was denied the advice and assistance of her doctors? the court's ruling in beachum assured the women of vermont would no longer be subjected to the horrors of back alley abortions. it is a victory for women's health in vermont, and even though the attorney general at that time moved for re-argument, i told the court as state's attorney that i had no objection to the ruling and concurred. a year later the u.s. supreme court in roe v. wade held it was now the law of the land.
women have a constitutional right to their autonomy and bodily integrity and protects the decision to have an abortion and make that decision with their doctors. i recount this history not just to mark another year of women's rights and safety under roe v. wade and beachum vs. leahy, but also to connect the history to the attack today on women's access to safe and legal abortions that are struggling to take us back to those times. states looking to roll back women's rights have returned to penalizeing doctors to deter them from providing women safe health care. i find it most appalling that these states are passing these laws claiming they somehow protect women's health. these laws have nothing to do with women's health. they have everything to do with shutting down women's access to safe and legal abortion.
and when you deny women access to doctors for medical services, you deny them their constitutional rights. you also deny them their safety. in some cases, their lives. this is a fact that legislatures passing these laws either callously ignored or chose not to hear. i still remember that case as though it was yesterday. i still remember that young woman, and i still remember the history of the person who was performing those illegal abortions. that is why i joined an amicus brief with 37 other senators, 124 members of the house and the whole women's health versus halstad case currently before the u.s. supreme court. our brief urges the court to overturn this state law, requires doctors to provide
abortions and meet onerous restrictions that apply to no other medical procedures. they are extremely unrelated to protected women's health. this law would have the effect of shuttering 75% of all women's health clinics and abortion provider services in the state if fully implemented. it would also shutter all the other services they provide. already parts of the law in effect have had an devastating effect on women's health. the university of texas showed after the law went into effect an estimated 100,000 to 240,000 women tried to end their pregnancies on their own without seeking medical attention. with nowhere to turn, they resort to herbs, illicit drugs. if this law was passed on a pretense, women's health is a
travesty, it should be struck down. the supreme court justices can't ignore the impact the state law would have on hundreds of thousands of women in texas and across the nation. when i see these efforts to prevent women's access to safe and legal medical services, i think about all the young women in vermont who have grown up knowing that the constitution protects their liberty, both the u.s. constitution and the vermont constitution. it also recognizes their capability, saying for themselves matters that control their lives and their destiny. i hope they and generations after them never experience otherwise from the supreme court. i will speak further on this subject another time, madam president, but when i
think what that young woman turned to in vermont, i'm glad that our -- our tastes to uphold our constitution right to privacy, beacham versus leahy is on the books. i applaud the very conservative, very republican supreme court justices who wrote it in a unanimous opinion. mr. pres >> tim kaine candidates>> -- campaigns and i will for hillary and. we open our phone lines and take a look at the headlines on open washington journal." we leave
i'm margie. >> hi, margie. good to meet you. hi, colin. thanks for what you guys are doing. >> hi, i'm jacob. >> hi jacob, how are you? stan gave me a crucifix left by the pope, which i really cherish, which is really something. that was a very memorable visit. it was really fun to visit with them. hey, guys. who's this?
this looks like the senior class photo. tim kaine. hi, i'm tim. >> what's your name? >> reed. >> hi, reed. dana, good to be with you. i'm so proud to be here. are we going to get rolling? >> i'm going to make a quick introduction. speaking of phone calls, we have 10 days left as of today. 10 more days to keep having conversations like this one and keep talking to voters and to make sure we pull this caucus
win out. every minute counts. i'm really pleased to introduce senator tim kaine, former mayor of richmond. former dnc chair, and karen senator from virginia. he has been an asset to the party, and an asset to the issues that we all care so much about. >> all right. thank you guys. this is so great. >> i can't tell you how excited i am to be here. i want to thank joe for his nice introduction. you guys are doing great work. i have another virginian with me. we are really thrilled to be here in davenport and be back in iowa. i grew up in kansas city, went
to the university of missouri and had friends from charles city, used to come up here. my aunt gertrude and uncle claude are from fort madison. knew iowa well as a kid and have come back often, now that i'm in politics, when i was dnc chair, and caucusing for president obama in 2008. it's great to come back to this pillar exhibit a of grassroots democracy and thank you for all the work you have done. do you have a little more in the tank for the next 10 days? [applause] i know that secretary clinton really needs you, hillary really needs you for the next 10 days especially because the grassroots energy is what makes all the difference. increasingly it is what makes a difference in presidential politics generally. i want to tell you why i'm so strong for hillary. little bit about me first.
i was a missionary in honduras, a civil rights lawyer for 17 years, and i've been a city councilman, mayor, lieutenant, national party chair senator. i can't keep a job. [laughter] i've had the unusual experience of working at local government, state governments, and now at the federal level. that's a bit rare. i have seen issues from potholes and overcrowded juvenile court dockets to the iranian nuclear deal and were against isil. -- war against isil. i think i know what it takes to do the job, the super difficult job of president. that is one of the reasons i support hillary. another reason, i know all these candidates. when i was the mayor of richmond it was during the clinton administration. when i was lieutenant governor
and governor, hillary was a senator. working on the armed services committee, doing things for our troops and military families. virginia is the most military state in the nation. now that i'm the national park chair and senate, she was the lead face of diplomacy. i know bernie sanders well. i'm on the budget committee with bernie. i know martin o'malley well. martin and i were mayors of baltimore and richmond and then we were governors of maryland and virginia at the same time. i know him well. i know ted cruz well. i know marco rubio well. i'm on the foreign relations committee with him. i say that to say this, i support hillary because i know the job. i do not know donald trump. [laughter]
i'm going to say i've never met donald trump, but i think we all know donald trump. i know the job, and i know these people, and is no comparison. hillary clinton is going to be the best president for the united states. [applause] why is she the best? i will tell you three. character, issues, results. in politics we are kind of part of the entertainment industry, so they kind of paint the picture of you with the negative ads or whatever. as i work with people in politics i look at, what is the consistent theme that runs through your life like even before you were in politics? can i see a consistency of what animates and energizes you? being a midwesterner myself, i think that theme is the midwestern methodist church kid. i'm catholic, but i grew up in a
community where a lot of the midwestern methodist -- methodists have kind of a duty obligation sense, a wonderful part of the methodist faith, and has hillary -- as hillary has described her awakening to the broader world, it was through methodist youth group and a pastor that kind of got her focused on the challenges with migrant workers and the challenges of the least of these. if you look at everything she's done, whether it was when she first moved to arkansas and she was working with the children's legal defense fund and trying to start legal aid offices when she was first lady of the state and nation, focusing on the empowerment of women and children, and especially the health of families, however we define them in 21st-century america. when she was a senator, working on all kinds of important issues, especially around the family empowerment theme, then as secretary of state, where amidst all the challenges of being the nation's chief
diplomats, she kind of made the empowerment of women and families a key issue because she knew it was both good, but the state of families, the state of women, the education of youngsters, especially young girls, is a great measure of the evidence of the health of society. i'm voting for her because of her character because i can see in her a consistent passion that really was born out of a powerful spiritual sense of duty and obligation to others. you want to know what is at the core because there will be issues that come up that we cannot protect now. if you know what is the core, that will give you a sense of confidence about how somebody will deal with tough issues. i'm so strongly a believer in hillary on the issues. i like all these democratic candidates. i really believe she has the right path. the issues at home, the issues abroad.
all the empowerment of women and children and family issues, whether it is equal pay or paid family leave, these are critical things and she has been talking about them long before they were cool. on the economy, we want the economy to be stronger. the question is, how are we going to make the economy stronger? how are we going to make it work better for everybody? sometimes democrats can fall into the trap where guys just want to regulate the economy. you have to have the right regulations in place to grow the economy. no regulations can screw everything up. i live in a city where we did dramatic effort to turn around our city by cleaning up the river. you should not just want to regulate things to regulate them. the way you will create more opportunity for people is not just by regulating the economy, it's by growing the economy. hillary understands it, and that is why she is so strong on issues.
the crushing burden of the expense of college blocks people from grabbing onto the economic opportunities they can have. when i was in local government enrichment, we had the second highest homicide rate in the united states and we had to fight like held to improve it. then i was governor in virginia. we had the worst shooting in the nation at virginia tech in april of 2007 where all these beautiful kids and faculty members got killed or injured. we have got to have somebody who can look the gun manufacturers in the face and say, you guys can't run everything. [applause] i am a proud gun owner, a second amendment supporter, but i believe reasonable rules keep us
safe grade we have a congress sadly -- i know this well. congress a number of years ago ended a blank check to gun manufacturers and said, there won't be any liability for you. senator sanders voted for that. i like the fact that even though that has been a powerful lobby, secretary clinton has been willing to stand up and say, look, we have to be safe and responsible. her position is supported by gun owners and republicans and nra members. it is the manufacturers who want to take a different route and hillary is strong enough to stand up to them. on the issues abroad, she was the nation's chief diplomat.
we glad we have a president who understands diplomacy -- aren't we glad we have a president who understands diplomacy? we're in the most military state in the country, i have a kid in the military. we always have the lead with diplomacy and our moral example and human rights, that is where we are so strong. president truman is my favorite president. the redesigned the seal of the united states. the eagle was facing permanently towards the olive branches of peace. the arrows of war are important, but we have to focus on diplomacy. hillary clinton as secretary of state has built all those relationships. she helped avert a shooting war
between hamas and israel as secretary of state. we have got to have people who understand the power of diplomacy. we also have to have people who understand that hillary is a member of the armed services committee supporting our troops, supporting military families, a lot of the work she did was on military family issues. john mccain is the chair. i hear him talk about hillary, how much good work she did as a member of that committee. the thing that is really important right now because the front runner here on the republican side, the front runner in a lot of places right now in the republican side, donald trump in the last debate in south carolina said, qutoe, the american military is a disaster. can you imagine somebody running for commander in chief, there's
going to be over 1.6 million young men and women who are sacrificing everything in the military, and there family members, going around saying the american military is a disaster? hillary clinton someone who knows that these are proud people who are working hard and sacrificing for their nation. she would never show that kind of contempt or disrespect for those who are volunteering to serve their country. character on the issues. and finally, about results. i come from a body of achievers. people in the senate, whatever we've done, we've got in there because we worked hard and achieved. but we play -- pay close attention to who gets results and who is a good debater. it's not just debate in society. it's not just, can you state your position strongly. you've got to be able to move
things forward. anybody who is running right now, democratic or republican, the person the senator say that is somebody i can work with, that is somebody i respect, even when we disagree we can be civil. the only candidate out there that members of the senate, whether they are voting for her are not, have respect for, and can work with her, his secretary clinton. we not only want to be right, but we really want to do is do right. secretary clinton has the unique ability in this whole field of candidates to come in and forge partnerships and make things happen. that is why so many of us in the senate are campaigning. we are solid behind her because we've seen her work and we know we can get things done for this nation with her. that is what it is about.
the issues and she is the one candidate who can thatesults, but that means with 10 days left, we have to have every ounce that we can from you. set such a powerful example. there is a stream in politics right now that would like to turn it to how many super pac negative ads on tv, and then, god, in iowa and other states, that they are keeping the flame alive and it is person to person. first,t that you are that sets the kind of tone. the only way that hillary is going to win and roar out with the rest is with that strong grassroots advocacy.
just found it to do as many volunteer campaign as you can. of 330 million plus people, it is good to see that kind of energy as they travel around the state. thank you for having me. we are going to make history on february 1. [applause] i am glad to be here. now, the important part. these guys can tell you what they really need from you. >> we're going to make sure we are sign up for gop shifts, so we will ask you to knock on doors or make phone calls the last three days. however, for every date the rest of the campaign, we will be here and making phone calls, so you can drop by anytime. i know many of you asked for an opportunity to take a photo or talk with senator, and they will have a line set up with a senator.
that we had president clinton, obama, me. my kids loved it because i took them up, and i know dave matthews. i played music with the violinist the couple of times. like, dad, you are so cool. that only lasted six hours, but that was a fun event. it turned out for the best. it all worked. i was on the ballot then, too. well, you guys make it happen. so proud of you. >> wait, we need to get a picture. >> yes, you need a picture.
i don't think i got a picture with the tommy there. either.tom there is a lot of energy. [laughter] [indiscernible] thank you for coming and firing us up little bit. >> i know you kind of have to run on adrenaline. but it was us great ideas for the phone calling. -- you gave us great ideas for the phone calling. [indiscernible] >> this is a beautiful picture
of the secretary, isn't it? where was it at? >> that was at the river center, so bright here. i just got one of chelsea. those are great pictures. so she was here doing some of ben's just recently, too. doing some advance just recently, too. >> yes, just so impressed with the boys she has. she is amazing. [laughter] [indiscernible] >> thank you. >> thank you for your speech.
>> c-span's campaign 2016 is taking you on the road to the white house for the iowa caucuses. monday, february 1, our live coverage begins at 7:00 p.m. on c-span and c-span2. we will bring you live pre-caucus coverage. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, we take you to a republican caucus on c-span and the democratic caucus on c-span2. with c-span and join the conversation on c-span radio and at www.c-span.org. caucuses is iowa the first in the nation primary in new hampshire. rand paul mader a stop alongside his wife kelly. they spoke with voters at a
>> we will probably see you tomorrow, too. >> i am looking forward to it. instarted when i ran percent -- when i ran for senate. [indiscernible] >> there has been a firing line of like 50 guns and you have to it years to get on the firing line. we will see you. they have the best chicken fingers and stake. steak. >> i've got your back. way?i blocking your
>> working for tip money. do you guys have any questions? >> do you want a picture? would do you think we need to do differently in washington? >> i don't know if we have that much time. [laughter] this is my wife kelly. >> nice to meet you all. good to see you. [indiscernible] >> one of the headlines yesterday said one inch of snow closes down d.c.
they could a clean it up and now they have two feet of snow. -- they could not clean it up and now they have two feet of snow. [indiscernible] >> they were exiting that city this morning and you cannot get a train. how is your mother? >> there is always smoke and bread. >> how was your father? >> he's doing really great.
he is going to join me for some speeches. been doing a lot of college campuses. within a lot of our support comes from that generation so we will have big rallies in iowa. [indiscernible] trumbull get 35% but i don't think so. will get 35% but i don't think so. >> they say he has the whole country, but it is a bunch of bull. hampshire, nobody knows. i have been here 36 years. they have like three times what normally comes out for voting. [indiscernible] it.e are looking forward to
>> i know i have made 15 polls. turning people off are the phone calls. down and have a meal. in the last poll, it was in the margin of this deviation, but one of the networks had it on television and a completely lucked the name out and they put john kasich twice. -- they completely lucked my name out and they put john kasich twice. eft i name outla and put john kasich twice.
>> where are you guys? from? -- where you guys from? [indiscernible] >> like favorite question is how much can the national debt be reduced by the end of the first term. i am the only one on the stage to us introduced a budget. the plan is five years, but i think it can be done within four years. the balance budget amendment constitution says it has to be balanced within five years. to put it in perspective to how reduce spending
a chair, it names for years or five years, but i think that is eminently doable. one of my biggest gripes in washington is that i think even though they go outside the senate, we have not been standing up enough. if we had my way, we would. i voted against the big spending ceiling.sing the debt we have to realize [indiscernible] both parties are to blame. you. [laughter] [indiscernible]
>> we are certainly going to try. >> we're up by dallas. [indiscernible] >> i'm here for a funeral. [indiscernible] >> we are so glad to have you on board. thank you. >> their are on videos, the services and not being provided for citizens. i'm wondering if you have any open support for anything to sympathize with them? >> we have something a lot of