tv National Security Space Programs CSPAN March 15, 2018 3:51pm-4:29pm EDT
substantially reform a lot of how the counterterrorism program worked, and, yet, he actually does the opposite. he gives it bipartisan legitimacy by the end -- by the end of his term. and so she really captures that element and argues by 2016, the war on terrorism circa george bush is officially entrenched as policy and she's one of the authors who sees these continuities. >> a collection of historical essays on the presidency of barack obama. a first historical assessment. eddited by our guest from princeton university, julian zelzer. thank you for being with us this morning. >> thanks for having me. and a live picture from capitol hill where house armed services subcommittee is set to meet to discuss the pentagon's national security strategy in space. this was expected to get under way at 3:30 eastern.
a little bit delayed of a start here because members over in the house chamber for a series of votes. we're understanding they are on their final vote, so this could be just a few minutes away here. we'll have live coverage when it starts on c-span3. while we wait for this hearing to get under way, earlier today, president trump hosted the prime minister of ireland at the white house for the traditional visit of the st. patrick's day holiday. >> it's my great honor to have the very popular prime minister of ireland with us, and we're having some good talks about trade and about military and about cyber and all the other things we're talking about. the relationship is outstanding. and only getting better.
and it really is a very special group of people. a tremendous number of irish are living in new york where i grew up. and they're living in the united states and these are truly wonderful people. we love them. and mr. prime minister, great to have you. thank you. >> my pleasure. thanks for the invitation to be here. so i'm going to be in new york on saturday. >> oh, good. >> for the parade. marching on 5th avenue. >> that's good. i'd like to do that with you. >> does it pass -- >> it does, it goes right by trump tower. i used to watch it all the time. i would watch it all the time. so you'll be there on saturday? >> yeah. so, a lot of my -- a lot of the american side of my family came through new york. they're all in new jersey, florida, now. >> all right. >> come will be at the reception later. >> that makes sense. this is the first time in the oval office. special. >> telling president trump i was here before as a congressional intern back in 2000, but they
didn't let me into the oval office. >> now we do. you've made great progress. thank you. thank you for being with us. >> look forward to talking about -- >> any comment on the -- [ inaudible question sfch] >> it looks like it. i spoke with the prime minister and we are in deep discussions, a very sad situation. it certainly looks like the russians were behind it. something that should never, ever happen. and we're taking it very seriously. as i think are many others. [ inaudible question ] well, the story was very false. i mean, they wrote a story about staff changes today that was very false. we made a wonderful change, i think. mike pompeo is going to be an incredible secondary of statret. we have wonderful ideas. i've gotten to know a lot of people over the last year. i've been in washington over a year, some have been here 30, 40 years. i've gotten to know great people. there will always be change but
very little. that was a very false story. a very exaggerated -- a very exaggerated and false story. but there will always be change. i think you want to see change. and i want to also see different ideas. larry kudlow just came in. little while ago. and i think larry is going to be outstanding as economic adviser. so we look forward to it. but we'll talk to you about it later. thank you very much, everybody. thank you. thank you. thank you, everybody. >> is thathanks, everyone. . >> thank you very much. [ inaudible question ] >> it could happen. >> before re-election? >> it could happen. >> thanks, everyone. >> i look forward to being there. great country. i guess i have received -- >> thank you. thanks, everyone. >> i'd go to the border. >> thanks, guys. >> thank you, all, very much. >> thank you, all. thank you, all. thank you, all. thank you, all.
commented on earlier this week. to fight wars in space. again, this hearing expected to begin shortly. we'll have it when it starts live here on c-span3. while we wait for this to get under way, remarks now from house minority leader nancy pelosi during her weekly briefing earlier today. >> good morning, everyone. >> good morning. >> been an exciting week. pretty exciting. conor lamb's victory, thousands of students here on about gun safety, powerful 7,000 empty shoes on the steps of the capitol, and still no agreement on the omnibus. lots of fuse breaki innews brea russia. still no enforcement by the president of the sanctions legislation that we sent -- that
hi sign he signed, we sent to him. we're very excited about welcoming a new member from pennsylvania, newest colleague from pennsylvania to the caucus. hopefully that will be very soon. conor lamb's upset victory is a tribute to his extraordinary personal record and story and a laser focus on the economic issues that matter most to hardworking families. what's interesting about it is that millions of dollars, tens of millions of dollars in dark special interest ad money still couldn't make up for the toxic reality of the gop agenda in washington. the tax message simply failed. and this isn't a place where the president says he won by 22, it's probably 20, 20 points, 20-point lead evaporated, and the tax message failed. families are fed up with the republicans trying to sabotage and steal their health care, health care an important issue, and despite all the republicans'
hype, americans see through the gop tax scam. giving 83% of the benefits, you know it, 83% of the benefits to the top 1%, ultimately raising taxes for 86 million middle-class families, while contending that it's a middle-class tax cut, handing $1.5 trillion tax cut to corporate america with interest taking us over $2 trillion further into debt. robbing from our children's future and the middle class' future. just want to reiterate a couple things about it because the "wall street journal" found that more than $200 billion in corporate buybacks announced in the past three months. this was the money that was supposed to be raises and all that. $200 billion in buybacks. morgan stanley analyst estimated that almost two-thirds of the corporate tax savings, savings for the corporations, would go to buybacks, dividends, mergers, and acquisitions.
just 13% would go to bonuses and raises. republicans mortgaged, again, future of the middle class and our children, to pad the pockets of big corporations and the top 1%. meanwhile, a new poll of small busine businessowners from battleground states, battleground states, found a majority believe the tax scam favors big corporations and doesn't put small business on a level playing field. seven in ten will not hire new employees, seven in ten will not hire new employees, and six in ten will not give employees a raise. as trump budget shows after adding over $2 trillion to the debt, republicans plan $2 trillion in cuts from medicare and medicaid, plus more from social security disability insurance, food stamps, education, hud, the list goes on. so, the medicare issue was an important issue in the pennsylvania race.
medicare, medicare, medicare. it's so important in people's lives, it's so at risk under the republicans. as speaker for a long time, since a long time ago, had in his budget to remove the guarantee of medicare, and now with the tax cut for corporate america, and the president's budget, that says we're going to cut a half a trillion dollars from medicare and a trillion and a half from medicaid, people know that this is not a good deal for them. it's a raw deal. democrats have a better deal. better jobs. better pay. better future. american workers, seniors, all deserve better and they're standing up for it. and elections, god bless everyone who votes. i have such respect for however they vote. the fact that they vote is a real statement of patriotism and citizenship. and speaking of standing up, yesterday america's -- america witnessed the inspiring example of students across the country organizing walkouts to demand
action to prevent gun violence. i was proud that so many h congressional democrats joined in the congressional walkout to join the kids out here. their extraordinary courage and eloquence of this generation of young people is simply extraordinary. we were proud to greet many of them outside the capitol to join in their call to say, enough. think my best line they liked, one they seemed to like the most is that as i say on the floor on a regular basis to my colleagues, your political revival is not worth anything compared to protecting the survival of our children. we need a vote. inside the capitol today, this afternoon, we'll put forth our previous question for common sense bipartisan gun violence prevention. the thompson/king background check bill, background check completion, mr. clyburn's, the
gun violence restraining order, and the gun violence research act, congresswoman stephanie murphy. she's been a leader, great leader on that. there is bipartisan consensus in the congress, there shiould be n opportunity for bipartisan action in the people's house. we just ask the speaker to give us a vote. but, instead, instead of that and instead of creating good-paying jobs or raising wages for hardworking men and women, republicans are giving wall street a free pass to drag us back to the catastrophic meltdown of 2008. republican congress is more interested in holding voters -- holding votes to eliminate key safeguards to protect consumers, taxpayers and our economy from bad behavior on wall street. the gop is giving a break to many of the same banks that were bailed out by taxpayers. they're taking us right back to
unraveling the protections for consumers. for taxpayers. again, for our economy. they're eliminating protections against risky financial marketplace abuse and against the practice of red lining which denies many of our communities the american dream. it's a showcase of a republican congress that relentlessly prioritizes the interest of the well-connected and the wealthiest 1%, while the needs of working families are undermined or ignored. democrats continue to offer hardworking middle class american families a better deal. better jobs, better wages, a better future. real solutions like bold investments and job-creating infrastructure, lowering the cost of prescription drugs, and other necessities, protecting american -- americans' endangered pensions. that's something we hope will come out of the c.a.p.s deal when we reform the commission to
protect pensions. but here we are in our fifth continuing resolution, still waiting for the republicans to come back with a global offer as to how they would like to proceed to pass a bill until the close of this fiscal year, september 30th, to invest in the american people. we had a victory with the c. a. a.p.s bill. this is the manifestation of it. they insist on poison pills and the rest. hopefully they'll get serious and we can get this done before the 23rd of march. we can't possibly have another continuing resolution. a lot of stuff. i didn't even go into the russia stuff with all the statement the that are coming out identifying who the offenders were in undermining our election. i did mention that the president still refuses to sign -- to enforce the law that was sent to him, with his input, to have sanctions on russia. any questions?
>> republicans have -- >> okay. yeah, but this is not the sanctions bill that we sent. this is a previous sanctions bill. this is part of -- okay. trump announced this morning in response to cyber attacks, administration should and could do more. yes, sir? >> republicans have discounted conor lamb's win as sort of a unicorn -- >> you want to talk politics. okay. that's what -- >> they discounted it. they said that there won't be another moderate conservative that can run in a lot of these districts and need to flip to win the house. are you at all concerned that conor lamb's win is not a signal of a major wave coming for democrats this fall? >> no.
they lost the seat. 20 points. trump -- said 22. let's say 18. it's a district that not only did trump carry it big, romney carried it big by, like p , 15 points and this is a republican district. so let them think that. let them think that. but this is a very big win. medicare was an issue. health care was on issue. middle class -- labor. labor played a very major role there. so this was a -- this was a great victory. his personal story and his record -- an important part of it -- comparison between the two candidates was drastic. i mean, he's superbly looked forward to welcoming here but i don't -- republicans will say what they say. they had a -- win or lose, it was a victory for the american people when they had to spend $10 million to protect a republican seat.
that boded well for the american people that we're going to have some change here. either change who's in office or change their view of what is important to their constituents. no, it was a tremendous -- it was a tremendous victory. yes, ma'am? >> yes. i was wondering -- thank you for doing this. i was wuondering if you've been approached by the white house about the latest efforts to fix daca. what is the democrats' stance on that, and dough c you see it ind in the omnibus spending bill? >> how can i say this in the most nonpartisan, gentlest way? you mean the president's three-year -- what are we talking about? his -- >> the white house says that they rejected the three -- >> he's already rejected what he offered? >> well, now they're saying that they don't agree with the three-year daca fix for three-year border spending. >> that is what the president
proposed not 48 hours ago. so it's very hard to comment on something that is like a -- i don't know, just it keeps changing all the time, so if they've already backed off of that, so, in any event, let me just get to the omnibus bill. the omnibus bill is a very big bill. it is necessary for us to pass it, to defend our country, to invest in our children's future, to keep america number one in every respect. to do so in a way that creates jobs. it won't be reducing the deficit because of what the tax bill did, but hopefully the growth that it can create with investments in research and development, support for the nih, et cetera, will help do that. they had not come back -- excuse me -- with a serious -- no shelf
here. you'd think i'd know that by now. they did not come back with a serious global response. that's what we're waiting for for them. there's nothing to comment on because they already backed off the president's statement. my understanding from the republicans in congress that it's hard for them to give us a global statement which includes everything, the homeland security piece, labor, health and houman services because the don't know where the president is. >> the president keeps blaming democrats for impeding any agreement on a daca fix. >> and? >> constantly. >> and? the president is blaming somebody? i don't -- thank you for following the issue, but the fact is the president is disingenuous when he says that. it is not real. he knows that we have -- we said to the president in our first meeting check, distinguished minority leader in the senate, when we met with the president, we said, this is a values issue with us, this is really important to our country. let's just fix this. yes, i want to, just get our
border security, and the president has not -- he's met with people, he's agreed to things. he's made suggestions. he's backed off. so he can say whatever he wants, but the fact that we don't have anything rests clearly in his office. and i trust him. he says that he wants to do something. so let's do it. i don't trust some of his advisers because i don't think they want to do something. but as i've said to him, you're the president. i assume if you want it, it will happen. i'm still hopeful that will be the case. yes? >> so on this latest russia sanctions -- >> thank you. >> -- bill, i don't quite understand how this might play out because we have the committee, republicans on the intelligence committee saying that there is no meddling and they're trying to enforce sanctions because of russian influence might be different in the election. what do you think should happen? and are they -- are they
crossways with themselves over what the republicans on the committee are saying, what the administration is trying -- >> well, they have started to back off their own statement. you know, they said originally -- or, well, originally -- more recently, that -- that there was nothing in there that indicated that the russians had an interest in advancing president trump or having an impact on the election. most recently, they said, well maybe not. and today, the department of treasury issued treasury sanctions -- sanctioning russia's cyber actors for interference in the 2016 elections and malicious cyber attacks. they designated five entities and 19 individuals under the countering america's adversaries. through sanctions act. and so you can get it online but
i can read it to you if you wish. so the fact is 14 months ago, january 6th, 2017, the intelligence committee issued a report, a consensus report, highest confidence that the russians meddled denv-- disrupt our election. 14 months later we still have nothing of any serious nature from the congress of the united states on the subject. you see what the republican -- the intelligence committee in the house did. completely, completely irresponsible. hopefully something more will come in the senate. there are committees of jurisdiction, stood here. our ranking members saying what hearings we expect from those committees. but we haven't gotten any of them. and now the administration has put out its statement. so this is -- this relates to elections. this is really important. a foreign power meddled in our
election and took a very long time for the president and the administration to accept that fact. i don't know if the president still has, but the treasury department has and i assume that they work for him and then the republicans in congress putting out a foolish statement last week and now having to back off some of that. so, again, people vote. i respect that. however they vote. they expect that the vote will be counted as cast. we have a responsibility to do that. whether people across the country are interested in othat aspects of the russia investigation remains to be seen. that's up to mr. mueller's -- what comes from there. i still think he should have an independent commission to review the whole picture. but what's relevant right now is that in elections, there's been a clear indication that we are accepting the fact of what they did and what we now want to do
something about it. you saw our task force here under leadership of mr. bennie thompson, bob brady -- bless you -- for proposals that we have to protect the integrity of our critical infrastructure which is our voting system. yes, ma'am? >> back to the politics for a second. conor lamb ran -- to the camera saying i do not support nancy pelo pelosi. he ran against you the entire time. do you think your other candidates should do the same thing and does that pose a problem for you if you take back the house? >> i don't think that he ran against me the entire time. i think he ran on his positive agenda protecting medicare for preeminently that there for working families, strong support from labor. on the one hand, republicans are saying, see, he ran like a conservative, and on the other hand, i guess that identifies that they want to support medicare, which they don't.
and the rest. so it was, i think, a very issues-oriented campaign as a part of it, with tens of -- with millions of dollars of ads coming in from the koch brothers. that will happen all over the country. demonizing me as the leader of the democratic party. the -- i just wanted him to win. i don't think that that really had that much impact on the race. he won. if he hadn't won, you might have a question, but we won. we won the race. people -- the "d" next to his name was very significant in those blue parts. he made a tremendous and great successful effort to minimize the damage in the red, red counties. i think he got sort of the same vote that hillary clinton -- must have gotten more. some areas, they had a similar thing, but obviously, he -- there were many more people who voted, like, what, 10,000 or 12,000, that would be a lot in a
special election because usually you go down. so, no, i don't think that's it. i don't think your opponent should choose your party's leaders. i think that we have an important case to make. they're coming after me because of my city and they're against lgbt and they're against poor children. that's been my mantra, the poor children in america that i'm here to support. yes, i am a liberal, but i don't think the misrepresentations, demonization that are put out against any leader in the democratic side, whoever the leader is, will be the target. tip o'neill was the target. that's just the way it is. tom foley was the target. that's the way it is. no, i feel pretty confident that we're going to win, we're going to win big, we're going to win a lot of seats and that's going to be good for the american people. yes, sir? >> to follow up on that, since you expect these attacks against you in many of these races, what is your races to incumbents and challengers? >> well, the fact is that one candidate in texas came out and
said he would not be for me and he came in fourth. he came in fourth. so let's not read too much into this. this is part of the bankruptcy of the republican party. they're devoid of ideas of how they're going to meet the needs of the american people so it's an ad homonym. they can't win on the issues so they go after a person. and i feel pretty confident about my ability to do first and foremost the master legislator for the good of the american people that have proven that, but what you've done is not why you should go forward. why you should go forward is what are you going to do next? and we have a very positive agenda about how we take back the congress for the democrats. i have a strong following in the country, and i don't think that the koch brothers should decide who the leader of the democratic party is in the house. yes, sir? >> on daca, is there any -- >> thank you for getting back to
substance. >> is there any incentive right now for democrats in congress to work with republicans given what you just said about trump and given we don't have a hard deadline with the court decision that was looming last month? is there any incentive to work a compromise out given the environment right now and given that dhs isn't set to begin deportati deportation? >> there is an initiative to -- thank you. because you understand it. the way you framed that. the -- there's an initiative to have a discharge petition that for a rule that would enable maybe three or four bills to come to the floor, goodlatte, dream, herd, something else the speaker might come up with, plain the bipartisan bill in the senate. i don't know. and be queen of the hill. whoever wins most wins best. if it's a tie, whoever wins last wins best. that might be an opportunity if there's more.
there's not a whole lot of reason to negotiate to do anything that is not already covered by the court decision. >> i guess the question is then should democrats give border wall funding, for examples right now when there isn't a hard deadline on the table like there was last month? >> what do can you think? i mean, should we give a border wall for nothing? no, i don't think so. first of all, i think the border -- did you see it? how high it is? and the rest of the president's wall. i mean, really? in a civilized society, we'd do something like that? as obnoxious as it is. that's a community there with a border running through it. okay. we have a difference of opinion on that, but a wall that big separating people? i mean, really? i guess maybe i've seen too many walls, i saw the wall in northern ireland years ago before the agreement and it was strange to see. that was like a tin fence. this is a big wall. so, no, i mean, really, when there was comprehensive
immigration reform, which was bipartisan in the senate, and protected 11 million people, there were serious concessions made in the balance. for nothing, would we give for the wall? no. what would their motivation -- but let me say this, and let me be very clear. if the dreamers never existed, and thank god that they do, our inspiration, our pride, thank god that they do. if they never existed, we still have a problem with what the president wants to do in the bill. you know, they want to have enhanced internal enforcement that really goes against the values of our country, in my view. so it will be interesting. that's why we want them to come back with a global counterproposal. you know, we have said, let's just do this clean. take out the poison pills. let's do what the appropriators negotiate in terms of money, there are a few more things to be settled, but not much.
they came back with something that still had the poison pills and the rest and hadn't addressed some of the concerns we had, so we're waiting for that global proposal. and there's not much time. it's next friday. so they don't have a bill today, which they don't, to post. they don't like to post it over the weekend because then their members see it. and so they probably figure out something monday and then, but it will be close, so we have to come to agreement. and we're fully prepared to do that. but this is -- this is fifth continuing resolution. that is so dysfunctional as far as government is concerned. and as i say, we were very proud of winning the fight on the c.a.p.s and just remained for the appropriators, being an appropriator, myself, in my day, on -- on committees, i know that in a bipartisan way, the appropriators can work it out and they by in large have except
for the poison pills and a few issues that relate to where they're going on homeland security and i don't know if they know where they're going because as our guest here mentioned -- she didn't mention, i mentioned in response, there's confusion as to where the president is and what he would support. yes, ma'am? >> on the omnibus, it seems like one of the major issues holding up the talks of the gateway funding that the president has communicated to speaker ryan that he's opposed to that and then quietly threatening a veto, have you heard from the president on the -- the white house on this, and do democrats think that's important to make sure that that's included in the omnibus? >> i haven't heard from the president on this. have we heard from -- no. we haven't heard, but perhaps we'll hear when they come back with their counter to the counter to the counter proposal. and hopefully that will be soon.
but it is -- let's get back to the -- in a few minutes we'll be all going to celebrate st. patrick's day. i don't have irish grandparents but i do have irish grandchildren, liam, sean and ryan. their other grandparents live in ireland. it's always a happy day in our country where we come together as democrats and republicans, hosted by the house, involving the senate, with the teshock of ireland and the president of the united states. it's a really, to me, a celebration of immigration, of the wonderful contribution that the irish had made and all immigrants make to our country. the pride the irish take in their heritage. the fierce patriotism they have for america. and it's also a religious -- now, i'll just tell you, last year, i was sitting there and they had dessert on a table and i said to father, father, will
you give us a dispensation fo for -- dispensation to eat dessert during lent. and he said, you know, after a certain age, you don't have to observe those rules anymore. i said, father, don't go fli politics, don't go into diplomacy. that's not the answer. the answer is, yes, we'll give you a dispensation. and in fact, he did. it wasn't the way i wanted to hear it. in any event, happy st. patrick's day to all of you. we had a crazy week because orange is the color of our fight for gun violence. orange is not the color to wear around st. patrick's day. so with all of the things, red for our girls in africa, we wear red on wednesdays for girls in africa, orange for gun safety, green for st. patrick's day. it's -- it's an interesting time. in any event, that should be our
biggest problem. thank you, all, very much. interesting time. going to be an action-packed week, culminate next week in hopefully passing the omnibus bill, but in addition -- oh, orange. in addition -- for the children. for the children. for the children. but in addition to that, we will be welcoming the marchers here on probably the day before the 23rd, but the march being on the 24th for gun safety in our country. again, a salute to the eloquence, courage, and determination of the young people across the country. thank you all very much.