tv U.S. Senate CSPAN September 28, 2015 6:00pm-8:01pm EDT
a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: i move to table the amendment for the purpose of offering my own amendment, 2901, and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there does not appear to be. the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the noes appear to have it. the noes do have it. the motion is not agreed to. mr. cruz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, there is a reason the american people are fed up with washington. there is a reason the american
people are frustrateed. the frustration is not simply mild or passing or ephemeral. it is volcanic. over and over again, the american people go to the ballot box, over and over again, the american people rise up and say the direction we're going doesn't make sense. we want change. over and over again, the american people win elections. in 2010, a tidal wave election. in 2014, a tidal wave election. and yet, nothing changes. in washington. mr. president, i'd like to share with you and the american people the real story of what is happening in washington, why is it that our leaders cannot stop bankrupting this country, cannot stop the assault on our constitutional rights, cannot stop america's retreat from leadership in the world?
it's a very simple dynamic when you have two sides allegedly in a political battle. one side that is relentlessly unshakeably committed to its principles, and the other side that reflexively surrenders at the outset. the outcome is foreother detained. i will give president obama and the senate democrats credit. they believe in principles of big government. they believe in this relentless assault on our constitutional rights, and they are willing to crawl over broken glass with a knife between their teeth to fight for those principles. unfortunately, leadership on my side of the aisle does not demonstrate the same commitment to principles. now, how is it you might wonder that a preemptive surrender is put in place? well, it all begins with the
relatively innocuous statement there shall be no shutdowns. that is a statement leadership in both houses, republican leadership in both houses have said we're not going to shut the government down. you could understand the folks in the private sector, folks at home. that sounds perfectly reasonable. except here's the reality in washington. in today's washington, there are three kinds of votes. there are, number one, showboats showboats -- show votes. votes that are brought up largely to placate the voters where the outcome is foreother detained, where most republicans will vote one way, democrats will vote the other, republicans will lose, and the conservatives who elected republican majorities in both houses are supposed to be thrilled that they have been patted on the head and given their show vote that was destined to lose. we had a vote like that in recent weeks on planned
parenthood. leadership told us you should be thrilled. we voted on it. what else do you want? we voted on it in a context where it would never happen. and indeed it didn't. the second kind of vote are votes that simply grow government, that dramatically expend spending, expand corporate welfare, and those votes, mr. president, those votes passed. because you get a bipartisan coalition of republican leadership and democrat, both of whom are convinced that career politicians will get re-elected if they keep growing and growing government and in particular handing out corporate welfare to giant corporations. oh, boy, if you have got the lobbyists on k street pushing for something, you can get 60, 70, 80 votes in this chamber because republican leadership loves it and democrats are always willing to grow government. and then there's a third kind of
vote. votes on must-pass legislation. in an era when one side, the democratic party, is adamantly committed to continuing down this path that is causing so many millions of americans to hurt, must-pass votes are the only votes that have real consequence in this chamber. they typically fall into one of three categories. either continuing resolution or an omnibus appropriation bill or a debt ceiling increase. each of those three are deemed must-pass votes, and if you actually want to change law, those are the only hopes of doing so. but i mentioned before you have got one side that has preemptively surrendered. republican leadership has said we will never, ever, ever shut down the government, and suddenly president obama understands the easy key to winning every battle. he simply has to utter the word
shutdown, and republican leadership runs to the hills. so president obama demands of congress fund every bit of obamacare, 100% of it, and do nothing, zero, for the millions of americans who are hurting, millions of americans who have lost their jobs, who have lost their health care, who have lost their doctors, who have been worsed into part-time work. millions of young people who have seen their premiums skyrocket. president obama says you can do nothing for the people that are hurting. senate democrats say we don't care about the people who are hurting. we'll do nothing for them. and here's the kicker. president obama promises if you try to do anything on obamacare, i, barack obama, will veto funding for the entire federal government and shut it down, and republican leadership compliantly says okay, fine, we'll fund obamacare. president obama then understanding he's got a pretty good trump card here, he can
pull out any time. next he says okay, republicans fund my unconstitutional executive amnesty. it's contrary to law. it's flouting federal immigration law. but you republicans fund it anyway, or else i, barack obama, will veto funding for the entire federal government and shut it down, and republican leadership says at the outset okay, we'll fund amnesty. and now you turn to planned parenthood. barack obama, this will surprise no one, says fund 100% of planned parenthood with taxpayer money. mind you, planned parenthood is a private organization. it's not even part of the government. but it happens to be politically favored by president obama and the democrats. planned parenthood is also the subject of multiple criminal investigations. for being caught on tape apparently carrying out a pattern of ongoing felonies.
in ordinary times, the proposition that we should not be sending your and my father taxpayer money to fund a private organization under multiple criminal investigations, that ought to be a 100-0 vote. but i mentioned before barack obama is absolutely committed to his partisan objectives. he is like the terminator. he never stops. he never gives up. he moves forward and forward and forward. so what does he say? if you don't fund this one private organization that's not part of the government, that's under multiple criminal investigations, i, barack obama, will veto funding for the entire federal government and shut it down. and what does republican leadership say? well, it will surprise no one. republican leadership says we surrender. we will fund planned parenthood. you know, president obama has
negotiated a catastrophic nuclear deal with iran. republican leadership goes on television all the time and rightly says this is a catastrophic deal. the consequences are that it's the single greatest national security threat to america. millions of americans could die. mr. president, i would suggest if we actually believed the words that are coming out of our mouths, then we would be willing to use any and all constitutional authorities given to congress to stop a catastrophic deal that sends over $100 billion to the ayatollah khamenei. but yet, president obama says he will veto the entire budget if we do, and to the surprise of nobody, republican leadership surrenders. you know, i will draw an analogy, mr. president. it's as if in a football game at
the beginning of the football game the two team captains go out to flip the coin and one team's coach walks out and says we forfeit, and they do it game after game after game. right at the coin flip, leadership says we forfeit, we surrender. we republicans will fund every single big-government liberal priority of the democrats. now, if a team did that, if an nfl team did that over 16 games, we know what their record would be, it would be 0-16. and, you know, i would be pretty sure that the fans who bought tickets, who went to the game would be pretty ticked off as they watched their coach forfeit over and over and over and over again. you want to understand the volcanoic -- volcanic frustration with washington? it's that the republican leadership in both houses will not fight for a single priority
that we promised the voters we would fight for when we were campaigning less than a year ago. you know, this past week was a big news week in washington. the speaker of the house, john boehner, announced he was going to resign. there was lots of speculation around the media as to why the speaker of the house resigned. mr. president, i'm going to tell you why he resigned. it's actually a direct manifestation of this disconnect between the voters back home and republican leadership. speaker boehner and leader mcconnell had promised there will be no shutdown, so, therefore, they will fund every single priority of barack obama's. we are right now voting on what's called a clean c.r. i will note it is clean only in the parlance of washington, because what does it do?
it funds 100% of obamacare, 100% of executive amnesty. it funds all of planned parenthood. it funds the iranian nuclear deal. it is essentially a blank check to obama barack -- to p barack . that is not very clean to me. that actually sounds like a very dirty funding bill, funding priorities that are doing enormous damage. now, in the senate the votes were always there for a dirty c.r., a c.r. that funded all of barack obama's priorities. the democrats will all vote for it. heck, of course they will. they've got the other side funding their priorities. of course every democrat will vote for that over and over and over again and twice on sunday. and the simple reality on the republican side is when leadership joins with the democrats about half of the republican caucus is happy to
move over to that side of the aisle. so the votes were always preordained. the motion i made just a moment ago was a motion to table the tree. you remember filling the tree? it's something we heard about a lot in the previous congress. harry reid, the democratic leader, did it all the time. senators on this side of the aisle stood up over and over again and said it's abuse of process. in fact, we even campaigned, occupier -- our leadership saying we're going to have an open amendment process. yet what's happened here is majority leader mcconnell has taken a page out of leader reid's play book and filled the tree. i moved to table the tree. and what you then saw was leadership denying a second. and what does denying a second mean? denying a recorded vote. why is that important? mr. president, when you are breaking the commitments you've
made to the men and women who elected you, the most painful thing in the world is accountability. when you are misleading the men and women who showed up to vote for you, you don't want sunshine making clear that you voted "no." a recorded vote means each senator's name is on it. now, why did i move to table the tree? simply to add the amendment that i had added, which would have, number one, said not one penny goes to planned parenthood. and, number two, not one penny goes to implementing this catastrophic iranian nuclear deal unless and until they comply with federal law, the administration complies with federal law and hands over the full deal including the side agreements with iran. what you saw was republican leadership desperately does not want a vote on that. well, mr. president, i intend tomorrow to make that motion again. and when i make that motion again, i would encourage those
watching to see which senators are here to give a second or not and to vote yea or nay. i would note, by the way, when you deny a second, which is truly an unprecedented procedural trick, it used to be that was a courtesy, that was afforded to all senators, indeed in the oppositing party rue -- in the opposing party over and over again when someone asked for a second everyone raises their hand but leadership discovered we can do this in the dark of night. but i encourage those watching to see, number one, when this motion is offered again, who shows up to offer a second and who either doesn't raise his hand or just doesn't come to the floor. one of the ways you avoid accountability is you somehow are somewhere else doing something really, really important instead of actually showing up to the battle that is waging right here and now. but i would also encourage people to watch very carefully
what happens after that. after that you have a voice vote. a voice vote is still a vote. let's be clear, standing here on the floor, there were two senators -- senator lee and i -- who voted aye, to voted to table the tree and take up the amendment barring funding for planned parenthood and barring fund for this catastrophic iranian nuclear deal. the remaining senators on the republican side -- you had leader mcconnell, you had whip cornyn, you had senator alexander, you had senator cock rin -- cock -- cochran. those four senators voted no, it's a vote on the senate floor. so why did speaker boehner resign? i mentioned to you that the votes were always cooked here. the democrats plus republican
leadership and the votes that they bring with them ensure plenty of votes for a dirty c.r., a c.r. that funds obamacare, that funds amnesty, that funds planned parenthood, that funds this iranian nuclear deal. but the house was always the bulwark. mr. president, you'll remember in 2013 when we had a fight over obamacare, he -- you were servig in the house at that time. in the fight we never had control over the senate. the democrats were going to do anything they could to fund obamacare regardless of the millions of people hurting but the house was bulwark in that house. there were 40 or 50 strong-principled conservatives who cared deeply about honoring the commitments they made to the
men and women who elected them. that was always the strength we had in that fight. it's been interesting reading some of the press coverage speculating that there would be some magic parliamentary trick that would somehow stop this corrupt deal. in the senate there are no magic parliamentary tricks. when you have the democrats plus republican leadership and a chunk of the republicans, those votes can roll over any parliamentary trick you might use. even with the blood moon we just had, there are no minsk -- mystical powers that allow you to roll over that. but in the house, we still got that 30, 40, 50 strong conservatives, so how is it that speaker boehner and leader mcconnell could promise there will never ever be a shutdown? because, i believe, speaker boehner has decided to cut a
deal with leader nancy pelosi, the leader of the democrats, that this dirty c.r. that's going to be passed out of the senate is going to go to the house and the speaker is going to take it up on the floor, pass it with all the democrats, just like leader mcconnell just did, and a handful of republicans who will go with republican leadership. a very significant percentage of republicans will vote "no." but here is the problem. speaker boehner's done that more than once. and in this instance there were too many republicans who were tired of seeing their leadershipship lead the democrats rather than lead the republican party. i believe if speaker boehner had done that, had passed a dirty c.r. funding planned parenthood, funding this iranian nuclear deal, that he would have lost his speakership. a member of the house introduced
a motion to vacate the chair because house republicans were fed up with their leader not leading, at least not leading their party. leading the democratic party. speak boehner faced -- speaker boehner faced a conundrum. if he does what he and leader mcconnell promised, which is fund all of obamacare obamacare's -- all of barack obama's priorities, he would have lost his job. so what did he do? he announced he's resigning as speaker and resigning as a member of congress. that is unsurprising, but it also telegraphs the deal he's just cut. it's a deal to surrender and join with the democrats. notice he said he's going to stay a month. he's going to stay a month in order to join with the democrats and fund barack obama's
priorities. now let's talk about some of the substantive issues that we ought to be talking about. let's start with planned parenthood. in the past couple of months a series of videos have come out about planned parenthood. to some of the people watching this, you may never have seen the videos. why is that? because the mainstream media has engaged in a virtual media blackout on them. nbc, cbs, abc, the last thing they want to do is show these videos. if you watch fox news you can see the videos. but the mainstream media in the great tradition of pravda wants to make sure the citizenry doesn't see what's in these videos. i would encourage every american, republican or democrat, regardless of where you fall on the right to life, even if and in fact especially if you consider yourself
pro-choice, just watch these videos. go online and watch them. and ask yourself, are these my values? is this what i believe? these videos show senior officials from planned parenthood laughing, sipping chardonnay and callously, heartlessly selling the body parts of unborn children over and over and over again. one senior official is caught on video laughing and saying she hopes she sells enough body parts of unborn children to buy herself a lamborghini. again i would suggest just ask yourself, are these my values? in another video, a lab tech describes a little baby boy,
unborn, aborted, about two pounds, his heart still beating. she was instructed to insert scissors under his chin to cut open the face of this little boy and harvest his brain because the brain was valuable. planned parenthood could sell the brain. this is something out of brave new world. this is human beings. that little boy had a heart that was still beating, had a brain that was being harvested. and he had a soul. given him by god almighty, he was made in the image of god. and we are now a nation that harvests the body parts of little baby boys and girls.
it is the very definition of inhumanity. to treat children like agriculture, to be grown and killed for their body parts, to be sold for profit. now there is a reason that the media and the democrats don't want these videos shown. because anyone watching these videos will be horrified. but they're not just horrific, they are also prima facie evidence of criminal activity. there are multiple federal statutes, criminal statutes that planned parenthood appears to be violating perhaps on a daily basis. the first and most direct is a prohibition on selling the body parts of unborn children for a
profit. federal criminal law makes that a felony with up to ten years jail time. now these videos show them very clearly selling body parts. they also show them bartering over price. they'll argue it wasn't for a profit, but you watch these videos, you watch the undercover buyer saying how much will you give me for them? you see the planned parenthood official saying, well, how much can i get? i don't want to bargain against myself. on its face, that's evidence of bargaining for a profit. you want the highest price you can get. it's not tied to your cost. it's tied to whatever dollars, whatever revenue you can bring in. and planned parenthood is the largest abortion provider in this country. as another one of these videos reflects, it is a volume business, planned parenthood, taking the lives of unborn children and then selling them apparently for profit.
it is also a federal criminal offense to alter the means of an abortion for the purpose of harvesting the organs of the unborn child. that's a separate criminal offense. on video after video you see planned parenthood officials say what parts would you like? we can perform a different abortion depending on what parts you want us to harvest. on the videos they essentially admit to this crime. they are filmed in the act. there is the third criminal offense that provides that you cannot harvest the organs of an unborn child without informed consent from the mother. and yet again these videos seem to indicate that planned parenthood treats informed consent as a technicality that is sometimes complied with and sometimes ignored. i will say, mr. president, as an aside, ordinarily when a national organization is caught on film committing a pattern of
felonies, the next steps are predictable. the department of justice opens an investigation. the f.b.i. shows up and seizes their records. everything on those videos suggests those felonies are still occurring today. what does it say about the obama justice department that no one on the face of the planet believes there's any chance the justice department would even begin to investigate planned parenthood? what does it say about the most lawless partisan department of justice that you've got this group, hey, it's a political ally of the president so that's apparently all that matters. if it's an ally of the president, it doesn't matter that they're videotaped
committing felonies, the department of justice will not even look at it. you know, i'm an alumnus of the u.s. department of justice. i was an associate deputy attorney general. i spent much of my adult life working in law enforcement. the department of justice has a long, distinguished record of remaining outside of partisan politics, of staying above the partisan fray, of being blind to party or ideology and simply enforcing the law or the constitution. i'm sorry to say under eric holder and loretta lynch, the department of justice has completely besmirched that tradition. no one remotely believes that the obama justice department will even begin to investigate this pattern of felonies. you don't see democrats suggesting it. no one in the media suggests it.
and, by the way, if this were a republican administration and the entity that admitted to a pattern of felonies was a private entity that supported republicans, you would see on cbs, nbc, abc an indictment clock every night. you would see the anchors saying, "when will this investigation open? when will they be indicted?" instead, the media pretends these videos don't exist. in the face of what appears to be a national criminal enterprise, we're faced here with a much simpler question -- will we continue to pay for it? will we continue to pay for it?
with your and my tax dollars, will we send $500 million a year to a private organization to use to fund this ongoing criminal organization? and what's the position of the democrats? hear no evil, see no evil. they do not care. what democrat do you see calling for the enforcement of criminal laws against planned parenthood? what democrat do you see saying, at a minimum, let's not send taxpayer money to fund this? not one. not a single democrat stood up and said that. let me ask you, mr. president, what happens if planned parenthood gets indicted? because even though the u.s. department of justice under president obama has become
little more than a partisan arm of the democratic national committee, there are state and local prosecutors that are investigating planned parenthood right now. if planned parenthood is indicted, do the democrats maintain their wall of silence and say, we're going to continue to fund them under indictment? by all indications, yes. you haven't heard a single democrat say, well, if they're indicted, then we'll stop. now, the response, mr. president , from our leadership is we can't win this fight. that's their response. they say, well, we can't win the planned parenthood fight. why? because we don't have 60 votes. because we don't have 67 votes. mr. president, if that's the standard, then republican
leadership's standard is we will only do whatever harry reid and nancy pelosi approve of. that's what it means. you want to understand why the american people are frustrated? we were told, if only we had a republican house of representatives, then things would be different. 2010, millions of us rose up in incredible numbers and won an historic tidal wavy leks -- tidal wave election. mr. president, you were a youth minister, called to ministry. and yet you stood up and said, my country's in crisis. i'm going to stand tbarnd and serve. the 2010 election was historic. and yet very little changed. then we were told, okay, we've
got a house of representatives but the problem is the senate. as long as harry reid is majority leader, we can't do anything. over and over again, washington gray beards would go on television and in gravelly tonies, they would say you -- tones, they would go on tv and say you cannot govern with one-third of government. the house of representatives is not enough. but if we had the senate, then things would be different, the problem is harry reid. mr. president, you'll recall during the fight over obamacare, a number of members of this body , republicans, said, no, no, no, no, no, we can't fight on obamacare. we have to wait until we have a republican senate to fight. so the american people obliged. in 2014, millions of us rose up. the second tidal wave election in a period of four years. we won nine senate seats. we retired harry reid as
majority leader. we won the largest majority in the house of representatives. since the 1920's. it's been now over nine months since we've had republican majorities in both houses, and i ask you, mr. president, what exactly have those republican majorities accomplished? i'll tell you, mr. president, i've asked that question all over the country in town halls. i've never been in a town hall where the response spontaneously was not "absolutely nothing." it's true in every state i've visited. and, sadly, my response over and over again is, you know, it's worse than that. i wish the answer were "absolutely nothing." it would have been better if the
republican majorities had done absolutely nothing. because what, in fact, have they done? well, the very first thing that happened right after that election in november is we came back to washington and republican leadership joined up with harry reid and the democrats and passed a trillion-dollar cromnibus bill that was filled with pork and corporate welfare, grew government, grew the debt. then republican leadership took the lead in funding obamacare. then republican leadership took the lead in funding executive amnesty. then republican leadership took the lead in funding planned parenthood. and then, astonishingly, republican leadership took the lead in confirming loretta lynch as attorney general. now, i ask you, mr. president, which one of those decisions is one iota different from what would have happened with harry reid and the democrats in charge
of this chamber? those decisions are identical. and i would note, by the way, with loretta lynch, the republican majority could have defeated that nomination. the senate majority leader could have done so. and yet she looked at the senate judiciary committee, she looked at the senate, when asked how she would differ from eric holder's justice department, the most lawless and partisan justice department we'd ever seen, she said, no way whatsoever. when asked to point to a single instance in which she'd be willing to stand up to president obama to stop his lawlessness, to stop his abuse of power, she could not identify any circumstance in which she would ever stand up to the president who appointed her. attorneys general from both parties have done that for centuries. now, with eric holder, the senate could be forgiven because
his lawlessness manifested primarily after he was confirmed with loretta lynch, she told us beforehand, she looked us in the eyes and said, hey, i'm going to do exactly what my predecessor has done. and republican leadership confirmed her anyway. is it any wonder the american people are frustrated out of their minds? we keep winning elections and the people we put in office don't do what they said they would do. now, some people across the country ask me, is republican leadership just not very capable? are they not that competent or are they unwilling to fight? and, mr. president, it's neither they're actually quite competent and they're willing to fight. the question is what they're fighting for. there's a disconnect right now.
if you or i go to our home states, we go to any gathering of citizens, we put up a whiteboard and we ask the citizens in the room, give me the top priorities you think republican majorities in congress should be focusing on. we wrote 20 priorities that came from the citizens of oklahoma or the citizens of texas or, for that matter, the citizens of any of the 50 states, those top 20 priorities, at least 18 of them would appear nowhere on leadership's priority list. on the other hand, if you drive just down the street in washington to "k" street, "k" street is the street in washington where the lobbyists primarily reside, where their offices are. if you get a gathering of corporate lobbyists that represent giant corporations and you ask them their top priorities, the list that comes
out will not just bear passing similarity, it will be identical to the priorities of republican leadership. that's the disconnect. you know why we're not here fighting on this? because not giving taxpayer money to planned parenthood is not among the priorities of the lobbyists on "k" street. so leadership is not interested in doing it. that's the disconnect. leadership does know how to fight. just a couple of months ago dealing with the export-import bank, we saw leadership in both chambers go to extraordinary lengths, herculean procedural steps to try to reauthorize a classic example of corporate welfare, hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer-guaranteed
loans to giant corporations. now, for that leadership is incentivized. because those corporations hire lobbyists and those lobbyists distribute checks typically by the wheelbarrow. and there is no incentive greater in this body than getting reelected. and the view of leadership is, you get reelected by raking in the cash. how do you think we've gotten an $18 trillion national debt? because the way you reach bipartisan compromise in this body today, in the broken world of washington, is you grow and grow and grow government, you sit around in a room, you say, i'll spend for your priority, your priority, your priority your priority, another trillion dollars and we're done. the only people that lose are your children and mine. the only people that lose are the next generations who find themselves mired deeper and
deeper and deeper in debt. i think of my little girls, caroline and katherine. they're seven and four. if we don't stop what we're doing, your children and my children will face a debt so crushing they won't be able to spend in the future for the priorities of the future for their needs, for their wants, for whatever crises come up that the next generation confronts. they'll spend their whole lives simply working to pay off the debts racked up by their deadbeat parents and grandparents. no generation in history has ever done this to their children or grandchildren. our parents didn't do it to us. their parents didn't do it to them. the reason is the corruption of this town. and it boils down to a simple proposition. the democrats are willing to do
anything to push their priorities. and the republicans, the leadership, is not listening to the men and women who elected us. but it's actually -- it's an even deeper problem than that. on the democratic side, the major donors that fund the democratic party, they don't despise their base. the billionaires who write the giant checks that fund president obama and hillary clinton and the democrats on that side of the aisle, they don't despise the accurate gay rights movement or the radical feminist movement. the simple reality is a very large percentage of the republican donors actively
despise our base. actively despise the men and women who showed up and voted you and me into office. i can tell you when you sit down and talk with a new york billionaire republican donor -- and i have talked with quite a few new york billionaire republican donors, california republican donors, their questions start out as follows. first of all, you've got to come out for gay marriage, you need to be pro-choice, and you need to support -- that's where the republican donors are. you wonder why republicans won't fight on any of these issues? because the people writing the checks agree with the democrats. now, mind you, the people who show up at the polls who elected you and me and who elected this republican majority, far too many of the republican donors
look down on those voters as a bunch of ignorant hicks and rubes. that's why leadership likes show votes. it wasn't too long ago when the washington cartel was able to mask it all with a show vote or two. and they'd tell the rubes back home, see, we voted on it, we just don't have the votes. you know, when i was first elected to this body, many times i heard more senior senators saying some variation of the following. now, ted, that's what you tell folks back home. you don't actually do it. here's what's changed. the voters have gotten more informed. they now understand the difference between show votes and a real vote. they understand the vote we had a week ago on planned parenthood was designed to lose, to placate
those silly folks that think we shouldn't be sending taxpayer funds to a criminal organization that is selling the body parts of unborn children. but on the actual vote that could change policy, leadership has no interest in fighting whatsoever. you know, in the past couple of weeks, one of my colleagues sent me a letter that really embodied the leadership message. this letter said explain to me how you get 67 votes to defund planned parenthood. if you can't produce 67 votes, i won't support it. mr. president, if that is our standard, then we should all be honest with the men and women who elected us. we do not have 67 republican votes in this chamber, and there is no realistic prospect of our
getting 67 votes any time in the foreseeable future. if the standard is unless you get 67 votes, republican leadership will support no policy issue, then each of us when we run should tell the voters if you vote for me, i will support whatever policy agenda harry reid and nancy pelosi decide. because that's my standard. if i don't have 67 votes. do you ever recall harry reid and the democrats saying how could we get republican votes? no. their side is absolutely committed to their principles. you don't see them holding back at all. if the standard is how do we get 67 votes, name one thing that leadership will fight for. well, the answer, i mentioned there are three types of votes. they will fight for big government. they will fight to grow government. they will fight to expand
corporate welfare. well, that can indeed get 67 votes. but i have never been to a town hall once where citizens said to me the problem is we don't have enough corporate welfare, i need more subsidies for big business. if 100% of the agenda's republican leadership is more subsidies for big business, what the heck are you and i doing in the senate in the first place? that certainly wasn't why i ran, and i know it wasn't why you ran either. you don't have to win every fight. you don't have to fight every fight. but you do have to stand for something. and let's look beyond planned parenthood for a minute. let's look to iran. of all of the decisions that the obama administration has made, there may be none more damaging
than this catastrophic iranian nuclear deal. if this deal goes through, there will be three consequences. number one, the obama administration will become quite literally the world's leading financier of radical islamic terrorists. now, when i said that a couple of months ago, president obama got very, very upset. he said it was ridiculous that i would say such a thing. but despite attacking me directly, president obama didn't actually endeavor to refute the substance of what i'd said. so let's review the acts. fact number one, iran is today the world's leading state sponsor of terrorists. that fact is undisputed, even by
this administration. fact number two, if this deal goes through, over $100 billion will go directly to iran, to the ayatollah khamenei. and fact number three, if that happens, billions of those dollars will go to hamas, to hezbollah, to the houthis, to radical islamic terrorists across the globe who will use those billions to murder americans, to murder israelis and to murder europeans. you know, mr. president, it's worth remembering 14 years ago this month the horrific terrorist attack that was carried out on september 11. osama bin laden hated america, but he never had billions of dollars. he never had $100 billion. the ayatollah khamenei hates
america every bit as much as osama bin laden did. and this administration is giving him control of over $100 billion. imagine what bin laden could have done. look at the damage he did with 19 terrorists carrying box cutters. now imagine that same zealotry with billions of dollars behind it. the consequences of this deal could easily be another terrorist attack that dwarfs september 11 in scale, that kills far more than the roughly 3,000 lives that were snuffed out. who in their right mind would send over $100 billion to a theocratic zealot who chants death to america? a second consequence of this catastrophic deal is that we're
abandoning four hostages, four american hostages in iranian jails. pastor saeed abedini, an american citizen. his wife lives in idaho. i visited with name many times. pastor saeed has two little kids who desperately want their daddy to come home. pastor saeed was sentenced to eight years in prison for the crime of preaching the gospel. just last week was the three-year anniversary of pastor saeed's imprisonment. reports are that he is being horribly mistreated, that his health is failing. and yet president obama cannot bring himself to utter the words pastor saeed abedini. $100 billion to the ayatollah khamenei, and pastor saeed
abedini remains in prison. also in proven is amir hekmati, an american marine the president has abandoned. also in prison is jason rezaian, a "washington post" reporter. i note to the reporters in the gallery, a colleague of yours, abandoned by president obama in an iranian prison, thrown in jail for doing his job reporting on the news. and robert levinson, whose whereabouts remain unknown. why does the president refuse even to utter their names? a third consequence of this deal is this deal will only
accelerate iran's acquiring nuclear weapons. now, the administration claims that the deal will prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. why? because they promise not to do it. we have learned from iran they break their promises over and over and over again. and what we do know is that they will have an extra $100 billion to develop nuclear weapons with now -- i will say the administration has laughingly suggested, well, they will use that on infrastructure to rebuild their roads, to rebuild their energy industry. right now they're sending vast sums to hamas and hezbollah, funding terrorism across the world, and they have those same infrastructure needs. with another $100 billion, you don't think they're going to funnel an awful lot of it to developing nuclear weapons.
and i would point out it is not by accident that the ayatollah khamenei refers to israel as the little satan and iran as the great satan -- and america as the great satan. this is the one threat on the face of the earth that poses a real possibility of millions of americans being murdered in the flash of an eye. now, everything i'm saying, the republican leadership has said over and over again. and yet, republican leadership refuses to enforce the terms of the iran review legislation, federal law that the administration is defying by not handing the entire deal over. i have laid out a clear path, a detailed path that leadership can follow to stop this deal. leadership refuse toss do so. instead, -- refuses to do so. instead, we had a show vote that was designed to lose, and it did exactly what we expected. the democrats by and large put party loyalty above the national
security of this country, bofg standing with israel, above protecting the lives of millions of americans. if we really believe what so many of us have said, that this poses the risk of murdering millions of americans, is there any higher priority? the most powerful constitutional tool congress has is the power of the purse. if we had the ability to stop this deal and don't and millions of americans die, how do we explain that to the men and women who elected us? look, i'm not advocating that we fight willy-nilly. i'm advocating that we fight on things that matter. don't give $500 million to planned parenthood, a corrupt organization that is taking the lives of vast numbers of unborn children and selling their body parts in a criminal conspiracy
directly contrary to federal law, and don't give $100 billion to the ayatollah khamenei who seeks to murder millions. in both instances, those are defending life. and yet republican leadership is not willing to lift a finger. if only all the people who might be murdered by a nuclear weapon could create a pac in washington and hire some lobbyists, maybe leadership would listen to them then. but the truck driver at home, the waitress at home, the school teacher at home, the pastor, the police officer, the working men and women, the washington cartel doesn't listen to them. and i'll note where this deal is headed. in december, when this dirty continuing resolution expires,
leadership is already foreshadowing they plan to bust the budget caps. why? we talked about it at the beginning. barack obama has discovered, he says the word shutdown, and republican leadership screams, surrenders and runs to the hills. so obama, understanding that quite well, says if you don't bust the budget caps, i'll shut the government down. and republicans, in this bizarre process, republican leadership will blame whatever obama does on other republicans. you noticed how much energy leader mcconnell devotes to attacking conservatives? you notice how much energy speaker boehner develops to attacking conservatives. just yesterday the speaker of the house went on national television, and on national television, he directed an
obscene epithet at me personally he's welcome to insult whomever he likes. i don't intend to reciprocate. but when has leadership ever showed that level of venom, that level of animosity to president obama and the democrats who are bankrupting this country, who are destroying the constitution, who are endangering the future of our children and grandchildren, who are retreating from leadership in the world and have created an environment that has led to the rise of radical islamic terrorism? you know, one of the dynamics, mr. president, we've seen in fight after fight is harry reid and the democrats sit back and laugh. why? because it's republican leadership that leads the onslaught, attacking conservatives saying, no, you can and we won't do anything to stop obamacare. no, you can't and we won't do anything to stop planned
parenthood. no, you can't and we won't do anything to stop iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. if republican leadership really believes we can accomplish nothing, then why does it matter if you have a republican house or senate? every two years come october, november, we tell the voters it matters intensely. to paraphrase the immortal words of hillary clinton, what difference does it make? if the standard for republican leadership is anything that gets 67 votes we'll support. that means harry reid and nancy pelosi remain the de facto leaders in the senate and the house. and i would note, by the way, if in december leadership goes through with their promise to bust -- not promise, but their suggestion to bust the budget caps, they will have done something astonishing. historically, the three legs of
the conservative stool have been fiscal conservatives, social scerveth conservatives, national conservatives, through the budget caps leadership will have managed to abandon all three. no wonder the american people are frustrated. no wonder the american people do not understand why leadership isn't listening to them. the presiding officer: the gentleman's postcloture time has expired. mr. cruz: i ask unanimous consent that my time be extended.
mr. daines: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from mt. -- montana. mr. daines: i have one unanimous consent request for the committee to meet during today's session of the senate. it has apl approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that this request be agreed to and this request be printed in the record.
the presiding officer: without objection. mr. daines: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of calendar number 196 and 197 and on the nominations on the secretary's desk in air force, army, and navy, that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order, that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. daines: i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. daines: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 180, s. 599.
the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 180, s. 599, a bill to extend and expand the medicaid emergency psychiatric demonstration project. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. daines: i further ask that committee reported substitute be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. daines: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of senate resolution 271, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 271 recognizing the 100th anniversary of dinosaur national monument and designating october 4, 2015, as dinosaur national monument day.
the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. daines: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. daines: i understand that there is a bill at the desk. the presiding officer:. the presiding officer: the clerk will read of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 2089, a bill to provide for investment in clean energy and so forth and for other purposes. mr. daines: i now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection having been heard the bill will be read for a second time on the next legislative day. mr. daines: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m., tuesday, september 29.
following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their usual use later in the day. following leader remarks the senate resume consideration of the message to accompany h.r. 719 postcloture. further, that all time during the recess or adjournment of the senate count postcloture on the motion to concur with amendment number 2689. finally, that the senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. daines: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned
president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: a new senate majority calm to office this majority calm to office this is the majority came to office is here with a different outlook on government funding from the previous majority. first, we passed a budget. then we looked across the aisle and passed a new committee that dozens of bills necessary to fund the government. that's the first time any of these things had happened in six
long years. our common sense of perch represented real hope that with the necessary cooperation from across the aisle a new and better way of funding the government was actually possible democrats initially gave americans reason to believe they might he ready to offer that bipartisan cooperation. democrats gave bipartisan committee backing to nearly all of the dozen government funding bills and a majority of these bills attracted support from at least 70% of democratic appropriations committee members. democrats even brag about supporting these funding bills in press releases to their constituents. but this was before it democrats hatched their filibuster summit plan. in other words block all the government funding bills in the hopes of provoking a crisis democrats might exploit to grow the irs and the d.c. bureaucracy. as result is a democratic
leaders declare that they would use procedural votes to prevent the full senate from even debating the same funding legislation members of their party had erred in braised in their press releases to their media. democrats even voted repeatedly to block the funds to our military. think about that. funds for our military. it would have been cynical enough for our colleagues to block the bipartisan defense funding bill democrats have hailed as a win, win, win and a victory for their states in press releases. at a time of unparalleled international crises threat seemed to mount, less by the data by the hour. yet last week democrats voted against the bipartisan bill for pay raises and medical care for our troops. it was really strange. i wish i could say it would only be extreme position our democratic friends took last
week. on thursday senators were given a choice between funding women's health and the scandal racked political organization called planned parenthood. republicans stood up for women's health. democrats stood up where their political friends. i think democrats will come to regret their continued registration of the needs of the fire leapt over women, over military over seemingly everything else. the question before us now is how to keep the government open in the short-term given the realities we face. here is what the president the right to life had to say on the matter. this is the presence of national right to life. they are two different roads we can take. one is to insist that no more money go to planned parenthood and cause the government shutdown, which interestingly enough won't actually result in the funding planned parenthood
anyway. the other is to take a slightly longer-term approach taking advantage of the fact that we have the attention of the country is probably never before. had democrats have prevented the passing of the same bills they voted for them. we wouldn't have this discussion right now but they did. they received a deliberate strategy to to force the country into another of these unnecessary crises. this leads to funding legislation as the only viable way forward in the short-term. it doesn't represent my first, second, the herder 23rd choice when it comes to funding the government. but it will keep the government open through the fall and funded at the bipartisan level already agreed to by both parties as we work on the way forward. madam president i ask unanimous consent that all times during the quorum calls until 5:30 be
charged equally between both sides. >> is there objection? without objection. >> madam president. >> the democratic leader. >> another manufactured showdown is waiting for us now. the senate will vote to invoke cloture on a clean resolution accused the opening -- the government open about it. we want to the debate to continue and that's why we are voting the way we are. find out passage of the clean funding measure sometime tomorrow wednesday. i regret we are in the first of another republican shutdown of the federal government. fortunately cooler heads are prevailing but i would be remiss if i didn't -- my republican colleagues that this lot minutes scramble for one of our basic jobs is as unnecessary as it is reckless previous two days away from a shutdown, only two days and why? because republicans deleted
their number one party to fund women's health serving the mac and people as the secretary concerned for these extremists and the republican party. the republican leader talked about this vote two days ago, the choice between he said planned parenthood i say the health of women. understand madam president the republicans couldn't get a majority vote on this. couldn't get a majority vote. they were down in the 40s so it even republicans think what is going now -- on now is foolish. keeping government open and funded and serving american people was a secondary concern for these extremists. that's too bad. i'm please that we now are going to avoid a shutdown program nonetheless concerned about the republican -- bike governing always by crisis.
remember this is the fifth time in two years that republicans have manufactured a shutdown crisis. two years ago they actually shut the government down for 17 days. republican shutdown the government and we were only able to get ourselves out of that morass because for example in the house of representatives two-thirds of the republicans in the house voted to keep the government closed. unbelievable. but that's the way it was. here it is now two years later and we are on the verge of another shutdown. remember this. the fifth time in two years since republicans have manufactured an unnecessary shutdown crisis and it is a showdown. two years ago as i indicated the shutdown of the federal government because of health care.
now, seven months ago republicans almost shutdown homeland security. why? the immigration issue. the department of homeland security shutting down. it was saved by the last-minute. i should say in the last-minute. mr. president these are the agencies within this department to protect us, protect us from those many things that happen in our country that we need protection from. this past spring the shutdown key national security programs the intelligence surveillance act. why? they were fighting among themselves. republican leader wanted a certain length of time. it was a fight among them, not among us particularly close to wreaking havoc. they did wreak some havoc as the programmer shut down for a while.
republican shutdown the export-import bank and injuring hundreds of thousands of jobs this program supports. it was still closed. now we are just days from another shot down. the disaster is looming yet we still have a long and difficult road ahead. the continuing resolution if passed this week is the short-term funding is through december 11. the measure is really short-sighted. that means within the coming weeks negotiating with the president to avoid another shutdown. we also have to find a way to pair bills to avoid a catastrophic default. republicans tried that once. we came within minutes of doing that. the federal government this great country of ours wouldn't be able to pay its bills.
but we see the press. we see all the stories about the speaker who stepped down in five weeks and republicans are joyous one republican running for president announced and there was cheering and the person running for president who serves in the senate as part of the cheer. another republican president took became and the same thing happened. it is hard to comprehend people are cheering for this government to be closed. that is what they are doing. we shouldn't pay our debt. republican house is in a sad state. last week the far right showed to depose this beaker who has appeared more outspoken than ever. i hope the election of sensible leaders.
i'm deeply concerned and i came here to the floor and friday and said honestly as i could in my respect for john boehner. i think it's unfair people are opining on that i always agree with him, nobody never misled me. always told me the way it was. i'm concerned that even those republican leaders previously claimed -- have lost the courage to stand up when it matters the most. that's too bad. come november 1 we have no way of knowing what house republicans will do. this is after their elections to replace congressman weiner. we have no idea what they are going to do whether they will trend against -- as numerous house members have said in the last few days. they want to go off that cliff. maybe both.
if one thing is clear republicans see pending catastrophes as a political tool that they need to exploit. the people don't want 15 more months of republican brinksmanship. we do want every past two turns of doomsday task. let's quit them put the shutdown to better it now and turn our attention to getting rid of the danger sequester cuts. i have heard speeches given by the senior senator from arizona someone who knows a little bit about the military. and he says sequester cuts are terrible. i agree with him. these devastating cuts were never supposed to happen. they were meant to drive bipartisan budget negotiations getting rid of sequestration is a wide or person sport in chambers. i hope. we have to start working on a bipartisan budget fix that
protects her military helps middle class puts her country a more sound economic footing and let's do it without the threat of a looming shutdown. we can do it but only if republicans don't divert us into another catastrophe. >> ones tonight is the deadline. on wednesday night the authority of the government of the united states to do business and the funding for our government and. it's a scary time. we don't want that to happen, most of us because we know it's catastrophic. there will be people who will suffer if we fail to do our job. this isn't the first time we have been up against a deadline. we have faced him before. many times we have to buy a little extra time to negotiate the budget. that's understandable. in this circumstance though we actually have announced candidates for presidency of the united states who are calling for a government shutdown.
what happens when our government shuts down? it's pretty obvious. agencies stop doing business as usual. what we find is the impact of those go far beyond just that simple statement. i went back to illinois this last weekend and i took a visit to scott air force base. its largest single employer in the state of illinois and downstate. in 2013 the last time we had a government shutdown the junior senator from texas senator ted cruz wanted to shutdown their government to protest obamacare. and so he successfully closed down the government and found other republicans who were joining in that effort and it went on for a long period of time. in 2015 at scott air force base one of the most important defense facilities in our country at scott air force base
in belleville illinois we saw two-thirds of the civilian workforce and 3400 people sent home immediately without pay. those are required report for duty including all of the bases and military personnel were given an iou rather than paychecks. scott air force base families were forced to limit their spending and stretch their savings while the senator from texas gave speeches on the floor about stock or sues. i am not making this up. this had an impact on the entire region of southwestern illinois. scott air force base has a $1.6 billion economic impact on the local area including supporting thousands of indirect jobs. every part of this economy felt the impact of this decision to shut down the government two years ago. gas stations, restaurants, small businesses, contractors, everybody.
this brinksmanship goes far beyond flowery speeches on the floor and press attention. the last shutdown hurt the gross domestic product of the united states of america. consumer confidence drops when the government shuts down. we saw $2 billion in lost productivity from furloughed employees. federal reserve chairman janet yellen said we have a good recovery in place is really making progress and to see congress take actions that would endanger that progress i think that would be more than unfortunate. so to me that's congresses job. the ceo of jpmorgan chase a man named jamie dimon speaking at the last republican government shutdown said washington has really slowed america down. i agree. if that were the only thing that was happening it would be bad
enough but there is more. today i went to a neighborhood in chicago, the all saints episcopal church in ravenswood. they are doing restoration on this beautiful church that was built back in the 19th century and i met with the pastor there and we were at the food pantry of this church. this episcopal church tries to help neighborhood residents who are struggling to find enough to be. we had a little press conference with the local congressman mike quigley and jan jackowski and people who represented the food pantries of chicago land area. they were worried about a shutdown of whether shutdown means to them. how would it affect all saints episcopal church food pantry and the men and women who go in there on a regular basis to pick up canned goods to get by? here's what it means. many of these people are on food
stamps. the call of the s.n.a.p. program now. is that program on average gives a person food worth $7 a day so the notion that people are going out for steak dinners on boots damps is not accurate. serra, i will use her full name, who is 81 years old came up to talk about what life is like or her. she was a hard-working person stricken with cancer in 2002 there were occurred in 2004 and she had to quit working. she has a walker now. she gets around but all she has is her social security check and food stamps. and that's how she survives from week to week and month to month. what happens when there's a government shut down? they cut off food stamps. did that happen last time? now come the last time the senator from texas had done the government it didn't happen because president obama had a
surplus in his recovery fund. he took a surplus and put it in in -- put into goods and so there would be no interruption of service. most of the recipients of the food stamps are children. single moms raising kids who aren't making enough money supplement their income and buy food for the kids and elderly people like sarah who start with on a fixed income. this time it's different. if these presidential wannabes who are determined to shut down the government this time are successful we are going to have problems right away. if it turns out the only surplus left in the food stamp or a snap benefit fund is about $3 billion that will keep the program going for two weeks. after two weeks they cut off food stamps. what does that mean? for a lot of people it means a lot of suffering. i merely for the poorest people among us. did you notice last week what happened in washington and?
the senate was transformed by the visit of pope frances. congress was in awe of this man that came and spoke to us in very human terms about what he thinks would be our obligation not just as elected officials but as human beings. one of his highest priorities is that we have some caring insensitivity for those who struggle, the poor, the people on food stamps. for all the applause and all the posing for pictures last week with the pope here we are this week discussing a government shutdown discussing whether we are going to cut off food stamps were poor people in america. it's a sad reality to think of what the government shutdown would do in human terms to those wonderful folks working at scott air force base in belleville colon i work two sierra who will
go to all saints episcopal church food pantry and try to get by on food stamps cut off. why? why would we do that? how could we possibly be serving this great nation by spelling our economy and hurting innocent people and punishing those who are serving our country in uniform and otherwise? some think it's a grand strategy or it a recruiting strategy. from the smaller debate to the big time debate when it comes to running for president. for me it's an indication that we have lost our way. in june i joined the leaders on the side of the aisle sending a letter to the republican leader saying please don't wait until the end of september to face this budget reality. sit down now with the president, with the leaders on the republican side and democratic side. let us compromising good faith. let us meet our responsibilities.
that's what we face. as senator reid said a few minutes earlier, there is a suggestion that maybe has a parting gifts to speaker boehner we will extend the budget temporarily until december 11, 2 weeks before christmas, just days before the hanukkah season that we would extend the budget until then and then once again be up against a deadline and the prospect of shutting down our government again. we can do better. we should do better. we need to make certain that we keep faith with the people who sent us here. we need to make certain we do our job to not just send a continuing resolution to the present but to resolve this issue. we should not be threatening a government shut down now or in december. when we know how devastating it can be. i hope congress gets busy taking care of the work we were sent here to do.
i think it's time for those bipartisan budget negotiations, it's beyond time. now's the time for congress to act responsibly to develop a budget that allows america to thrive. >> the senate voted today to move forward with legislation that would authorize government spending through december 11. funding expires wednesday. the federal government would shut down without congressional funding. the bill that bans today includes money for planned parenthood. expect a final passage vote in the senate on the spending bill tomorrow. a pest and be approved by the house before being sent to the president for his signature.
>> governments today have a vital role in i ken. they did not directly make policy. they cannot have a seat on our board of directors. this is very much in fact a triumph of showing how a private sector lead institution that has the government as an important advisory body but then has a broader base of decision-making that is private sector including input from the technical community and civil society and academics etc. but that is advice that informs the policy and the board activities are incorrect and the fact that government are continuing to play an advisory role to what we do.
>> u.n. general assembly met today in new york with speeches from president obama and russian president vladimir putin. you can see those speeches in their entirety on our companion network c-span. after the house of representatives recesses for the night. right now here in c-span2 a brief review of the remarks from president obama and putin. >> i think the strongest military the world has ever known. and i will never hesitate to protect my country or our allies unilaterally and by force where necessary. but i stand before you today believing in my core that we the nations of the world cannot return to the old ways of conflict and coercion. we cannot look backwards.
we live in an integrated world one in which we all have a stake in each other's success. we cannot turn back those forces of integration. no nation in this assembly can insulate itself from the threat of terror or the risk of financial contagion. the flow of migrants or the danger of a warming planet. the disorder we see is not driven solely by competition between nations or any single ideology and if we cannot work together more effectively we will all suffer the consequences that is church for the united states as well. no matter how powerful our military how strong our military
impose order internationally, i believe in my core that repression cannot forge the social cohesion for nations to succeed. for 50 years the united states pursued a cuba policy that failed to improve the lives of the cuban people. we changed that. we continue to have differences with the cuban government, we will continue to stand up for human rights, buts we address the issues through people to people ties and increased commerce. as these contact yield progress, i am confidant our congress will lift an embargo that should not be in place anymore. [applause] >> pressure has also been
present in fighting terrorism in all forms. today we provide military and technical assistance to iraq and syria and many other countries of the regions are fighting terrorist groups. we have thing it is a mistake to refuse to cooperate with the syrian armed forces while fighting terrorism face to face. we should finally close that no one but the assault on force and the kurds militia are truly fighting the islamic state. we know about the troubles and contradicti contradictions in the region based on the reality. >> a signature feature of booktv is our all-day coverage of book fairs and festivals from across the country. in early october, the southern festival of books in nashville. then live from austin for the
texas book festival. and at the end of the month we cover the wisconsin book festival in madison and on the east coast the boston book festival. at the start of november, we will be in portland, oregon for word stock and then the national book awards in new york city and at the end of november live from florida for the miami book fair international for the 18th year in a row. that is a few of the fairs and festivals this fall on c-span2's booktv. tonight on c-span2, "the communicators" is next with the head of icann, the organization that governs internet domain names and addresses. donald trump unveils his tax perform policy. and spending to prevent a government shutdown and later a discussion about russia's increaset military involvement in ciancia's civil war.
-- increased -- >> c-span created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service from your local cable or satellite provider. >> host: fadi chehade is the president and ceo of the internet corporation of assigned names and numbers and he is our guest on the "the communicators." what is the current status of icann and its governance? >> guest: icann is a california non-profit organization that is very much in a state of solid governance. we have a board that is elected by the community and that board has been performing its function for years wh