the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is now closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed in executive session to consider the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary. rebecca goodgame ebinger of iowo be united states district judge for the northern district of iowa. the presiding officer: there
will be 30 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form. mr. isakson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator georgia. mr. isakson: i ask unanimous consent to address the senate a phs in 0 morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: on friday of last week, the state of georgia, the united states of america, and the aviation industry received notice that richard anderson, the c.e.o. of delta airlines would retire, a great career at delta airlines over the last decade. i want to rise for just a second and memorialize on the floor of the senate how much my state and how much the aviation industry owes to richard anderson. richard took over delta at a very critical time. delta was in difficult straits. he revitalizes the culture of the company. he revitalized the aviation industry in georgia mandate it a mark for awferl us to be proud of. in fact, in one year, two years ago, delta was one of the 50 most admired companies in the united states of america and led the world in terms of aviation
by "aviation magazine" but most importantly, richard anderson came to washington, d.c., when all the aviation industry was in trufnlt he was then at northwest. delta was having difficulties. he worked with me, and mike enzi and others to re-forum the pension reform act of 2005 and change the way pensions were calculated in order to save the pensions of delta airlines and many other airlines. his hands-on effort to revitalize that company have led to the most prosperous year in its year in 2016 and the most prosperous decade it's had. as he announces his leaving delta airlines for our things to do, i want to on the the floor of the senate commend him on all he's done to make delta airlines and the state of georgia great, all he's done for the economy for the country. i yield back my time. the presiding officer: the snrr iowa.
-- the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: today the senate will vote on the nomination of judge ebinger from iowa. i'm very pleased to be here to support her and urge all my colleagues to also support her nomination. i'm very proud of the work my colleague, senator ernst, and i have done to fill the vacancies in iowa's district courts by putting forward two exceptionally talented and qualified nominees, judges ebinger and stringer. i said this in committee but for the benefit of all members of the united states senate, the iowa nominees are two of the best judicial candidates the president has nominated during his presidency. to fill the vacancies in iowa, i set up a judicial selection commission and invited all interested iowa lawyers to apply. the ally cannots were vetted --
the applicants were vetted by highly qualified members of the iowa legal community. after spending hundreds of hours reviewing the applications, the commission interviewed all 39 applicants. 11 candidates of the 39 were then selected for a lengthy second round of interviews. at the end of the process, the commission sent their recommendations to me. in consultation with my fellow iowa senator, i was proud to recommend judges strand and ebinger to the white house. judges strand and ebinger have the highest credentials and character and will serve the state of iowa with honor and with distinction. now i'd like to tell you a little bit more about judge ebinger, because she's the one of the two that we're voting on today. judge ebinger received her
undergraduate degree in 1997 from georgetown university school of foreign service and her law degree from yale law school in 2004. she then served as a special assistant u.s. attorney in the united states attorney's office for the northern district of iowa in cedar rapids. there she prosecuted criminal cases involving narcotics, immigration, firearms offenses, and violent crimes. she then clerked for judge michael malloy on the eighth circuit for two years, also there in cedar rapids, iowa. following her clerkship, she moved to the united states attorney's office for the southern district of iowa as an assistant u.s. attorney. during this time, her practice shifted primarily to white-collar crime. she also handled intake from all
child support enforcement cases and sex offender registry violations. judge ebinger received a number of awards for her work with the united states attorney's office. in 2012, she was appointed to serve as a district judge in iowa state court system and was retained as a district judge in the 2014 election. as a state court judge, she presided over a court of general jurisdiction handling civil law and equity, criminal and family court proceedings. she's presided over 40 cases that have gone to verdict or trial. judge ebinger is a highly qualified, well-respected judge already, and i urge my colleagues to support her nomination today. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.
mr. grassley: mr. president, i ask for the calling of the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: and i yeeltd back time. -- and i yield back time. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, all time is yielded back. question occurs on the nomination. mr. grassley: ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. the clerk will now call the roll. vote:
the presiding officer: under the previous order the president will be -- excuse me. on this vote the yeas are 83. the nays are zero. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate will resume legislative action.
mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up toton minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. nor senator mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: thank you, mr. president. i rise today for the fifth time to ask unanimous consent for the approval for a vote for the ambassadors to norway and sweden. senator cruz has been objecting to this. i appreciate the bipartisan
support for these nominees. they made it through the committees without any objections. these are the 11th and 12th biggest investors in the united states of america. they are our allies. they are our allies in our fight against russian aggression. norway shares a border with russia, yet every major european country has an ambassador except norway and sweden. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination. this is systemmual heins, calendar number 263. that the senate proceed to vote without intervening action for debate on the nomination, if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senate majority leader. mr. mcconnell: on behalf of the junior senator from texas, i
object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. ms. klobuchar: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, that is to the country of sweden. that is azita rajiv, the senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination, if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mcconnell: mr. president, on behalf of the junior senator from texas, senator curksz i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, as i said, this has been a bipartisan effort to get these two nominees confirmed. there is no one holding up the vote on this nomination except for senator cruz. we ask him to remove these holds. he has not voiced any concerns about these individual nominees. he's voiced concerns about unrelated policy issues. there have been other holds in
the past, but everyone has lifted their hold. i note that even senator cotton of arkansas has said that there are no issues with the qualifications of these nominees understand that these nominees should -- and that these senators from should proceed to a vote. this is a fifth time -- the fifth time i've come to the floor. i've also been joined by senator cardin,. a senator: shaheen, by senator franken. this is something that has to get done. ms. klobuchar: listen to these numbers. sam heins has been waiting for 293 days to be confirmed as the u.s. ambassador to norway. azita raji has been waiting 474 days to be confirmed as the first female u.s. ambassador to sweden. both of these names are voted out of the senate foreign relations committee without controversy and with significant bipartisan support. not a single senator has
questioned the qualifications of sam heins or azita raji. that is because they are both equaleequally divideddified to they's-- --qualified to take these jobs. we have an ambassador in italy, france, to nearly every european nation but not these two scandinavian countries. more than 1,200 refugees seek asylum every single day. i cannot tell you how many times i've heard people on both sides of the aisle talk about how during this refugee crisis we need a strong and unified europe. and we need to be their allies and they need to be our allies. and while we may have disagreements on how to solve all of the refugee crisis, we have to at least give support to our allies who are taking in these refugees and sweden in fact accepts more refugee per pr
capita than any other country in the european union. norway expects to take in as many as 25,000 refugees this year. it has already provided more than $6 million to greece to help respond to the influx of refugees seeking a way to enter europe. all of us on both sides of the aisle have talked about this yet right now no ambassadors in those two critical countries. could i note, they have ambassadors from china, from russia, they have ambassadors. soy the people of their -- so the people of their country who love the united states, who respect the united states, who travel to the united states, say how come every major nation has an ambassador to our country but not the united states of america? we also understand the important economic contributions sweden and norway make to our country. these diplomatic relations are 200 years old.
that's why we have widespread support for these nominees. yet one senator -- how can one senator stand in the way of a vote affecting relations that are 200 years old? our economic partnership with these countries is enormous. sweden supports over 330,700 american jobs across 50 states in. case of norway, our trade partnership $16 billion -- $16 billion. $7 billion in exports, $9 billion in imports. leaving these countries without a u.s. ambassador is a slay slap in the face to their governments, their people and all of the american workers who are supported by swedish and norwegian investment in the united states. that is happening today. in addition to sam heins and azita raji, there are others
vital in our fight against terrorism. i will focus on these two nominees. you have two countries, norway and swede isn't, who are members of nato, who have joined us in the fight against islamic extremists, who have joined us in the fight against isis. this is no way to treat them. no way to treat them. i would also add, in kind of a combination of of our national security interests and economic interests, that norway has now purchased -- signed to purchase 52 fighter planes, 22 just recently, from lockheed martin. mr. president, those fighter plans are made in america. the country of norway could have decided to buy those fighter planes from any nation in the world. they could have bought those fighter planes from europe. where did they buy those fighter planes from? they bought them from the u.s. and from what company? lockheed martin. where is that company located? that company is located in texas. those fighter planes are made in fort worth, texas, senator
cruz's home state. so what do we say to norway when they invest $200 million, nearly $200 million a plane, 22 planes, so that they have strong national security, as we see russian aggression, as we see islamic extremism, as they join with us in fights cross the world? what do we say? well, you are not worthy of an ambassador. because one snorks the senator from the state where those fighter planes are made, from fort worth, texas, has decided to hold this up. what are we doing when we say to a major company in the u.s. that got a major deal with the foreign government that that government is not worthy of having an ambassador? what kind of encouragement do we make when we don't even let them have an ambassador? so this is one of many examples of what's going on and why the people are so angry. we have heard from the foreign minister. we have seen comments from people of no norwegian dissent d
swedish dissent that do not understand how this could be going on right now given everything europe confronting. so it is my hope that we will be able to work these things out. we've been given v.e. various reasons -- we've been given various reasons from letters that have been written to streets in front of embassies for this hold. but we're hopeful that sow we're going to be able-to-work this out. because one senator who is not even here in this chamber, day after day after day, when i return to put these names in or do we are not stopping. senator shaheen and i are going to come to this floor every single day and make the case for these countries. i'm hopeful that we will be able to resolve this. mr. president, i yield the floor.
the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: i ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with the junior senator from montana for 20 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: mr. president, i rise today to speak about a very important issue for our nation's judicial system and two bills that i and my colleague from montana have introduced. the bill's primary focus is what all of us in the united states senate want, and that is equal justice under the law. one of the bills would split the dysfunctional and unwieldily united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit. the other bill will form a commission to evaluate the court and make recommendations based on its findings.
now, mr. president, like a lot of us here, when i'm in washington, i like to get out and try to get a run in in the morning and look at the beautiful monuments, memorials, oftentimes i run past the u.s. supreme court and often look at the inscription etched under the beautiful court there that says simply, "equal justice under the law." i think of supreme court justice lewis powell's famous quote, "equal justice under the law is not merely the caption on the facade of the supreme court building. it is perhaps the most inspiring ideal of our society." "it's one of the ends for which our entire legal system exists." i also think of the thousands of
lawyers and judges and clerks, past and present, who have lived their lives attempting to fill this important ideal. and how our democratic system of government is dependent on striving for this ideal. mr. president, we should do everything in this body to make sure are that that simple concept, equal justice under the law, is a reality for all americans -- all americans should feel assured that when we seek justice, the burdens we encounter, the time we encounter to achieve justice, won't be smaller or greater depending upon what part of the country in which we live. but, unfortunately, mr. president, that is not the case. unfortunately, if you are a
citizen of the united states and you live in one of the states over which the u.s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit has jurisdiction over your legal issues in the administration of justice, one in five americans, they do not get equal justice under the law. and what our bills are focused on doing is righting that wrong. because the u.s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit is simply too large. its scope is too wide and it has long passed its ability to provide equal justice and to contribute as a functional court system in the u.s. court of appeals federal system in our country. this is no surprise,
mr. president. we've known this for decades. dividing the ninth circuit is not a new idea. it's not a radical idea. in fact, not doing it is what's radical. if you look at the history of the united states when federal courts of appeals have grown in terms of population, what has happened every time for decades, for well over a hundred years is that when the court grows too big, because the administration of justice grinds to a halt, the court is split. so you have that justice. so that's the usual course of american history. what's not usual is the refusal to do this. let me give you a few examples. in 1973, a congressionally chartered commission recommended to this body that for the administration of justice for
american citizens, the ninth circuit should be split. it actually recommended that the fifth and ninth circuits should be split. the fifth circuit was eventually split. but according to the commission, the ninth circuit, which said -- which it said had serious difficulties with backlog, delay and justice for americans, was not split. and it's only gotten worse. mr. president, let me give you a few facts. there are 65 million people living within the boundaries of the ninth circuit. that represents 20% of the total population of the united states, one in five americans. that is already -- that is almost two times as many people as there are in the next biggest u.s. court of appeals, the next biggest circuit. and it is almost three times the average population of all the other circuits combined.
but it's not just the size of this court. the caseload is what's inhibiting justice for americans under the ninth circuit. at the end of a 12-month period last year, the ninth circuit court of appeals had almost 14,000 pending appeals, the largest next court of appeals had about 4,700. justice delayed is justice denied. and in previous hearings in the united states senate, we found that it takes on average for the ninth circuit almost 40% longer to dispose of an appeal than in any other circuit in the count country. mr. president, this is simply a function of a court that is too big and too unwielwieldy.
because of the size and inefficiency of the court, the court has started to come up with creative short cuts, questionable procedural short cuts which i believe are shortchanging justice for tens of thousands of americans every year in this court of appeals. let me give you a few examples. every court in the united states federal system, in order to have uniformity of law, when they have difficult issues they meet as a court, what they call an en banc meeting. this provides uniformity in all the courts. there's only one court that doesn't do that because it has 29 judges, much more than any other court.
the ninth circuit does not meet as a whole court, and, therefore, it limits the ability to address intracircuit conflicts with no uniformity in the law of the ninth circuit. and you see that again and again and again. further and perhaps most alarming, again, because of its size, the ninth circuit is the only federal court of appeals where a nonelected, nonappoint nonappointed, non-article 2 judge, called an appellate commissioner, rules on matters by the thousands that should be handled by judges, by article 3, life tenured judges. not an appellate commissioner who is none of those things. in a 2005 congressional hearing, one of the ninth circuit judges testified -- quote -- "that the appellate commissioner resolved
4,600 motions that would otherwise have been heard by judges." mr. president, this is fast-food justice for one in five americans who are part of the ninth circuit. mr. president, i'm going to come down to the floor over the next several weeks and speak to my experience on the ninth circuit court of appeals. i had the opportunity, the honor, really, to be a judicial law clerk for one of the most esteemed judges, judges klinefield of fairbanks, alaska, many, many years ago. but i did see firsthand at how the unwieldy size of this court of appeals limits justice. not just for alaskans but for any citizen who is under the jurisdiction of this court. chief justice warren burger warned in 1970 that -- quote --
"a sense of confidence in the courts is essential to maintain the fabric of ordered liberty, for a free people." he cautioned that inefficiency and delay in our courts of appeals could destroy that confidence. mr. president, unfortunately as it's currently constituted, the ninth circuit is inefficient, it delays and, therefore, denies justice for millions of americans and we cannot allow the confidence to our system of justice to be undermined by continuing to have a court of appeals that is so large, so unwieldy. and that's what the senator from montana and i intend to do with our bills, to bring equal
justice for all americans. i turn to my colleague from montana for his views on this very important issue. mr. daines: i want to thank the junior senator from alaska and i appreciate him joining me in this most important effort and the leadership that he has demonstrated on this issue. as the junior senator from alaska knows, the ninth circuit court is broken. it is overburdened and it's unable to provide quality service and expeditious justice to the americans it is supposed to serve. when we offer the pledge of allegiance, we close with "and justice for all." as i frequently tell my staff, we in public service are ultimately in the customer service business. as u.s. senators, our number-one job is to represent and to serve
the people in our states. our courts should reflect the same serving mentality as they uphold their responsibility to justice. but when our courts are overburdened and overworked, it's the american people who are left underserved and waiting far too long for justice. unfortunately, under the current structure, the ninth circuit court of appeals is unable to provide americans in the west with the service they deserve. take a look at this chart behind me. at 64.4 million people served, the current ninth circuit is the largest circuit by population as well as the largest land area. as the junior senator from alaska will sometimes remind us, if they divide alaska in two, texas is the third largest state
in the nation. but it's not just about the geographical size of the west. look at the number of people that are served here in the ninth circuit. it includes montana and alaska. it includes washington, oregon, idaho, nevada, arizona, california and hawaii, not to mention several u.s. territories, guam and the noarcn mariana islands. that alone amounts to 20% of the nation's population. so let's put this in context. that's 85% larger than the next largest circuit which serves just 34.8 million people. and this chart illustrates that well. needless to say, the ninth circuit's caseload is significantly greater than any other circuit and that means backlogs and that means delays.
but not only is it larger, it's disproportionately larger. on average, the ninth circuit has had more than 32% of all cases pending nationally. as the junior senator from alaska mentioned, it currently has over 14,000 cases pending. and as you can see in this next chart behind me, that is three times more than the next closest circuit, the fifth circuit, which has around 4,700 cases pending. processing all of these cases takes time. in fact, on average, over the last five years, nearly 15 months from appeal to termination. it's time to take a serious look at how our court system can better serve the american people. and that's why senator sullivan and i have introduced two separate bills to address these
challenges. our bills would bring much-needed reform not just to the ninth circuit but also to the entire federal circuit courts of appeals system. the circuit court of appeals restructuring and modernization act would split the ninth circuit court of appeals into two circuits and it provides a more manageable balance of population and geography for both circuits so that western americans can be better served by our courts. the federal courts of appeals modernization act would establish a commission to study the federal circuit courts of appeals system and the identify changes needed to promote an expeditious and effective disposition of the ninth circuit caseload. now, keep this in mind. wouldn't we split -- when we split the circuits into a new ninth circuit and the 12th circuit, the ninth
circuit would still have a larger caseload than any other circuit. in the new ninth circuit's jurisdiction, there would be 40.8 million people. it would continue to maintain its status as first in population. in the 12th circuit's jurisdiction, this new circuit we would establish, there would be 24.3 million people, which makes it the seventh largest in population among the circuits. it's just a little bit below the average. those numbers alone should make it clear that reforms are need needed. and it's worth remembering that the challenges facing the ninth circuit have been long-standing and the efforts to find solutions are bipartisan. in fact, two prior commissions, one in 1973 and the other in 1998, which, by the way, was championed by california senator diane feinstein, both determined that the ninth circuit had an
overly burdensome size and scope and suggested that changes needed to be made to the structure of the federal courts of appeal. so it's time to move forward with concrete solutions to address this problem. the bills introduced by the junior senator from alaska and myself will do so. i was trained as an engineer. as an engineer, you identify a problem but the most important thing you do is you find the solution. we have a constraint, we have a capacity constraint which can be alleviated. we think about our communities and as our communities grow, we need to add more schools, add more teachers, add more police officers. we need to ensure that all americans have access to the justice that they deserve. it's time to split the ninth circuit. i want to thank the junior senator from alaska for championing this important issue and i look forward to working with you to find the remedy and
solution. mr. sullivan: and i want to thank my colleague from montana and his point in particular. the charts make a very compelling case but i think his point in particular about constraints, about when things get too large that they become an organization that can't function. a -- and i think sometimes when you look at the debate that's occurred previously about the ninth circuit, somehow we've gotten to the point where this is some kind of radical idea to split the ninth circuit. but if you look at the history of our country, the radical idea is actually not splitting the ninth circuit. the outlier position is not to take either a court that has this many cases pending or if you want to control this much of
the population and not do something about it. the history of this body, starting with the judiciary act of 1789 that created three circuit courts: eastern, middle and southern, and then only a few years later the congress acted again in 1802, a mere 13 years later and congress doubled the number of circuit courts to six. and what we've seen throughout our history is when this kind of situation exists where one court has an enormously oversized population, congress, as my colleague from montana mentioned, in a bipartisan manner acts. and they act for the sole reason to make sure all americans are
getting the effective administration of justice. and when your citizens wait longer than any other americans and have delays more than any other americans, and when your court that you're subject to the jurisdiction of starts to create procedural shortcuts, not a lot of which are known -- and we're going to talk about some of those over the next several weeks -- and no other court does that, you start to see that one in five americans are burdened by this and burdened by the lack of what the supreme court says, equal justice under the law. so i want to again thank my colleague from montana. i know he has some views on what would happen again if this doesn't happen in his state or in my state.
but this isn't just about the west. this is about all americans. we all deserve the same justice. and just by looking at these two posters, cases pending, as i talked about earlier, the time it takes to get appeals completed and the enormous population of just one circuit, what's clear to me is that the congress needs to act. and i'm honored to be working with my good friend from montana where we're offering the congress a variety of different ways to approach this. commission, a bill to split the circuit. but i want to again emphasize this is not a radical idea. the radical idea that is out of step with american history is to not do something about this. every time in america's history since the judiciary act of 1789,
when this type of situation has occurred, congress has acted and they've acted because they know equal justice under the law was at stake. mr. daines: i remember as we were raising our four children, sometimes it was late at night, maybe there was a sick child, i'd turn on "sesame street" with a child. i remember the one of these things is not like the other songs. as i look at this chart this could be a "sesame street" illustration here. one of these circuits is not like the other. it is such a stark contrast to what we see with the ninth circuit. with the disproportionate number of cases that are pending here in the ninth circuit, this is not that complicated of a problem in terms of trying to identify where the problem lies. it's simply a factor of constraints, and it starts with the population chart that my colleague from alaska has. but then it results in a
disproportionate share of cases coming out of that population. and that is why something must be done. these two prior commissions that have studied this before, the one in 1978, which, by -- 1973 which by the way determined in 1973 i was 11 years old. i was about "sesame street" age then. at that point they said the ninth circuit had an overly burdensome size, 1973. yet again in 1998 i'm grateful that california senator dianne feinstein was championing that commission as she was looking at the same issue then, 18 years ago to determine that the ninth circuit was overly burdened and suggested changes needed to be made to the structure of the federal courts of appeal. and so i look forward to working with my colleague from alaska as we have identified this problem
and look forward to a solution. if there's something we hear over and over and over again for the american people is you're not solving the problems facing this country. we have a problem. we have a solution. i look forward to vigorous discussions, continue to get more information, and look forward to the alternatives here. we think this is the best solution to split the ninth, add the 12th circuit. and even after that is done, you take the ninth and create the new 12th circuit, the ninth circuit is still the largest circuit by population in the united states. again, i want to thank the junior senator from alaska for taking on this effort. i look forward to continuing having this discussion. mr. sullivan: i appreciate my colleague's focus on this issue as well, and we're going to continue to be focused on this. i'll end by just mentioning, mr. president, he mentioned the "sesame street" adage, one of
these things is not like the other. one other area where this is are the case, as i mentioned before, is in the en banc procedures. that is when the court of appeals, every one of them in the country, with the exception of one, when they have difficult issues, they sit together. all the active judges sit together. this provides uniformity and predictability in these courts. but one, one of these courts is not like the others. the ninth circuit can't do this. it's too big, so they have developed what's called a limited en banc review which by definition is incorrect and an oxymoron because en banc means the whole court. so that's why you have so many opinions in this court that are not uniform, that are problematic and that undermine the administration of justice for the one in five americans
who are subject to this court's jurisdiction. i look forward to working with this -- with my good friend, the senator from montana and members of both sides of the aisle. this should be a bipartisan issue from every member of this body who wants to make sure their citizens have equal justice under the law. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senate majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that on tuesday, february 9 at 2:15 the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: calendar number 464, that the senate vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination, that if confirmed the senate be immediately notified of the senate's action and senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to immediate consideration of s. res. 366.
the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 366 recognizing the cultural and historical significance of lunar new year. the presiding officer: object be 0 to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to the motions be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 11:00 a.m. tomorrow, tuesday, february 9. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. further, that following leader remarks the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. finally the senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 to allow for the weekly conference meetings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: if there is no further business to come before the senate i ask that it stand
[inaudible conversations] if now that the public health announcement is out of the way we can go back to other questions. >> can you talk about what was decided with emergency spending request? >> i am glad that you raise that. with his team including public health experts to insure that the necessary steps are taken to protect the public. the resources required was not discussed. i can tell you even over the weekend our experts at the white house and the cbc and
we are talking about inappropriate set of proposals to put forward. this is moving on a pretty quick tie line. and you can see the nation's public health experts are working quickly to protect the american people. >> and they said it will not hold hearings and i want to get the white house reaction and how difficult between though white house and congress? >> there was a lot of bipartisan praise for what congress undertook last year to find common ground on a range of budget issues. to adequately invest in the
economic and national security priorities requires both sides to compromise and the legislation up was imperfect but critical to move the country for word. the last couple of months we have seen republicans in congress abandoned that approach. because they don't relish the opportunity to have a discussion about those budget priorities it may be an indication to avoid tough questions to take a page from the playbook that is unfortunate to coherent prioritize budget to reflect the need to expand economic opportunity as well as is keeping the american
launched with ballistic missile technology. i think that robust response around the world indicates just how isolated north korea is. it is a clear indication that they agree with the united states. handed is entirely inconsistent with the united nations security council resolution. a number have already occurred and last week in advance of the lunch to discuss an appropriate response to the provocations. we have already been in touch with the president's counterparts in south korea and japan with both allies said the united states to speak with the leaders of those countries here in the
next 24 hours with the time difference scheduling those is a little more challenging. in the united states remains committed to the safety and security of our allies in south korea and japan and there is a discussion about this because it leads to the terminal high altitude inside the missile system and as a result of this launch to begin for moral dash formal consultations about moving equipment and technology into south korea to protect our allies. and we're having formal discussions about that.
>>. >> there is an agreement about the impact will response being necessary. considering a range of economic sanctions and it would also mean a clear signal an additional clear signal from the international community we have welcome to the statements we have seen from other senior chinese officials how the fine north korea provocative action
just as we do it we will work closely with the chinese and other allies to respond to what is notable they have closer relations with north korea than anyone else and we will work with them on how to use that influence to nudge them in a direction is. >> [inaudible] >> i did not see the comments from the chancellor of our position has been and to enable the assad regime these are military actions
conducted in rebel-held areas but the civilians are the victims that has led to an atrocious humanitarian situation and a bunch of communities. and we continue to be concerned about this and speak out aha pull dash in those that are enabling them there are a variety of reasons to have those innocent civilians inside as syria but at the steady pace of military action has proven to be a stumbling block. there is a political transition that is long overdue and that since of chaos from those challenges
there and the only way to solve that is if they leave power. we are eager to advance those political discussions to see that transition take place to be a constructive contributor to that process. >> but to have that impact has stalled out waiting for the next president in with those negotiations. >> i will remind you the offer to extend it was one that the prime minister made when he traveled to israel. this is a national security priority of the united states for nearly three
years now. since visiting here at the white house the discussions of a memorandum of understanding in with those talks said ocher. in those talks taking place with the third round in jerusalem so we have been intensively involved in these conversations and we continue to believe the kind of discussions that we have had would preserve in the middle east and national security priority has been advanced in what we are
interested in protecting. it is no secret that the conversations are taking place of a rather challenging budget environment in the united states. so there are some realities. but they are geared toward convincing our goals of deepening cooperation to protect the qualitative and to further insurer that our coordination with the israelis continues to be unprecedented. >> these came up in the competition's and the president to give them the heads up.
afraid of influence in the region to create an ambassador and why will they put pressure on north korea? to think i am careful to predict on what steps they believe are necessary all the we engage in a private conversations between president obama. but as it relates to that deployment that the equipment and technology is
geared solely at the risk posed by north korea and retake these obligations quite seriously. that is exactly what this technology is intended to redress. >> given china's relationship to have a better position to do that than anybody else second just from the last 24 or 36 hours you make in the public statements a provocation and destabilizing actions the
other relevant players in the region who have a clearly vested interest. so these topics are under discussion there is no denying that important role to have more of the relationship. >> given how long it is taking for the united nations to act. >> i would not rule out but there are already severe restrictions in place that significantly limits if not prohibit economic transactions between the united states. so what is relevant that the
north korean economy isn't as if they are engaged in a significant number of financial transactions in the international system if there were they would be more vulnerable to the kinds of sanctions that have pressure on iran for example,. so that is why we would explore the kinds of steps taken in close coordination to be critical to our success that these financial sanctions that were imposed have the impact. . .
policy that beijing is the centerpiece of any legislation the united states has? >> i will let the chinese note the action they took. the chinese did send a high ranking government official to go to north korea last week to discuss concerns with their provocative actions. if it goes to whether or not china is taking these seriously, that is one data point to indicate they are. i think the strong public statements that we are seen from high ranking chinese officials is another indication they take this seriously. the frequent telephone conversations between the two
presidents should show this is a primary concern. and the days they are talking days after this is another indication the chinese view the north korean situation a significant one. but the questions is how can the chinese use their influence to advance the interest of the entire international community and again that is among the discussions underway at the united nations. >> and they will meet with other asian leaders and will north korea become more of an agenda item now? >> it could. the countries with the most significant stake in this particular situation are countries in northeast asia. but i am confidant there are other asian countries that are noticing the actions of the north koreans. i wouldn't rule out this could be a topic of conversation when
the president travels to company later this week. >> would you agree without china north korea would essentially fall apart? if you do agree, is there pressure that can be flipped on china from the united states to get them to get north korea to behave in a way that is more appropriate internationally? it seems to me that unilateral sanctions, while they have come affect, are relatively limited in getting the response the united states wants from the north koreans. so is now the time put more pressure on china directly? >> this is a good question. the first thing that is important to understand is the north korean economy is already weak. there are millions of north koreans that are suffering because of the way the government continues to run that country. they continue to be isolated and
that means millions of innocent north koreans don't have regular access to food and other basic necessities. so i think that is the first thing. i think that should tell you a lot about the current state of the north korean economy. what is clear is they are using a significant portion of the resources that they do have to invest in a nuclear program and a missile program both of which are specifically prohibited by the international community, specifically the united nations. so that is the first thing. i think the second thing is as i was mentioning to margaret there are a number of indications based on what we have seen publically from the chinese that they take this situation carefully. they do that was they are concerned about the activities of north korea on their own
national security. this is an area where some of the in the of the united states and china are aligned and that is why we have been able to work together to coordinate our response. we want our response coordinated are russia and our allies in japan and south korea. there is also no denying the steps we have taken has been in sufficient to compel the north koreans to start abiding by their widely accepted international obligations. that is why ambassador power alluded to we need a broader conversations about additional steps that will put pressure on the north koreans that will get them to start dialing back the provocations. and there is no denying that given their closing relationship
with north korea or the fact their relationship is closer with north korea than others that the chinese will play a central role. >> are say playing both sides of the aisle? it seems like they are saying all of the right things publ publically but on the other hand they are not getting much reaction from the north korean president. >> first of all, i think given the consistency of their public comments and given the, i think the pretty -- what appears to be obvious from the outside is that china doesn't significantly benefit from the destabilizing provocative behavior of north korea. i think that is why we can be confidant the chinese are
genuinely concerned about what the north koreans are doing. i think it is hard to make the case china benefits from the discussion we are having. we feel like china can be a partner with the rest of the international community in to resolve this situation. that is something we talk with the chinese all the time and something president obama talks to president chi every time they talk. >> a government affairs committee says about 500,000 people were given siphons or tax credits improperly for obamacare despite not qualifying for assistance. the argument that the senate government affairs committee is making is that these people were not even leer legally. to the tune of 700 million
taxpayer dollars. does the administration believe using that sort of money for people here unlawfully is a good use of our resources even if it is for the affordable care act and subsidies and tax credits? >> i have not read the specific report, kevin. but we have been specific on a number of aoccasions about what the law says. the law doesn't allow those in the united states unlawfully to benefit from subsidies provided by the affordable care act. that is what the law says and this administration is serious about enforcing the law. i cannot confirm the facts and figures in the report but there significant resources that are devoted to insuring when a subsidy is provide today anyone under the affordable care act whether that person is a citizen or not that we are liking at their income level and confirming they are eligible to receive those subsidies. and individuals who are not
legal residents of the united states are not eligible to collect subsidies under the affordable care act. >> would you support taking back some of the money? >> for exactly how to recover that money i would refer you to the treasury depart. but there are some situations that are entirely consistent with the law where this has to be worked out. when you file for health insurance your eligibility for a subsidy is based on the income that you report in the previous year. individuals may get a raise, another job where they are paid more which means they would not qualify for as much assistance. all of that is calibrated when people fill out their income tax returns at the end of the year. there is a mechanisms for insuring the subsidies are accurately provided based on the
amount of income that an individual says they are eligible for. mary? >> back on the nickel defense system. why now? why do you think you are seeing this entering of the formal discussions now? >> i think in this situation we see that despite unprecedented international isolation north korea continues to engage in very provocative behavior seeking to advance their ba ballistic missile programs and this is prohibits under a series of united nation counsel resolutions. this is a threat that our south korean aallies are concerned about. we have begun formal consultation with them about
locating additional equipment that could be used to protect that koupt country from the ballistic missiles being developed by the north korea. >> one question on the campaign trail. are you feeling any de juvu regarding bill clinton attacking the other snz >> i have not seen the comments firsthand but he is obviously proving he can be a forceful and persuasive supporter for any candidate he backs. there is no doubt that president obama's campaign didn't benefit from the advocacy of bill
clinton and i am sure hillary clinton is doing the same. >> can we go back to north korea? in the past where the president struggled to get the kind of response he wanted from chinchi thinking back to 2010, he suggested and hinted he might be forced to put more americans in the area and in the case of other problems he increased aircraft. would he rule out such a course in this case? and the second question is having done the iran nuclear deal does the president view north korea as world's number one proliferator? >> let me back up and do one thing i meant to mention earlier which is is that the american people should take reassurance that not just in response to
this incident but the last several years the commander and chief, president obama, has ordered a significant ramping up of resources that could be used to protect the united states and our allies from north korea's ballistic missile program. so there has been a deployment of two ballistic missile warning radars to japan that could be used to counter north korea's ballistic missile program. and the second thing here is we have seen an increased of deployment egypt ballistic missile defense ships to the pacific region mindful of the ricks in north korea. there is a fad battery that has been sent to guam. a few years ago a fad battery was stabbed in guam. and additional ballistic missile defense systems were located in
alaska in 2014 mindful of the threat. so there has been an increase in military deployment because of north korea's destabilizing activities in this area of the wor world. i am not aware of any specific plan at this point to carry out a military operation or deployment to exert greater pressure on the chinese. we are engaged in diplomatic discussions with them and with others about an appropriate response. and again the public comments we have seen from china are entirely consistent with the concernof concerns of the united states and our allies in south korea expressed. we have seen china take steps to defind a high ranking diplomat
and discuss with north korea leaders some of the provocative reaction. so the response is consistent but there is no doubt we don't deny china has a special influence on the north koreans given their relationship and we are hoping they will use that to advance the interest of the international community and we will be in conversations with them as they do that. [inaudible question] >> let me check on whether an assessment like that exist. we are concerned about the risk of proliferation from north korea. and the proliferation threat from iran has of course been significantly diminished because of the international agreement preventing them from getting a nuclear weapon. if you are ranking them among the list and iran were ranked
above north korea that is no longer the case. but whether or not anybody ranks above north korea? let me check with our experts and get back to you. >> the u.s. allies have been asked to contribute more to the anti-isis mission and now we hear canada is backing out of the mission. is that a blow? >> the president of canada when campaigning last year talked about a commitment to officially call back the canadian fighter jets that had been engaged in counter isil strikes with our coalition. the discussion the president had with the president of canada today was focused on the new
commitments we obtained from the canadians. he agreed to ramp up the contributions when it comes to the assets that can be helpful in offering some training to iraqi security forces. we have found that the tangible benefits are being enjoyed by the isil coalition as a result to train up the iraqi security forces. a commitment from canada allows us to expand on those efforts. we welcome that contribution. the canadians announced a commitment of humanitarian assistance helping the syrians f fleeing the violence. so that is indicative of the close relationship the united states and canada enjoy particularly when it comes to
mutual national security. we will continue to have conversations with the canadians about the aconditidditioadditio can take to improve the security. >> this is caused not the most transparent administration and secretary clinton was in the administration. does the white house have thoughts about if she should release the transcripts of her -- and publish them for transparency? >> look, the speeches she gave were speeches she gave after she left the administration. i think that is why i think i am going to defer to secretary clinton and her team to make it decision on whether those speeches are able to be released
and if they should be. i know she was asked about this directly last week and she indicated she would take a look at but i don't know the conclusion reached. >> one more. senator mark rubio got tripped up this weekend on the debate over a question about president obama. the response was it is a long ranging criticism of his that the president knows what she is doing and that is trying to make the united states like the rest of the countries around the world. do you have any comments? >> i think my observation is when you have a candidate who runs for the presidency vowing to expand economic opportunity for the middle class it is not a coincident that policies were enacted that allowed america to overcome the worst economic downturn since the recession.
when you have a president who runs on a platform of addressing so many of the problems that plagued our health care system in this country, including people having to be bankrupt because someone in their family gets sick, it is not a coincidence that we have laws on the book that reform the health insurance system and prevent individuals from being discriminated because of a pre-existing condition and seeing the uninsured rate in this country and the health care cost inflation rates at all-time lows. it is not a coincidence when you have a candidate running for office and going where it is necessary with the troops to take osama bin laden on the battlefield and that is a testament to the courage and bravery of the men and uniform but also a test to the policies
pursued by president obama. i could go on and on and i will spare you. but anyone who wants to look at the results can evaluate for themselves whether or not president obama followed through in doing what he said he would do. >> if i could talk about this what the white house event to the olympians who could be concerned that are representing the united states? >> i think you should ask your doctor first not the white house secretary. my second advice is check out the cdc website. there are places like brazil where the zika virus is being transmitted and again had biggest risk is associated with
pregnant women. we want to be sure they are aware of the facts and they can make the decision about whether or not they should travel to the region and if they do what steps they can take to protect themselves from the virus. >> question on libya. the administration has been putting out stories about the ground isis has lost in syria and iraq and making gains there. but libya is a difsht story with 5,000 fighters and no central government there since 2011. some folks in the military find more should be called for on had ground. is the administration looking at more u.s. assets on the ground in libya to combat the growing terror problem there? >> the efforts of forces on the
ground have retaken 40% of the territory inside iraq. this is where isis used to control and no longer do. we have seen isil has lost 20% of the populated area they recently controlled. that is a testament to our efforts against isis in that region. we have tried to focus the foreign fighters in that region of the world and part of that included working closely with our allies in turkey to try to better control the border between turkey and syria and make it more difficult to travel to the region. your assessment is the number of fighters at the disposal of isis in iraq and syria is lower than it was before. previous estimates were north
3 30,000 and now the highest is 25,000. we have a lot of work to do but we are making progress in taking fighters off the battlefield and making it harder for isis to replenish their ranks. what we have known about isis is they seek to capitalize on weakness around the world and possibly establish a caliphate. after running into the resistance in iraq and syria there are indications isis leaders might experience to another country that is experiencing turmoil and that is libya. we are mindful of that risk. the united states has been deeply involved in the un-led process to try bring about the
formation of a central government in libya that can provide for the security situation and we have made significant gains in that effort. the other thing that we have done is that we have not hesitated to use u.s. military air power where necessary to protect the people. the department of defense did announce an airstrike was conducted in libya that took a leading figure off the battlefield. we are mindful of that risk. moving forward we want to continue to apply significant pressure to, you know, isil core, inside iraq and syria. but also be mind full of the steps week -- we can take to
limit their spread. >> gains are coming in syria and iraq because of increased u.s. involvement. wouldn't it be relevant to think the next step in libya could be the same thing? you could be deployed and then the spread grows. if gains are coming to syria and iraq because of more u.s. involvement why not in libya? >> the gains we have seen in iraq and syria have not been because the president ordered large scale ground troops to iraq and syria. the strategy we employed is one that requires in comparison a relative small footprint of boots on the ground to provide training, advice and assistance to iraqi security forces who are
fighting for their own country. they have been backed by u.s. military and coalition military single-engine aircraft that have taken strikes to help them perform per effectively on the battlefield and there are important intelligence resources that we have been able to lend to the forces that are fighting on the ground in iraq and syria. so i certainly wouldn't rule out that enhancing our intelligence capabilities inside of libya is something that could be useful to those fighting isil on the ground in libya. this is something we continue to be mindful of we know what isil strategy is. we have through a lot of work and persistent effort and bravery on the ground been able to make important progress against isis in iraq and in syria. that will be instrumental to
stopping the spread of isil to other countries that are experiencing political turmoil. afghanistan is another example of where we see signs of isil trying to spread their influence p. we have u.s. troops in the region but not necessarily additional deployment of u.s. troops on the ground in lib' -- libya. same for the firing in the air they are not firing on the ground in libya but we are applying pressure to isis leaders who might have in the in attacking us our or allies >> i would like to ask you about a super bowl ad. >> i didn't watch all of them. >> one was funded by the pharmaceutical industry that
told people to ask their doctors about opioid-induced constipation. and it was said how more ads that fuel opioid treatment and more ads on prevention. we have not heard the white house be critical of the pharmaceutical industry even as you focus more resources on this problem. a lot of critics say the marketing of this opioids are fueling the heroin epidemic. is the white house trying to use its bully pulpit to push back? >> i don't have any regulations to preview but we have been clear across the administration about our determination to confront opioid addiction as a significant health threat.
we will rely on the best scientific advice that we can get access to to mobilize resources to try to fight this. particularly in communities that have been decimated by opioid addiction and abuse. obviously ondpc can help you understand what our approach is in terms of prioritizing the treatment of individuals who are suffering from this addiction but obviously we are aware of the terrible impact this has had on far too many communities across the country and to mobilize necessary resources to confront it and that will require working with medical experts including the farm suit
-- pharmaceutical industries to get this done. [inaudible question] >> secretary clinton spent time in that community over the weekend but we don't have any thing you. we are hoping we will provide additional resources to flint as they grapple the widespread problem. there are already a number of things the federal government has done through the epa, fhs, and fema to provide basic assistance like bottled water and water filters to the people in flint. but the federal official on the ground in flint is coordinating the federal resources being leveraged in the situation and that is because we are mind full of the longer term impact that exposure to lead can have on
children. this is something the administration is taking seriously and we mobilized lots to help the state and local government and we would welcome additional resources passed by congress so folks in michigan can get the kind of help they need. >> now we are hearing these talks about other cities that experienced lead issues like in iowa and a couple years back the raleigh-durham area had some issues. when we have these types of news stories and moments what happens? we are a reactionary nation. but what can happen in this
white house to prevent a type of situation finding out there is a failed water system and part of infrastructure is causing problems with lead poisoning in the water system in flint? >> april, let me tell you one thing that will not prevent this from happening in other places and that is abolishing the epa. that is what some republicans in the white house are suggesting. they don't have the right prescription. one of the challenges the president acknowledged existed are the rules and regulations that govern the relationship between the epa and state and local environment officials. there are some early indications that may have had an impact on the response and you know, there are investigators who are taking a look at that so i will not comment on that too much.
but we want to make sure local agencies understand the kind of relationship that may have with the epa. and that epa officials understand the responsibility they have to go public with information that can have significant consequences on public health. so that is certainly one step we can take to be proactive on this but that is something that this is sort of one example of why the president is hopeful and going to spend a lot of this year working to make sure that he passed his job on to someone that shares his values >> you brought up hillary clinton in flint this weekend. since you brought it up i want to ask you about it. she said what happened in flint is immoral. what do you think about that? >> i think there are moral questions raised by this
situation. there is no denying that. i think the president talked about as a father his initial reaction was outrage and he would be beside himself to think that his children despite the assurances of some government officials were exposed to water that was dangerous for them and could have live-long consequences for their development. there are moral questions raised by this. >> hillary clinton during the debate with the last question she said if this happened in a white suburb of detroit this wouldn't have happened and brought up there are moral issues to this. is it racial? >> i don't know if that is an assessment i can draw from hire. i think people who might reach thereat conclusion i think have bases for making that claim but
i am going to avoid picking up that ground. >> the president was here this morning and they were talking about the trade agreements. is there any new timeline on that? what is your preferred timeline? >> this is a priority of the president. we do believe that by deepening the economic ties between the united states and europe we can expand economic opportunities for the middle class back here at home. and that is something that rehabilitation at the -- that has been at the top of the president's agenda from the first day of office and will remain there till the last day. i don't believe we will reach a t-tip agreement before the president leaves office but he is interested in moving
negotiations forward and in a direction where we can be confidant that the economy of the united states will be enhanced through the completion of an agreement hopefully under the leadership of the next u.s. president. okay? thanks, everybody. we will see you tomorrow. >> tonight on the "the communicators": a round table discussion on key technology, communication, and cybersecurity issues that the federal government, congress, and the tech community will face in 2016 including pectroom auctions, cybersecurity&the privacy issues associated with net neutrality. corey bennett, and kate and lidia will be here >> the information sharing act was signed into law for the new
year passed through as part of the omnibus bill. the trillion budget bill. the idea is it is the first step to allow people to understand the hacking threats the country faces. >> there has been a lot of push and pull and give and take between the telecom community and the defense community to find the happy medium where people can get the spectrum they need and not sacrifice >> you will see many isp's making the argument why is it okay for us to be regulated by the ftc on the issue when other companies that collect a lot of data like facebook or google do similar things with that? the flipside is you are not controlling where people go but how they get there. >> watch the "the communicators" tonight at 8 eastern on c-span2.
>> in a live picture now of senator mark rubio on the centerf of -- center of your screen after finishing remarks owe community college there. this is on the eve of the primary election. we will watch for a minute. >> and we are also planning live coverage in about 20 minutes of senator bernie sanders who is live from durham, new hampshire holding a rally. we will have that for you on c-span at 8:00 eastern. many businesses benefit from the new hampshire primary and we had a chance to visit with one of them. >> new hampshire graphic advance is a sign making company and we are learning how political yard signs are made with shane miller. >> how are you? >> fine.
thank you. let's talk about your business. what uptick have you seen? >> we have seen an uptick. we have the primaries in town. we will get a few orders of signs at this time of the year >> who have you worked? what kind of orders are you seeing? >> ben carson, and a lot ofitate and local elections -- state. >> what does the campaign have to give you to get their business? >> they will give us their artwork, what they are looking for in terms of quantity and we will taylor our products to fit them. >> when a company or campaign comes to you how many pieces are they looking at from you? >> it depends on the size of the campaign. state wide local 2500-5,000. >> walk us through the process. >> we have a screen here.
this is your standard screen printing process. this machine will load the sign piece. we will turn it on. what happens is the machine spreads the ink on the screen and the squeegee does the final printing. >> there is the one color we are seeing. what happens if multiple colors are involved? >> we will run it through this just like this through the dry so the ink dries and send it back through. >> single side you get one, double side you get the others. >> if we have double-sided we will run the same process here just flip her on to the other side. >> as far as the work load for you, how many hours a day do you spend doing this? >> eight hours is a short time of day this time of the year. depending on the orders 8-15 hour days easily. >> you are standing! >> oh, yeah, we have people running around fairly crazy this
time of the year. >> tell us about the machine >> the machine is old. it is a 1967 model. it is your standard flat bed clam shell machine. this is your basic flat sign platform. >> when we see yard signs like this is it all done on machines like this or like this? >> there are other types. it is a basic machine and reliable. >> especially this time of the year since you are busy what do you like about the work you do? >> the variety. i enjoy it. these signs are read from all different types and sizes. it is never the same thing twice. >> shane millie, the owner of new hampshire graphic advantage talking to us about how political yard signs are made, thank you. >> thank you very much. >> c-span's campaign 2016 is taking you on the road to the
white house. >> let's go win the nomination. >> thank you and god bless you. >> in iowa c-span brought you candidate's speeches. >> thank you all very much. >> thank you, folks. >> meet and greets, town halls and live caucus coverage. this week c-span is on the ground in new hampshire following the candidates leading up to the first primary. live coverage starts on tuesday on c-span, c-span radio and cspan.org. the head line here will ted cruz surprise in new hampshire? the primary to see if he can expand his base beyond evangelicals. he talked at the tuck away cavern and butchery in raymond,
at the outset. we saw saturday night with the north korea missile launch that launched satellite and one of the more disturbing consequences of that is that satellite is orbiting earth and passed directly over levi stadium just minutes after the super bowl ended. that underscores how peril this threat is. had that contained a nuclear weapon the consequences of detonating it in the atmosphere could have been catastrophic. and that is yet one more reminder that the most important determination the voters are making in this election is who is best prepared to be commander and chief. a second observation as the debate on saturday t was striking that three of the
republican candidates for president embraced subjecting women to the draft to forcible place them in combat positions. that position makes no sense. to embrace the position of the federal government should be forcing our daughters and p putting them against they say will where they could be in a fox hole fighting a jihadist. it is sadly one more conacquaintanconkwn
conacquaintance -- consequence of political correctness. they will not stand up saying we don't want to force our daughters to be in close hand to hand combat with our enemies. i think that is observation that is the essence of common sense. >> you brought up the debate and after mark rubio's performance on the stage do you have questions about whether he is prepared to be president? >> marco had a tough night. there is no doubt about it. but i think every voter is assessing each candidate and not just in any one debate but throughout the force of any campaign one of the great things about our democratic problems is these elections are decided not from a tv studio in manhattan or washington, d.c. or a bunch of holiday television acts but they are decided in dfw halls and
du dunkin donuts. and that is one of the great things of the process. we entrust the grassroots to look us in the eye and to determine number one who is up to the task. defending this nation, being commander and chief, understanding the nature of our enemy, and having the experience, the knowledge, the judgment, the clarity of vision and the strength of resolve to keep america safe is the most important responsibility for commander and chief. secondly what the grassroots are doing that is so important is discussing who is telling the truth and who is blowing smoke. that is an incredible surge because we have been burned over by candidates sounding great on
the campaign trial but go to washington and don't do what they said. and that is what the men and women of iowa and new hampshire are performing. accepting who we can trust and whose actions don't live up to their words. >> who is first? who is second? who is third? >> that is going to be a question for the voters of new hampshire to decide. i feel very good where we stand right now. we obviously had a tremendous night a week ago in iowa. all of the pundant pun agreed w not win. >> some folks are saying mr. trump will win this one. >> there is no doubt donald trump has had a lot of support and a lot of support for mark rubio. it is possible. the voters of iowa will make that decision.
>> senator, i know you love polls, trump is up by more than 20 points and a bunch of guys bunched in for second place including you. how important is it for you to finish second? >> listen, our focus is on continuing to bring together that reagan coalition and continuing to bring together conservatives and evangelicals and young people. we saw that in iowa. that is the coalition that came together. our campaign won evangelicals in iowa and reagan democrats in iowa. we also won young people in iowa. what we are saying here on the ground in new hampshire is encouraging. the strength of the campaign in new hampshire much like it is nationally is at the grassroots and one of the development we are seeing in particular is libertarians uniting behind our campaign. in the past 24 hours we have had
five new hampshire state representatives, all of who were supporting rand paul endorse our campaign. and ram's new hampshire state chairman endorsed our campaign today. i think the path to winning the nomination and the general election is reassembling that old reagan coalition. i hope and know we will do well but i know we have an incredible team on the ground in south carolina and ten days after that is georgia, alabama, tennessee, arkansas, oklahoma, and texas. and our team on super tuesday is stronger than anyone else in the field. our campaign has been built on a national campaign built on grassroots since day one. >> how do you keep the home fires burning in the state of south carolina without telling the new hampshire voter i don't expect to do so well and i am looking down the road.
>> i am here in new hampshire and competing for these votes. we have competed vigorously. what we have iowa, new new hampshire, south carolina and nevada. my approach is never to view any of these states as a must-win. we would compete hard in each four and believes we could do well. we were gratified to win iowa. winning is better than loosing no doubt. we are here in new hampshire competing for the votes. at this point it is a turn out game. it is about turning out conservatives and we are working very directly to earn the votes one at a time from the grassroots. that is our strength. nationally we have over 200,000 volunteers. nationally we have received over 800,000 contributions and people going online to tedcruz.org supporting the campaign. that is the base of the support at the grassroots. we hope we will do well in new hampshire. we are working hard.
nationally it is the congress grassroots. >> can you insure voters all of the ground game will pay off like in iowa? >> listen our approach from the beginning has been to take the high road. when other candidates have engaged in insults and personal attacks we did not respond. indeed when others go into the gutter and toss mud my typical response is sing praises of them. i think talking about record matters and policy positions and visions -- just a minute ago i talked about the draft. that is a record. that should be very much -- at the end of the day, this race is going to come down to turnout. both here in new hampshire and also nationally. i could not be more encouraged as a conservative continuing to unite behind this campaign.
>> i am currently on the fence between hillary and bernie. the most important issue to me in the election is education. i am a high school teacher and elementary school teacher. i want to know where your stance is on the common core and what they want to do. >> the national debt is the most important to me because it will affect our teens. i am not endorsing anyone but i want you to get out to the polls and use your vote because your vote is your voice. >> my number one issue with
campaigns is getting money out of politics. citizens united needs to be overturned. until we address that everything else is going to get worse and worse. a very small number of people are making decisions about what happens to the rest of the population. from a that reason i am supporting bernie sanders. >> i believe that it is every american citizen's duty to be active. as a first-time voter i am figure out what i like and bouncing from candidate to candidate campaign to camp pain events and i am here at mark rubio's tank right now. i am excited to find out who i like and who i will vote for. >> and our road to the white house coverage continues in just a few minutes with democratic presidential candidate senator bernie sanders who is at a campaign rally in durham, new
hampshire that should be getting underway shortly. we will have it live for you on c-span. representatives of the media descended on new hampshire and we had the chance to talk to a professional paragrapher who is working to capture candidates in a different light. >> this professional paragrapher who is here talking about taking pictures of the presidential candidat candidates. what are you trying to achieve with this project? >> the -- i was coming at it from a different angle more intimate and corky. >> let's start with carly fiorina. >> we set-up outside of this sheet metal factory. carly arrived and blows past us and i followed her through the tour of the sheet metal factory and caught this moment which as a different take on carly. >> a different take we see of
bernie sanders also. tell us about it >> bernie in typical bernie fashion is speaking up at the golf club. you can see here. he is done and he bee lines to his car, has staff trying to keep the press away, i am standing here and can't get him to acknowledge me but i think i caught a moment. >> jeb bush is starring right at you. tell me about where he is. >> we were on the bus actually. we were innovavited on. i had a few minutes with jeb and i said governor bush can you give me serious and he said i will think about isis. he was thinking about isis and then he said i will think about hillary and looked eb ed even m serious. and then he said i will think of trump and he started laughing
>> somebody who is not laughing is hillary clinton. she has a bit of a smile on her face in his photograph. tell us about it. >> hillary was not that accessible to us. her people said come up we will give you time with her but that never happened. so we would go to -- we would shake hands in the line and light her off camera and this was a moment where i am basically a foot away from her and trying to capture something. some off moment that is not cliche. something people will remember. >> it sounds like a lot of time invested in this project. tell us about it. >> it was crazy. every other day. ...i would watch schedules, i wd work with my manager. 30 times,ck and forth maybe more. it was a wonderful project. it was wonderful to see
everybody up close. such a great mixture in this race this year. >> 20 to learn most, doing this learnt -- what did you most, doing this project? ,> a new way to shoot portraits for me, and a way to capture a special moment for someone. i'm going to these foot a lot, and it is challenging to capture the moment when their smile disappeared, and that what is what i was looking for. >> there are other photographs in this series by professional photographer mark.