Transcripts For CSPAN House Session 20150213 : comparemela.c

the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. almighty god of the universe, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we pray for the gift of wisdom to all with great responsibility in this house, for the leadership of our nation. may all the members have the vision of a nation where respect and understanding are the marks of civility and where honor and integrity are the marks of one's character. as members take time in the coming week for constituency visits, give them the ability to hear the voices of all in their districts, even those with whom they disagree. this is difficult to do so endow them with patience and a discerning ear. bless us this day and every day and may all that is done within these hallows halls be for your greater honor and glory. amen. -- these hallowed halls be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approl ereo pursua lause 1 oru 1 the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule 1 i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. mr. lamalfa: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. lamalfa: mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from california mr. mcclintock. mr. mcclintock: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, as we count down the days to the shutdown of the department of homeland security, a parade of democrats has appeared on the floor to accuse republicans of blocking funding. have they completely forgotten that house passed a bill to fully fund the homeland security department back on january 14, 31 days ago? every house democrat save two opposed that funding, and for 31 days senate democrats have blocked it from even being considered. the fact is that democrats are willing to block funding for homeland security unless they can fund amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. according to a recent abs/"washington post" poll, they want to stop the amnesty orders by 51-47%. many senators say they do too. as john adams say facts are stab orange things. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you mr. speaker. well, i guess it's pretty clear that politics continues. mr. kildee: rather than bringing to the floor of the house a bipartisan homeland security bill, what the house has brought to the floor back in january is a highly political, highly partisan bill anti-immigrant legislation that they knew was dead on arrival when it landed in the senate. so let's make the record clear. democrats and republicans have agreed to a clean homeland security bill, but rather than bringing that to the house for a vote we continue to see the house republican cleerp pander to the most exleadership pander to the most extreme leadership in their party. that's not what the american people expect of us. it's politics as usual. i don't understand why it continues to be the order of the day here. the american people reject that. we should be focusing our attention on the big questions, building an economy for the american people that works for everybody rather than for the few rather than an economy rigged for the few. look, the american people are tired of this. i know other members of congress on both sides of the aisle are tired of this. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. mr. kildee: bring a clean homeland security bill to the floor. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. lamalfa: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lamalfa: thank you mr. speaker. the ongoing slowdown occurring in our west coast ports is causing devastating economic conditions for our agriculture industry and a ripple effect to supply chains across the country. recent estimates predict that retailers could lose as much as $ 7 billion and cost the economy $2.1 billion every day if this shutdown continues. in california our citrus shippers are reporting delays as long as four weeks versus the typical two to three days for cargo to leave ports causing their products to spoil and rot on the docks. increasing the overall sizeable back lock. one california company reported they already had to lay off 50 employees due to the slowdown at the port. without action, these numbers are only going to worsen. as long-term or permanent damage is even done to our export markets. we cannot afford to sit back as our producers and growers and workers bear the brunt of this labor dispute. i strongly urge both parties, if necessary, this administration to get involved and get back to the negotiating table and enact a swift resolution to prevent serious long-term harm being done to our local and national economy and our export markets. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. payne: mr. speaker, here we go again. it appears that my colleagues on the other side have short memories and do not remember the consequences that led to a backlash from the american people when they shut down the federal government in the last congress. republicans continue to play politics with the department of homeland security funding by insisting that any funding bill overturn the president's actions on immigration. if the republicans fail to pass a d.h.s. funding bill, the consequences will be severe. one direct consequence is that there will be no funding of new nondisaster grants to local and state governments law enforcement, fire departments and other emergency responders. as ranking member on the subcommittee on emergency preparedness, response and communications, understand how critically important these grants are to safeguarding our communities. protecting the homeland grant program is critical to ensuring our cities, transportation systems and first responders have the capabilities to prepare for and respond to in times of disaster. mr. speaker simply put, republicans should stop putting politics ahead of the safety of the american people and join with democrats to fund the department of homeland security. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. wilson: mr. speaker last year the mixed oxide fuel fabrication at the savannah river site was adequately funded to continue to completion of its vital missions of converting weapons-grade plutonium into fuel. a recent "augusta chronicle" editorial urges congress to increase its funding. the administration allocated $345 million in the president's budget and it's my hope that congress will further strengthen that number. this essential facility will allow the united states to honor its international nonproliferation obligations with the russian federation while at the same time supporting environmental cleanup. i look forward to continue working with congressman jim clyburn who also represents the facility, to support the savannah river site and its vital national security and environmental cleanup missions. we're joined by rick allen and jeff duncan along with senators lindsey graham, david perdue. in conclusion, god bless our troops and may the president by his actions never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you very much mr. speaker. i'm compelled to call to attention the irresponsible actions of my republican colleagues, holding the department of homeland security and our national security hostage, it's reckless and irresponsible. this politically motivated action puts the political and economic safety of our people and our country in jeopardy. the republicans claim they already passed the bill. well, on a technicality they may be right but when you look at it they have not and they've been acting irresponsibly. more than 130,000 agents from border patrol, t.s.a., the coast guard and the secret service will continue to work despite having their livelihood denied to them this is directly harming the men and women who have sworn to protect all of us. how can we treat those who serve our nation so disgracefully? what message are we sending to the american people? i implore my republican colleagues to put aside politics and consider what's best for our country and our people. we have 15 days left. let us pass a clean department of homeland security funding bill to protect the safety of our nation and to respect the people who have sworn to serve us. thank you very much. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from penyla seek cogze sni -- recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. yesterday marked the sixth anniversary on when continental flight 3407 crashed into a home in clarence center, new york and tragically took the lives of all 49 passengers onboard, including one expected mother. in the wake of this tragedy, congress passed the airline safety and federal aviation administration extension act of 2010, which was the largest overhaul to aviation safety in over 40 years. the legislation introduced many new guidelines for airline safety and rirled airlines to put well-trained pilots in every cockpit. although this law has helped to prevent accidents like that of flight 3407 from happening again, there's still work to be done. mr. speaker, earlier this week i met with some of the families and victims of flight 3407 and yesterday i joined a group of bipartisan members urging the committee of jurisdiction to continue to support the implementation of the airline safety and federal aviation administration extension act of 2010. mr. speaker, i thank the committee for their continued support and their efforts in helping to make commercial airline travel safer. as we move forward, the house should be clearly focused on ensuring tragedies, like flight 3407, never happen again. thank you mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to congratulate northeast georgia's ingle high vineyards for the success in the san francisco chronicle wine competition. thanks to these great peach state wine owners, georgia's wine is rightfully gaining national recognition. mr. collins: they entered their northeast georgia grown and bottled wine into the prestigious san francisco chronicle wine competition. it is the largest competition of wines in the world. despite the crowded field and the fact they did their first showing at the competition, they did georgia proud by earning four medals. they brought home the double gold medal for the merlot and a bronze medal for a blend of three estate grown grapes. the magnificent achievement is the latest example of northeast georgia's emergence as a prominent wine region. wine critics and many agree that the unique geography of our mountains makes georgia wine truly special. i commend the ingles and the hardworking georgia wine makers who are making a great name for georgia in the world of wine and i look for their continued success and i yield back. one-minute speeches having now expired for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin prosecutors ryan, seek recognition? mr. ryan: mr. speaker, mursuent to house resolution 101, i call up the bill h.r. 636 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 15, h.r. 636, a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to permanently extend increased expensing limitations, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 101 in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on ways and means printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 114-6 is adopted and the bill as amended is considered as read. the bill shall be debatable for 90 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means. the gentleman from wisconsin mr. ryan and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin each will control 45 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 636, america's small business tax relief act of 2014. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. ryan: mr. speaker i think we are going to have a little bit of deja vu here today because we are going to be talking on another yet tax extender bill like yesterday. this one involves small businesses. let me see if i can lay out the case that's before us and the decision that we as members of congress are going to have to make. small businesses are the engine of economic growth and job creation in this contry. -- country. 80% of all businesses in america file their taxes as small businesses. it's what we call subchapter s. corporations or partnerships. and one of the critical ingredients to running a successful small business is to be able to buy equipment for your small business to hire people to do things. and one of the important provisions in the tax code to help do this is something we call section 179 of the tax code. section 179 is really simple. it says to small businesses we want you to be able to write off the purchase of equipment to run your small business so that you can be successful. here's what happened. for a number of years small businesses have been able to write off $500,000 up to a small business earning $2 million to purchase equipment. the problem is as of january 1 of this year that ability to write off $500,000, say to buy a couple trucks and scaffolding and other kinds of equipment, maybe you want to buy a tractor if you're a farmer maybe you want to buy a skid stare if you're a contractor, that $500,000 expensing limit has gone down to $25,000. and so what typically happens is congress, oh we don't want that to happen. let's get it back up to where it was so small business can plan and invest for their future. here's what happened last year. last year this expired at the beginning of the year, so we waited until december 11th to say, yes, no, no. you can expense up to $500,000 for these small businesses to purchase things like tractors and all sorts of kinds of equipment. so this is what we did to the american small business men and women of america last year. we said, you don't know what's going to happen and we'll rhett you know on december 11 and you'll have a few weeks to make all these decisions before this expires. just think about that. so from december 11 to december 31 last year, the window in which american small business men and women realized they had this incentive to purchase equipment because on january 1, it went away. that's where we are today. we are saying, let's stop this monkey business. let's stop this crazy notion of injecting all this uncertainty into small businesses and make this provision that is bipartisan. this provision that we know creates jobs, let's make it permanent so that small business men and women of america can plan. so that they can plan their purchases. i remember talking to a dealer, we make tractors in racine, wisconsin. we call them case magnums. these are tractors that are phenomenonly -- phenomenal tractors that increase the productivity of farmers and ranchers. they are also used for construction. well, it's a pretty big purchase. it's about $200 or $250,000 for a big case magnum. it's a big purchase that somebody needs to think about and plan. case, the dealer in wisconsin, they had to wait until december 11 to december 31 to try to market these tractors as something that a small businessperson or farmer could purchase. think about the kind of uncertainty you're injecting into the economy where people can't think and they can't plan and they can't invest in their businesses because of congress. what we are simply trying to do here is produce certainty so that the men and women on the line in racine, wisconsin, making case tractors can make those tractors, and so that the dealers who are selling those tractors can sell those tractors, and so that the farmers and ranchers and the construction contractors can buy those tractors knowing that this incentive that has been here and up and down is there. and they can plan accordingly. so that we can grow the economy and create jobs. the purpose of all of this is to get people back to work. the purpose of all of this is to recognize that small businesses, the backbone of our economy and one of the biggest things that are threatening small businesses one of the reasons why we had this middle income wage stagnation one of the reasons why we have lower than average economic growth is because we have all this uncertainty in our economy. we need to give businesses certainty. we need to help them plan for the future. we need to stop this crazy game of extending a tax benefit that has been on the books for quite some time one year at a time or retroactive one year at a time and give businesses certainty. and this notion that not raising taxes is all of a sudden some tax cut that one must pay for is a notion that we just completely disagree with. which is a difference of opinion between ourselves and the other side of the aisle. so i urge adoption of this tiberi bill to extend the 179 limit to $500,000, to make it permanent, and help small businesses grow and create jobs. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time he may consume. mr. levin: last year as we remember so well, republicans reacted to the tax reform proposal from then chairman dave camp with and i quote, blah blah, blah, blah. that reception echoed in the overall chilly reaction of the republicans stemmed in part from that plan's honesty. chairman camp had pledged not to increase the deficit with his proposal. to achieve that goal he played it straight. at least within the first 10 years. he proposed a tax on banks that drew cringes from his fellow republicans. he put forward a surtax on the highest earners. essentially a third tax rate. he eliminated one of the most widely used provisions in the state code, the state and local sales tax deduction. in the process he paid for he paid for making permanent tax provisions like the bill before us today. the single piece of legislation costing about $80 billion alone. like it or not, it was at least somewhat honest accounting. so started a republican ploy to get around the hard realities of tax reform. the gist of that ploy, take a number of provisions separatery make them permanent -- separately, make them permanent, and don't pay a dime for them, not a dime. the reason? the expectation of needing to raise less revenue in tax reform would allow republicans to more easily cut tax rates. republicans feared that by trying to pay for their tax cuts, and they still do fear this, by shifting to the highly uncertain dynamic scoring may not be enough. so they are further trying to rig the system with baseline games and making permanent tax provisions outside of tax reform. not having to pay for $800 billion worth of tax extenders made permanent would make it easier for republicans to lower taxes especially on higher income taxpayers. carrying out further their trickle-down tax policies. it would allow them to avoid having to end the abuse of tax savings and incentives to shift jobs overseas. and by massively increasing the deficit, this is so important, through permanent unpaid for tax provisions. republicans could later cite this debt that they created as a reason to take a hatchet on programs like head start or fail to adequately fund the vital research at the national institutes of health. the president blew the whistle on that scheme. the rigging of the system and sound policy with support from democrats. and last year the ploy was stopped in the senate. but here, house republicans are going at it again. before even hinting, by the way what tax reform might look like, there is now h.r. 1 for tax reform this session. throwing to the wind the statement of the chairman of our committee, mr. ryan, about trying to find common ground on common aspects of tax reform, and the same time -- statement betraying the g.o.p.'s -- at the same time, betraying the g.o.p.'s preaching on fiscal responsibility. as chairman of the budget committee, mr. ryan never assumed tax extenders would be a permanent part of the tax code. otherwise he would never have been able to say he balanced the budget in 10 years. so what the chairman of the ways and means committee is proposing now is the opposite of the approach as he pursued the budget as chairman of the budget committee. the bill before us on section 179 addresses an important subject. it's primarily available to small and middle sized businesses. it will likely be part of any tax reform. and until then it will be he renewed. that is certain. republicans control this house and they control when renewal would occur absent tax reform. but this provision deserves not to be left out of a tax reform process that should give careful and comprehensive consideration of all of the tax provisions if our code. so maybe the best way to expose this republican gambit is for editorial writers to use their pen and for others to use now social media, tweeting to republicans this message stop your efforts at congressional alchemy. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman from michigan have additional speakers? mr. levin: i won't ask how much time we have. i now yield four minutes to a very active and distinguished member of our committee, mr. kind, from the great state of wisconsin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for four minutes. . mr. kind: i thank my friend from michigan for yielding me this time. it's amazing mr. speaker, that today -- although it won't be reflected in the final vote count before us, there is a lot of common ground that exists in this chamber. i couldn't agree more with my friend and colleague from wisconsin, the chairman of the ways and means committee, that our nation is in desperate need of comprehensive tax reform. we have an old antiquated tax code that's not fair. it's too complicated. it's leading us in a less competitive in the global economy and it's long overdufort a thorough scrubbing and review so we can simplify it lower the rates for businesses, large and small, and for our families back home, and leave us in a more competitive position. but i'm concerned that the approach that majority is taking undermines that attempt. this legislation and the legislation that was before us yesterday and the legislation that will be coming up as soon as we get back from the presidents day recess is probably the surest signal that majority in congress, just six weeks into this new session, is punting on comprehensive tax reform because this isn't the way to do it. the cherry -- to cherry pick certain provisions where policy-wise might be great agreement behind the policy that's being offered not paying for it undermines the ability for us to comprehensively reform the code, making the difficult decisions so we don't leave a legacy of debt for future generations. now, my name's on these bills today. i've teamed up with representative tiberi from ohio when it comes to the expensing 179 allowance. i think it makes sense with businesses small and family farmers throughout wisconsin and throughout the country to have that cash flow to have that certainty built in the code, so make sure they can immediately expense the investments they put in their business which can help grow the economy and create jobs. i've teamed up with my friend from washington, mr. reichert on s. corp modernization. it's a $180 billion cost according to the congressional budget office and no offer to find an offset or pay-for to deal with it and that's a missed opportunity because this really does come down to fiscal responsibility. my friend from wisconsin was once quoted saying, the people deserve a government that works for them, not one that buries them in more debt. we couldn't agree more with that sentiment and yet we have an example of how well pai as you go budgeting can work. during the 1990's when -- pay-as-you-go budgeting can work. during the 1990's, it helped lead, along with a growing economy, four years of budget surplus when we were paying down the national debt rather than adding to it. somehow that fiscal discipline and responsibility is absent in the legislation that's before us today. we can move forward as chairman camp did last year in offering his discussion draft on comprehensive reform by making difficult decisions within the tax code finding expenditures that are inefficient and not necessary to promote growth and job creation and make those decisions while we reform the entire code. that's the approach that we should be taking rather than piecemealing very popular proposals, mind you, but doing it in a way that leaves a legacy of more deficits and more debt for future generations to grapple with but undermines the baseline we need, the tools that we need to do comprehensive reform the right way. so i'd encourage my colleagues -- maybe they're doing it because it's a message piece rather than a real substantive proposal -- again we couldn't agree for the need of greater certainty more predictability within the tax code so our businesses can make longer term decisions and not worrying about whether congress is going to get its act together at the end of the year and extend short-term measures like this. but the way to do that is in comprehensive reform and making the difficult decisions that will have to be made so we don't pile up the debt for future generations. again, the policy behind this 179, s. corp modernization i think it's in the right place. we got to find a way to pay for it. i encourage my colleagues vote no, let's get back to the real business of reforming the tax code. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: at this time, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield a minute to the distinguished house majority leader, mr. mccarthy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california, mr. mccarthy, is recognized. mr. mccarthy: well, i thank the gentleman for yielding and mr. speaker, i want to thank more than just the gentleman for yielding. i want to thank him for his work as chairman on ways and means knowing where they're going. we have to reform the tax code if we're going to grow this economy. and our chairman we have today, that's been his life work. there's no one better poised and in better position of understanding to finally get this done. and i'm excited about what the future brings. but today we're talking about something much different. today we're talking about something that's already in the code something that helps bring job growth because it's about small business. and the worst thing about small business is to ever have uncertainty. so this congress wants to be a new american congress. they don't want to have uncertainty for small businesses so they're taking up an issue much earlier so you can plan for the future, so you can make that hiring grow. now, why do i care so much about this? many of you don't know but i started my first business when i was 19. i got a little luck of winning a lottery. i was saving my money in the summer. i took my money out of the stock market and i took a big risk and took my time out of college. it's not easy opening a small business. i haven't built the counter of my business in my dad's garage trying to save money, but you know the values i learned in that small business? it's the same value that every small business owner in america learns. you're the first one to work. you're the last one to leave and you're the last one to be paid. and the last thing a small business needs is more uncertainty from their government of changing the tax code or even whether it's going to go forward. so today is the day not to debate. today is the day to invest in america small business. and as i've said a few times on this floor, these are things that should unite us, not divide us. but in this new american congress, i think we have something different, mr. speaker, in the idea of putting veto threats from this administration. just moments after we passed another bipartisan bill on the floor to help the food banks, the charitable giving, for those are the most vulnerable across our nation the administration offered a veto threat on helping small businesses. i take those serious. as majority leader, i want to understand. i want to work with anyone that wants to work with us, so i read the veto threat to understand where could we make something better? where did something go wrong? because this is already in law. mr. speaker the administration's veto threat on president's reasons why. first, he said the house didn't pass the bill last congress that he wanted. and second he said, congress might pass bills in the future that he doesn't like. how does that create any jobs in america. mr. speaker, that sounds more like a schoolyard argument than a debate on the floor of the house. i think it's time that people grow up, understand where jobs are created, understand what uncertainty does across america -- not in my district but in every district that is represented here today. so as someone who's a former small business owner knows the challenges, knows what you have to do to hire someone, i ask that we look in a new american congress to put people before politics and pass this bill so we can grow america's economy and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan's recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. levin: i say to the majority leader this isn't about small business. we favor 179. this is about monkey business. monkeying with procedure doing the opposite of what the chairman did when he was chairman of the budget committee of trying to rig the system, and i wish the majority leader would have cited the entire statement of administration policy. i assume he read it all. here's what is said on behalf of the president. if the same unprecedented approach of making certain additional tax extenders permanent without offsets, it would add $500 billion or more to deficits over the next 10 years, wiping out most of the deficit reduction achieved through the american taxpayer relief act of 2013. the administration wants to work with congress to make progress on measures that strengthen the economy and help middle-class families, including pro-growth tax reform. however, h.r. 636 represents the wrong approach. that's what the president is talking about, and it's really sad when the majority leader comes here and misrepresents what the administration has said. we want to work together. we want to find common ground. the answer today is, from the republicans, forget about common ground, common elements. stop working together. we'll do it our way. don't worry about tax reform now, we'll worry about that later. that's what really this is all about. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from ohio, a member of the ways and means committee, mr. tiberi, the author of this legislation, be allowed to manage the time for our side of the aisle. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. tiberi: thank you mr. chairman. thank you for your leadership in the area of tax reform and entitlement reform. ladies and gentlemen this is not monkey business. this is serious business. kind of deja vu all over again. we have now been at trying to do comprehensive tax reform for five years, and we should continue to try to do it. but our constituents shouldn't be held hostage for the lack of the ability for us to get it across the finish line. and this is bipartisan. let me remind my friend from michigan that the provisions in these bills that i'm sponsoring today were part of a package that was being negotiated to be made permanent by a bicameral, bipartisan group of legislators in december. democrat leadership and republican leadership before the president stepped in and said no. he said no to constituents of mine, like clyat and sons general contractor. i tell you what they said about section 179. this is what he said. it's an important part of our decisionmaking process. when evaluating equipment purchases. he went on to say making the increased expensing levels permanent, as this bill does will be beneficial for capital purchases planning for small businesses. let me tell you, we had -- when you look at section 179, in particular mr. speaker we had section 179 at this level, supported by democrats and republicans alike for 2014. on december 11 of 2014, we gave our constituents 20 days to take advantage of this provision. as we have done now 12 times on a temporary basis since 2003. so clagette and sons couldn't take advantage of it. my friends heard about my constituents, farmers tom and judy price about buying a combine, waiting to see when we would make this permanent or re-extend it. we gave them 20 days to make that decision. 20 days. that's no way to run a railroad . not at all mr. speaker. i understand the points that the other side has made. i want tax reform in a comprehensive way as bad as anybody. the two aren't mutually exclusive here in terms of we can do this, give our small business owners and farmers the type of certainty they need that will help our economy grow, that will help their businesses grow rather than do what we've done for 12 years now. over 12 years. making these temporary provisions, extending them for a year or two at the end of the year, that's just no way to do this. so ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of small business owners like clagette and sons and farmers like tom and judy price, i urge us to move the ball forward. we can chew gum and walk at the same time. we can do this. we can try to find common ground on comprehensive tax reform. until then, i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves the balance of his time of the the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: i say to my friend from ohio you're running this railroad. if you want to wait until december, that's your decision. it wasn't ours. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. tiberi: yes, mr. speaker. i recognize my colleague from ohio, the gentleman from cincinnati, chairman of the small business committee, mr. chabot, for two meant. the speaker pro tempore: for how much? how much time? the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot, is recognized for two minutes. mr. chabot: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. tiberi. one of every two working americans gets up each day and heads to a small business. that's where they work. small firms are critical to america's success. they create seven out of every 10 new job opportunities, and provide the means for millions of our neighbors to put a roof over their head and food on their table and to get ahead in life. the bill before us today would help those small businesses and the working families that rely on them by providing much needed certainty. it would make permanent several tax policies that end up being retroactively applied anyway at the end of every year but not without scrambling at the 11th hour. we have all seen this happen year after year after year. let's give these small businesses all over the country the certainty that they need. these provisions will help small businesses purchase equipment and technology to grow and create more jobs. after all that's what we on both sides of the aisle say what we are after is creating more jobs in this economy. right now businesses are oftentimes operating in the dark. they don't know whether they'll be able to utilize these pro-growth tax provisions or not. that lack of certainty discourages growth and it discourages job creation. passing this bill will make it easier for small businesses to plan for the future knowing that washington won't pull the rug from under them. as chairman of the house small business committee, i strongly support this measure and any measure that removes barriers to small business job creation. this bill provides relief to our nation's small businesses and will result in more opportunities to working families all over this country. i'd like to thank my colleague from ohio, mr. tiberi, for his leadership on this legislation. i urge my colleagues to support the bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. rangel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel, is recognized for three minutes. mr. rangel: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. rangel: thank you so much for this opportunity, congressman levin. there's been some talk as to whether or not the democrats finally recognize the importance of the deficit and the debt. and that since we are going to pass these bills anyway because there's a negative feeling that we are not going to have tax reform, i assume, that we might as well give some confidence to our small businesspeople that they will have this -- small business people that they will have this tax incentive. that is a way of thinking, but it would appear to me that if we can forgo going through the regular procedure in order to at this stage of our political calendar to give the incentive now, i've heard no reason, and i hope i will, as to why we cannot close the loopholes that exist in the tax code now. it seems to me that it goes without dispute that we have trillions ofle toars, certaintier certainly hundreds of billions ofle toars in the tsh-certainly hundreds of billions of dollars in the tax code that republicans and democrats believe shouldn't be there. while we are anxious to reduce the corporate tax so that we are not embarrassingly the highest if the entire world we also he know that there's so many corporations that don't pay any taxes at all. how can we ignore that? if we can say that we are going to go into debt for $1 trillion by extensions, why can't we say we are going to pay for it by closing the loopholes? it's clear to me if we want to make certain steps in advance of a comprehensive tax reform that we just can't pick that part that business wants as a incentive and at the same time not look at the part that business really is taking advantage of loopholes that the congress has provided. so we cannot charge the corporations with being un-american because they are not paying taxes it's our responsibility to have a tax code, as fox would say, at that is fair and balanced. but this whole idea of not extending the things that people need such as education, the homeless, the infrastructure, all of the things that can make america greater, to select out the low hanging fruit for tax reform, and leave the hard work as to how we are going to raise the money to pay for it for later, there's -- does not make any legislative sense. so that if we are being charged with being too fiscally responsible because we are concerned as to what this is doing to our national debt, then help us to raise the funds that are there, that are not difficult to recognize -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. rangel: that we do recognize that we have to close these loopholes. and i might say that it appears as though the corporations and the businesses that receive these obscene tax benefits are the ones that actually contribute the most to the parties that legislate. i'm not saying there is a connection, but there is a perception that those people that give high congressional campaign funds are the ones that receive high tax benefits. and certainly it goes without saying that those that are notting to well as relates to fairness and equity in the tax system are those people that don't hire the accountants and the lobbyists. let's be fair and balanced and say that if you're going to extend our government to this liability fiscally, then we can raise the money at the same time by closing the tax hole. i yield back the balance of my time and i thank mr. levin so much for giving me this opportunity. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. tiberi: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to recognize for three minutes the gentleman from north dakota, representing a number of newly traded small businesses with the energy boom, mr. cramer, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north dakota, mr. cramer, is recognized for three minutes. mr. cramer: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the sponsor of this important legislation for yielding the time. i just have to respond we are not talking today about corporations even loopholes. we are not talking about education and homelessness. all those are important things we want to work with them on. we are talking today about small business. i found it sort of disturbing that the ranking member said that will today's not about small businesses it's about monkeying around with procedures. are we so wed to our procedures that's more important than small businesses? i also have to say that for me in my town halls my radio town halls hi more town halls than any member of congress last year, the number one issue that is raised not by corporations but by small family business men and women, largely farmers and ranchers, is the issue 179 expensing. and the uncertainty that's created by mid december extensions to the previous year. maybe if they are lucky the farmer gets to buy a new combine for christmas. it's about more than even the farmer or the samoa removal businessperson that needs to buy a new snow blower. or the lawn care businessman that needs to buy a new mower. it's about more than the implement -- it's more than the john dear -- deere planter. that's important. but it's also about the mechanic that works at the implement dealership who is one paycheck away from not being able to feed his family. it's about the restaurant owner the cafe owner in a small up to who feeds breakfast and lunch and continuer and yes occasionally mid morning coffee over the shaking of dice to that farmer, to that implement dealer, to that mechanic that benefits from the dynamics, the dynamics of an economy that, yes, provides this not a loophole, this appropriate deduction in the year in which a piece of equipment is purchased. it makes all the difference in the world. not the corporate america, but to middle -- not to corporate america, but to middle class families. hardworking famplers and ranchers and meck an -- farmers and ranchers and mechanics and all kinds of middle class working people in america. let's to the right thing. let's make this increment step towards comprehensive tax reform and do what we know is right thing to do. let's pass this bill. pass it in the senate, get it on the president's desk and appeal to him for common sense. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. neal, who heads up one of our committees. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. mr. neal: i want to speak specifically to what the previous gentleman just stated. i had not intended to speak because i'm going to offer the motion to recommit on our side, but the gentleman appeared in his commentary to belittle the notion of procedure. procedure in this institution is sacrosanct based upon the rules we adopt in the earliest moments of the new congress. i was struck by the notion we should just cast aside and denigrate procedure. that's how the institution operates based upon procedure, established precedent, and settled law. to suggest that somehow we could just offend procedure, we remind ourselves what has happened in this institution during the last two decades. when virtually all the members on both sides got elected by running against the institution they could ever step away from the campaign rhetoric to get on with the actual governance of the institution. procedure in this institution means that we adhere to a prescribed set of rules and orders and yes, good will. now, again, i had not even intended to get up and talk about this issue arcane as it might seem, but it underlies the whole notion of a representative democracy in a duly elected legislative institution. procedure, the basic tenet of which is oftentimes shall the institution simply concur with the motion to proceed. that's the antecedent of the term procedure. that's how the body works. today, fundamentally what's being proposed here and what we object to if no small measure is the violation of the whole notion of procedure. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. tiberi: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio continues to reserve. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i now yield three minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, mr. blumenauer from oregon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, is recognized for three minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. we come today in the midst of a debate at a time when there are wide areas of agreement in this congress about things that we should do to help improve the country. . we all acknowledge the importance of tax reform. many people in this chamber on both sides of the aisle have spent a lot of time and energy invested in it. and in the other chamber they're establishing working groups to explore the challenges. the administration has set reform proposals in its budget that could be a basis of discussion of moving forward. our past chairman produced a substantial draft which was sadly maligned for in fact achieving his objective of significant reform that was revenue neutral. and what we're seeing today is another of a series of bills that have nothing to do with really achieving that objective. in fact, they run contrary to past reform efforts. yesterday in committee we marked up something that has broad agreement in terms of helping deal with problems of deductibility for sales tax in states that don't have income tax. this was an area that was dealt with by then-chairman camp in his reform bill. our current chairman has called for a different treatment. we understand there are challenges dealing with it, but all of a sudden we're just moving that forward, too, and that's on the convair belt that's moving forward. -- conveyer belt that's moving forward. i think it makes a mockery of the process that it takes to reform the tax process. we have so far already approved over $300 billion that if approved would add to the deficit. now, mercifully i don't think they're going to be enacted anytime soon, but it sets us back in the long-term objective and confuse what we could be doing. i find this at stark variation with how we deal with another area that used to be a bipartisan area of consensus and that's providing funding for infrastructure to rebuild and renew the country. it was interesting -- we have a highway trust fund where the current fix runs out this spring. the highway trust fund will be going broke by early june. some states have already listed some of the projects they have suspended or canceled due to this uncertainty, and more will act as it becomes clearer that we're in a pickle and congress has not yet moved forward. now last summer when congress struggled to pass the 23rd short-term extension to our transportation program, now chairman ryan said that it's important that we follow a house budget rule that requires general fund transfers to the trust fund to be fully offset. it should not become a recurring practice for taxpayers to bail out the highway and transit programs because congress and the president are unable to make the changes necessary to avoid future trust fund -- mr. levin: i yield two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional two minutes. mr. blumenauer: kind of an additional approach. here we roll through, add to the deficit, makes tax reform more complicated and the republican-controlled congress has yet in the entire 5015 months that it's been in charge to even have a hearing on a proposal that is supported by the u.s. chamber of commerce, the afl-cio truckers a.a.a., transit, local government environmentalists and mirrors something that ronald reagan did 33 years ago. mr. speaker, i suppose we have to go through this exercise and we'll do it and we're going to see that there's kind of a two-track system. if you're on the conveyer belt for things they want to move, it will go forward. consequences to the deficit be damned and even if it makes more difficult long-term tax reform and repudiates things that have had bipartisan interest in the past. and in the meantime things that have broad support, that have profound affect on the economy right now and impacts people from coast to coast lies dormant and we're manufacturing another crisis. oh and before that, we're going to have an artificial crisis with disability funding because of a switch in the rules for those that don't get this favored treatment. there's a reason that we got this gap in income disparities, policies that would narrow them rather than widen them and i hope we can get past this today and at some point get back to basics on things that will make us stronger, that can bring us together and make our families safer, healthier and more economically secure. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from ohio. mr. tiberi: mr. speaker, i yield five minutes to the chairman of the ways and means committee, mr. ryan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for five minutes. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i don't think i'll use all that time. i appreciate the generosity of the gentleman. i'm interested -- i'm intrigued by this debate and this so-called admonishment from the minority as to how this jeopardizes tax reform and how it's not being bipartisan. let me see if i can bring some clarity to this debate. what i interpret as this being said is, if you don't agree with our higher taxes, if you don't, before negotiating tax reform, agree to our terms of debate then you're not being bipartisan. look, when we were in the minority we made similar arguments as well which is surrender your beliefs, surrender your principles, agree with us and then we can be bipartisan. i'm sorry but, mr. speaker, you know, i was born at night but i wasn't born last night. that is not how negotiations occur. that is not how you find common ground. finding common ground isn't surrendering your ground and finding another ground, finding common ground is where do my principles and your principles intersect, overlay and what can we do? just so you understand, mr. speaker, here's what this is about. the premise that minority is offering is these tax provisions that we all agree on that we think are good, that we think help the economy but that have in law expiration dates when they expire and those taxes go up, you know, we don't think that's good. and the minority is saying, when these -- if these things expire and go up we don't want that to happen so we will work with you and make sure that they don't expire on a year-by-year basis. and we're fine. but if you dare try to make these things that we all agree on that need to stay in the tax code permanent, it's a -- you're not paying for it. it's a budget buster. you're being irresponsible. you're jeopardizing tax reform. process process process. here's the problem. what we're trying to do here, we're trying to grow the economy. we're trying to get people back to work. we're trying to increase take-home pay. we're trying to honor and respect the hardworking taxpayers who sent us here in the first place. and so what we don't want to do is to tell all those small business men and women in america, you know, wait until december and then we'll let you know what your tax code is going to look like. what we want to tell the small business men and women in america is, washington is out of your way and you can go plan and you can grow and you can invest and you can hire. that's what we're trying to achieve here. and this idea that by not raising taxes is somehow a big giant tax cut is an idea and a premise we don't agree with and what we're being told here if we don't agree with that then we're jeopardizing tax reform. baloney. this issue is compounded or the irony of this issue is compounded by the fact that the minority's telling us already in their statements from the white house and their budgets that there are temporary provisions in the tax code that they like that aren't bipartisan that they are saying make them permanent and don't pay for them. so they're cherry picking, selective memory. it's an argument quite frankly i don't think holds water, because what we're doing here today we're bringing certainty to the tax code. we're helping job creators and taxpayers and families. and we're doing it in a way that we think is honest, we think is fair and we think advances tax reform. the way to find common ground is not to ask the other side to surrender their beliefs, surrender their principles and agree with the other side and then you can get along that's not how you find common ground. that's not bipartisanship. that's surrender. nobody's asking anybody to surrender. at least we're not. and so what i would argue to my colleagues is, support this. just show the small business men and women in your district that you're there for them, that you don't want to keep doing this to them which is projecting all this uncertainty. and the other point i would make -- and my friend from oregon who really is my friend and he's a sincere legislator who does his job very well cares very dearly about his district. the argument he makes about tax cuts expiring doesn't jibe with this. let me make a case in point. trade adjustment assistance, the farm bill, temporary assistance for needy families all of these are spending programs that have expiration dates just like provisions in the tax code that vecks pictureation dates. and when these things in the spending -- on the spending side of the ledger book expires and congress extends them, it doesn't cost. it's not measured in the baseline as costing anything. but god forbid if a tax provision expires -- i'm already at five minutes? 30 seconds. mr. tiberi: i yield another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. ryan: but god forbid if something in the tax code expires you better raise taxes on somebody else if you want to keep that provision. so just understand the argument that's being brought to the floor here. they're saying in order to keep taxes the same for charities and small businesses, you got to raise taxes on some other hardworking taxpayer out there, that's the argument that's coming here. and if you don't agree with that, then you're not being bipartisan and you're not facilitating tax reform. we just don't agree with that. and so we're bringing our ideas to the floor. we're bringing our proposals to the table. and in the interest of growing the economy and finding common ground, this is what we're doing and we encourage the other side of the aisle to bring their ideas to the floor, to bring their ideas to the committee, to bring their ideas in the public sphere so we can see where they line up and what we can do and where common ground might exist. and with that, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield back all the remaining time i have to the gentleman from ohio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: mr. chairman, we're not suggesting you surrender your ground for one minute not for one second. what we're saying is let's search for common ground and don't you come here and cut out pieces of it piece by piece. that's what we're suggesting. in terms of a one-year basis we're saying do things comprehensively, like your predecessor did, like your predecessor did. this isn't a matter just of process, process, process. it's a matter of policy, policy, policy. that's what this is all about. and you come forth and you then talk about wage inequality. what have you brought up here that relates to that? we're trying to get a vote, for example, on minimum wage. you won't even allow us a vote. give us a vote. give us a vote. you talk about t.a.a. the rules apply there and we can go into -- into the details in terms of whether it's authorized for a certain period of time and after that then if it's permanent it becomes part of the baseline. what you're trying to do today is essentially rig the system. you want to do it with dynamic scoring, and now you essentially want to take each of these pieces, make them permanent, unpaid for to put them in the baseline. you did not do that when you were chairman of the budget committee. you talk about honesty. i won't use that word because i totally respect your honesty more than that. i think it's hypocritical. mr. ryan: will the ranking member yield? mr. levin: sure. mr. ryan: the budget resolution reflects law that it is. the budget resolution reflects the c.b.o. as it gives us baselines in law. what we're doing here are policy preferences. what we're doing here is what we think that law ought to be, not what it is. the budget resolution is, here's the law, there it is. what we're trying to do here is fix the law because we think the law is broken. we think the law doesn't work. i yield back. mr. levin: well here's the problem. you took the baseline in the budget and you don't want to take it for this. you want to squeeze $800 billion permanently unpaid for change the baseline and that increases the deficit by that amount and then you use that deficit to squeeze out needs, whether it's n.i.h. or whatever it is, infrastructure has been mentioned here also. we don't have the money for that. . it's to the only hypocritical it's very dangerous approaches. that's our answer. i'm not suggesting you surrender for one minute. but don't take pieces out of ground that we want to be common. that's what you're doing. that's why it's antithetical to tax reform. that's why dave camp came here with a comprehensive program. you guys didn't like it, you said blah, blah, blah blah. that was the speaker. and others of you did not like it, the bank tax. you tonight want to do it competitively at first. you want to do -- scommelf -- comprehensively at first. it's bad for policy, it's bad for the deficit, it's bad for the hopes for tax reform. i reserve the balance of my time. mr. levin: if you want me to surrender time, mr. tiberi, i'm ready. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. members will be reminded to direct their comments to the chair and not to other members in the second person. the gentleman from ohio. mr. tiberi: thank you, mr. speaker. a roman catholic i find it interesting that mr. camp now is a saint. now at that he's gone. i'd like to remind my colleagues that mr. camp worked for several years on comprehensive tax reform. with little help from the other side, when i say the other side i mean the white house. it was four years into his chairmanship that he released a draft. the new chairman has been in the job for about 42 days. so let's give him some time to work on a comprehensive draft, which he said and has continued to say at that he can to while we make some important provisions that have been bipartisan that is about this. it's about putting money in people's pocket. everybody knows, we have the worst job recovery in my lifetime. the worst. this provision's been around for a long, long time. we know it works. liberal economists conservative economists, expensing works. it works for small businesses. small businesses hire people. small businesses also, by the way many small business owners many farmers, they pay their taxes quarterly. most of us have our taxes taken out of our paycheck every time we have a paycheck. imagine the debate that we would be having on the floor today if every american had to send in their taxes quarterly. these small business owners and farmers are at the heart of our economy in trying to prove our economy, improve our economy and grow our economy and hire more people. we are all for that. i yield. i guess i'll reserve at this point. i thought hi had another speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i say to the gentleman from ohio. i favor 179, not doing it piecemeal unpaid for. by the way this is not the worst job recovery. there's been an increase in jobs in the last month, month after month. the problem is it hasn't lifted the incomes of middle income families. let's get together to do that. i now yield two minutes to the gentlelady from new york who's been working on small business, maybe you'll tell us how many years. a few. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for three minutes. ms. velazquez: i rise in opposition to the bill before us today. as we all know, small businesses are critical to sustaining our economic growth and it only makes sense to cater our economic policy to meet their needs. congress needs to continue promoting our ultimate goal of providing small firms with certainty and simplicity in our tax code. expanding section 179 permanently is one way to accomplish this goal. unfortunately h.r. 636 negligents other important provisions in the tax code benefiting small firms. what about r&d tax credit? or modernizing the depreciation schedule. these are important tax reform that small businesses have been asking for so long. here we are again enacting a piecemeal tax bill that does nothing to accomplish our bipartisan goal of passing comprehensive tax reform. republicans, they love to claim that they are fighting for small businesses, when it's convenient for them. however, today's bill doesn't provide enough for small business, and it certainly doesn't meet what the other side of the aisle claims is the most important policy tenet, fiscal responsibility. this bill will add $77 billion to our deficit. so much for fiscal responsibility. while i applaud the bill and agree more can be done to help small businesses, we must enact smart comprehensive tax reforms that truly addresses small business need. with that mr. chairman, thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from ohio. mr. tiberi: mr. speaker, i ask if the other side is ready for closing. we have no more speakers at this time. i want to reserve my right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield the balance of my time. i won't use it all. i won't even ask how much time we have because i think i can -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has 14 minutes remaining. mr. levin: we have debated this now for two days. the issue isn't whether 179 is a useful provision it is. it will be continued. that can be sure. it should not be tened essentially forever. unpaid for. adding to the deficit. eroding the chances for tax reform. but this really isn't about 179. the purpose of bringing up this and other provisions outside of tax reform is really essentially to rig the system. it's to play games with the system. it's to try to change the rules so that essentially if you make it permanent, unpaid for, it gs into the basis -- goes into the basis and therefore after that you don't have to pay for it. that's what this is really all about. and it means you can do other things like reducing tax rates, mainly for the very wealthy, having more room to do that. not having to worry about the money to pay for that. because you haven't used the money to pay for the extenders. that's really what this is all about. it wasn't done in the rules committee by chairman ryan. it should not be done now. look, the republicans are trying to adjust the rules, to change them. so that they can proceed with their approaches. it isn't forthright, it isn't honest. they are worried the dynamic scoring won't be enough. so essentially they are trying to do dynamic things so-called with a basis. all of that really is contrary to sound policy. it's contrary to the rules. and it's really contrary to the search for bipartisanship. we'll sit down tomorrow and talk about 179 as an important part of tax reform. we'll do that tomorrow. we haven't even started on tax reform. and so now you essentially want to say we'll cut some pieces and we'll do that. and that is not sound policy as well as mr. neal said really abrogates sound practice. that's what this is all about. so i urge very much that we vote no. there will be one way or another enough votes if this ever got through the senate, and it won't. to sustain a veto. don't play games. let's address tax reform and responsibility in terms of the deficittings. -- deficits. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. tiberi: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tiberi: ladies and gentlemen, this isn't a game. this is reality. this is groundhog's day. we have been doing this for 12 years. you don't ask somebody who is trying to run a business in america on main street, they want certainty. they don't want retroactivity. heck, you got 10 months left in the year. they'd like longer than that. their business cycle's longer than 10 months. their business cycle is years. go ask an catant at a business. tsh-an accountant at a business in terms of how they have to plan. the rules are rigged against them. i mean the rules. the chairman talked about the rules. i'm going to undermine and bold this. imagine this, this provision is expired, and my colleagues in the minority are concerned about adding to the deficit because this provision that expired on december 31, we are trying to renew without raising taxes on other people. when spending expires, the chairman mentioned a few of those programs, and we renew them at the same level, it doesn't add to the deficit. think about that. go talk to some constituents at a diner on main street in any of our districts and thing those rules are fair. they are paying the bill. they are paying all the bill. ladies and gentlemen we have got to get things done. we have to get things done. the american people are counting on us to get things done. this is as common ground as there is in our tax code when it comes to trying to help job creators create jobs. i don't know anybody who wants a minimum wage job. i know people who want jobs that pay more than minimum wage. i had a minimum wage job once. i wanted to make more than that. that wasn't my goal. my goal was to make more money than minimum wage. we know each and every one of us knows somebody who can't find a job. who wants a job. i know people who want to create more jobs and have their businesses grow. this provision ladies and gentlemen, we know this provision helps people get jobs. it doesn't have to be that hard. we can walk and chew gum. we can lay the groundwork for competitive-- comprehensive tax reform. we need partners. we need partners in the senate. we need partners in the white house. the white house has said they are for c-corps reform. as everybody knows this provision will help a lot more than c-corpses, it will help small business that is are pass-through entities. s-corpses. -- corpse -- corps. mom and pop small businesses on main street. we cannot wait. these people have waited long enough. ladies and gentlemen, we need long-term certainty. this is a step an important one. to comprehensive tax reform. a very important one. that we need to pass and get on our business to getting to comprehensive tax reform. so i would plead with my friends in the minority, let's put aside this rhetoric. let's move toward this. let's pass this bill. we had a debate last summer that is reminiscent of the debate today. . and we almost got there. the democrats in the senate, our chairman at the time dave camp, were negotiating the framework what some are being critical of, would create perm nancy for bills that we are -- permanency for bills that we are debating today. we know that democrats are for this under the right circumstances. exactly how this is written. so let's put aside all those things and let's do work today that's good for america and good for americans. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 101, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to permanently extend increased expensing limitations and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. neal: in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the notion. the clerk: mr. neal of massachusetts moves to recommit the bill h.r. 636 to the committee on ways and means with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. add at the end the following -- section 6, no increase in deficit or delay of comprehensive tax reform. nothing in this act shall result in, one, an increase in the deficit or, two, a delay or weakening of efforts to adopt a permanent extension of the provisions of this act so long as it is accomplished in a fiscally responsible manner. section 7 short-term extension while comprehensive tax reform is under consideration. notwithstanding any other provision of this act any temporary provision of law, the application of which is otherwise made permanent under this act shall be hereby only extended for one year. the speaker pro tempore: a point of order is reserved. pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. neal: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. neal: mr. speaker, i'm opposed to this bill in its current form. i'd remind my colleagues that this amendment to the bill, which would not kill the bill, nor simply send it back to committee if adopted and the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. now, i must tell you that i, having served on the ways and means committee for a long time, i think we should label tax reform as chairman ryan's tax reform by ambiguity. i can't figure this out. we have a set of final decisions that are put in the front of the discussion and debate. mr. ryan stands and says you're supposed to stick to your principles, you're supposed to stick to your beliefs you don't need bipartisanship and the majority leader addressed the house 10 minutes before blaming the president because he sticks to his beliefs and he sticks to his principles and he adheres to some basic policy tenants. well, this is friday the 13th. what an appropriate way to discuss tax reform. but i have figured out what the problem is. they, on the republican side, are now afraid of doing tax reform. they must be afraid of what they see as the luck that might come to the democratic party based on tax reform. and let me say this today right now, every democrat in this institution favors 179 and favors expensing for small businesses, and if anything we would extend the principle beyond its current form so we might include even more individuals. but like garlic to the vampire the permanent unpaid for extension of these tax bills harms bipartisan tax reform because it goes out of its way to violate, not just procedure, but something that's elusive and hard to put our hands around which is principle of good will which used to exist, particularly on the ways and means committee. it was the hardest committee to get on. there was deep thinking that you had to adhere to, virtually every tax measure, and people spent careers trying to get on it. once they got on, spent careers trying to perfect legislation that might come to the aid of the american family, but not in this instance. so i heard my friend, mr. tiberi -- and he is my friend -- say a few moments ago, he addressed the issue of the framework. democrats do not object to the framework that david camp used, or as mr. tiberi called him, c. david camp to do fundamental tax reform. we strongly endorsed the principle offered by chairman camp a framework and procedure. he included democrats right through the whole discussion. and then when it failed -- incidentally, as i told you it would -- when it failed mr. camp said, well, we have to do the extenders. so there's a bit of apple nearbyia at work -- amnesia at work today. we may call, like in new england as super bowl champions, the two-minute warning. we had to do this at the very end when the referee said, if we don't get this done quickly -- and another group they disdain is the i.r.s. because the i.r.s. said for the two-minute warning, they said to us, you won't be able to prepare tax reforms for april if we don't get this done right now. so succumbing to what had been a very good framework we had to do tax extenders because the republican party rejected david camp's tax reform proposal. now our proposal here is the same and mr. tiberi is correct when he says everybody favors 179. what we object do is we're going to borrow the money because you violate the principles that on one moment you adhere to and on the next you relinquish. we might think on this side, tomorrow is valentine's day. there could have been some good will established here today. there could have been some common ground as we go forward on tax reform. i saw how one did it when i joined the committee. i saw how mr. rangel did it. i saw how mr. archer and mr. camp did it. they were institutionalists by nature. they would not have done what is being done today. all four of those individuals would have said, well, first of all, to make it work and to make it great it has to be bipartisan in nature. as you relate to tax reform. when you hear about tax reform in 1986, one of the things that comes to mind immediately is the fact that it was done with president ronald reagan and speaker thomas o'neill. let me say mr. speaker, as upset i am today by the manner this is being offered, i want to say to my republican colleagues, happy valentine's day. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. tiberi: mr. speaker, i withdrawal the reservation of a point of order and rise in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tiberi: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank the gentleman from new england and oppose his motion and i don't want to deflate anybody's -- anybody's honor today. let me just clarify what i said about mr. camp and his draft. what i said is, because the gentleman's right, he was fully engaged in a very comprehensive way as were others on the committee with chairman camp and me and others. but mr. camp had one partner in the senate that he was working with. a very important one. unfortunately got sent to china. at that point all opportunities with the other very important body kind of evaporated. and remember, four years -- actually, his start was when he was actually ranking member he started putting together a comprehensive draft. i think that's important to note. i really appreciate the gentleman's attempt today because remember last year, last summer the gentleman correctly observed this was a waste of time because we're just going to do this retroactively at the end of the year. we could have broken that cycle last year. it took chairman camp and majority leader reid in december to almost do it. they almost got there. they almost broke the cycle. we can still break that cycle. we can still stop this vicious cycle of one year here, two years there retroactive here and provide certainty and get to the business of comprehensive tax reform. we can do all that but we have to pass this bill first, make it permanent. i oppose the motion. this is simple. permanency versus one year. happy valentine's day. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question son the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it, the motion is not agreed to. mr. neal: mr. speaker i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage of the bill, if ordered, and agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of represeates any use ofhelode vegef e us proceedgsorol o coeralurse ess phitebyhe s. oreprtave] [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 171. the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 173. the nays are 241. none answering present, the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: those in favor say aye, please signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the gentleman from texas. >> i would ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 272 the nays are 142. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 233 the nays are 158 with one answering present. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 2:00 p.m. on tuesday february 17, 2015, and that the order of theous of january 6 2015 regarding morning hour debate not apply on that day. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 1 an act to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the speaker's appointment pursuant to u.s.c. 1928-a and the order of the house of january 6 2015, of the following members on the part of the house to the united states group of the nato parliamentary assembly. the clerk: mr. turner, ohio, chair. mr. johnson of ohio, mr. miller of florida, mr. marino of pennsylvania, mr. guthrie of kentucky, mr. cook of california, mr. kinzinger of illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the speaker's appointment pursuant to 10 u.s.c. 4355-a and the order of the house of january 6, 2015 of the following members on the part of the house to the board of visitors to the united states military academy. the clerk: mr. pompeo kansas, and mr. womack of arkansas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the speaker's appointment pursuant to 10 u.s.c. 696 -a of the following members on the part of the house to the board of visitors to the united states naval academy. the clerk: mr. young of indiana and br rooney of florida. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the speaker's appointment pursuant to 14 u.s.c. 194 and the order of the house on january 6 2015, of the following member on the part of the house to the board of visitors to the united states coast forward academy. the clerk: mr. smith of nebraska. the speaker pro tempore: think chair announces' speaker's appointment pursuant to 10 u.s.c. 9355-a and the order of the house of january 6, 2015, of the following members on the part of the house to the board of visitors to the united states air force academy. the clerk: mr. lamb born of colorado and ms. mcsally of arizona. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the speaker's appointment pursuant to 46 u.s.c. 51312-b and the order of the house of january 6 2015, of the following member on the part of the house to the board of visitors to the united states her vant marine academy. the clerk: mr. king of new york. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to honor a great man who left a mark, in fact, a legacy, on our state of north carolina. coach dean smith retired as the winningest coach in f.d.s. history but many will remember dean myth as a pioneer in another arena. he grew up in a home that valued the inalienable human dignity bestowed on us by our creator. when dean's father brought a young african-american student to the team he, did so against the wishes of the administration. mr. walker: he stood up for a principle he knew was right. no doubt this had an impact on his son dean. dean later helped integrate college basketball. during his ten qure, the greatest rivalry in college basketball became duke and u.n.c. coach k. of duke university said it best, while building an elite program at north carolina he was clearly ahead of his time in dealing with social issues. however his greatest gift was his unique ability to teach what it takes to become a good man. that was easy for him to do because he was a great man himself. thank you, coach smith, for your investment into basketball but even more into the lives you touched. thank you mr. speaker, i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. ashford: i rides to honor those in my district in nebraska who serve their country. it takes them away from home for long periods of time and leafs them with obstacles to overcome when they return home. over the next six weeks my team and i will be meeting with folks in the military community on ways to -- that we can help men and women who serve. our goal is to build a network of support throughout the second congressional district. nebraska is home to -- our entire congressional delegation is committed to giving them the benefits and opportunities they have earned. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> i seek, unanimous consent, mr. speaker, to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. emmer: thank you mr. speaker. i rise today to applaud the house for passing america's small business tax relief act of 2015. i want to thank congressman tiberi, chairman ryan and leadership for their work to pass this important piece of legislation. if we want the united states to continue as the most productive economy in the world, we need to modernize our tax code, allowing businesses to plan ahead and allocate their resources will generate wealth, jobs and a higher standard of living for everyone. making section 179 of the tax code permanent is one way we can do this. section 179 enables companies to accelerate depreciation of new and used equipment that is purchased and put into use during the same year. this expense can stimulate business by reducing the cost of capital and increasing cash flow. investing in the future of america is critical to long-term growth and economic prosperity for all, and i urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from washington is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. part of the wonder of being a kid is discovering the world warned us you know feeling the trunks of trees, picking up sticks, going to the beach and picking up whatever you find, overturning rock and looking for creatures, but around the puget sound and on the atlantic coast and the pacific, marine disease is ravaging sea stars, just like this. mr. heck: 20 species dying quickly literally melting away, and when disease like this breaks out, how are we going to stop it? the truth of the matter is we have absolutely no system in place to respond, none. so today i introduced the bicoastal bipartisan marine disease emergency act. the marine disease emergency act speeds up the process to address these outbreaks providing the right resources and the right time to the scientists and researchers so they can respond quickly. responding fast is crucial to preventing widespread exposure or worst-case scenario, extinction. i ask my colleagues to please join me in supporting the marine disease emergency act. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from arizona is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, every day more than 116 people are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. during my first tenure in congress i worked very closely with dr. salmon, founding director of the arizona cancer center. together we were able to ensure american cancer patients receive greater access to life-saving clinical trials. shortly thereafter pancreatic cancer claimed his life. mr. salmon: it is the fourth deadliest cancer in the u.s. and only one of the four that does not have a known cure. in fact, in the last five years, 92% of those that have been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer died during the first year of their diagnosis. sadly, pancreatic cancer is one of the few cancers for which the survival rate has not substantially improved over the last 25 years. it's time that we eradicate the scourge of cancer once and for all. we must again focus american ingenuity, dedication and resources in the fight against cancer, particularly pancreatic and lung cancers, that have lagged behind in diagnosis and survivelt. it is vital that -- surviveability. it is vital that we get research during the 114th congress. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i ask to address the house for one minute, i ask unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: thank you, mr. speaker, very muc mr. sp today i proudly over the last two days voted for a temporary extension of the small business tax exemption and the food inventory charitable exemption. because i realize that america has many needs that have to be addressed. food stamps that have been denied to many people with a $40 billion cut in the last congress by my friends on the other side of the aisle. and i realize that if we continue in the mode of a permanent tax exemption, where will the funding come from -- social security, medicare medicaid? a variety of needs that our community has. so today i want to make sure that the $1.5 trillion debt that we had is now $440 billion that we continue to be responsible and be concerned about our children's education and about health care and about many other things. so today we must stand considering all the needs of americans. finally let me say that i represent an area that is trying to protect friedman town bricks bought for by slaves. i believe we should come together in houston, with our friedman town's coalition and those citizens in that area, let's resolve this. let's do trenching, preserve the bricks and provide a quality infrastructure program that i have helped fund by federal dollars. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in recognition of loss of a true american hero. mr. knight: colonel fulton lost his life on february 4 of this year. and we lost the true dean of flight test. the aerospace community mourns his passing. he had 23 years to serve in the air force as colonel and 20 years with nasa. colonel fulton was responsible for flying the yf-12, or as some people would know, the sr-70, the xp-70 the b-52 and many other aircraft in his 16,000 hours in the air. where i got my connection to colonel fulton was he was the b-52 pilot for dropping my father in the x-15 in the middle 1960's during record flights. i would always remember colonel fulton as an honorable and one of those people that you just looked at those steely eyes and knew he had a true sense of commitment to this country and what we believe in and this country will mourn his passing. thank you mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i would ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you mr. speaker. i rise today to honor the life of henley lovelace. henry was born november 22 1931, in south virginia and passed away on january 28, 2015. henry was a vibrant, pleasant peaceful person who always kept a positive attitude. mr. desauliner: he joined the united states army in 1950 and was promoted to rank of sergeant. he was stationed at fort seal army base in oklahoma where he worked as a mechanic. after his military service, he worked as a public transit bus driver and maintenance worker in pittsburgh pennsylvania. in 2003, henry moved to california to be closetory his family. he was a beloved father of two children grandfather of six great grandfather of eight and father-in-law to pete longmeyer, mayor of the city of pittsburgh california, in my district. he was an avid storyteller, shared stories about his military life all of his life experiences and his many travels. he enjoyed meeting new people going to church every week writing the -- riding the public bus, playing checkers at senior centers and wearing his crisp white dress shirts, ties and dress hats. mr. speaker, i ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the remarkable life of henry lovelace. i send my deepest condolences to henry's family, friends and loved ones. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker i rise to address the house for one minute by alaska and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. blum: i thank the speaker. i rise in awareness of angelman syndrome. this sunday, february 15, is recognized as international angelman day. originally described by a pediatrician in 1965, it now affects roughly one out of every 15,000 children or young adults. they're also known as angels. mr. rokita: my son, teddy, is one of those angels and there are hundreds more just like him. my wife and i are extremely blessed by teddy's presence in our lives and we're thankful for the joy he brings. in recognition of international angelman day, i encourage you to join me to increase awareness for angelman day this sunday. you can participate by using #angelmanday on facebook or twitter or go to www.angelman.org. we can increase support of angels everywhere and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. any further requests for one-minute speeches? under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015 the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the time. i'd like to begin by yielding as much time as he may consume to my friend from the georgia delegation, mr. loudermilk. mr. loudermilk: thank you mr. speaker. and i thank the gentleman for the time. mr. speaker, i rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to a constituent a friend and a brother in christ, timothy f. johnson who on january 30 left this life to spend eternity with our savior. however, i stand before you today, not to mourn the passing of a friend, but to honor a legacy, a legacy of a statesman, a soldier and an american patriot. born and raised in cleveland ohio, tim's compassion towards others was evident through the earliest part of his childhood. joining the boy scouts, tim was able to develop his natural leadership ability which advanced him to the rank of eagle scout by the age of 14. after completing college tim's passion for service led him to join the u.s. army where he rose to the rank of major. after a distinguished 21-year career as an officer, tim retired from active military service but not from community service. tim was always committed to excellence. he believed that although we may do good, we can always do better. not only did tim dedicate his life to the service he also inspired others to do the same. as a black american who completely understood the vision of our founding fathers that all men are created equal, tim wanted to help other conservative black americans to pursue elected service, believing that actions speak louder than words, tim co-founded the frederick douglass foundation which today is the largest christ-centered multiethnic republican ministry in america. tim also felt great compassion for his fellow veterans, especially those returning from combat in iraq and afghanistan. to better help them transition back to a civilian life, tim accepted an appointment as the chairman of the georgia trauma recovery for veterans advisory council. tim never stopped serving others and remained active in minority engagement, veterans assistance and community service until his passing. my friend colleague and constituent, major timothy f. johnson, lived a life that epitomizes the traditional american values of faith, family and freedom. i knew him as a man of strong faith who loved god, his family and his country. while he'll be missed by many of those whose lives were touched by his service, we are comforted to know that what is our loss is heaven's gain. god speed major tim johnson. your legacy lives on. mr. speaker, i yield back my time. . >> i thank my friend from georgia. this is a country that's about individuals, the story you tell about tism and the impact he had on people's lives will be known long after he's begun to be with our lord. mr. woodall: i thank my friend for being down here today. i want to talk about opportunity at a much smaller level than where my friend was talking about it. i want to talk about it in the cob to -- context of the keystone pipeline. at the end they have day, america is about opportunity. if opportunity doesn't live here anymore, i'm not sure what the point of america. is if freedom doesn't live here anymore. if they play by the rules, if they work hard, create a better life for themselves than their parents have, if you don't believe that anymore, the promise that is the american dream is lost. i think one minor federal regulation at a -- at the time, followed by more major regulations, and more minor regulations, we're eroding the ability of our young people to succeed and families to succeed. the keystone pipeline we voted on this week, mr. speaker it's about employment opportunities. it's a job-creating program. we have dozens upon dozens of pipelines across the country. why in the world the president has chose then keystone pipeline to choose as a political football is a mystery to me but building pipelines is honorable work. it's hard work. it's often dangerous work. but it is important work that goes to the price of energy in every single one of our homes back home having packed it in the -- passed it in the senate, having passed it in the house, it goes to the president's desk he, can create jobs tomorrow. it's about energy security. it's energy from our friends in canada, one of our most loyal partners across the globe. we need north american energy security. i don't want to rely on folks across the ocean who oftentimes wish us harm. i want to use those resources here creating this partnership with canada gives us this energy security. it's enhanced safety mr. speaker. you don't think about it, but if we're not moving oil through a pipeline, we're moving it on trains and in trucks. trains and trucks their safety record mr. speaker much less reliable than pipelines. not just in terms of spills but in terms of lives. i heard the gentleman from north dakota down here earlier this week,ing of the trucks and trains are moving thru his district he said if we put in the pipeline instead of using the trucks, lives would be saved. traffic accidents would be avoided. lives would be saved. not just oil spills but real, human consequences. we talk about environmental protection, this is going to be the most advanced pipeline ever constructed in the united states of america. that's just the environmental protection of the pipeline. we go on to talk about where would that oil be refined if we don't do it here under u.s. safety and environmental standards. the answer is, we're going to shift that overseas. it's going to shipped to china and be processed in a much less environmentally friendly way. we have an opportunity to take that step. finally, mr. speaker, we're talking about the exchange with our friends in canada. can you imagine if we had a product we were trying to get to market and the only way to get it there, or the simplest way to get it there was to move it through canada and the canadians said no, i don't care about your economy, your jobs, your resource, the answer is no, we won't partner with you. if you read the comments coming out of the government in canada they are just flabbergasted that all they're asking is for this minor connection into the u.s. pipeline system and they -- the country they thought was their great friend america has been so resistant. seven years we have been waiting on this solution mr. speaker. finally it has passed in this congress this week. i want to talk about what's happening in this congress because when you slow down things like the pipeline, mr. speaker, you're slowing down americans. you're slowing down economic growth you're slowing down job creations. i have it here from atlanta's own cnn, a headline titled "harry reid" quotes him saying dems won't engage in obstruction. this is november 12, 2014. he's making the point, at that time he was the majority leader in the senate, now he's the former majority leader in the senate. he's making the point that the -- that america is not helped when the senate engages in obstructionism. he says i'm ready to work with mitch mcconnel now the senate majority leader, to make this function for the -- to make this institution function for the american people. he said, i saw firsthand how a strategy of obstruction was debilitating to our system. i have no desire to engage in that manner. i'm grate to feel harry reid for that wisdom. i think he's absolutely right about that. there's a right way and a wrong way to run the institution. he's observed the right way to do it. unfortunately that was back in november. fast forward to this month mr. speaker. look at the headlines across the country. "washington post," senate democrats should be careful about their filibuster strategy. as you know, the filibuster is the definition of obstructionism. it's in full force in the senate as we sit here today. february 4. from the atlantic, new democratic obstructionist. that's the headline of the article. just three months ago where majority leader harry reid said this is not the right path for america. this is bad for america and he was right when he said it. it's taken three months for him to change his mind and go the other direction. politico. "democrats learn to love the filibuster." party leaders change tune now that they are in the minority. change tune. now that they're in the minority. mr. speaker, america's needs are no less great today. job creation is no less important today this eamerican economy is no less fragile today. but the senate democratic leaders have changed their tune. finally back to cnn. democrats block funding for d.h.s. to protect obama immigration orders. what that means, mr. speaker is they've blocked debating the bill to fund d.h.s. they're so intent on protecting the president and what he's done alone from the white house they refuse to even allow the senate to debate the merits of those issues. if this institution is not about debate mr. speaker, i don't know what it is about. i begin with that to get us into the economy, mr. speaker. i have to tell you i have the vice chairman of the budget committee, house budget committee down here with me today. the gentleman, todd rokita from indiana. the budget committee right now is involved in the gargantuan task of trying to balance the federal budget, present that budget to this house, before april. but their task is complicated mr. speaker. you can't see the chart i have, but their task is complicated because economic growth in america is slowing. the obstructionism in the senate, the obstructionism from the white house, can't build simple things like the keystone pipeline. do you know mr. speaker, one of the greatest public works projects in our -- in the history of our nation, the hoover dam. the hoover dam. was built in less time than it's take then white house to consider the application for this short pipeline connecting america and canada? we built the hoover dam more quickly than we can sign off on the paperwork far pipeline. let me show you what the impact of that is. economic growth. in 2013 mr. speaker, c.b.o. projected g.d.p. would be growing about 3% a year. 2.9% to be precise. by last february they lowered to it 2 1/2%. today, january 2015, they lowered it to 2.3%. mr. speaker, that's not just 2.9% to 2.3%. that's trillions of dollars in economic activity. trillions. it looks small on this page but it is giant on the federal budget. it's even bigger when you talk about the job creation that hasn't occurred. it's even bigger when you talk about americans who are trapped in part-time work. it's bigger when you talk about young people graduating from college who cannot find a job. that's the impact of obstructionism. that's the impact of inaction. that's the impact of having a former majority leader, now minority leader in the senate who is the -- who as the newspaper headlines say, has changed his tune. i've heard folks say, i laugh, mr. speaker, it's not funny. it's sad. but aye heard folks say, what are you complaining about rob? deficits have come down by half. in president obama's administration. they've come down by half. well that's true. when i showed up here four years ago, mr. speaker, deficits were at their single highest rate in the history of the nation and by single highest rate i mean they were four times higher than they had ever before ben. so they've dropped from being four times higher than ever before, down to just higher than ever before. you can call that progress but i don't. i have a chart here as a percent of the size of the economy. i go all the way back to 1965. we've had republicans, we've had democrats, we've had republicans in congress, democrats in congress, republicans in the white house, democrats in the white house, this isn't about the parties. for pete's sakes if we look here for the only surpluses in our nation's history it comes at a time when we had much like we do today republicans here in this institution republicans in the united states senate, and democrats leading from the white house. in a bipartisan way we created some economic growth. but what i want you to see mr. speaker, is that we come here into the current administration, deficits dramatically higher than ever before in america, dramatically higher this is the historical average. it is embarrassing that we have to talk about our nation's finances by talking about historical deficits. we came here to stop borrowing from our children and fwrarne, to start being responsible by paying the bills today, to improve opportunity in the future, not to diminish and borrow from opportunity in the future but that's been the historical average. but what you'd see if you could see the chart, mr. speaker, even as the white house is preaching the good news of declining deficits, they have only declined from those record highs. they've declined to a level where they're going to continue to rise again at levels higher than the historical average. the president just sent his budget last -- two weeks ago now, mr. speaker. he sent that budget, it arrived here on time for the first time in his administration. i applaud him for that. but it never balances. never, ever. not this year, not next year, not 10 years from now, not 20 years from now. not 100 years from now. the idea of the united states of america and the budget that should control it from the president's point of view is a budget that should never, ever balance, and thus a budget that should continue year after year to borrow from the prosperity of future generations so that we can spend it on ourselves. that's selfish in way is can't be a part of. what's the nature of the problem, mr. speaker? we're talking about this in the budget committee right now. total spending in this country about $3.5 trillion this year. the little part that congress has control over, it's the defense and nondefense discretionary this little corner of the pie we're able to control that. in fact, mr. rokita, vice chair of the budget committee arrived here in 2010 as i did, every single year since you have been here, leading -- meeting at the budget committee, i say to the gentleman from indiana we have reduced that discretionary spending every single year. it hasn't been easy. it has been hard, deliberate, bipartisan work, but we've done it because it was the right thing to do. $3.5 trillion is a lot of money. but the small part you hard control over you've made a difference in. it's the rest of this pie that continues to grow. i yield to my friend. mr. rokita: i thank the gentleman for yielding. and the gentleman is exactly right. the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall new york my opinion, my humble opinion is a blessing not only for this congress and for the people of georgia, but for this country because of the tenacity you bring, the energy you bring. if i had a list of all the pieces of legislation, all the things we've gotten done around here for the last four years you and i have been here, the work you've done behind the scenes that list would be very long, probably go out these doors. one of the things that you have tone that we have done together is for the first time since the korean war, we have cut discretionary spending. for four years in a row. hasn't been done since the korean war. as you pointed earlier -- in earlier slides, there's a lot more work to do. we need a partner at some point. we need people to put on what i call their big boy pants and their big girl skirts and get to the bottom of this. and that is getting to the balanced budget. i'll tell you this pie chart is very good. you're exactly right, mr. speaker, mr. woodall is exactly right, this twow -- the two blue pieces we pull out for you in this pie chart are what you would get at in a traditional, regular budget process. this is what we call discretionary spending, both in the nondefense and defense area. i think you'll see it's no measure 2/3 or 40 -- 1/3 or 40% of our federal spending. the rest, all that red you see there, is on what we call auto pilot spending. the budget, line by line, doesn't touch that. why? it's on autopilot. that's your medicare medicaid, social security, that's your interest that we owe ourselves and other countries for all this debt because that's a contract. and that red is going to continue to grow as a percentage of that pie until it takes up nearly all of it over the next several years and then we're not going to have the money we need to spend on the things that constitutionally we need to spend it on, like defense. like some of the other 167 other agencies around here. and that's a bad, bad situation that's unsustainable. . until you get to the underlying law that is social security, medicare, medicaid that's the other mandatory spending, until you reform those programs so that we fit how we live in the 21st crepetry, so they can be slaved for our children and grandchildren -- saved for our children and grandchildren, you're never going to get to balancing the budget or paying down this awful debt, something that i can't imagine anything more immoral than passing on to future americans, our children and grandchildren who do not yet exist this burden. talk about taxation without representation. thank you, mr. woodall. i appreciate letting me as a member of the budget committee, excellent leadership of chairman price chime in here. we are going to have a budget. fifth time we'll do it in a row here by the statutory deadline. we intend to get it over to the senate. we intend to move this country forward. again i say mr. speaker, chiming in with mr. woodall, i hope we have a partner this time. i hope we have personal responsibility on the floor of this house and the floor of the other chamber. thank you very much. mr. woodall: i thank the vice chairman of the budget committee. mr. speaker people think these things happen in a vacuum o. they don't. they happen because folks like mr. rokita take time away from their family away from their constituents back home even sometimes to work the long nights, the early mornings it takes to get a budget like this done. just to give you an example mr. speaker, i don't know if you thought about it, $3.5 trillion is the size of our annual spending. annual spending. people often characterize and i would will tell you mischaracterize republicans as folks who want to shut down government. that's nonsense. you heard the gentleman from indiana, he was up here earlier talking about his love for people. the needs that people have and our opportunity to aid people and their families as they struggle with some of those challenges. we spend $3.5 trillion a year in that effort. it's not that we don't want to spend the money, it's that we want to spend it effectively, efficiently, and accountably. that's all folks ask for back home. they don't say shut the government down. they say spend my tax money effectively efficiently, and accountably. $3.5 trillion, mr. speaker. if any of the young people who are coming to congress to watch what goes on here in the floor of the house mr. speaker, any of those young people were born the day that jesus christ was born and beginning on that day they spent $1 million every day $1 million every day, seven days a week, mr. speaker, from the day at that jesus christ was born until today, they would have to continue spending $1 million a day every day seven days a week for another 732 years to spend their first trillion dollars. as a federal government, we are spending $3.5 trillion every year. and we borrowed from those same young people $18 trillion that they are going to have to pay back one day. these numbers are mind-boggling and sometimes i wonder if he we as a chamber, mr. speaker, are taking this crisis as seriously as we must. it is at its core a spending crisis. it is not a revenue crisis. it's not the $3.5 trillion isn't enough to handle the needs of this country. this chart, mr. speaker, you can't see it, but it's a historical chart of spending, which is in the red, and revenues, which is in the green. when we have had this big economic down turn here, so many families out of work so many families in part-time work, so many young people who couldn't find jobs revenue absolutely went down. they went down because there were no jobs. if folks don't have jobs, they don't have incomes. if they don't have incomes, they can't pay taxes. we want people to go to work. you can't pay taxes if you don't have a job. but historically americans have been willing to pay about 18% of g.d.p. in tax revenue. so i draw that line on out for the foreseeable future, but the red line represents spending in this town, mr. speaker. the red line represents if we did nothing. if we adjourn the congress this afternoon and we went down to pennsylvania avenue and we picked up the president and we all left washington forever. i was wondering if there was going to be a group of cheers and applause that broke out when i say that, mr. speaker, i'm not actually advocating for that, but if that were to happen, the laws already on the books have made promises to people that spend the money on this red line going into historical debt territory, the likes of which we have never seen and we cannot survive as a nation. spending is the problem. the red line is the problem. the green line this is what we take from american families in taxes. it's been constant over time. to the constant in actual dollars, but constant as a percent of the economy. . it's the red line growing ever faster. now, if you will permit me to scare you a little further mr. speaker, let me talk about interest rates in this country. interest rates in this country. this chart right here, you can't see it again, mr. speaker, but it's charting the interest rates that america is paying on its debt. we borrowed all sorts of different instruments from short-term, week-long instruments all the way up to 30-year instruments. i put on the three-month bills and our 10-year notes on this chart. this chart covers most of my lifetime, mr. speaker. in fact, it goes a little further than my lifetime. what you're going to see, mr. speaker, going all the way back to 1965 it's charting the three-month bills 10-year notes, this is where we are today. what you see here, mr. speaker, is that we are at the lowest level of interest in the history of our country. in the history of our country we have never paid less on federal debt than we are paying today. yet we have never had more of it. and so what do you think's going to happen, mr. speaker, when these low interest rates that we have today return to these historically high levels? in fact the economists, as i pointed out in blue, project that interest rates will return. by return i mean that our 10-year notes are going to more than double. i mean that our three-month bills are going to more than section it uple -- sex twole. we are talking about an interest rate explosion around the corner we are not going to be able to sustain. let me take you back to what we are spending today. as we sit here today we are spending $229 billion in interest on our national debt. $229 billion while we are at the lowest interest rates in american history. now, if the rates on those 10-year notes are going to double, if the rates on those three-year bills -- three-month bills are going to sextuple what do you think $29 billion changes into within the next three, four years, mr. speaker? it doesn't change into $300 billion. it doesn't change into $400 billion. it goes northward of $500 billion in interest. in fact as the president lays out his budget, we are looking at almost $1 trillion a year in interest payments within the next 10 years. in a single year at year 10. $1 trillion, mr. speaker. enough money to pay for all of our national security. enough money to pay for all of the medicaid program and medicare program. enough money to pay for the entire social security program for a year, we are going to throw it away in interest payments because we didn't have the discipline to control spending in this bipartisan congress that we have. lowest interest rates in american history, mr. speaker. every economist projects a rise doubling to sextupling in the next 10 years. we are only borrowing money, mr. speaker, because we have lots of spending going on. there are those who believe the more we spend the better results we get. i want to tell you that's nonsense. if this chamber were full to packed today and we asked folks to have a show of hands when was that great time in the american economy they remember, when were the cares of whether or not you could afford to pay your house note, where you could apay your car note, whether you could afford to take care of your children, when was the time that those cares were the least? i dare say most of the hands would think back to the 1990's. the economy was on fire. you remember that? the stock market was on fire. you had to hide under a rock to keep from finding a good job. again, republicans controlling this institution, democrats in the white house, we were working together to constrain spending, to grow the economy, but this chart that i have here, mr. speaker shows per capita spending. it's not really meaningful to talk about spending in the abstract. it all distills down to an individual man, individual woman, individual family. what are we spending on individuals here in this country? so this is a federal outlays per individual. you'll see a constant increase going back to the truman administration. this is world war ii where we were really fighting for the future of the -- not just the republic but the world. going through the trueman administration, the eisenhower administration, this is per capita spending. you see that it increases as inflation does, as government does. just naturally rises little by little, year after year. but what you will see, mr. speaker, if you look here at the clinton years in blue, that in those years that americans would look back on with fondness and contentment, those years where the cares of the world seem just a little bit heighter -- lighter on their shoulders, we weren't spending more from washington, d.c. it didn't require more spending from washington, d.c. the stimulation of the economy is not dependent on spending from washington, d.c. in fact, arguably it is the opposite. the mother washington tsh-more washington sucks out of america the less americans have to grow their families, grow their businesses, expand their opportunities. it is meaningful to me, again you think about the reagan years. you think about the first bush years. you think about the clinton years. the economy on fire, spending from the federal government held constant. fast forward to today mr. speaker, you see spending begin to grow out of control. it happened in the bush years. again this is not a partisan problem this is an american problem. spending began to grow. we are fighting a war on terror. folks are beginning to worry about their families. worry about their jobs. spending today continuing on that rise. well, continuing until i arrived here in 2010, till you arrived here in 2014, when the cavalry arrived here. said wait a minute. i know the challenges are vast, but we can't just push the can down the road. we can't pass our problems on to the next generation. we have to confront those problems together and that's what we have been doing in this budget. mr. speaker, this chart shows if we do nothing if we do nothing, if we never make another promise, and the budget the president just sent us is full of new promises to the tune of about $2 trillion over the next 10 years, if we never make another promise, if all we do is keep the promises we have already made, if we never pass a new law or new bill to do something else simply by the force of the laws already on the books, debt grows to levels higher than we borrowed as a nation to defeat the nazis in world war ii. think about that, mr. speaker. i was down in front of the white house, i had some friends in town. i took them down to see the white house. all americans ought to make that journey. it's the center of the executive branch here in washington tk. we walked over to the old executive office building, that's a fabulous building. and on the front steps of the old executive office building, they have two cannons from the spanish american war, 1898. and they have a little plaque there on the fence, you can't get through the fence, they pushed you back a little further now with the new secret service regulations, but you can see the plaque hanging there on the fence. it says, we used to have more than 20 of these historic cannons around town, dating back to the revolutionary war. but during world war ii we melted most of them down to be a part of the war effort. think about that. in world war ii the situation was so dire, mr. speaker, we were going around to our national monuments, we were going around to our nation's history, we were finding anything made of iron or steel and we were melting it down. because world war ii wasn't a fight, it was the fight for freedom on the planet. and amidst that terror ration stamps across the land, folks standing in lines for food at the end of the great depression amidst all of that turmoil, all of that crisis, arguably the greatest crisis not just this nation has known but the world has ever known, america borrowed about 100% of the size of its economy. that's a heavy load. but it was for an important cause. . as we sit here today, mr. speaker, we've borrowed about three quarters of that same load. and if we change no law and if we make no new promises we will borrow not one time, not two times, not three times, but four times more than we borrowed to defeat the greatest evil the world has ever known, just to keep the lights on in the united states of america. that's dangerous. and it's irresponsible. mr. speaker, you can count on a budget coming to the floor of this house. it's going to be here i would guess it's going to be here on the floor by the end of march but certainly we'll have it here by april. it's going to be a budget that brings us back to balance. and it's going to be a budget that makes the hard decisions that have to be made. no one is saying don't invest in america. what they're saying is, don't let growing interest payments on irresponsible borrowing push out the room in the budget to invest in america. you know we're investing less in america today mr. speaker, than any other time in our lifetime. now we're spending more, but we're investing less. because as i showed you on that pie chart earlier, mr. speaker, what we're spending on isn't investment in america. it's income maintenance programs. if we do nothing revenues continue, debt grows out of control. 2046, mr. speaker, about the time you're entering your retirement, debt at 250% of g.d.p. spending $3.5 trillion today, today at the lowest rate of interest the country has ever known, and today in that most favorable of environments, mr. speaker we are almost spending more on interest than we are on our medicaid program. the health care program that covers children and the poor across this land. we are spending more to pay our creditors than we are to protect our children's health and that is at the lowest rates of interest the country has ever known. it only grows. and that's if the only thing that changes are the interest rates, mr. speaker. that's if we stop borrowing more money. but the president projects to borrow half trillion after half trillion after half trillion after half trillion. in fact, as i said, the budget he presented never, ever, ever comes to balance. borrows year after year after year after year, as far as the eye can see. i don't argue that that's not the easier decision to make, mr. speaker. it is. doing nothing is always easier than doing the heavy lifting. spending and borrowing more, always easier than tightening your belt and making the tough calls. sacrificing our children's future so that we don't have to make those tough decisions today, that may be the easy call. but it's immoral. it's immoral, mr. speaker. we have been able to cut budgets as the gentleman from indiana said, four years in a row for the first time, for the first time in my lifetime. we are moving the needle but there is more to do. and it can't do -- it can't be done alone. it can't be done with just democrats. and it can't be done with just the congress. it requires house republicans and democrat the senate republicans and democrats, and it requires the president of the united states to come together to make those decisions. mr. speaker, we'll be talking a lot more about this in the coming weeks. i want to make sure every mesh has all the answers they need about how we're trying to prioritize in this budget. but i want to be clear. the day of kicking the can down the road ended when republicans took over this chamber in 2011. the trust and confidence that we've earned in a bipartisan way over the last four years, we're going to continue today and senate willing, going back to the obstructionist provisions i noted at the very beginning of this hour, mr. speaker, senate willing, we will conference the first budget agreep -- budget, agree on the first budget, have the first american budget in my entire tenure in congress. the house has always done its job. this year we have an opportunity to have the congress do its job collectively. i look forward to that conclusion. with that, mr. speaker i'm grateful to you wering if down here with me this afternoon and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from georgia have a motion? mr. woodall: i move that the house now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on tuesday february 17, 2015. >> this week they passed the bill approving the construction of the keystone x.l. pipeline. the measure the president is expected to veto. today on capitol hill they held an enrollment ceremony with republican leaders. >> good morning, everyone. in a few minutes i'll sign senate bill bipartisan water legislation, approving the keystone x.l. pipeline. i want to thank all my colleagues for being here today and i want to thank sean, president of north america's building trades union for being here as well. this really is pretty simple. keystone x.l. pipeline is a good idea for our economy and it's a good idea for our country. members of both parties know it. they put politics aside and passed this very important bill. the president's own state department says this project will create up to 42,000 direct jobs. many labor unions know it. they say keystone, this isn't a pipeline it's a lifeline for america's construction workers. and the overwhelming majority of the american people know it as well. so to the president i would just say this do the right thing. sign this bill and help us create more jobs in marker and create a healthier economy. with that let me turn it over to sean. >> thank you, mr. speaker. majority leader. on behalf of the three million people that i represent, north america's building trades, i want to thank you for your tenacity in not giving on this middle class job producing, private sector funded project. we are excited to be at this point. we are excited with the ceremony today. and we urge the president of the united states to put our men and women back to work across the length of this pipeline as soon as possible. we urge the president to sinet bill. thank you. >> the new majority is getting congress back to work for the american people. passing a bipartisan jobs and infrastructure bill like keystone represents another step along that path. i'd like to recognize a few members who made that possible. first, is the bill's namesake, john holbin has literally been a warrior on this issue. he fought hard for years. he joined alliances across the aisle. and no matter how long it took, he never, never gave up. he never doubted that common sense would eventually prevail in the senate. then there's senator murkowski, she worked hard to manage varying amendments and competing priorities. no matter how they voted, every senator owes senator murkowski a debt of gratitude for proving through her skill that a functioning senate was possible. a new majority is grateful for her work and many democrats are as well. one of them senator can't well, also deserves a -- cantwell, also deserves a mention. even though she didn't vote for keystone, she worked constructively with us to process amendments. we are certainly grateful for her as well. so now where we are as others have indicated, we are hoping commonsense will prevail here and the president will sign this extraordinary jobs bill. >> when the president spoke during the state of the union address, he said the united states must aim higher than a single pipeline, i agree with him. but this is a great place to start. under his policies domestic production has shut down on federal land yet increased everywhere else by 35%. and that has led to more money in the pockets of hardworking americans and they benefited from having more domestic energy supply. the keystone pipeline would go through western south dakota. for those counties in western south dakota it would be a good shot in the arm. for many of those counties, the property taxes the pipeline will bring in would fund schools. it would fund their roads and bridges. it would give them the opportunity to transport the energy supplies they need so desperately in a safer manner and take better care of their environment as all of the studies have proven. if the president says no to this bill, what he's saying is, no to safety. he's saying no to the environment. no to funding schools. and no to safer roads and bridges. and i'm determined to do all i can to get this bill signed into law so we can build this pipeline. >> i want to start by thanking the house for passing the senate bill so we don't have to go to confidence and can go to the president. this bill really is about energy jobs, economic growth, it's about national security for our country through energy security and everyone's onboard. except for the president. for the stares you got both houses of congress, overwhelming majority 270 votes in the house, 62 votes in the senate. bipartisan majorities in the congress. the states are onboard. all six states on the route have approved this project. as i said before given that they have had six years to do it that's not a real high bar, but all the states are onboard. most importantly, the american people are onboard. overwhelmingly, last three years poll after poll has shown that between 635% and 70% of the american -- 65% and 70% of the american people support this project. so you've got the congress onboard, bipartisan majorities you got the states onboard, and people of this country onboard. mr. president, you need to join us and approve this project. make no mistake, we are in a global battle to determine who is going to supply energy. is it going to be opec? russia? countries like iran and venezuela? are we going to get our energy here at home? are we going to work with our closest friend and ally, canada, to produce our energy here at home? and look what it means to our consumers. a year ago the price at the pump for a gallon of gasoline was a dollar higher. if it were a tax cut, the drop in gas prices at the pump is $100 billion. it would be like $100 billion tax cut in the consumer's pocket. so when we ask the american people, where do you want energy produced? who do you want to be the energy leader in the world? the answer is pretty clear. they want to produce that energy here at home, they want to work with our closest ally, canada. when the president says no. no to investment in producing more energy in this country. no to the very infrastructure that we need to move that energy around our country safely. remember, it's not just canada that's producing this oil. it's oil that's produced in my home state of north dakota, montana. domestic oil that we are moving to our refineries for the benefit of our consumers. but when the president says no, that's music to opec's ears. because it puts them right back in the saddle, doesn't it? when our energy is declining because that investment is blocked, then opec will raise those prices right back up. consumers will pay more at the pump. and we'll have less energy security. when you look at what's going on in the middle east, when you look what's going on with isis, do we really want to rely on opec for our energy? americans say no. congress is onboard. the states are onboard. the american people are onboard. mr. president, we need you to join us and sign this legislation. >> thank you, senator hoeven, for being the warrior on this. i believe america's national security and america's economic security are tied directly to america's energy security. and that's why it was easy for me to recommend to leadership we simply accept the senate amendments and senate won rather than go to a conference committee. i think the amendments while not universely loved strengthen the bill. and it strengthen the bill's political palatibility which i think is an important point. for far too long we have seen gridlock grab this town. now we have demonstrated in this very first bill a functioning congress. and the best of us is illustrated in this bill. it would be a tragic shame if the president didn't stand with us as we are willing to stand with him. willing to help him do the thing that he could have done unilaterally with a stroke of his pen by signing the presidential permit. when i was on the public service commission in north dakota and cited the first -- sited the first keystone pipeline, 216 miles, 600 landowners' land, i saw every mile of the pipeline. i know it very well, those 216 miles in north dakota. i met, i met the labor force on the site. these are real workers. this is -- these are real jobs. this lifts up middle class america in a big way. but even more than the pipe fitters and the machine -- heavy machinery operators and truck drivers, it was the local cafe, the hotels, the retailers, the hardware stores, and little towns that quite frankly at that time needed a shot in the arm. your men and women working on the site gave us that shot in the arm. so i understand we all have political considerations and that the president does, too. but today today those political considerations, i think, are diminished by the fact that the new political consideration is that the people's representatives, in perfect concert with the people that we do represent, are willing to stand with the president as he stands with them and hopefully signs this bill into law. >> all right. time to sign the bill. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> that now enrolled bill approving the keystone x.l. oil pipeline heads to the white house where a veto threat from president obama awaits. elsewhere on capitol hill today, the house armed services committee heard an assessment of the islamic terrorism and among the witnesses, the former director of the defense intelligence agency, michael flynn. we'll have his complete testimony later for you today in our program schedule. but here's a bit of what he had to say regarding religious extremism and the president's recent request to congress to allow for military force in the fight against isis. >> you have asked me to comment on the state of islamic extremism. today i have the unhappy task of informing you that according to every metric of significance, islamic extremism has grown over the last year. whether it be the scale and scope of isis and its associated movements, the number of violent islamist groups, territory which these groups control, the number of terrorist attacks these groups perfect trait the massive numbers and suffering of refugees and displaced persons due to these islamist groups, that's approximately 15 million people, the amount of kidnapping and rape of women and children by these groups. the numbers of casualties they inflict. their broad expansion and use of the internet, which is very serious. or just their shear barbarism that we witnessed, i can draw no other conclusion than to say that the threat of islamic extremism has reached an unacceptable level and it is growing. we are at war with violent and extreme islamists, both sunni and shiia, and we must accept and face this reality. this mean as an unshakable vision how the world should be ordered, and they believe violence is a legitimate means of bringing about this ideal slate. they are serious, devout, and dangerous. his ideology justifies the most heinous and human actions imaginable, and he will not be reasoned with nor will he relent. this enemy must be opposed, they must be killed, they must be destroyed. and the associated extremist form of the islamic ideology must be defeated wherever it rears its ugly head. there are some who counsel mashequents arguing arming them is not a threat and they can be be treated as criminals. i adisagree. i have been in the theaters of war in iraq and afghanistan many years. faced this enemy up close and personal and i have seen firsthand the unrestrained cruelty of this enemy. they may be animated by medieval ideology, but they are thoroughly modern in their capacity to kill and maim as well as precisely and very smartly message their ideas intentions and actions via the internet. in fact, they are increasingly capability of threatening our nation's interest and those of our allies. furthermore, it would be foolish for us to wait until our enemies pose an exy tension threat before taking decisive action. doing so would only increase the cost in blood and treasure later for what we know must be done now. our violent and extremely radical islamic enemies must be stopped. when we give our military commanders a mission, we should allow them to execute that mission. and not overly constrain them with approved authorities but then having to come back to the administration for permission. so if we authorize the use of force to do something with these many times fleeting opportunities out there that our military forces see, and then they got to come back up through a bureaucratic process to get permission, even though there's an authority given to them then either we need to review those authorities and those permissions, or we need to change the commanders because we apparently don't trust them to do the job we have given them to do. that's a real problem today. give the commanders the authority to execute the mission that they have been given. if they are not the right people, remove them and put somebody else in there that can do that. otherwise allow them to do the things that they have been assigned tasked, and are very cape and of doing -- capable of doing in what is currently the aumf that we have. we have become so overly bureaucratic in coming up through the system to get permission to basically do things that, frankly, colonels on the battlefield or captains at sea are very capable of doing. a here's some of our featured programs for this presidents' day weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span2's book tv saturday morning at 9:00, live coverage of the savannah book festival with nonfix authors and books on topics like the disappearance the michael rockefeller. and four women spies during the civil war. and sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on afterwards, former senior advisor for president obama, david action the rod on his 40 years in politics. and american history tv on c-span3, saturday morning at 8:30, the 100th anniversary of the release of the film "the birth of a nation." starting with an interview of author particular layer, the showing of the entire 1915 film followed by a live call-in program. sunday at 8:00 on the presidency, george washington portraits. focusing on how artists captured the spirit of the first president and what we can learn about him through their paintings. find our complete television schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. you can email us at comments at c-span.org or send us a tweet at c-span #comments. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> president obama is on the west coast today attending the security summit at stanford university. the hill reports the president will sign an executive order stashing information centers that companies can use to share data about cyberattacks with the government. we should hear more about that when the president speaks at 2:20 p.m. eastern. we'll have his remarks live for you here on c-span. next remarks from the mayor of london. boris johnson. he sat down with politico's mike allen for the publication's breakfast series this morning. the mayor talks about a number of topics, including potential u.s. presidential contenders, making stops in london. british politics, and terrorism. this is about an hour. >> good morning, early birds. welcome to our first international playbook breakfast. we appreciate all of you coming out. welcome to all of you out in live stream land watching. we appreciate you. we'd love to bring you into our virtual conversation. i've got my brand new twitter machine here so just send me your questions tweet your questions at #playbookbreakfast, we'll ask you -- we are very honored to have with us the mayor of london boris johnson who is a mayor, a candidate, a author, a columnist, and quite a few other things tall' see in just a minute. we are very grateful to the bank of america for making these conversations available. we love the range of topics of the most important views and events in washington that come up. so we have gone on the road. this time of road came to us across the pond. we appreciate bank of america has been a tremendous partner on this play d.c. boost series and we are excited about -- on this playbook series and we are excited about it. there are survey cards. this is a first on your seat. the playbook series is a success because of you. we appreciate your thoughts about who you'd like to see as guests. any changes you'd like to make us see in the format. without further delay it's a great honor to welcome the mayor of london, boris johnson. thank you so much for coming. >> good morning. good morning. rickety chair. it will be all right. >> you told my you did not arrive by bicycle today which is your usual. >> i have used your wonderful i ask. you got a wonderful bike tire system here which i think you may have borrowed from another city. it works well. i didn't use it this time. why not? to my shame. next time i will. >> in london, you actually arrive at an event on your bike. >> yes. it's the most -- it's the easiest way to get around. in spite of the great efforts made to improve the traffic in london i'm afraid ample traffic speeds increased from 9.3 to 9.4 miles an hour since i have been there. you're basically better off going by bike if you can. i love cycling. i really urge everybody to cycle to work. you arrive in an irritatingly optimistic frame of mind. i didn't go that kind of speed. piece of an elderly french onion -- you don't work up much of a sweat in london. because the climate is so temperate and beautiful. you don't have huge huge balls of snow such as i have seen on the east coast of america. >> last night you were at our -- your embassy in the u.s., meeting the ambassador. tell us what that was like. >> the reason i'm here just -- i'm here because the commercial relationship between london and america is the most important that we have. and we can never take it for granted. >> this is the commercial. >> it's important to get this in. what's this guy doing here? what i'm trying to remind american investors is that ours is the city where they really need to focus if they want to bridge into the european market. we'll come to that later on. it is the -- in spite of everything, we have more people in financial services in london, even than new york according to one statistic. we have more american banks established in london. we have a massive massive new tech center growing up by half a million people employed in sin tech biotech, med tech, green tech, tech aztec. the whole thing. that is taking off at an extraordinary rate. we have been talking to investors in boston in new york about how they see london. it's very exciting. lots of companies are coming over. it's about building up that transatlantic flow of investment. because in the end people could always say they want to go to berlin. and that would be a mistake. but i have to -- i've got to help them to avoid that mistake. that's my -- >> the sith sownian is looking at coming to london. how is that going? what are the hopes for that project? >> this is a fantastic project. we cannot count our chickens. did you know, 18% of the genetic material of every chicken in the world was developed in london? can that possibly be true? if you tempted to count your chickens, they almost certainly are from london. >> check your facts. >> we are not quite there yet. what happened was the board of regents of the smithsonian, none of the greatest -- one of the greatest cultural institutions in the world. 19 incredible museums. they decided in january at a historic vote they were going to explore, have discussions with us about making their first outpost overseas in our city. that is fantastic news for london obviously. because i think the smithsonians -- i used to go there as a kid. it's a wonderful place. the people of east london will have -- it will be part of a complex of incredible institutions on the strat ford side where we held the olympics. an area of post trillion -- an area that's been derelict for a long time but now going gangbusters. if this thing comes off we'll put the smithsonian in with a new victoria and albert museum, east will have a new ucl, big london university, big new u.c.l. campus there. the smithsonian will be an anchor tenant in a new cultural hub. an olympiccropolis in a world nobody else uses. we are very, very excited by it. i think from america's point of view this is a no american taxpayers money deal. very important point to get across to you sharp minded political journalists here. no american taxpayers' moneys is going to be compromised by this. i hope it will give america a window on the world in the world's most visited city, which is what london s we had more tourists last year than any other international tourists than any other city. and the risk of being pompous -- i shouldn't be pompous since i am mayor of london, it will simpson bolize, represent what i think is the most important relationship, between our two countries. that is the values that we have in common. which are freedom and democracy and pluralism and all those things. which are shared by britain and america. and which by the name are trifflian in the modern world. they are not uncontested around the world. and they are not universal. and it would be great to have them incarnated in east london. >> one of the reasons you have those international tours is our politicians running for president all seem to want to go there. you just hosted governor chris christie last week. the governor of wisconsin, scott walker was there this week. why is there this trend of -- >> it's not just u.s. politicians. lots of americans want to come to london. quite right, too. oscar wilde said where do bad americans go? to paris. where do good americans go? london. i may have adjusted that quote in some way. we have 55,000 american students in london which is more american students than in any city in the world outside america. >> if i'm heartland politician running for president of the united states, what do i get from going to london? >> i hope very much that you have a good time. you have -- you will find, i think, i might say 240 superb museums as against 80 in new york. you'll find more starred restaurants in london than there are in paris. another statistic i haven't checked recently. that was true. what happened was that was true in 2004. we did have more starred restaurants in london than paris. the french got wind of this and basically michland the guide was told to go around in a north korean way shelling out stars to restaurants until they overtook london. we are up there. the food -- what i'm trying to say the food is great, theater scene is great. the cultural life is great. there are more live music venues than anywhere else on earth. they'll have a great time. >> they don't have a great time. our politicians seem to have a habit of saying dumb things when they are in london. it happened to romney. >> it's not just american politicians. it's not a skill reserved exclusively to american politicians. we all have a go at that one. >> why do you think our politicians get in trouble when they go there? >> i'm not convinced they all do. give me -- >> we'll move on. down from new york. you met with all the powers in new york. hillary clinton, the police commissioner and anna winter. >> yes. is that in descending order of influence. >> what was hillary like? >> i thought she was -- i was very impressed. i thought she was absolutely brilliant. brilliant mastery of foreign policy which is mainly what we talked about. she was extremely compelling on a large number of subjects. but one thing in particular she really wanted to get across, and that was that she thought the europeans were being too wimpy in dealing with putin. >> did she use that word? >> no, i'm summarizing that. sorry. she did not use that word. she used a much more elcan't ellow cution. i can't remember it. -- elcution. i can't remember it. we in britain should be less dependent on russian hydrocarbons and get on with seek alternative sources from america, for instance. her general anxiety was that putin is unchallenged and unchecked would continue to expand his influence in the perimeter of what was the soviet union. she spoke of alarm in the baltic states. i was very, very struck by that. she was also supportive of what the president is doing in a respect to isis and isil. she feels like me that there's more we should all be doing to support the kurdish peshmerga. those guys, i don't know whether you have been following, those are the only guys out there who are really taking it to the isis isil. >> you're just back from a trip to curd stand, 40 commerts from the frontlines. >> i don't exaggerate how close i was. you're geting in -- you get in trouble over here. i was nearish to the frontline. i wouldn't say bullets were wanging over my head. i did talk to the peshmerga. it was very, very inspiring. curd stand, that northern chunk of iraq, which was basically created by us. if you think about it, it was the no-fly zones that we created in 1991 that have carved out this area, this oasis of comparative stability and reasonableness. it's the one of the few areas of the middle east where both the population and the ruling elites, as it were, are pro-west pro-american, and pro-britain. and i think they need our support. they are definitely being very effective in dealing with the terrorists. with isis. the difficulty is what do you do about mosul and how you clear that out. then there will be big problems about the boundaries of curd stand and -- kurdistan and what the final vocation of the kurds is. are they to have the state that's been denied them for a century or more? those are not easy questions. >> what was the most surprising thing that secretary clinton said to you? >> i think -- i think that -- i was struck by the firmness with which she wanted us in britain to take it to putin. >> did she use that phrase? >> i'm so soarry. -soarry. you have to forgive mee. this is a brutal summary of what she said. >> what was she like -- >> an attempt to represent the word. >> not a transcript. >> do not rely on it. >> what was she like as a person? >> incredibly gracious. and charming. particularly when you consider that there was unfortunate quotation they managed to excavate from some of my heir kives from many years ago -- my archives many years ago which could have been construed as being -- she was so nice and so kind she even in that article she found something to agree with. modesty forbids me from -- >> you had a very serious conversation with nypd commissioner about the city's security which is one of your most important missions while you were there. >> yes. absolutely. before i get -- one other thing that hillary clinton and i discussed, on the foreign affairs side of things, is this whole european issue and where we are going with all that. it is very important to remember that there is going to be a referendum on the e.u. in britain. there hasn't been one for -- since 1975. 40 years or whatever it is. there needs to be a referendum. the people of britain have never been consulted on the issue. i really hope the people in america will recognize that this is a positive development. and i think overwhelmingly the chances are the british people will vote in favor of staying inside a reformed e.u. but this is now the chance for the british and lots of supporters around the table in brussels to get change and get improvements in the way the e.u. is managed. for the benefit not just of europe but also of investors in europe. and i'm conscious there is a sort of -- bit of fluttering in the skirts about this e.u. referendum and what's it going to mean? business hates the uncertainty. the message i would want to get over i think it is overwhelmingly likely that there will be a successful outcome in the negotiations will be successful. it is much more important to go into that referendum -- negotiation and achieve change than to just continue staggering along as we are. because at the moment the eurozone and european union generally are a microclimate of economic gloom that is holding back progress across the world. it needs -- it's not just the euro, it needs reform of the supply side. it needs to be much more competitive. we in britain can lead that argument. >> the worry about a referendum is it could lead to britain leaving the e.u., what is the percentage chance of a brexit? >> vanishingly small provided we get the change that we need. and that's how i see it. prime minister cameron has a lot of support and increasing support now around the table in brussels for the kinds ever sensible reforms that he wants to see. employment law in europe is -- the general burden of regulation in europe is hostile to job creation hostile to business growth, and in the end because nude for -- bad news for businesses around the world. >> prime minister cameron said he will call for a referendum. >> i was agreing with what the prime minister said. there was a story in the paper saying that he wanted to try to go early and to try to knock this thing on the head and do it in 2016 if he possibly could and i was invited to comment on that and i said it seems like a very good idea, get it done. get the change. you don't need to spend months and months and months, years, super masticating these things, we know what it's all about, get the deal and put it to the british people. >> if the referendum were held today, the margin to stay in would be what? >> i think you can -- there's blocks of evidence about that. i think that it's -- i think about 60% in favor of staying. i was talking to a pollster the other day who said the numbers had moved quite significantly away from an exit and in favor of staying in. but we shouldn't try just to stay in on any terms mike. we should be trying to get a better e.u. in the interest of everybody. >> is that also your sense, what the pollster said? >> yeah, the interesting thing about the european union it's not an experiment replicated anywhere else in the world. there's no other group of countries that share sovereignty in quite that way with a single judicial system, as it were. with laws enforced by a single court of justice. it's not something america would dream of accepting. they don't do it any other countries, there's no other group or constellation of countries that has that tight federal structure it is a relic of the war and the cold war. it doesn't have to be that way. i do want to be, you know, i want my country to be a lead for the europe. but if we can't get the change we want, then yes, of course, we've got to be prepared to walk away. you can't go into a negotiation like this without being reconciled to finding an alternative if that is really necessary. i think when it comes to it, i think the germans, all our allies in support -- and supporters in europe, will want to see britain there the thought of using -- of losing one of the biggest economies in the world if the european union would be horrendous for that group. so i think it's just -- chances are very very, very small. >> mr. mayor, we were talking back stage about the coming launch of politico europe in the spring, led by matt kaminski, a big staff in brussels, correspondents in london and elsewhere. what are your worries about the current direction of the e.u., and to remind our audience you're a former correspondent, covering the e.u. >> the general tendency and the untamed desire of the e.u. to regulate, i i mean, i read the other day in the "dayity telegraph" and if you can't believe the "daily telegraph," what can you believe? the e.u. commission wanted to regulate the power of british vacuum cleaners, they thought that some british vacuum cleaners were too powerful and i'm perfectly prepared to accept that a vacuum cleaner what do you call a vacuum cleaner in america? >> a vacuum cleaner. >> a rare -- everybody looked blank. i'm perfectly prepared to say a vacuum cleaner improperly handled could suck your budgie or hamster up. you know what a budgie is? a small chirpie bird. i'm sure people have done themselves all sorts of injury with vacuum cleaner abuse but this should be a matter for britain, and there's no reason why we need brussels to tell us how long or how arduously to be vacuuming our carpets or whatever. that's the kind of thing that is -- dedyson brand, fab it's aic machines, the guy thinks it's unnecessary for his business. why is he being told by the e.u. how to make his -- it's total nonsense. it's unnecessary restraint on trade. i want to deny brussels in that. >> good luck. >> you say that but there's a lot of support for that kind of approach now, the dutch in particular the scandinavian countries, they're with us. and the germans. >> you've been a brussels correspondent, what would your advice be to someone starting a news -- >> what's it going to be called? politico? i think it's great, you should go for it. >> do you think it's a great opportunity? >> it's a great opportunity. the art is always, always to tell the news through people. it's -- brussels is very political, very die that'sic. there are lots of -- it's a fascinating story, brussels. basically, the characters are the countries. so the drama is in the interaction between these sort of i don't know if you ever saw a show called "allo allo." the drama is in the interaction between these slightly stereotypical characters who generally conform to type but sometimes don't. and so it's fun. it's an amazing story. you'll have a ball. >> will you read "politico europe"? >> of course i will if you send me a copy. >> it's on the internet. >> i'm so sorry. of course. thank you, thank you, of course i will. >> we're honored to have with us several of our british colleagues pippa, has a question. >> there's a disaffection with politicians, in our case with ethis westminster system. you have a rare political commodity that cuts through that authenticity combined with a dash of humor. what can your colleagues at westminster do to help? not everyone's jokes are as good as yours. >> obviously i reject a lot of the characterization you've very kindly made in my contribution. but what i think, and this is the point i was making yesterday , when we were having a conversation about cities, i think one of the problems we have got in britain is people do feel alienated and disaffected and they do feel remote from politicians. they feel politicians can't change anything or do anything. that's the key thing i think, pip pa. and rather than look -- pippa. and rather than looking at individual political characters or whatever, i think we need to look at what the electorate gets out of politics and what their role is in setting the agenda. and in britain now, we have an incredibly centralized system. much more centralized than the united states. our cities have too little power, too little ability to set spending goals in line with the priorities of their electorates and we need -- i think we've got a great deal more deaf lution to the local -- more deevolution to the local level, starting with cities to set their own agendas to spend more locally of the taxes they raise locally. london currently spends only 7%, london government, local and city, spend only 7% of the taxes london generates. new york spends about 50%. i think that would go, if we had the taxes i think that that is the answer. not the entire answer but one of the answers. i do think british politics is in need of a serious galvanizing change like that. i think devolution, giving local communities more say, making people feel actively engaged in what their cities are doing, i think that would be a help. that's not a complete answer, but it would be a help. >> tim shipman of the "sunday times" has a question. >> we're all looking forward to the great american press corps taking on your jokes. not everybody here probably knows you are born in new york. unlike arnold schwarzenegger you could run for president of the united states. i'd like to ask who your running mates would be. >> did everyone hear that question? tim shipman was referring to the fact that i was born in the united states. i was born in new york. 50 years ago. and obviously very expensive decision it turned out to be. i had no idea. the american tax authorities would come after me 45 years after i'd left the country having never earned a penny in america. nonetheless, i'm delighted to say i have now sorted out my issues with the i.r.s. and i have requited -- i have coughed up in full and there you go. i'm a massive taxpayer, both in the u.k. and in america. all i can say is i hope very much, that people will requite my generosity in america by coming to london in ever growing numbers. as for the whole idea of american politics, well, i'm wholly committed, as you know, to seeing out my mayorlity so i'm trying to get elected to ox bridge too. >> and the running mate? >> i'll let you --, i don't know. i'm not going -- it's not going to -- alas it's not going to crop up. i've got a massive commitment to london at the moment. >> "time" magazine ran a piece saying you would be the favorite saying friends and foes alike say his ambition will not be stated by the yen election. you are the front runner to succeed david cameron. >> well, you know, the job of the -- of being mayor of london it gluts the ap -- appetite for power. it's the most wonderful job. the last few years have been incredibly exciting, it's been a great time to run london, the city has been -- it's going very, very well indeed in many ways. obviously we've got huge challenges. and i need to spend the next 15, 16 months really focusing on those. one of the functions of success is that property prices go through the roof and we've now got a situation in london where many, many young people, young london people, growing up in our city cannot afford to live near wherer that parents grew up. and they need help. we need to focus on housing, need to focus on building hundreds of thousands of homes. i'm going to just keep going with that in the next 18 months or so, however many i've got left. >> we have a twitter question, tweet us your questions at # politicobreakfast. how have the attacks in paris affected london security? there there's no read across that we know of, between the events in paris and london. there's no implications in particular. as you will probably know there are about 3,000 or 4,000, in the low thousands of people who are, we think, a potential threat to our security. that's probably more than there are in new york, you don't have the issues in quite the same, or indeed in washington don't have the issues in quite the same way. i think if anything, what the paris episode murders remind us is that you just have to be continuously vigilant. one way i've changed in my ways since i became mayor of london, but one way in which my opinions have hardened is i'm no longer as libertarian as i used to be about people's privacy when it comes to surveillance and monitoring their conversations. i have to tell you, if we can bug these guys, if we can read their emails if we can stop them conspiring to do truly barbaric things i have no problem with that. i'd rather we did that than respect their privacy. who knows whether that -- the plot could have been intercepted in paris. probably not. but i can tell you every week, every month, we think that we are able to stop guys from doing stuff. could turn out to be -- doing stuff that could turn out to be utterly catastrophic. >> how worried are you about a catastrophic snevpbt >> i think about it, obviously, the whole time. it's something you have to simply recognize as a function of the modern world. we live in a time when there is a small group of people who are prone to being sucked into what is a terrifying and nihilistic ideology. they need to be, several things. you need a strong security approach. you need to have a strong criminal justice approach. but you also need to reach out to them and you've got to recognize that the problems that they have are not unique somehow to jyhaudi. we need to demystify this group of people. fundamentally they're the same sorts of people who could get dragged into drug gadges or many other types of criminality. they lack a sense of purpose in life don't feel that they're -- don't feel that the world holds much for them and they need to be given that sense that they can parties. -- participate. the trouble is jihadism does give them that incredible sense that there's a huge power behind them. it's an illusion a disaster, a crutchings, but that's what it gives them. and we need to find an alternative matrix for them. something else that gives them the support they need in their lives. that's obviously what we're or working on as well. >> a twitter question from my politico colleague ben white in new york. how is london doing in re-emerging as a financial capital to rival new york city? >> as london -- as i think i said at the beginning, london is now, i think, got more people working in financial services than ever before. so it's plainly in the financial service industry is in good health. but there is a rebalancing going on. and it's the biggest change in the london economy sense the industrial revolution. we've got more people now in the tech sector by miles than in the financial services industry and that is encouraging. i've always thought we needed to rebalance and to rebalance in favor of manufacturing, in favor of new industries. but that doesn't mean you have to attack financial services. we've got a strong natural banker to coin a phrase. so stick with it. >> and last twitter question, this is someone we should hire because they asked the question more -- doug is back there, they asked the question more precisely than we did. do you have any political aspirations for p.m.? >> no. my aspirations are to continue, as i say to fulfill my mandate in london and then see what happens and you know, i think that by the time the whole -- i once said something about the ball coming loose from the back of the scrum or something like that. which is a rugby met for. the ball shows absolutely no signs of coming loose whatever. the ball is being propelled forward by the scrum with david cameron and you know, with the ball at his feet going for the line. i think it's going to be a huge pushover try if you understand the met for. this is rugby union football, not american football. much better game, by the way. anyway, never mind. and i think that that -- i'm bound in somewhere at the back. that's where i am. and it may be that some babe unborn will take over from prime minister cameron but it isn't going to be me. >> but you wouldn't turn it down? >> as i said, i said what i said about the ball and the scrum. i've given a pretty fair commentary on the scrum vs. ball relationship at the moment. >> in addition to be the mayor candidate, he's an author. >> you don't have to do this. >> what did you learn -- >> that's incredibly nice of you. >> what did you learn from winston churchill about what people want from their leaders? >> well, churchill, the guy made the most incredible series of mistakes. his early career was studied with dast -- was studded with disasters of one kind or another. but he always came back from them and he always stuck by what he believed. and actually, as you will discover in this book, and if you analyze all the catastrophes, you can see how he was very often onto something. sometimes he simply got it wrong. and so the big takeout from churchill is that he had the most klossal moral strength. and bravery on a scale that i think is very, very difficult for our generation to messenger. yesterday, i went to -- to imagine. yesterday i went to see the air and space museum and we looked at that flyer built by orville and will burr wright, flew 800 feet, and it's incredible to think that only 10 years after that flight, churchill, winston churchill was getting up in contraptions of absolutely terrifying primitiveness made of basically canvas and wood and laundry baskets with you know, engines strapped to them, he was flying the whole time he kept crashing and he kept getting up again and he -- the only prime minister in british history to have been in armed conflict on four continents. he probably dispatched probably quite a number of people in those conflicts. and he -- anyway, to cut a long story short, he was unbelievably brave and that bravery was indispensable to our civilization in may 1914. because the pressure on church -- 1940. because the pressure on churchill and the whole of the british government to make an accommodation with evil and do a deal with hitler was overwhelming and the press was in favor of it. the -- large parts of the government halifax, chamber rain all say why should we fight? remember the first world war with the carnage that had been inflicted on both of our countries was only 22 years distant. and they knew it was going to be bloody. but churchill decided to fight on. and he was only in. if he hadn't decided to fight on then there would have been no conquest. there would have been no reconquest of europe. hitler would have had absolute carte blanche, he probably would have been able to take out russia earlier. he would have -- operation bash rosa -- barborosa would have succeeded. the americans coming in would have been smaller, there would have been no d-day landing, it would have been a disaster that shamed our civilization. he was the guy who held out against it. it was courage, it was bravery. that's what i take from that. >> one of my fave result paragraphs in the book, your chapter, the 100 horsepower mental engine, and because you'll do it more charmingly than i will, would you read it? >> if -- this one. if you have a spare 15 minutes go on youtube and look at the intlime outtakes of churchill's only televised party political broadcast from 1951. he sit there is, gazing at the camera with utter savagery while they make him repeat his script over and over again. finally, he breaks off from being tormented by the producers and gives them what-for by reciting a long section from gibbon about the spread of christianity. that's actually true. the chunk from gibbon he, wasn't a great christian, churchill. he wasn't a great christian. but i think he believed in god but he was sort of you know he once said -- somebody once said he was a pillar of the church and he said he was more of a flying buttress, was his position. but he i think -- i guess the passage he started quoting was the one about how the spirit was left in the cloister and how the roman empire collapsed because of -- that kind of thing, christianity. that's what gibbon said anyway. >> people want a leader who is relateable, they also want a leader with backbone, inner fortitude, seriousness how do you balance those two? >> my approach to -- my approach to politics and life is to try to play my short fly -- my -- shots i have. what shots i have i try to play as naturally as i possibly can. have you ever played cricket? >> no, sir. >> well, cricket who has played cricket? anybody played cricket? the basic thing about cricket is, when the ball comes down, you have a -- you will tell yourself over and over again i must not try and whack this ball. what i must do is lift my bat properly advance my foot properly, put the bat on the ball -- the bat and the pad together and play it correctly. that's what you should do. but you will find when the ball comes toward you, bounces there and seems to hang for a millisecond in front of you, tempting and beautiful you will try and whack it and that's what i tried to do. and quite often i'm out. quite often i'm out. >> all right. we'd love to bring you in the conversation, if somebody has a question, please just signal and we'll breng you a microphone right here. please just say who you are. >> hi, my name is lindsey wright with p.w.s. i was curious, one of britain's most revered designers stella mccartney, has been helping make the geen's guard bearskin hat in faux fur. it's the last item that's still real fur. is this something you would support? >> i guess so. i'm also quite a traditionalist and i don't know -- i can't remember -- this is the bearskins, they must be literally, must be made out of bears, i suppose. which are an endangered species. if stella mccartney can help save a few bears by making false bugbies, then i'm with her. i'm not going to fight that. on the other hand, if it spran spires that there's nothing that bear families like more than having one of their members, you know paraded around buckingham palace on the head of a guardsman in bear culture that that's you know a privilege, it seems unlikely, but i'm willing to have further education on that subject. >> how are your relations with the royals? >> do you know this is the most incredible thing. this is the single question that i'm asked more than any other, mike. you know what happened in 1776, folks? i cannot believe how often -- the only thing people want to know, what did you last say to them? have you met the queen? what kind of sandwiches do they eat at buckingham palace? can you name the queen's corgees? and it's unbelieve -- corgis. and it's unbelievable. what i can't get over is this is a great sovereign republic and you took it -- a big decision there when you -- in my view it's a shame because it's led to a hideous duality of my tax arrangement and would have been much more sensible and economical if we remained part of the same churchillian commonwealth of english speaking peoples, jointly run by london and wherever it was. that would be the way forward but that clearly hasn't been -- >> ok -- >> but i'm very struck, what it shows me what it realy shows me and it's been so striking, i cannot believe there are still people in my country who think that it would be sensible to have some sort of constitutional reform that diminished or -- let alone abolished the royal family. this is obviously a massive selling point for our country and long may it continue to be so. >> what will charles be like as king? >> he will be great. >> two quick questions. besides your book what's the best churchill biography out there and second what can you do to make heathrow a better airport? >> the best -- joy jenkins on the politics and matt hastings on the war -- they're the two -- martin gilbert is fan it's aics but if you want short reads those are the two i'd suggest. heathrow. what we need to do there is absolutely clear. everything around the -- everywhere around the world, they're going through the truly long-term, sensible, environmentally friendly option of trying to run an airport as far away as they can from the great urban center. and the trouble with heathrow is that it is right in the middle of the western suburbs of london. if you put in more runway capacity, you'll be inflicting huge amounts of aircraft noise on not just west london but large parts of london that don't yet get exposed to it. the answer is to do what they done in france and germany, holland and spain dubai every big ambitious country in the world is now building multirunway, 24-hour, systems that enable them to compete and that's what we should be doing. we should be going for a 24-hour service in the east of london at the estuary site where there are very, very few inhabitants to be disturbed. that, by the way, that investment would enable us to solve, will help us greatly to solve the number one issue faced by my city, which is the need to build new homes. when you've got huge potential. you put in the links huge potential on the sites out toward the estuary where the old docks used to be. >> the fashion forward mayor yesterday learned a new tv term. tell us the term you learned yesterday. hard out. >> hard out. yeah, a hard out. not to be confused with anything else a hard out. a hard out -- have we got a hard out coming up? >> no, we're just about there. one more question here, red tie. >> part of the great professionalism. one thing i love about it, the professionalism, i have to say, you and i are both the ben fishes of -- fisharies of the attention of professional makeup artist this is morning, and both of us had some time, you know -- >> i taosled my hair. >> it may not be visible in my case. i did that, almost every american show i've done there's been makeup and a great deal of care and attention and people saying, we're walking down the corridor, then you go on the bbc, they kick you on, no makeup we believe in the -- there's two ways of looking at it. the round, unvarnished truth. that's us. that's us. it's round unvarnished truth. >> what was it like to go on jon stewart? >> he's very funny. he's very funny. he's brilliant. i'm pretty sad he's not going to be on air. i thought he was -- can we have him in britain? i thought he was brilliant. >> he's available. red tie. >> good morning, mr. mayor. welcome to washington. my name is ryan clark and dove tailing off mike's question about "daily show," this is going to sound a little silly but i wanted to put to you, sir, the question if you could choose a replacement for jon stewart in the united states of america that's a question we're all dealing with, who would you choose? who would you give us? >> from our country? >> our country, your country? >> i've got a guy for you. he is absolutely brilliant. one of our premier exports to america. we're proud of having him -- >> you're not going to say peers morgan? >> i like peers morgan. >> red sweater. >> otherwise i see a risk he could be re-exported. i feel that's a solution. i forgot, you asked a question about policing and stuff, i don't want to be seen to be evading questions. we had a great time, but one thing surprised me was the sheer number of geiger counters that are deployed by the nypd. there are thousands, they have thousands and thousands of radioactivity detectors. i didn't know the threat of a dirty bomb was thought to be so substantial. we're taking that back. >> you're going to deploy more geiger counters? >> i've asked us to do a risk assessment. the early indications are that we don't think it's necessary but it was very very striking here. >> super quick. >> mr. mayor, thank you for joining us. about a month ago bobby jindal, louisiana governor was in london and he made some comments about no-go zones around britain. >> i was very surprised by those statements and you know, with great respect to governor jindal and everybody else who has made this kind of comment, i think they're in need of some sort of gentle education on this point. i would be more than happy personally to escort governor jindal around any area in london that he thinks is a no-go zone. i will show him what a happy, thriving community it is of people jumbled up in is all ort -- in all sorts of way. it isn't true. london is very, very mixed up across it, there are no no-go zones nor will there be. i extend a warm invitation to all governors and american politicians and anybody else who wants to come in and inspect for themselves. >> i'll ask you what your conversation with the fashion editor anna ventura was like. >> brief. >> did you -- >> i'm told i got more words than most people. i think she said, what did she say? she said i had personality. that was it. she didn't say it to me she said it to bbc. i can't remember what she said to me. it wasn't very -- they was very very kind and she's obviously a landmark of our culture and doing a fantastic job for britain and new york. >> who is chattier, her or the queen? >> i would -- i would be exaggerating if i said i had many conversations with the queen. the one conversation i have had i've had -- i would say the queen is marginally chattier. >> real quick, super quick. >> good morning, my question actually is more about the politics i was taken by what you said earlier about how you changed your libertarian views a bit being mayor. what do you think about the preparation that being a governor or being a mayor brings to -- brings to being a chief executive versus other experiences -- experiences like being in parliament? >> i think it's just the sheer weight of effort and the job, the variety and pace of the job probably is very useful. and you know, it's a -- being mayor of a city like london is a huge huge job. being mayor of new york is huge. there are differences in the constances we have new york doesn't do as much in transports as we do in london they do more in education than we do but the work load is prodigious. it makes for a very exciting life. but it's also -- it's a heavy education. >> there's one sport that people in this room can relate to tennis. >> yes. >> one quick tennis tip. >> one quick tennis tip. >> while you're thinking -- >> mike talked about the -- >> mike talked about the qualities of leadership, i think it's safe to say you're viewed as a global leader. piggybacking on your book, two questions. first, are you -- which trait do you believe is most lack, which churchillian trait do you believe global leaders have most lost. my second is can you name the queen's corgis? >> yeah, the -- wait a minute. i had this the other day. they're called like basil -- no. it was holly -- anyway, listen. the great thing about the world today is perhaps it doesn't need people quite as churchillian -- quite of churchillian stature. yes, we do face terrible, terrible challenges and yes we do need to solve appalling problems humanity faces, but we don't at the moment in our countries face the life or death exiss ten rble challenge that britain and europe faced in 1940. and the reason we don't is partly thanks to churchill himself. if you see what i mean. i think that there weren't many people like churchill or any people like churchill even in his own epoch. let alone ours. and i think there's been no one like him before or sense. on tennis, one tip. if you're playing with andy murray, as i once was in a charity match, with a wooden racquet, i served, i think, and then tim henman, the other guy he whacked it back. to andy murray. it was doubles. murray was behind me. i turned around to see what andy murray would do with the ball and he hit it so fast with his backhand that it -- the ball went straight into my open mouth like a sort of medieval banquet or whatever. so my advice is one tennis tip i give you don't look around when andy murray is about to do a cross court backhand return. >> corgis, vacuum cleaners, hard outs, thank you for the conversation. we thank all of you for catch tissue for watching, for twitter questions, thank you to bank of america for making these conversations available. thank the mayor's staff who made this possible. worked with him over many weeks. we're grateful with them. the amazing politico event staff, all of you out here this morning, and mr. mayor, thank you for a fantastic conversation. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> president obama is on the west coast today attending a cybersecurity and consumer protection summit at stanford university in california. news reports indicates he'll sign an executive order establishing centers that companies can use to share data about cyberattacks. apple's c.e.o. among those attending. the president will speak at about 2:20 eastern and we'll have live coverage. a former tech executive former hewlett-packard c.e.o. leads off our road to the white house coverage tonight. followed by a speech from kentucky senator rand paul both considered potential candidates for the republican nomination in 2016. that begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern. on newsmaker, anthony fox will discuss a transportation funding bill. the state of the nation's infrastructure and a new transportation department report called beyond traffic that looks at 30 years into the future to imagine what transportation needs will be. it's on newsmaker this is sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. monday is president's day. here on c-span, we'll have a special presentation of our campaign announcements featuring potential nominees and political insurgents, starting with ronald reagan's 1979 declaration, ending with barack obama on the steps of the old illinois state capitol building. that's monday, 10:00 a.m. eastern and we'll show it again monday night at 9:00. here's some of our featured programs for this president's day weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span2's book tv, saturday morning at 9:00, live coverage of the savannah book festival with nonfiction authors of books with topics like the disappearance of rockefeller, a british company of elephants in world war ii and four women spies in the civil war. sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on afterwords former senior advisor for president obama david axelrod on his time in politics. on crrks span 3, saturday morning beginning at 8:30, the 100th anniversary of the release of the film "the birth of a nation" starting with an interview with author dick lehr, followed by the entire film and then a call-in program. sunday at 8:00 on "the presidency." george washington portraits, how artists captured the spirit of the first president and what we can learn about him from their paintings. let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400 or comment on [email protected]. and find us on facebook.com/cspan. we'll hear from president obama at 2:20 eastern. until then, freshman ted lieu from this morning's "washington journal. for the first time on "washington journal," we want to enter this you to ted lieu, a freshman democrat from california. he is the democratic freshman class president. let us jump right into the issues and to the press release that you sent out regarding authorization of the use of military force. you are opposed to the president's proposal. why? guest: as currently drafted, i am. i think it is overly broad and at the same time too restrictive. let me tell you what i mean. first of all, is way overbroad in terms of time. in three years, that will going to the next administration. i trust president obama. he has shown great care and foreign policy. he is based more on foreign policy. i do not know who the next president is. i'm not going to vote for something if i do not know who the next commander-in-chief is. it is too broad enough of time and too broad in terms of geography. there is no geographic limitation in this aumf. it would allow troops to be deployed anywhere including places like lebanon, it does not have to be a rock or syria. i do not think congress is intending the use of force to be. there's on ground troops. if you read this, there is nothing that prevents the president or the next president from putting 250,000 ground forces. as long as they do not engage in sustain offensive combat operation, that with the restrictive. now we allow all these ground troops to show up in these commanders believe that to destroy isis they have to engage in sustain offensive operations. they cannot do that. host: when it comes to a three year time limit you are a former military officer. we only have three years to do this. does that send a signal in any way? guest: there is criticism that the enemy can also wait out that time. which brings a fundamental question -- the administration needs to present a case to congress and to the american public as to what the strategy is. what is the strategy for dealing with syria? do you want aside in order we want henhouse -- assad in order we want him out? what is the strategy? based on that strategy, the president could use of force tailored to that strategy. you can have a strategy pairing with that. i do not think that is the way that we should be doing this, especially because we are putting americans lives on the line. host: doesn't the president artie have authority -- already have authority? guest: that is another issue that folks have in congress with the aumf. and there is a saying that is if you know better, you do better. we know from the 2001 a young of that it was intended for one purpose. six sessions of democratic republic of have worked it to a much more extensive authority. the 2001 aumf -- the purpose of that was to go against the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11. it is really far stretch to now say that isil attacked us on 9/11. they didn't. it was a different offshoot of al qaeda. the 2002 aumf also had a purpose. it was to enforce u.n. resolutions. it is not safe why we are going after isil. it just as we are going to send forces against isil. we do not really have a strategy here. i do not know at this point of view ministration wants to destroy islil or contain isil. host: how would you write a military force authorization? guest: i great ruler spec -- i greatly respect our president. in terms of trade they are asking congress to get out of the way and get complete authority and up or down vote on trade deals. i think congress is very good at dealing with labor laws regulations, crafting trade provisions. that is where we want congress to budget. on using the issue of force, we should not be dealing with political compromises and dealing with issues that congress is not have a lot of expertise in what the administration to do is explain what their strategy is for winning. this have a use of force tailored to that strategy and have an up or down vote in congress. what in my mind will happen is a piece of legislation when you have forced trading and built compromise in our tire strategy being driven by that document when it should be the other way around. host: d.c. isis as a direct threat to the u.s.? guest: i think isis is very good at beheading people and their terrible. -- in their territory. in ministration has not shown any evidence that isis is a direct threat to the homeland. when you read newspaper articles, officials say exactly that. they say there is no threat threat from isis to the u.s.. >> i want to help fix things. they want to seek the american dream. host: from china? guest: from taiwan. they ended up going to cleveland , ohio. i'm a long-suffering cleveland browns fan. we started off in the basement of a person's home it my parents sold trinket the make ends meet. through hard work, they met and managed to open a store and shopping center. my brother helped watch the store. in my mind, they achieve the american dream. i want to make sure that this dream remains open for people who work hard and 60. as one of the reasons why i joined the air force active duty. it is one of the ways that i can get back to america. host: what is one of your legislative priorities in congress? guest: we want to deal with many issues, many of them critical like aumf. i believe that there is one issue that can kill humanity and that is climate change. i worked on climate change in the california state legislature. i was a co-author of the law in california that put caps on greenhouse emissions and sought to reduce us cap. my first job in comment -- and congress will be on climate change. host: our guest is ted lieu, a democrat from california. we will find more of his interest in just a minute. he's a freshman congressman. he spent some time in the california state senate and the california state assembly in the torrent city council prior to becoming a congressman. you want henry waxman's old seat. correct? guest: correct. host: where is your district? guest: it is a beautiful district that goes from malibu through santa monica, venice manhattan beach, rental and the beach -- redondo beach. it also goes east los angeles beverly hills, bel air. that is the district. host: the first call comes from anna and de soto, texas. you are on the air. guest:caller: you talk about not wanting to be on the same page with president obama. president obama -- and the congressman from texas and i'm from texas, i'm 66 years old. president obama has always been against the war. i think with we listen to: paolo -- listen to: paolo, we would not be here. they're not from the city. i've had texas governors and a texas president who did nothing about the border until president obama comes. now, we either are going to be in it. my nephew's lowboy -- his mother works in the pentagon. i was in the c-span all the time on the house and the senate. you never get anything accomplished. the last representative says congress people are going to come in and have meetings. you're not going to have anything. i'm not a congresswoman. and bernice johnson is not going to have meetings about anything. host: we got a sense of what you're trying to say. guest: and i think you for your question. one of the reasons that i oppose this aumf as it is currently drafted is because i want a vigorous debate in congress. i want different people to understand the critical issues and i would like the administration to wonderfully explained to congress and the american people what exactly the threat to the homeland is from isil. in terms of getting things done in congress, i do hope we do get more things done in congress. as one of the reasons iran for congress. i do know that recently congress did has on a bipartisan basis and president obama did sign a bill that is with the help veterans deal with ptsd. that is a good law for congress to get better. it is now the law of the land. host: next call from hampton, virginia. hello, susan. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have three separate issues. one is boko harold. i read a lot on the internet but i do not see too much on the news. they are also islamic extremists. how are you going to help those poor people in africa that are being murdered by those people? number two -- the social security numbers and green cars that the president is giving out . someone from ohio said that these people will be eligible to vote now. they're trying to get the social security numbers issued, a record of those numbers issued to these people that they can clean up their voter rolls. they cannot get these numbers. how do you feel about that? i'm so against climate change. i want to scream. host: guest: thank you for this questions. i will try to address them. in terms of boko haram, they are an evil group. they do heinous things. they are murdering people. my view is that if an organization does not have a threat to be u.s. homeland, i would be against sending u.s. ground forces to deal with that organization. i do not think we should be the world's policeman. i do however support providing assistance to authorities there who can take on boko haram directly. they can provide equipment and intelligence record. that i supported to her second question, i was at a hearing for oversight about voting. it turns out that the president changed no laws in terms of voting. it is not change a single regulation of law by one letter. you still cannot vote if you are not a u.s. citizen that has not changed. it was also make clear in a hearing at ohio that there was only 8.002% incidence of voter fraud. it showed never in a history of united states election. over two thirds of the people last year did not vote. that is a far greater problem in my mind we need to have better democracy. we need to have a better of public if we have more people participate in voting. i fully support having all of will citizens vote and to stop to persuade people from voting. third on climate change, i'm not a scientist, but i do trust what scientists say. climate change if we do not mitigated is essentially going to wipe out humanity. host: kathy on the independent line. ted lieu is our guest. caller: thank you so much for taking my call. i like to make a quick comment. thank you so much for saying that climate change is a factor in national sick -- security. i do firmly believe that is a national security issue. i think we have the united states have the opportunity to still set a very good example for the rest of the world. what does this congressman think about creating jobs that help the environment specifically so that we would accomplished to really great things that are time critical? guest: that is a really quick question. i know exactly where you live. my pans live there a few years ago. my spirits in california is that by passing laws on climate change we actually created a lot jobs, especially green jobs and in terms of green technology and alternative fuel. he will see that california has now been one of the masses of attracting drops to the green economy. i think america can do that as well. we can really develop a green economy with alternative fuel vehicles and more solar. not a lot of countries can do this, but america can. we have a very good emphasis on technology. host: what is the status of the budget hearing and drafting of a budget? guest: the president has released his budget and i'm a big supporter of it. it focuses on the middle class. if you look at what has happened in the past few decades, you have seen the 1% really increase incomes and the middle class has largely stagnated. i do not have problems with people being wealthy. i think that is what many people want to do. we all want to be wealthy. at the same time, we have to help the middle last. are the job creators because it is a consumer demand of the middle class that drives our economic -- economy. when you think about our last recession, it was not because all of a sudden that profits became less interesting or crimes -- cars less desired. it was that nobody could buy anything. the president's proposal will put money back into middle-class in terms of tax credits. in terms of giving tax credits for families with smaller children and increasing those we are giving additional credits for independence and childcare. those are all very good and their targeted at the middle class and i fully support his budget. host: are the democrats on the budget committee working on their own version of working with republicans? what is the status on the committee? guest: we are going to be presenting a democratic budget as well that will also focus on middle-class economic. i think that we want to be even more middle-class. i think there are opportunities close tax loopholes to really bring in revenues and make sure that we grow our economy by giving the middle class a chance to show what they can do once they have their incomes rising. host: you have been here a month and a half. what has surprised you? guest: there are no code checks in southern california. sometimes i forget and i will check my coat. two hours later, i will have to run back to that location. i did go to loss will here. washington dc is an amazingly diverse place. we have people from all over the world here. it a very exciting place to be. host: how does it compare -- i don't know the atmosphere, the bureaucracy, etc. to the california state assembly or senate? guest: when i was in california, democrats were still the majority. that is the difference. you can still do a lot here, even in that minority party. when you look at what has recently happened in congress because the republican costas is so split, all the major issues that have passed were mostly democratic votes. for example, on funding for the department of homeland security, right now, republicans are sort of stuck. they do not know how to pass the department of homeland security bill for both floors even though they have a majority. you might sense of their be another issue where the democrats will have the the adults in the room and fix the issue. host: i just want to get your reaction. i want to get your reactions what the speaker had to say. >> as you have heard me say from this podium from last several years, the president needs to have an overarching strategy to deal with this growing terrorist threat. he has yet to do that. he continues to look at this as a counterterrorism effort when in fact, there is no other way. we are in the mist of it. the president has tied his own hands and wants to tie them even further with the authorization that yes it up. i think it is time for the white house to develop an outline for the american people how we are going to address this worldwide terrorist threat and to make certain the president has the authorization to deal with it. host: congressman loop? guest: both speaker boehner and policy say somewhere things. plus he says that the administration has to explain what exactly the threat of isil is to the american people. i'd like to give the president and opportunity to do that. i think we should also look historically at what has happened. having served in the military on active duty, it is very clear to me that we had a remarkable military. we are very good at defeating the enemy and taking land from adversaries. america has a very bad at answering what do we do next. for example, we take out saddam hussein much more chaotic and iraq now. more people died. saddam hussein has little to no threat to the u.s. homeland. more recently, we took out moammar could offer you. little to no threat to the u.s. homeland. now, libya is in a worse situation with more people dying. faisal, -- with isil, say we take them out, what do we do next? i think there needs to be some overall strategy that congress is looking for. how do we win this war and what is the strategy? and then give us a use of force tailored to that strategy instead of the other way around where you have a politically compromised document and then having the strategy tailored to that. the problem is when you have a document dealing with the use of force, you're putting sons and daughters of americans in harm's way because of political compromises rather than what should be an overarching strategy to deal with them. host: congressman ted lieu got is under grad degree from stanford university. here's his morning's "financial times. obama seeks backing at a summit at your alma mater. what is your view about cyber security? guest: i commend president obama for focusing on this issue. i am also a recovering computer science major. there's a saying that there is only two kinds of innovation, those who have been hacked and know it, and those who have been hacked and don't know it did]\\t. it is very clear that some sophisticated hackers can get into most businesses right now. part of it does not have to do with technology, it has to do with training people. a lot of businesses do not put enough emphasis on having a culture of security. you only really need one employee to breach security or be careless. then, you have access to that system and hackers can do all sorts of things when they get access. we need to focus on better security. he is happy public and private sector be much more aware of the damage that hackers can cause to our public and private institutions. host: does the government know too much about us in our view when it comes to cyber information and to companies know too much about us? guest: i do draw a distinction between, for example, google has more information about you versus the government. google does not have course of power over you, but the federal government does. i do believe that the national security agency has been violating our constitutional rights for years. they have seen and collective phone records of every single american. they know who you call, when he made those calls who calls you the duration of those calls. it is very clear to me that the fourth amendment of the u.s. constitution prevents that. the fourth amendment is pretty clear. basically says that governments are not engaged in unreasonable search and seizures. by any definition, seasoned every american's phone records is unreasonable. host: democrat new york. you're on with congressman ted lieu. caller: thank you for taking my call. first, i agree with representative on his foreign-policy ideas. i think they're excellent. especially when he makes a point about the geographical point of view of isil, boko haram and the nato countries bordering russia. how would you communicate the american people are successes geographically our failures as we provide aid to these countries abroad to the american people can really know what we are doing to help these countries? my second point is a question in financials. how would you help the 45 million poor people or low income people in the country to acquire the skills that they need to match with the new jobs that are being formed out here and the financial education they need during high school so they can have a financially sustainable life? thank you so much for taking my call. guest: thank you for those questions. i'll take your last one first. i'm a big believer in making sure that our workforce has the skills that businesses actually need. that is why i'm a huge supporter of president obama's approach to have free committee college for all. i think that is a game changer. i think we need to view education as more than just k-12. as we know and a more complex and a diverse world, we are going to need people with more than just high school degrees to be able to succeed in america. timidity colleges offer terrific abilities for people to learn skill sets whether it is in certain areas or careers. we need to get more people trained in skills. in terms of financial literacy, i am a huge supporter of that. i have authored several bills and state legislatures about financial literacy. i know that there are multiple states are union that mandate financial literacy. i fully support training our children to understand simple conscious bass concepts like compound interest and how that works. to your first question, i'm a big supporter of foreign aid. i support foreign aid to israel and other countries around the world. it has been shown to do a lot of good. i will continued to support foreign aid. host: will you attend prime minister netanyahu's speech? guest: dental permitting, i will attend any world leader coming to speak to congress. currently speaking, i will attend. host: do you think some democrats will go? guest: if a world leader is going to come to speak to congress, i will listen. that does not mean that i will agree with everything they say. , but i will listen. host: darrell in north carolina. caller: thanks for taking my call. a congressman made a comment a lot ago about voter fraud. one question that i want to ask him is how much voter fraud is too much? in my opinion, one fraudulent voter is too many, especially when it disenfranchised my vote. there are many senders in congressman -- there are many senators and congressmen and i do not know what the presidential election and that being who i was a lot of c-span and see a lot of democrats blaming republicans for the homeland security bill being funded. but if they passed the bill and send it to the president because he has demanded his executive orders -- they are unconstitutional in my opinion. the little best illegal immigration status shot down. then is that of the republican shutting down home insecurity, why would it not be obama shutting down homeland security? guest: thank you for those questions. in terms of homeland security, it is actually up to the judiciary to determine if laws or executive orders are unconstitutional. the fact that both houses are controlled by republicans -- democrats have a clean funding bill for the department of homeland security. we can certainly pass that. we can certainly debate the immigration issue. there's no reason to have to type these two things together. in terms of voter fraud, you're absolutely right. even one instance of voter fraud is one too many. keep in mind that there are all sorts of voter fraud out there. the actual incidence is really quite low. it is not 2% it is .002%. as a remarkably small number. as been on acid is not been shown to influence an election. you see the much bigger problem. voter suppression people feel like they do not have a right to vote or do not care to vote. that has a far bigger problem on our democracy. getting more eligible citizens to vote would do more for democracy than spending huge amounts of time on this minute issue of alleged voter fraud. host: riley is in total. you're on with congressman ted lieu. go ahead. caller: thank you congressman. i appreciate you coming on and he certainly give very intelligent answers. i was concerned about your ducking the climate change question since obama said that climate change is a greater priority than the feeding -- defeating isis. i watch the senate hearings on the epa's solution to global warming which is a synonym to climate change. the solution for climate change is the solution for global warming. it is to restrict individuals to use carbon fuels without government interference. it comes down to a question -- it is amazing that all the democrats are for the government taking over control of energy use. all the republicans are opposed. we have a serious issue that you need to get educated on. the only solution is to restrict plant food and plans from having access to carbon dioxide. it is the about that plants get to have to allow them to grow. that is issued and republicans are coming down and saying that we do not government controlling our energy use. that is what the epa is doing. it is not a science issue. it is an issue of philosophy of government control versus -- >> thank you rile.y. guest: it is not so much government control. it is whether government chooses to subsidize or not subsidize. currently -- currently, our government subsidizes coal and fossil fuels. we do not do anything about carbon. if you believe what the scientists say which is that carbon is causing climate change, what you want to do is put a price on that. that is how you get the free market to work correctly. the at the product price correctly whether it is a service or a product. to me, it is not so much government control. it is how does government set up the free market to operate correct to make sure that we do not damage our environment and have that price. that is my view. that is why, for example different places have done cap and trade. we are putting a price on the damage the environment. cap and trade is something i would support as well. we need a whole range of options to deal with climate change. from cap and trade to regulation to stop subsidizing fossil fuels. host: how did you vote on the xo pipeline? guest: no. host: why? guest: economically, it is not been shown to benefit american workers. you are taking it from canada and running it through america gets other races. by definition, i do believe it has an effect on climate change. host: tell us about your background in the military. guest: i was starting out in jack and i'm still in the active reserve. i was under charles nelsons. i went to ubs. i now ever covered lawyer -- a recovered lawyer. i will still read supreme court cases now and then. host: the fbi director was at your alma mater talking about race and policing. i do not know if you saw it did is a disconnect between police and race? guest: i did not read the speech. so, i do not know exactly what he said. but i do believe that there is an issue in terms of how it is perceived that police deal with people of color. it could be, in fact, true with how police deal with people of colored. . it is an issue that we need to address. we know that prisons have far more people of color.there should be no reason for that. i do believe there is a racial by this -- by his and the criminal justice system. whether someone gets executed or not, it is the race of the victim. that should have no play the criminal justice system. there are racial issues and they do need to be addressed. host: from knoxville, tennessee it is tom, democrat. caller: i just want to thank you for c-span. peter, i wanted to let you know that i really respect and enjoy the job you do have a host. i do not watch c-span very often , but when i catch you, i enjoy it. congressman, what a pleasure it has been for a democrat to get to observe you this morning. i've not known about you. i really enjoyed everything that you said. thank you for your service. getting away from energy and race and back to international relations, the republican congressman that was on before you seemed a bit of a hawk regarding ukraine and russia. i like your philosophy of not getting involved unless it directly threatens the homeland. the congressman before you said that he thought we should take on them now. do you agree with that, sir? guest: i would oppose the u.s. using military force in ukraine. i do not believe that there is a suspicion -- a sufficient natural interest to engage in ukraine. i do support sanctions and i do leave that they should be deterred from invading other countries. i would support continued economic sanctions against russia. i wouldn't rule out the use of military force in ukraine with united states because i do not just really see our national security interesting that high to justify these of force. host: congressman ted lieu comedy represent marina del rey? guest: i do. host: we have a caller from marina del rey. caller: congratulations on your election. congratulations on being the freshman president of the freshman class. maybe the beverly hills connection had something to do with it. in any event, i am calling about a serious national security threat and also local security threat. the range of situation -- we have 25 million gallons of tanks stored and run by a financial consultant. now that you are in congress, i would like to find out, are you prepared to deal with this issue? we have 100% of the risk of loss. it could be allocated or set on the backs of the people here. he recognized that there is a problem and what are you going to do by way of your position here to facilitate a meaningful resolution particularly the insurance or the kind of things that need to get done here so that people can be protected? it is within a stone's role within the part of l.a.. host: is that somebody you know? guest: not someone i know. host: this is a local issue in your district? guest: l.a. city councilman held hearings on this issue. my predecessor henry waxman engage the epa and will continue to follow up with the epa. host: how long has this been an issue for the local community? guest: it has been years. host: why is it still an issue? hesitant because of the epa? host: note is not because the epa. guest:host: we have one minute left before the house comes in. caller: i have a question. you're talking about isis. his isis bothering the major communist countries like russia and china? you never hear anything on the news about them having issues. it always just seems to be the last. my second question is -- in the state of california and out the west there, they have had major droughts. are they doing anything to build a plant that changes salt water into fresh water to maybe help alleviate things? host: we got those. guest: california has actually working with israel to build those plans in california. in terms of your first question isil has not just attacked one country. they will attack any country that is not their particular sect. there have executed japanese hostages. they recently burned a jordanian pilot. that is why jordan is involved in dispatching ground forces. you have the uae sending fighter planes. you need to have the regional allies and regional neighbors dealing with the threat. host: >> we are live now at stanford university in california. president obama has been attending a cybersecurity. it's likely the president will sign an executive order establishing information centers that companies can use to share data about cyber attacks, share that data with the government. so that table you see to the right on the right-hand side of the screen may hold that executive order. it has the presidential seal on it. earlier this week the adviser announced the cyber threat intelligence integration center and see that inet on cspanch.org. we will that event live. part of this morning's "washington journal. >> enduring combat operations limits. what we might do. none of us want to send ground troops into any conflict. i think it was a political move to jam up the republicans and it's unfortunate. this is national security. and shouldn't be a partisan issue. and by putting that language in there, we wanted to have business with the president to negotiate that and have a chance to talk about it. jams up the democrats. they can't do what they might want to do. you will see us debating it. having conversations about the use of military force, which is one of the graver things we do. >> when do you see that debate taking place? >> it's not in my jurisdiction. so i haven't had a conversation with ed royce but ongoing conversations with constituents and we will be home in our districts and this will be a topic of conversation certainly across district 11 it's a big deal. and the president isn't doing it correctly -- i'm disappointed in the white house on the version. i knew republicans wouldn't support it. it makes it very difficult. host: here's the language, the authority granted in subsection a does not thord the use of the u.s. armed forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations and this authorization for the use of force shall terminate three years. guest: the president said i'm going to put it off until the next administration comes in. gush was my friend. i remember visiting with him in december 2008, begging him not to loan gm money. they are bankrupt and need to go bankrupt. he said i know, mike, i don't want to hand these problems off to the next administration. he was driven and take care of business. this pushes the problem into the next administration and first overt statement that this statement is really disengaging from doing the job. host: how do you view congress having a voice in this issue and how would you write this resolution if you were going to? guest: the use of authorization to use military force should be straightforward and should identify the enemy and give the president the authorization to go get them and kill them. the president's clearly got in his mind to do what he is doing right now based on the 2001 authorization to use military force. there is no time critical issue on this. this is a political ploy to distract the american people. host: does he have the authority right now to send ground troops? guest: yes. he is operating under the 2001 authorization force, al qaeda and ice ill is part of it. >> that locks in that strategy and coops republicans into a failed strategy and won't see us agree. host: dial in and talk to representative conaway from texas. we will begin with a call from katherine from north conway, new hampshire. independent line. caller: i think president obama is right on how to combat terrorism, and i have a possible idea on how we might fight isis. there are 1.2 billion muslims in the world and fighting isis would be like a where's waldo, like trying to find waldo in huge groups of people. so the u.s. would help the iraqis create zones, corridors, 20 30 miles wide surrounding the major cities in iraq. if isis carry over, moats were constructed to protect the castle. having no cross zones around the cities in iraq would lure isis out into the open where they want power and control. host: congressman? >> i like her phrase about eliminating or destroying them. with the burning of the young jordanian pilot that was the event and burying kids alive and beheadings and other thing this group has done, that burning i think should galvanize all of our minds as to what this is, and it's a fight. and no longer middle ground. you are either for or against it. no middle ground whatsoever in going after these folks. the idea that somehow isis would be lured into those kind of fights may be, maybe not. they are very adapttive and you have to send troops into iraq to do that and that's not what this president wants to do. host: we are going to talk with congressman ted lieu and he is not supportive of this authorization for use of military force either. are the democrats resisting this as well. is it too strong for them? >> i haven't had any direct conversations with him. [ [ [ >> it is migrate privilege to introduce our nation's 44th president barack obama. president obama came to office just after the global financial crises in 2008. his presidency has been marked by the complexity and challenges of governing at a time when people are more interconnected than ever, sometimes in ways we don't even realize. and the idea of community extends far beyond physical boundaries. so many aspects of our lives have been digitized and technology is central to everything we do, but our increasing reliance has been on growing vulnerability and many of us heard and seen in the panels prior to this, the situation is getting much more at an increasing rate. president obama understands this. in fact, he has personal experience with the challenges of cybersecurity. the first u.s. president to be always connected he had to face the challenge of losing -- forfeiting his blackberry shall the security was enhanced and he could stay connected. from the early issuance of cyber policy review and 2011 international strategy for cyber space, to today's white house summit on cybersecurity and consumer protection, president obama has made -- worked to make cybersecurity a national priority to protect consumers and their data and to strengthen our laws and our policies. we are honored to have him with us today. please join me in giving a warm stanford welcome to president obama. [cheers and applause] >> hello stanford! [cheers and applause] >> thank you so much. thank you. thank you so much. thank you everybody. have a seat. have a seat. >> yes we can. [cheers and applause] >> first of all let me thank the president for not just the introduction but for your outstanding leadership at one of the great universities of the world. [applause] >> i've got to admit, i kind of want to go here. [laughter] >> i was trying to figure out why it is that a really nice place like this is wasted on young people. [laughter] >> who don't fully appreciate what you got. it's really nice. and everybody here is so friendly and smart and it's beautiful and what's there not to like? i want to thank you and everyone at stanford for hosting this summit, especially amy, george and someone who served as a great adviser to me at the white house and as an outstanding ambassador to russia, mike mcfaul. [applause] >> it is great to be here at stanford university and pleased to be joined by members of my team who bleed cardinal red. we are infiltrated with stanford people. valerie jarrett susan rice, secretary of commerce and let's face it, i like stanford grads. i notice steve chu who was around here who helped me lead our energy department for a while. he's now hanging out. i'm pleased to be joined by secretary of homeland security jeh johnson and small business administrator. and i want to acknowledge my homeland security adviser who helped and continues to shape our cybersecurity efforts. thank you lisa. [applause] >> so, i always heard about this campus and everybody is riding bikes and people hopping into fountains and the current holder of the axe. [cheers and applause] >> place that made nerd cool. i was thinking about wearing some black-rimmed glasses and tape in the middle. i guess that's not what you do anymore. i was told if i came to stanford, you would talk nerdy to me. [laughter] >> but i'm not just here to enjoy myself. as we gather here today, america has seen incredible progress that we can all be proud of. we just had the best year of job growth since the 1990's. over the past 59 months. [applause] >> past 59 months, our businesses have created 12 million new jobs which is the longest streak on record and hopeful sign for middle-class families wages are beginning to rise again. we are doing more to prepare young people for a competitive world. high school graduation rate is at an all-time high and more americans are finishing college more than ever before. we have the best scientists, the best researchers and the most dynamic economy in the world. and no place represents that better than this region. make no mistake more than any other nation on earth the united states is positioned to lead in the 21st century. and so much of our economic competitiveness is tied to what brings me here today, and that is america's leadership in the digital economy. it's our ability almost unique across the planet. our ability to innovate and to learn and to discover and to create and build and do business online. and stretch the boundries of what's possible. that's what drives us. and so when we had to decide where to have this summit, the decision was easy, because so much of our information age began right here at stanford. it was here where two students met and in an garage and started a company that evently built one of the first personal computers weighinging in at 40 pounds. [laughter] >> it was from here in 1968 where a researcher, douglas engelbart had two computers connected online and you could click on with something called a mouse. a year later a computer here received the first message from another computer 350 miles away, the beginnings of eventually what would become the internet. it's no secret that many of these innovations built on government-funded research is one of the reasons that if we want to maintain our economic leadership in the world, america has to keep investing in basic research in science and technology. it's absolutely critical. [applause] >> so here at stanford, pioneers developed the protocols and architecture of the internet, d.s.l. the first web page in america, innovations for cloud computing, student projects became yahoo! and google. those are pretty good student projects. [laughter] >> your graduates have gone on to help and create thousands of companies from c inch sco to sun micro system youtube, to instagram, stubhub. according to one study, if all the companies traced back to stanford graduates, you would be one of the largest economies in the world and have a pretty good football team as well. [cheers and applause] >> and today with your cutting-edge research programs and cyber initiatives, you are helping us navigate some of the most complicated cyber challenges in the nation. i thank all of you who joined us today, members of congress representatives from the private sector government, privacy and consumer groups and especially the students who are here. just as we are all connected like never before, we have to work together like never before both to seize opportunities but also meet the challenge of this information age and one of the great paradoxes of our time, the very technologies that empower us to do great good, can also be used to underminus and inflict great harm. the same information technologies that help make our military the most advanced in the world are targeted from hackers from china and russia who go after our defense contractors and systems that are built for our troops. the same social media we use in government to advocate for human rights around the world can be spread to hateful ideologies. these challenges are a threat to our cybersecurity. much of our critical infrastructure our financial systems, our power grid, health systems, run on networks connected to the internet, which is hugely empowering, but also dangerous and creates new points of vulnerability that we didn't have before. foreign governments and criminals are probing these systems every single day. we only have to think of real life examples. an air traffic control system going down and disrupting flights or blackouts that plunge cities in the darkness. imagine what a set of system attic cyber attacks might do. so this is also a matter of public safety. as a nation we do more business online than ever before, trillions of dollars a year. high-tech industries support millions of american jobs. all this gives us an enormous competitive advantage in the global economy and for ta very reason, american companies are being targeted. their trade secrets stolen, intellectual property ripped off . the north korean cyber attack on sony pictures destroyed data and destroyed thousands of computers and exposed the personal information of sony employees and these attacks are hurting american companies and costing american jobs. so this is a threat to america's economic security. as consumers, we do more online than ever before. we manage our bank accounts we shop, we pay our bills we handle our medical records. and as a country, one of our greatest resources are the young people who are here today. digitallyy fearless and unem-- unincouple beered, and it also means this problem of how we secure this digital world is only going to increase. i want more americans succeeding in our digital world and i want young people like you to unleash the next wave of innovation and the startups and tools to create new jobs and new businesses and to expand connectivity in places that we currently can't imagine to help open up new worlds and new experiences and empower individuals in ways that would seem unimaginable 10, 15, 20 years ago. that's why we are working to connect 99% of american students to high-speed internet because when it comes to educating our children, we need digital devices. we need broadband cheaper and so businesses and students across america have the same opportunities to learn and compete as you do here in the valley. it's why i have come out so strongly and publicly for net neutrality, for an open and free internet. [cheers and applause] >> because we have to preserve one of the greatest engines for creativity and innovation in human history. so our connectivity brings extraordinary benefits to our daily lives but it also brings risks. when companies get hacked, america's personal information including personal information gets stolen, identity theft can ruin your credit rating and turn your life upside down. in recent breaches, more than 100 million americans had their personal data compromised and in some cases credit card information. we want our children to go online and explore the world and also be safe and not have their privacy violated. there is a direct threat to the economic security of american families and to the well-being of our children, which means we've got to put in place mechanisms to protect them. shortly after i took office, before i had gray hair -- [laughter] >> -- i said these cyber threats were one of the most serious economic challenges that we confront as a nation. and i made confronting them a priority. given the complexity of these threats, we have to be guided by some basic principles and let me share those with you. this has to be a shared mission. so much of our computer networks and critical infrastructure are in the private sector, which means government cannot do this alone. the fact is that the private sector can't do it alone either because it's government that often has the latest information on new threats. there's only way to defend america from these cyber threats, and that is through government and industry working together sharing appropriate information as true partners. second, we have to focus on our unique strength. government has many capabilities but not appropriate or possible for government to secure the networks of private businesses. many of the companies who are here today are cutting edge. but the private sector doesn't always have the capabilities needed during a cyber attack or the ability to warn other companies in real-time or to coordinate a response across companies and sectors. we have to be efficient in what each sector does best and do it together. third, we have to constantly evolve. the first computer viruses hit personal computers in the early 1980's and we have been in a cyber arms race ever since. we design new defenses and criminals and hackers design new ways to penetrate them. whether it's phishing mal ware. these attacks are getting more sophisticated. we have to be fast and flexible and anymoreble. and fourth and most importantly in all our work, we have to make sure we are protecting the privacy and civil liberties of the american people. we grapple with these issues in government. we pursued important reforms to make sure we are respecting people's privacy as well as ensuring our national security. and the private sector on wrestles with this as well. when consumers share their personal information with companies, they deserve to know that it's going to be protected. when government and industry share information about cyber threats, we have to do in a way that safeguards your personal information. when people go online, we shouldn't have to forfeit the basic privacy we're entitled to as america americans. we worked to put these principles into practice and part of our comprehensive strategy, we boosted our defenses in government, we are sharing more information with the private sector to help those companies defend themselves. we are working with industry to use what we call a cybersecurity framework to prevent, respond to and recover from attacks when they happen. the integration center part of the department of homeland security where they monitor cyber threats 24/7. defending against cyber threats just like terrorism or other threats is one more reason that we are calling on congress not to engage in politics. this is not a republican or democratic issue, but work to make sure that our security is safeguarded and we fully fund the department of homeland security, because it has great responsibilities in this area. so we're making progress and i have recently announced new actions to keep up this momentum. we called for a national standard so americans know within 30 days if information has been stolen. we will have a consumer privacy bill of rights to give americans rights to decide what personal data companies collect from you and the right to know how companies are using that tower. we propose the student digital privacy act, which is modeled on the landmark law here in california, because today's amazing technology should be used to collect data and not marketing to students and we have take steps to promote greater information sharing between government and the private sector and liket about companies that share information on cyber threats. i'm calling on congress to come together and get this done. and this week, we announced the creation of our cyber threat intelligence integration center, just like we do with terror threats, we are going to have an entity that is analyzing and quickly sharing information across government so we can act on all those threats even faster. today, we are taking an additional step, which is why there is a desk here and signing a new executive orderer to promote new information sharing both within the private sector and the government and the private sector and encourage them to set up hubs so they can share information with each other. it will call for a common set of standards, including protections for privacy and civil liberties so the government can share information with these hubs more easily. and it can help make it easier for companies to get the threat information that they need to protect their companies. i want to acknowledge, by the way, the companies who are represented here are stepping up as well. the cyber threat alliance which includes companies like palo alto network, are going to share more information under this executive order. you have companies from apple intel to bank of america, who are going to use the cybersecurity framework to strengthen their own denses. as part of our by secure initiative visa, mastercard and american express are going to make their transactions more secure. companies will have another weapon to battle identity theft and that is free access to credit scores. and more companies are moving to new, stronger technologies to authenticate user identities like biometrics, because it is easy for hackers to figure out names and passwords, like password, or 1, 2, 3 4 5, 7. [laughter] >> those are some of my previous passwords. i changed them since then. [laughter] >> this summit is an example of what we need more of. all of us working to work together that none of us can achieve alone. it is difficult. some of the challenges i have described today have defied solutions for years. and i want to say very clearly that as somebody who is a former constitutional law teacher and somebody who deeply values his privacy and his family's privacy, although i chose the wrong job for that -- [laughter] >> -- but will be a private citizen again and cares deeply about this. i have to tell you that grappling with how government protects the american people from adverse events while at the same time making sure that government itself is not abusing its capabilities is hard. you know the cyber world is sort of the wild, wild west and to some agree we are asked to be the sheriff. when something like sony happens, people want to know what government can do about this. if information is being shared by terrorists in the cyber world, an attack happens, people want to know, are there ways of stopping that from happening. by necessity, that means government has its own significant capabilities in the cyber world, but then people rightly ask, what safeguards do we have against government intruding on our own privacy? and it's hard. and it constantly evolves, because the technology so often outstrips whatever rules and structures and standards have been put in place. which means that government has to be constantly self-critical and we have to be able to have an open debate about it. but we're all here today because we know that we are going to have to break through some of these barriers that are holding us back if we are going to continue to thrive in this remarkable new world. we all know what we have to do. we have to build stronger defenses and disrupt more attacks and make cyber space safer and improve cooperation across the board, and it's not just here in america but internationally. which also, by the way, makes things complicated because a lot of countries don't necessarily share our investments or our commitment to openness, and we have to try to navigate that. but this should not be an ideological issue. and that's one thing i want to emphasize. this is not a democratic issue or a republican issue, this is not a liberal or conservative issue. everybody's online and everybody's vulnerable. the business leaders here want their privacy and their children protected just like the consumer and privacy advocates want america to keep leading the world in technology and be safe from attacks. so i'm hopeful that through this forum and the work that we do subsequent that we are able to generate ideas and best practices. and the work of this summit can help guide our planning and execution for years to come. after all, we are just deathing started. think about it. tim beardsly from his lab in switzerland invented the worldwide web. the great efforts in human history, bronze age, iron age, agricultural revolution, industrial revolution, they sent centuries. we are only 26 years into this internet age. we've only scratched the surface . and as i guess they say at google the future is awesome. [laughter] we haven't even begun to imagine the discoveries that are going to be unleashed in the decades to come. but we know how we'll get there. reflecting on his work in the 1960's, on the precursors of the internet, the late paul barren said this the process of technological developments is like building a cathedral. over the course of several hundred years, new people come along and each lays down a block on to have the of the old foundations. each -- on top of the old foundations. each saying, i built the cathedral. and then comes along a story -- a historian who asks, who built the cathedral? and barren -- barson said, if you're not careful you can con yourself into believing you did the most important part. but the reality is that each contribution has to follow on to previous work. everything's tied to everything else. everything's tied to everything else. the innovations that first

Related Keywords

Arkansas , United States , Montana , Nevada , Buckingham Palace , Westminster , United Kingdom , Manhattan , New York , Syria , Santa Monica , California , Hoover Dam , Ohio , San Francisco , Arizona , Netherlands , Massachusetts , Beverly Hills , Libya , Canada , Japan , Germany , Afghanistan , Atlanta , Georgia , Stanford University , Indiana , Virginia , Oregon , Michigan , Cincinnati , Brussels , Bruxelles Capitale , Belgium , Samoa , London , City Of , Hampton , Iraq , New Jersey , North Korea , Capitol Hill , District Of Columbia , France , Louisiana , East Hills , Marina Del Rey , Dubai , Dubayy , United Arab Emirates , Heathrow , Hillingdon , Alaska , China , Minnesota , Russia , Washington , Duke University , North Carolina , Ukraine , South Carolina , North Conway , New Hampshire , Switzerland , Stanford , Texas , Iran , Savannah River , Kentucky , Boston , Florida , Illinois , Wisconsin , Lebanon , Taiwan , Jordan , Oklahoma , Tennessee , Clarence Center , Israel , Nebraska , South Dakota , Colorado , Houston , Pennsylvania , North Dakota , Paris , Rhôalpes , Berlin , Venezuela , Americans , America , Germans , French , British , Russian Federation , Jordanian , Japanese , American , Holland , Russian , Iraqis , Britain , Canadians , North Korean , Soviet , Dutch , Winston Churchill , Stella Mccartney , Arnold Schwarzenegger , Bobby Jindal , Jeff Duncan , Scott Walker , Henry Waxman , David Cameron , Ronald Reagan , Lindsey Wright , John J Duncan Jr , Rick Allen , Cleveland Browns , Jim Clyburn , David Perdue , Chris Christie , Dick Lehr , Baltic States , Douglas Engelbart , Jeh Johnson , Matt Kaminski , Al Qaeda , John A Boehner , Jon Stewart , Martin Gilbert , Tim Johnson , John Adams , Timothy F Johnson , Henley Lovelace , Ryan Clark , Matt Hastings , Burr Wright , Frederick Douglass , Todd Rokita , Michael Rockefeller , Oscar Wilde , Michael Flynn , Mike Allen , Boris Johnson , Tim Shipman , Harry Reid , Steve Chu , Mike Mcfaul , Barack Obama , Jesus Christ , Valerie Jarrett Susan , Lindsey Graham , Anthony Fox , Henry Lovelace , Tim Henman , Jackson Lee , Obama David Axelrod , Anna Ventura , Los Angeles Beverly , Hillary Clinton , Andy Murray , Bernice Johnson ,