Transcripts For CSPAN2 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20150116

Identifying areas for improvement, identifying areas for managerial improvement. The problem is that those improvements rarely get made. And to the extent that congressional action is necessary to make some of these changes, theres so much else to do. Theres very little glory in eliminating a program especially if people face layoffs. Theres even less glory in that. So to some extent its not that we dont know where to cut that we dont know which programs work and which ones dont. We do have some Good Government reports that help guide those decisions, but its that from recognizing the problem the next step is missing. Where is the action to actually get rid of some of these programs . I think thats exactly right. It comes in the action. When you were talking what popped in my mind was Ronald Reagans famous quote about politics and Foreign Relations which is trust but verify. And that seems to work for a lot of issues we deal with in our life. But when it comes to government spending, you can have the internal igs. They do a good job. They, for the most part, do a good job and theyre independent. But there should be some verification or spot checking where gao or an outside Consulting Group is asked by congress to pick a few random study them and report back to congress whether or not these studies were done properly and fairly. We know where a lot of the waste and abuse is coming from, the problem is the action in trying to solve them and thats one thing where, again, i think a 1 percent type solution works. Now weve got the benchmark, and its not i cant do it here, i cant do it here. I dont care where you do it, youve got 1 , you find it. I think thats a framework, sort of like a brad pitt position that could work. I think also congressional oversight so hard to do these days because the federal government has grown so big. There are over 2200 federal domestic assistance programs. Its very difficult to do proper oversight when government is just too big to do it. Theres also, and this goes back to congressman price talking about looking at the 74 budget act. Right now we budget every year. Congress budgets and theyre supposed to do oversight. Budgets taking up so much of their time every year, wheres the time for oversight . We might want to look at going to a twoyear budget process where the budgets set after the election and oversights done during the Election Year for congress to look at the report, deliberate and talk about where spendings going. If only they used it for that. [laughter] right there. And tim, that guy had a question. Okay. Hi. Thanks for your remarks. One of the comments congressman price said was the budget is not just numbers, but its a vision. I guess if i could take up that mantle for a second, my question is about messaging and how much you think our cause may be hurt by focusing too much on sort of the numbers and on, well, we just need to balance the budget rather than on what i think most people in this room would agree is the core problem, we should be reducing because government spends inefficiently, and these resources would be better spent in the private sector. So do either of you think we sort of sometimes miss the forest for thes by focusing forest for the trees by focusing on budgetary matters . I think youve got to do both. Too often someone says lets focus on balancing the budget, and thats your primary focus. Youre missing the forest for the trees. What are you going to get rid of, what are you going to raise money on where do you want to cut, where do you want to balance, where do you want slow growth . Talking about just the programs it deficits and debt do matter. Again, congressman price mentioned were 18 trillion in debt. If everyone here in this entire country worked for a year, didnt spend of it paid it all in taxes, we could just barely pay off our debt. That just gets worse. With each increasing deficit, were talking about adding to the debt. Were just talking about balancing the budget which means no more additional debt. At some point, weve got to start paying it off. The u. K. s still paying off debt from 200 years ago. Seriously. Theyre trying to figure out whether they should pay off the debt from 1812. Theyre still rolling it over. I think we have to have a real discussion about what the drivers of our fiscal position are, both the deficit and the interest, and how we actually reform those programs. And, again, the idea is not just to reduce the size of government, but to spend what we do spend wisely. If you go out and talk to the American People about wanting the cut government they also want the dollars we do spend to be spent wisely and were not doing that either, so we have to have a holistic conversation about what were talking about when it comes to the bum process budget process. The budget is often the starting point, and thats where the policies originate, tend to be in the budge committee. And there are numbers associated with it. But i think when it comes the vision, fundamentally we have a vision where individuals have more control over their own lives, and theyre less dependent on goth. And in health care on government. And in health care that means controlling their own Health Care Dollars and introducing more genuine Market Competition to control costs rather than the government deciding what treatments and tests get covered and which dont. Those are things that should be between doctors and patients and insurance companies. And on retirement too, i mean, these are biggest programs that are driving the growth in spending, and think when we do reforms, we dont only make the fiscal condition better and help to control the debt and reduce the debt over time, but were giving people more control over their own lives but greater ability to spend their own health care and their own retirement dollars and make those decisions as to when to retire and how long to work instead of being numbinged and often nudged and often times pushed even more strongly by government to make a certain discussion because of the way that the rules of the game are written. So i think thats the vision, is give individuals more control theyll be better off, well have more Market Competition and itll make us Better Office cally and, hopefully, stave off higher taxes in the future which will reduce growth and make everyone worse off. And keep in mind the budget when it comes to priorities, it literally is a institutions or person statement what they think is the priority. Its where Campaign Rhetoric meets reality. This is whats on paper. This is what we said were going to do, this is it, this is the blue print. So youve got to lay out your vision in the budget because thats where youre specifying these are our priorities. No more Campaign Rhetoric, this is the reality. Here it is on paper. I appreciate the question because its exactly what were trying to do here over these two days. I mean our theme here of opportunity for all and favoritism to none fits very well boo this. Theres an inverse relationship between how big the federal government gets in peoples personal freedom. And we are making the argument here as an organization that Big Government breeds favoritism and it breeds cronyism because when theres all this money at the trough, thats when youre going to get that kind of deal making that happens. And we want to pare that back for peoples individual freedom for their opportunity. So putting that in that context putting these reforms in that context, i think, is important because, yeah, i think the subtext of your question is that we can be a little bit, like, too focused on spread sheets and too into our numbers. And i think thats right. Youve got to be youve got to know the numbers, got to get it right. Thats important. Weve got to balance. Weve got to do all those thing, but youve got to tell people why. I think we have time for one more question over here. Yes. Good to hear your interest in the idea of a Waste Commission Something Like that. Could you comment on the political prospects for Something Like that happening . Are there model bills out there . Are there potential sponsors . Who do you think and is there bipartisan interest for Something Like that . What can you tell us . I think there is interest but the momentum is slowly building. Theres one bill in the house right now by representative collins that would go through the process two Appropriations Bills at the time. There weres in the past there were bills in the past, and i know theres more interest. And representative kevin mccarthy, he did mention to mitt coe that he, too had an interest in pursuing this with the new congress so im hopeful and optimistic that if not this year then next year there will be more movement on that. And Jeff Sessions was pushing this idea, and were working now with the new team over there in budget to see if senator enzi will take it up to too. Its out there, its percolating. Okay. Lets thank you to the panelists and [applause] we appreciate everyone being here. Again, lets take about a 25minute brach. We have senator cruz break. We have senator cruz coming up, jim jordan many others, so we have a full afternoon. Feel free to take 25 minutes or so if you need to run out of the building theres plenty of sandwich shops around here. Otherwise, make yourselves at home on this floor, and well start back up in 25 minutes. [inaudible conversations] today on cspan2, u. S. Chamber of commerce president tom donohue on the state of u. S. Business and the economy. Then from the joint gop retreat a news briefing with House Speaker john boehner and Senate Majority leader mitch mcconnell. Live at 9 30 a. M. Eastern the u. S. Senate returns for debate on amendments for the keystone xl pipeline bill. Fighting terrorist organizations is the topic today at the center for security policy. Former military and Defense Department Officials Join Security Experts to discuss strategies for combating the global jihad movement. See it live at noon eastern on cspan3. Today a discussion on federal spending caps and ways to manage budgets that keep defense and social programs effective. Were live from the Brookings Institution at 10 30 a. M. Eastern on cspan2. Dr. Anthony fauci, our quest this sunday on q a, is on the front line battling Infectious Diseases. We have drugs right now that when given to people who are hiv infected if someone comes in and i could show you the dichotomy in the early 80s if someone came into my clinic with aids, their median survival would be 68 months which means they would be half of them would be dead in eight months. Now, if tomorrow when i go back to rounds on friday and someone comes into our clinic whos 20 plus years old, whos relatively recently infected and i put them on the combination of three drugs, the cocktail of antiviral therapy, i could look them in the eye and say we could do Mathematical Modeling to say if you take your medicine regularly, you could live an additional 50, 50, years. So to go from knowing that 50 of the people are going to die within eight months to knowing that if you take your medicines you could live essentially a normal life span, just a little bit, a few yearses less than a normal life span, thats a huge advance. Director of the National Institute of allergy and Infectious Diseases dr. Anthony fauci, sunday night at 8 eastern and pacific on cspans q a. Wednesday u. S. Chamber of commerce president tom donohue gave his annual state of the American Business and economy speech calling on congress to pass cybersecurity and immigration bills. Heres the News Conference following his remarks. This is about an hour. All right well, thank you very much for your patience and for coming today. As you know, im tom donohue president of the chamber, ask and just a few minutes ago i delivered our annual look at the economy and business and what we might expect from others and what you could expect from us this year. If you missed it, theres a copy of the speech theyre giving you as is always the case but not last year because he was in the hospital scared the hell out of us, is bruce josten whos our executive Vice President of all things we do with government and related matters. A number of our senior advisers are here that handle many of these subjects, and so theyre over there and theyre over there. You can catch them all at the end of your questions and pursue some of your issues in more depth. And as i said in the speech, the chamber believes the state of American Business is improving and that the economy is gaining momentum. We expect growth to be in the 33. 5 range at least through the middle of the year but when we look beyond that, when we look beyond the near term, the outlook is less certain. Business faces a host of challenges and uncertainties including economic weakness abroad which is very significant, by the way and unprecedented regulatory onslaught here at home and new cybersecurity threats among many others. And while things are improving the current policies of tax, spend and regulate arent cutting it. In fact, we have eroded our economys longterm potential the growth of the economy because of some of these factors. So instead of taking a victory lap, the administration the congress and all of us have got to heed the lesson of the last election, wok Work Together to advance jobs and growth and raise americas takehome pay. Divided government is not an excuse to do nothing its an opportunity to Work Together. Its to everyones benefit. We know it wont be easy, but with new people in congress with a president who hopefully will be tending to his longterm legacy we think we can get some important things done for business, for workers and for the American People. Now, our agenda is simple. What were asking leaders to do in 2015 is to rally around the common bipartisan cause stronger and deeper Economic Growth in order to create jobs and expand opportunities for all americans. The chamber will be pursuing three very quickly ill say things to help achieve that. First, were going to aggressively advance our jobs growth and opportunity agenda can that capitalizes on the extraordinary potential we have in trade energy, technology and infrastructure. Second, were going to build support for a government reform agenda. This is not an individual regulation or something. Its reforming the agenda. How we make willinglations. Regulations. That eases uncertainty and supports growth by improving immigration, the regulatory process, the tax code entitlement programs, the legal system and, very importantly our public schools. And third, the chambers going to vigorously defend a set of fundamental American Values that define who we are as a people and what made us the most free, most prosperous and the most compassionate country on earth. Im talking about the right to speak, the right to due process under or the law, the right to participate in a Free Enterprise system where you can take a risk, you can work hard and achieve your dreams. And we should all be concerned by the steady erosion of these rights and freedoms on a federal and state level. Most of all well fight to preserve the spirit of interprize in america. Enterprise in america. This is the real economic populism. Were all talking about it well, we have a set we really believe in. Its reflected in the more than 28 million businesses of all sizes in every community in this country. Americans americas enterprise system is not perfect. We want to say that right up front. But its built on the most successful economy in the history of the world, and its built, its been built from the bottom up, and this is the populism that really works. Last two thoughts. A populism based on trickledown can government with an ever growing power accruing to washington cannot work because with it our economy cannot grow. Instead, we need policies that support, expand and celebrate the entrepreneurial spirit and make sure that it thrives not just in business but in everything we do in this country. And with that, well take all your questions. Wait a second, ive got to tell you the rules of engagement. [laughter] you have to tell us who you are and know that if its a really tough question, im going to let bruce answer it. [laughter] were going to start right over here. Okay. Hi. Thanks so much for having me. Im Lydia Wheeler with the hill. You mentioned in 015 that the chambers going to have this renewed push on Regulatory Reform. Can you describe or talk about that strategy . Well, as you know in the last session of the congress we passed a threepart we didnt pass it, the Congress Passed it with our encouragement a threepart reform of the regulatory process. And it dealt with the questions of sue and settle, it dealt with the questions of permits, it dealt with the fundamental issues of how the process of regulation was going to go forward. And by the way, it was voted on in a bipartisan basis and i think there will be growing sentiment to move this forward and weve had a lot of indication in the senate of interest for this reform process. Remember, i said in the speech that the last time we reformed our regulatory process harry truman was the president. I remember him, but most of you dont. And we think there is a sentiment for doing. Im not worried about the president s suggestion that hes going to veto it. I mean, thats part of the negotiation process. And, you know, the white house always comes up with the things they may veto. Well, lets see whats in it lets see what the discussions bring, and lets see how many people vote for it. Right back here. All right . You pick em out, ill answer em. Go ahead. Tom thanks. Brian winfield with bloomberg news. This is kind of a threepart questions you always have threepart questions. [laughter] i know, yeah. You sort of tempered your language a little bit on the oil exports issue, on the energy issue. Im wondering first, if youre calling for an outright end to the limits on oil exports and if so should that be coupled with the Keystone Pipeline legislation . And then finally, we have pretty much free oil exports with canada. Im wondering if you think that should be granted to mexico as well. Thanks. Well, ill do the last part first. Mexico is a long way from getting its energy industry, oil and gas and so on organized the way that canada has, but theyre moving in a very thoughtful way to do that. And we think its good for the nafta relationship, the three countries that are together on many trade and investment and security issues. So we would hope that we would treat them the same way. Second, the Keystone Pipeline, i mean, im going the behave today, right . I mean, thats a political joke. We have been through this thing in every possible way. Everybody knows it creates jobs. The labor unions are vigorously for it. Everybody knows it with all the studies it does not cite an environmental problem in this country. And the thing that really bothers me, the country that has been our friend our partner our supporter in every way for as long as any of us can remember is canada. And were treating them very badly on this issue. And i think thats a mistake. On the question of exporting oil and gas, you really have to look at it in two circumstances, you know . We had a circumstance, what, 120 days ago where prices were higher and there was a good surplus here in the United States. Now it may go down some because of investments as the prices go down, but there is plenty of opportunity for us to export oil and gas with if they want reasonable exploration, thats fine for the advantage of the American Economy to create jobs and to help stability around the world. And, you know, you can just think about the issue in the ukraine. And there are a lot of opportunities to look at the stability issue as well. And thank you. And thats the end of threepart questions. You picking em or am i . Yes i am. All right. Hi [inaudible] from national journal. Looking ahead to 2016 ive got two questions for you. Do you think that the chamber will be as involved in gop primaries, and do you have a ballpark of what you guys think youll spend . Primaries are created in two ways. One, people decide not to run or people locally decide to challenge someone, and weve already begun to see folks that are looking at whether they think running is a good idea so i think therell be more opportunities. Now, its a long way, so some people will temporarily assume those jobs or be appointed or even elected. But that creates an opportunity for primaries and i think, i dont know we had a conversation one day about we could even have primaries on the democratic side that wed be interested in. We think heres our fundamental, onesentence deal. We believe candidates matter more than anything else. Were looking for people who want to govern, who want to come to washington to join in the debate and the process and the responsibility of governing on behalf of their fellow citizens and were going to support em. And how much were going to spend . I have no idea. It basically comes down to how much we do and how much we need. Yeah, whos up . All right. Hi, good morning im [inaudible] with the ap. Many thanks for doing this. I would like to ask where the chambers goals this year for cuba that you havent mentioned in your speech. And also you said in the speech that Immigration Reform could be possible this year. But we see today that the republicans, the house is about to vote on a bill that blocking executive action by president obama. Could you please elaborate a little bit how you see the solution possible this year and what specific initiatives the chamber has on immigration. Thank you. Well, the immigration thing what were interested in is what i said in the speech we need workers were a country with people without jobs and jobs without people. And were working very hard to find jobs for the people that dont have them and were working very hard to find people for jobs that need specific skills. Its why our hiring in the heroes out of the military Program Works so well. And we really believe that an Immigration Program that provides people at both ends of the spectrum, you know people going to our great universities and people that work in everything from hospitals and Nursing Homes and resorts and agriculture, we need a way that companies can know who theyre hiring, and theres a good process in place there that seems to be ready to be put in fuller use. We need to deal with the borders, and its got to be a reasonable thoughtful process. And we have to figure out what to do with people that are illegally here and give them some process for having legality in moving forward. And i believe that the sentiment is growing across this country to do that. On the question oh and by the way, on the issue of what theyre voting on today, its got not a lot to do with immigration, it has a lot to do with the constitutional prerogatives of the president and of the congress. And i think its fine they go about that. But theres a very simple way that the minutes of the house and senate can that the members of the house and senate can solve this problem; go pass an immigration bill, send it to the president and let him sign it. And thats the end of that problem. On cuba we are, weve been involved on the cuban issue for a long time. We believe that the agreement and the decisions by the president on this are a good start. We are we only have three sentences to say about that right now today. Number one no matter what youre doing, if youre doing it for 50plus years and it doesnt work, you ought to find something else. Number two, if you look at the tenure of the current government and what their plans are, when the major changes will be if you look at all the people from countries all over the world that are developing the economy over there, it is time for us to move. And number three, after the last time i was there in the two weeks following putin and then xi, the president of china were there, and id much rather that we were deciding what were going to do in cuba than them deciding what theyre going to do. Thank you very much. Right over here. My name eastonny [inaudible] i write for tax notes. Hi tom. Im going to start with you since you gave the speech. It took you about half an hour to get to tax reform which i and it seem like you were a little pep did when you were tepid when you were talking about, you didnt think it was going to happen which is unusual because everybody else ive talked to thinks its going the happen. Now, did you say the people you talk to i was joking. Its not going to happen. [laughter] but i want to go to bruce on this too. Whats your, whats your take on that . I mean, its a serious issue, theres been talk of compromise but you seem to have very low expectations. I mean, how are you guys approaching that issue . Im just going to answer that question, bruce will talk to you about the tax deal. If you look at the sequence of the things we talked about their importance is not in the order in which they were done. You know im very passionate about the last things i talked about. And by the way, were realists about taxes. Were realists. And bruce will tell you what realism is. So i think what tom tried to do in his speech, first and foremost, was highlight the most obvious opportunities for legislative outcome if you look at the trade agenda, if you look at all the Energy Legislation if you look at all the technology stuff and infrastructure which in part gets you to tax reform. I think first off we have two new chairmen of the taxwriting committees. Neithers going to pick up where the last person left off. Theyre going to start anew. I think over in the house chairman has been hard at work on what he would more likely describe as process reforms that are needed and necessary to facilitate achieving tax reform. Some of that deals with dynamic scoring, some of that a deals with budget issues. Chairman hatch i think is really close to if not 700 pages of outlines of tax reform. I have been up and met with both of them and many others on this. I think tax reform is very hard to do. I, you know theres been a lot that suggests the administration and the taxwriting committees and both chambers and both parties are roughly on the same page, about 7080 . Thats good. Of course, the other 2030 s the really really hard stuff to do. Jacob lew had a meeting yesterday with some Small Business groups trying to rev this up. I think the difference here is we began last fall a campaign on comprehensive tax reform. Were still engaged in that most heavily right now on social media, but stay tuned. Well be doing more, and well echo chamber that out throughout the year. Of the Business Community is always going to be divided. I mean, by definition this is a winners and losers exercise. It didnt take two years in 86 as everybody says, it really took about five and another year of transition, so weve got a ways to go. Were all in on tax reform. It is one of the biggest things to do. It has one of the biggest potential impacts overall on the economy and our competitiveness and gdp growth. [inaudible] hi. Doug palmer with politico. My question has to do with tpa. Mr. Donahue, in your speech you said that the president s going to have to get fight with members, round up support in his own party to get tpa approved. I just wonder what is your sense of how Many Democrats are needed in the house to make this a bipartisan effort and are you concerned that there might be you know a large number of republicans who would be loathe to vote for the bill was they dont want to give obama the authority . Well, every president since gerry ford or something have had trade Promotion Authority. And our reading of this having been all over our team all over the Congress Talking to just about everybody is that there is plenty of support there. We further read that the president has begun to make it clear, first of all, to his own team that he wants the cabinet and others up there working on this. Im hopeful that hell be very aggressive on it in the state of the union. He knows and hes had some meetings just recently organizing the white house and others. He knows that theyre going to have to have an effort to deal in two areas. One with the necessary number of democrats, and that means dealing with labor. And he knows that hes got to spend some time assuring republicans of what its going to lead to. But we believe that there are plenty plenty of votes to get this done. I believe we will get it done and im very encouraged that this could be the first step in a three or four step process that would strengthen the economy of the United States for a long time to come. Id quickly add to your question, if i remember quickly and im sure or someone in the room will check if im wrong and report it but i think about 25 House Democrats voted for tpa the last time. Im not sure all 25 of them are still in the house this time. In the senate if i remember correctly, it was about 21 Senate Democrats that voted for it. I believe only six of them are there. Point is, you know, there hasnt been a lot of trade votes, there arent a lot of members of congress that understand tpa and now we have to add dont forget taa as part of that journey to accomplish tpa. I agree with tom, this does get done. The president s clearly going to have some challenges on his side of the aisle in and outside of congress. Hes going to have to work to bring some democrats with him. But lets not overlook the Republican Leadership in both chambers is on the same page with the president wanting to deliver tpa to him. [inaudible] victoria [inaudible] with the wall street journal. I was hoping you could be give us some more specific about the legislative priorities you have regarding Financial Regulation for instance, you mentioned fsoc but do you think congressional action is needed beyond what fsoc itself is doing . And then also um on cyber what specific legislation you think, um, is needed there. Lets do the cyber first. As you know, over the years there have been efforts to seek out a piece of legislation that would help us deal with what was at the time a problem that people were sort of spending time looking at. And we never quite got there. And one of the reasons was that there was in the government a view that there should be a law that told everybody what how they had to react to cyber difficulties. Well, it would take, you know, about every 12 minutes we change how we respond to those things, and so we challenged that. And by the time they wrote the law and wrote the regulations, it had changed a thousand times. But right now what were saying and theres a much, much more educated understanding of this subject than there was years ago. But what we need now so that companies and governments at home and abroad lets say American Companies and governments at home and abroad because we have Companies Overseas have to be able to Exchange Information with the government and in some instances between and among companies that have similar problems so that we, we the American Economic system the american system of government is in a position to defend it instantly and to learn from the problems of others. And we believe that a bill that addresses the issue that provides legality for companies to do that within, within appropriate limits is very, very important so that we can Work Together to awe void the really to avoid the really difficult things that youve seen. And you can multiply those out as being far more. On the issue of Financial Regulation, i mean, i think the first thing to understand in fact, ill just say three things. The absolute frustration of running a bank or a Financial Institution and having a half a dozen regulators or in your building telling you how to what youre supposed to do every day and them being in absolute conflict with one another is not a good way to do business and there has to be some strengthening of that process including some oversight by the congress. Or the second thing is all this time since doddfrank we still have a third of the regulations that have not been completed. And only, you know, we can only begin to imagine what thats going to do when added to whats already here. And the last thing that i think is very, very important is that the regulators are going far beyond where an overkill law already went. And if it doesnt exactly fit what they want to do they decide, theyll decide what the law is. Well youve noticed weve been in the courts on some of those issues quite successfully. And our issue, we got, you know we were lucky that we dealt with the derivative issue not for people that were outside users you know the companies, not the Financial Institutions, but were going to have more of that. Youre going to see places and why would you not . I mean, you write this thing its a tome its still two or three years from getting completed. It was written in anger, and it was written in a hurry. And if you dont think youre going to the need technical corrections or discussion and explanation, then were never going to get anywhere. And you guys know a lot about that, and i hope youll write on it extensively, because its a real problem. I would just add two quick comments. We continue to be concerned about the cfpb okay . I mean, this is an agency that kind of has got one person running it, doesnt really have anybody surrounding it, has basically an unlimited budget isnt under congressional oversight. If you look at the fsoc issue and take the metlife example this is an example where toms mentioned in his speech about the need for government reform and regulation. So here youve got a group of regulators who couldnt identify, let alone define what the Systemic Risk behavior was in the insurance space. They couldnt decide over here what was a Systemic Risk activity, and then they named four companies as Systemic Risk outside of banking. Now, one of them is, obviously going to correctly challenge that because definitionally if you cant identify the behavior how do i become a Systemic Risk institution . So somethings awry in this whole process of how were racing to regulate. [inaudible] yep. Hi, ashley [inaudible] cnn. Could you talk a little bit more about the 2016 how you see the president ial race shaping up and also could you specifically address the fact that mitt romney is thinking about getting in the race . Well, ill be glad to make a couple of comments but i have to, you know, put out all my disclaimers. We dont actively participate in the president ial election. We, of course, comment during the process on the policy issues involved. And we, we are interested, of course on who all the candidates are. Just think about it, every morning in america about 25 or 30 people get up and look in the mirror and say good morning, mr. President , good morning madam president , and thats a great thing about the american system. Its a great thing. And its going to have an effect you name the time, is it six months from now . We thought it would be be, but a lot of up front people its going to to have an effect on what were trying to do on the very important policy regulatory or ask legislative issues that need to be addressed and, by the way on the global issues were dealing with. On romney not talking about him as a president ial candidate hes a skilled businessman certainly gotten some experience on being in the president ial business, and i think hes a talented guy. But i could say the same thing about a lot of people men and women. I think its going to be fascinating. But heres my deal, i think the American People in elections in the house elections in the Senate Elections for governor and, therefore elections for president of the United States are going to look very very carefully for people that share their values but bring competence and experience to the process. They if you went and looked at all the polls, there was a great concern in the last election would people go to washington and govern, and do they have the confidence and the experience to do so. [inaudible] morning tom. Good morning bruce. Elizabeth williamson with the wall street journal. If i can just get you to go a little further on 2016 and maybe throw you a slab of red meat and ask you to comment on Elizabeth Warren when you talk about economic populism, is that to is that who youre referring to chiefly . No, i think there are a lot of economic populists running around in the congress and out of the congress. Elizabeth warren is a person who has some views we dont share. Now, im shes a member of the senate. Thats what im talking about right now. The idea that people should not be confirmed to serve in the government because they have experience in the subject for which they would be assigned is a very unique idea, isnt it . I mean it may work in the senate, but it sure doesnt work when youre dealing with comply cayed Global Financial issues complicated Global Financial issues, for example. Second, the idea that enterprise and American Companies should be more vigorously regulated by government and, in fact, controlled by the government is a view that we dont share. And a very pleasant woman, you know, if you sit down and have a cup of tea with her or a drink, but we dont share her views on the economy and on where the American Economic system ought to be headed. And i dont think if she runs for president , i dont think the American People will share her views either. [inaudible] im rachel [inaudible] with inside health policy. You mentioned it briefly in your speech, but i was wondering if you could expand on your health care approach this year and if its impacted at all or shaped at all by the pending litigation in king burwell and if thats kind of a, if thats a sign towards repeal and replace strategy terrace or kind of the mauler tweaks like the smaller tweaks like the 40 hour workweek and things like that . Well, bruce is going to enlighten you on that. I would simply say that health care is 17 of or 18 of our economy. And so legislation of high significance in terms of many changes this in the system is very difficult to implement ask very difficult to and very difficult to rationalize. And the president and the white house have been basically rewriting it as we go along. Which is sort of a unique perspective for us. But it there are going to be changes because it is so so omnipresent in everything we do that weve got to find out what works and what doesnt. And well be a part of that. Bruce . Look, a couple points. Well be doing health care legislation, this my opinion forever. Just because tom pointed out it is about a sixth of the overall economy. There is no magic wand in this space at all. We think there are some serious structural issue problems with the law thats been enacted. Our members have to deal with them, so our objective and our role and responsibility is on behalf of our members. So that runs the gamut from the 3040 hour deal, interest in medical liability which wasnt mentioned. Were interested in a whole host of things that make this a little easier. Yeah, we have objections to the employer mandate. Were not involved at all in the litigation. I think the litigation, depending upon what the court does decide, could have a huge impact on the law Going Forward because of subsidies and who gets them and how they get them can all of that. Medicaid isnt really a Business Organization issue per se. Tom mentioned i think theres bipartisan support for repealing the medical device tax. I think we have expressed concern and interest with the Health Insurance tax. They do nothing but make this whole process more expensive for everybody to get into the system. But, look, there arent 60 votes in the senate to pass a repeal bill. President obama is still president. Hes not going to sign a law if it ever got to his desk that repeals his signature achievement, quoteunquote. So, you know were not working for repeal even though we were actively working to defeat this from ever becoming a law. But now the objective is it is a law, were four or five years into this thing, and we have got to continue to try to improve it at every turn and thats what were going to do. I would just add one orr sentence. Its very entering to watch our friends very interesting to watch our friends and neighbors and family try and deal first with the existing system and now with the changing system which causes them to lose reapply for their Health Insurance, find out their copays have changed. And im not making a value judgment about the content im making a value judgment about how difficult it is for everyday americans. And im, im not talking about that guy that worked on it suggested that they werent very smart. Im suggesting they are smart but they arent informed because if you try and pick up that stuff in the explanations and try and inform yourself, youre lucky if you work for a company that takes care of arranging your Health Insurance. If you have to do it yourself it is one of the scariest things you can ever imagine. Right here. Hi. Im Susan Cornwell with reuters. And the Obama Administration says theyre going to unveil new rules today that aim to slash methane emissions from oil and gas production. I think by up to 45 by the year 2025. So i know you sort of touched on emissions in your speech, but i wondered what you specifically thought about this proposal to regulate methane gas. Thank you. Bruce . We just talked about it thanks, susan. First comment it just came out as you know, so you know where we were, so we havent had a chance to review it. What i understand youre right, its a 45 reduction by 2025. Im told it doesnt define how we would ever achieve that through a regulation. Yet over here on the other side of that is another reality that says in about the last five years u. S. Industry has reduced methane emissions by about 11 . By the way fracking wells by greater than 70 . All of what epa had previously forecast as undershot meaning the private sector has exceeded Emission Reductions voluntarily far beyond what they had hoped to achieve. So youre kind of stopping right away wondering wait a second were moving forward here with pretty significant reductions, massive on the fracking side and thousand the administration comes out with another and now the administration comes out with another one size fits all regulation thats going to have an impact on one of the most Innovative Industries in the nation without any definitions on how you achieve it. So were concerned. [inaudible] hi. Im [inaudible] from japanese tv network. On cuba can you tell us what kind of benefits u. S. Business community can get from possible u. S. cuba Promotional Exchange and are you planning to visit havana again this year . Thank you. I think the benefits should be measured sequentially. And the first benefit comes to the United States of america. Cuba is 91 miles off the coast of florida. There are people from all over the world down there. They built one of the most modern ports to handle all those ships coming through the new ships of the panama canal paid for by the brazilians the dredging paid for by the germans, the cranes and the Computer Technology provided by the chinese. Theres a major oil drilling and refining operation, gas and oil which is a joint partnership with the canadians which were and were not there except on food. The second and very very important thing thats critical to the United States is a National Security and geopolitical reality. We dont want to go back to a point where others who dont wish us well or who are competitive not in an economic sense, but in a geopolitical sense set up shop 91 miles from one of our major cities. And, and we then on top of all that there are extraordinary opportunities for American Companies there. Youve all seen the pictures. Now, its not the biggest population in the world, but theres a chance to do two things. One is sell a bunch of cars there and, two, go into the, go into the car business of antique cars. And, by the way, there is a unbelievable demand by the People Living in cuba for Consumer Products technology and other things that somebodys going to sell them. Its not going to be all us because look at all these other countries that have their companies in there already. But the bottom line is it is now time for us to do something here. And by the way, you all notice that the dissidents were released yesterday. [inaudible] hi. Mark scheff from financial news. Going back to regulation, how exactly do you see it unfolding . For instance the technical corrections bill thats going to come out of the house today, do you think the senate is going to embrace it in the form that comes out of the house, or is the senate going to take a different approach and want to go through regular order and do those things one by one . How do you see those unfolding . And second if i may real quick, what are you going to do to try to stop the my fiduciary bill . I would imagine the senate would be willing to take up the housepassed bill. Mitch mcconnell has said he wants to do everything through regular order as you all well know although he has pointed out that on the pipeline issue its not an openended regular order meaning hes not going to let perpetual amendments in the hundreds go on forever. I dont have a clue what the senates going to do on this, and its hard to predict. I would assume pass it or come close to passing it. It seems to me that the concern and effort in both chambers right now is to try from the leadership stage to build as much bipartisan support to move these things as quickly as they can and let the president decide what hes going to do. Remember, the end of the week the leaders and the members of the house and the senate will be together for their meeting, and were hoping that when you put together the regular order issue in the senate and a cooperative relationship between the leaders in both houses, that well get to some of these issues. In terms of the fiduciary issue out of labor, we are particularly concerned about a lot of things coming out of labor. Remember, labor sets the rules for how you hire people how you pay their benefits, how you pay them, what you have to do in the regulations on their workplaces and all of that. And there are lots and lots of things cooking over there that were going to have to deal with. And we hope to deal with them with logical arguments we hope to deal with them with compelling facts and when we finally get through wit, you know, a lot of those were going to have to deal with them in a court of law, and you know were really good at that. [inaudible] hi. Dana mill bank from the washington post. If you look at the current rates of growth, it seem to be hard to make the case that obamacare and doddfrank and the other policies of this administration have destroyed the Free Enterprise system. Do you think those warnings of yours from a few years ago were overwrought, or do you think things would be fundamentally and significantly better now if not for that . We project destruction of the Free Enterprise something very much like that. Youre out of your mind. I dont think. Youre crazy. Find one place that we projected the destruction of the Free Enterprise system and ill buy you lunch. Where are we going . I dont know. Your call, youre paying. Guaranteed. [laughter] we we worried about people going after the enterprise system, but we dont project its destruction. And i think its very, very interesting to look at how the government of the United States has gotten its deficit down to where it has with the 98 billion out of the fed, with hundreds of billions over time out of extorted settlements out of companies and other issues. But when you look at where this stuff eat going in just the stuffs going in just the next years and the governments own projection of how huge that deficits going to be most of it by the way, huge amount of it tied into entitlements, i think youve got to be really careful. Oh, and by the way they want to do more tax increases. Certainly the cost of these regulatory changes are extraordinary. But the bottom line is are simple. We need to be alert we need to understand the challenges and the predictable crisis that we face, and we need to do something about it or well pay a price for it. Back row, over there. Kevin . Hi. Kevin [inaudible] from politico. I had a few questions about the gas tax. Ah first of all are you guys attached to the gas tax as sort of the Funding Source for the highway bill or would you be open to using tax reform or Something Like that . Secondly, in your speech you said, you know, im not sure if you were using rhetoric or if this was something you were actually proposing, one or two dimes weve gotten from the saving of gas prices, 20 cents seems to be a little bit higher than what other people have proposed there was an or. There was an or between the first and second dime or and. Listen, this is a are simple issue. Weve gone 20, what, one, two three years since weve increased the federal fuel tax. During that time everybody in this room has gone from having a car that goes gets x miles a gallon to having a car that gets many more miles per gallon which means youre driving and the same thing on trucking business which i know a lot about. And the bottom line is were driving as many mile or more miles on the road, and were collecting half of the funds that we were to repair the road and extend the road to where it needs to go. Whats needed here is the realization theres a lot of holes in the roads, a lot of bridges in this country that dont work, and pretty soon we will have a crisis. And we need a way to pay for this, because were going to do it. And my recommendation to the leadership is that this is a hell of a lot simpler than a lot of other things that you are talking up. If you think about this issue, so you had a recession which reduced consumption. It had the vehicle mile increased that tom mentioned which has been rather dramatic. Youve got another thing millennials not necessarily driving cars the way say my generation did. Theres a lot of factors and forces at play here that are done what . They have driven down the receipt close to 30 since about 2007. Its clear the direction it is going in. Repair and renovation costs by the way land labor materials et cetera are going up rather dramatically. This isnt free to be paid for. People that complain about it being a quote tax increase, lets not Forget Congress a year ago did on the other side of the coin entirely raise the inland water fee tax okay 9 cents. So at some point reality begins to hit. I think its encouraging more today from the vehicle mile tax which has been discussed to this, but you have more members of the house and senate right now saying maybe want to take a look at this. Mabel got to take a look of attacks, look at indexing. You didnt have those conversations even a you go. So thats a big improvement. This isnt going to be done for free. Hi, david with inside epa. I do couple of questions on the Regulatory Reform issue. First, you talked about a bill for crafting regulations are passed the house yesterday. Are you looking at a particular legislation for the other prong of that agenda . And on the side of reforming enforcement of existing rules you talked about some practices you whats to stop. Can you go into more details on what agencies are using those i guess you would call them underhanded enforcement tricks . Do you want to go on the first the bills that tom mentioned are the regulatory account of act which is designed reform the administrative procedure act which is the single statute on the books from 1942 or 46 that guides the rulemaking and regulators in a regulated process. Considering its 2015 we think taking a good look at how you modernize that in todays world is probably appropriate. A Bipartisan Group of house and Senate Members agree with is based upon cosponsorship. The permit streamlining it shouldnt take 12, 15 or 20 years to get a permit for anything in this country which is kind of what its been taking. Weve modeled off what theyve done on the highway side. So all comments should be heard everybody should be considered but theres got to be a time when we make a decision. This just cant go on and on forever. The third piece of that is to sue and settle gain and this is one where we think some organizations have taken unfair advantage of a legitimate Legal Process which is called sue the epa. The courts a deferential to epa in this case. They always settle. Treasurer writes a check, okay . And then reimburse. This is almost a selffunding mechanism for some of those groups. And the worst part of that is you cant challenge it the same way you could a regulation. So the person or the group that initiates the suit makes it to you with the epa. They get what they want in the decision from the epa but then they get paid for it and then you cant challenge it. The same we could if it were a regulation. We think that kind of game and needs to stop. The general counsel of epa kind of agreed with us and has started to release some of information which, by the way for years they wouldnt release. Part of the Regulatory Reform concerns weve we have had on some of the standard setting where epa says, you know our analyses and science tells us come and we say can we see the sights . And again is no. University did it. We dont own a. You go to the university. They say we get it for ep. We are not limited to give it to you. We are like the ping pong ball going back and forth. We are seeing in those instances epa should forthrightly bring forward those analyses and studies. We would like to see in them real costbenefit analyses over all in terms of the entire impact on the economy. I think you guys and gals know, we did a study over several years on this sue and settle game and permitting and identified more than 350 projects. By the way interestingly over half of which were for alternative and Renewable Energy Infrastructure Projects that got stopped because of this sue and settle game. So theres a lot going on the space that the onion needs to be peeled back a little bit, and epa needs to be a lot more transparent. Andrew with the National Law Journal and corporate counsel. Over here. Got you. 2015 is reform of the false claims act a priority for the chamber . Yes. Could you talk a little bit more about what youre hoping to occulter . Let me hook you up with matt webb who i think is here spent if not we will get him. We were taken because i know other people in the Legal Reform Institute are not here today but matt is here. We think there are some concerns with the practices in terms of how the practices act is being used to go after companies. Talking about the false claims act. Then im going to put you to map. Somebody get matt down here. We will get them to you. Financial advisor magazine. To question. Tom, are you threatening a lawsuit if they come out with a fiduciary will . No. I think we will be working on lots of the other options debate. If we go to normal order in the senate. There will be opportunities to have hearings and look at that issue. If it finally comes down as something that was dealt with before, if we have to go to court we will. We dont threaten people with lawsuits. We just sue them. The other question is what parts of doddfrank do you think you can repeal in this session of congress . We are not out to repeal all sorts of parts of doddfrank. What were interested in doing is making the technical changes, finding some Rational Center between the conflicting interpretations that we are getting from the regulatory agencies and dealing with those things that were written without understanding of how it effects whats happening in the rest of the economy what happens in our business around the world. Look, doddfrank is here. Its not going away, but it is so big, it is so perverse in that weve got to make those technical charges. And by the way, you go pick every major piece of legislation youve ever seen in this country and thats exactly what has to happen. Look at whats going on health care. It makes whats going on in doddfrank look like a not very significant. But were going to be there. We are going to work on those changes, work on interpretation and were going to work very, very hard to make sure that there is some reporting of how it is regulated by by whom . By one by two i can by a dozen agencies . All in conflict . Thats got to stop. Let me just say one thing because will not take any more questions but we have a lot of our staff here that deal with the issues youre interested in and you know many of them and they are standing over there and over there and they will be very happy to talk to. I want to thank you for coming, and i want to wish you a very happy 2015. [applause] [inaudible conversations] today a discussion on federal spending gaps and ways to manage budgets that keep defense and social programs effective. We are live from the Brookings Institution at 10 30 a. M. Eastern on cspan3. Fighting terrorist organizations is the topic today at the center for security policy. Former military and Defense Department Officials Joined Security Experts to discuss strategies for combating the global jihad movement. See it live at noon eastern on cspan3. The cspan cities tour takes booktv into American History tv on the road traveling to u. S. City to learn about their history and literary life. This week and we partnered with comcast for a visit to wheeling West Virginia. I wrote this book two volumes. The reason i thought it was important to collect these histories is wheeling transformed into an induction city the latter part of the 19th century and are a part of the 20th century, and its kind of fun, in West Virginia and that it to a lot of immigrants from various parts of europe here in search of jobs and opportunity. So that generation, that immigrant immigration is pretty much gone. I thought it was important to record their story, to get the memory of the immigrant generation. Its an important part of our history. Most people tend to focus on the frontier history, the civil war history, though streets that are important but importance in my mind is the industrial period and immigration at wheeling. Wheeling start as an outpost on the frontier. That river was the western extent of the United States in the 1770s. The first project funded by the federal government for road production was the National Road that extended from cumberland maryland to wheeling virginia. And when it comes to do we living that will give this Community Comes to wheeling at that time about 50 years old the real spurt that it needs for growth. And over the next 2025 years the population of wheeling will almost triple. Spent much all of our events from wheeling saturday at noon eastern on cspan2s booktv and Sunny Afternoon at you on American History tv on cspan3. Spent House Speaker john boehner and Senate Majority leader which mcconnell held a briefing at the joint housesenate republican retreat thursday in hershey, pennsylvania. The two leaders discussed issues on the agenda over the next few weeks involving Homeland Security funding cybersecurity taxes, trade authority. This is 15 minutes. Good afternoon. Republicans continue to make the American Peoples priorities, jobs and the economy, our priorities. Weve had a great opportunity this year to make progress for families and Small Businesses, and we look forward to continuing to make progress. Weve already gotten off to a great start i passing a number of common sense, bipartisan jobs bills to help grow our economy. Listen, the president s focus is on the past. On the old politics of pitting one set of americans against the other. On the outdated ways of bureaucratic control, all top down washington solutions. And whats that produced . Record debt and a shaky economy. The country i believe is eager to move on. We need to start growing americas economy not washington economy. Our challenge, our opportunity is to pass a Common Sense Solutions that will help expand opportunities for middleclass families and Small Businesses. Solutions that simplify our tax code to make both progrowth and profamily. Solutions that address the true drivers of our debt and begin to balance the budget. Solutions that repeal obamacare and replace it with patientcentered reform that will help our constituents have better access to High Quality Health Care in america. Listen, our job is to push for conservative reforms, show the American People we can make progress and show the American People our vision for the future that will help improve their lives. Thats exactly what we planned to do and im particularly happy that the light went out. [laughter] very happy today to have the Senate Majority leader h. Mccall, my friend, with us here today. Well, thank you, mr. Speaker. We are pleased to be here today. The announcement i want to make is that senator joni ernst will be delivering the response to the state of the union for our side this year the she is a perfect choice. Americans voted for change and s. N. O. R. E. Ernst will expend with the new Congress Plans to do. And what it is already doing it will return washington focus to the concerns of the middleclass and away from the demand of the medical class. Lieutenant colonel john ernst has dedicated her life to iowa and to our country. Serving in the military i Went National guard, for more than 20 years and has deployed overseas. Senator ernst is focused on growing a vibrant economy and expanding the middle class. Thank you. Everybody, thank you so much. Thank you, speaker, and thank you, leader also but i am truly humbled and honored to have this opportunity to deliver the republican address. And it it is a long way from red oak to washington, d. C. , and growing up on a southwest iowa farm years ago i never never would have imagined that i would have this opportunity. So thank you. Like so many of my colleagues our folks back home sent us to washington, d. C. With a clear mission. And that mission is to get to work. That mission is to craft and implement the policies, Good Solutions which will enable us to get america on a better path. And we are anxious to do this. We are very anxious to get to work and implement these good policies. So i look forward to that very much because we want to ensure that the america we are building leaves a stronger economy and more opportunity for our children and our grandchildren. So again i want to thank you very much and i look forward to sharing more about our collective agenda this next tuesday evening. Thank you all so much. We will take a couple of questions. You started the year, both using the tax form was an area where you could work with the president as a means to boost the economy. What is the process actually like . What kind of timeline are you looking at . Let me just say i think there is urban things we need to find out if we agree on before you go forward. Divided government is a perfect time to do tax reform. Ronald reagan and tip oneill did it 30 years ago. Day however have an understanding that it was to be revenue neutral for the government. In other words, it was about making america more competitive and growing the economy, not making the government larger. The president at least at this point has said he is willing to do Corporate Tax reform only revenue neutral. The problem with that is you leave out most of American Business, which pays taxes escorts, llc is come in other words, pastors. If we can agree why were doing this i think would be the perfect time to tackle the. Those discussions are underway between the speaker and the president and myself to see if we can come to a common agreement about why we are doing this. If we can do that and i think it is worth pursuing. [inaudible] what does your senate intend to do with it . Are the 60 votes there right now . If not have another plan in mind . Were going to try to pass it will be our first choice. And if were unable to do that we will see what happens. It were unable to do that then we will let you know what comes next. Everybody knows what the rules are. Speaker boehner theres an opossum in westchester ohio. How are you feeling about that . Number one. And in light of the foiled attack on the capital how do you feel about your personal security your members of security of the security of the vote itself . We live in a dangerous country and we get reminded every week of the dangers that are out there. We saw what happened in paris a week ago. My personal situation im not going to get into it but its one thing to get a threat from far away. Its another when its three doors from where you live. And, obviously, this young man has got some Health Issues mental Health Issues, that need to be addressed. I hope he gets the help you need but if you want to thank the fbi and the capitol police, the Westchester Police and others to resolve this issue. With regard to the threat to the capital, coming frankly not par four i live the first thing that strikes me is that we would have never known about this had it not been for the fisa program and our ability to collect information on people who pose an imminent threat. Im going to face one more time for you were going here about for months and months to come as we attempt to reach authorized the fisa program. Our government does not spy on americans unless there are americans who are doing things that frankly tip off our Law Enforcement officials to an imminent threat. And it was our Law Enforcement officials and those programs that help us stop this person before he committed a heinous crime in our nations capital. Do you know something we we dont . Up we dont . Upheld the use of social media talking about this. Is there more to this that we dont know . I was just we will the whole story world out there, but it was far more. Back in 2011 in new york you told billion of unit Pete Peterson you didnt think americans should subsidize Health Care Premiums for wealthy people such as yourself to look at the medicare premium structure, it came up during discussion and the reconciliation process. The reconciliation and budget process is underway. As you are probing all well over senator mcconnell and i were in long conversations with the president about addressing our longterm spending problems which are centered around the entitlement programs. And clearly, when it comes to strengthening medicare it was one of the issues that was discussed. But i think both, i will speak for myself the president never got serious about doing the kind of reforms that would put americas Fiscal Health in proper shape. And id like to be hopeful. I am a hopeful person, glass halffull but ive my doubts about whether the president will be seriously getting into this. Can i just add [inaudible] could i just add, the only way to do entitlement eligibility changes is on a bipartisan basis. In terms of the senate can we do not intend to be offering unilateral one party only entitlement eligibility changes. We all know the entitlement programs are in serious trouble some sooner than others, but it is a perfect candidate for agreement when you have divided government. But once again, like some tax reforms, the only one of us out at 330 but who can sign something into law needs to be a part of the discussion and needs to agree to the out. Can you point to one specific positive thing that has come out of your day and have here in hershey . I think the most positive thing is that youve got a group of new republican members in the senate youve got a group of new republican members in the house, and weve all had an opportunity to get to know each other a little bit better. We want house and Senate Republicans working together with our democratic colleagues to advance the solutions. And its kind of hard to do that when you dont have very good feel for who these people are. So its been probably the best hard so far. Senator mcconnell, early today you and speaker were addressing members, trying to remind House Republicans to be realistic about [inaudible] have the two of you figured out how to approach issues like this dhs funding bill where there is sort of a disagreement between the chambers and also difference of a can actually happen how a going to do this . I would just go first. The house is going to work its will. The senate is going to work its will. And then we dedicate conference are well find some way to resolve the differences. That is what we call regular order. Thats the legislative process. There are 535 of us on capitol hill, and to try to get all of us to agree is not an easy job. The founders never envisioned it to be easy and it certainly isnt, but i think each of the chambers has to do what they are capable of doing and then we try to resolve the differences. [inaudible] what do you think could be the first piece of legislation you pass the president will sign . And also do you believe that Climate Change is real . Well, on the areas of potential agreement obviously cybersecurity, trade Promotion Authority are two things i think we are likely to end up in the same place. The president doesnt set the agenda in the senate, but we are anxious to make progress for the American People are things where we can find areas of agreement. We earlier discussed potential for tax reform. There is a potential for infrastructure, and i think a high likelihood will get the on trade Promotion Authority and cybersecurity. And Climate Change . Clearly with the changes in our climate. Ive let the scientists debate the sources in their opinion of that change. But i think the real question is that every proposal we see out of the administration with regard to Climate Change means killing american jobs. The American People are still asking the question where are the jobs . The jobs and economy the economy are still the number one issue in the country, and i just dont understand why every proposal that comes out of the administration is just going to kill thousands and thousands of more american jobs. Do you see the president more of a willing participant . You said he has not been in the past. Does he show any signs do the things have changed . We had a nice conversation very polite, clear. But i dont know that we learned a whole lot. You dont think his demeanor, he talked about the failed negotiations over a big deal so your estimation is things really havent changed . I think its way too early to tell but as i said im a guy who sees the Glass Half Full and i believe, hope springs ago. The American People want us to find a way to address their concerns. That was the big message after the election. You hear from our members on both sides of the capital. Im hoping the president hurt the same message. Thanks. Snort verse can i ask you about no. [laughter] senator ernst. [inaudible conversations] british Prime Minister David Cameron is in washington, d. C. For meetings with president obama. One of the items on the agenda last weeks terror attack in paris. This afternoon the president will hold a joint News Conference with the Prime Minister at the white house. Live coverage at 12 20 eastern. Cspan2 providing live coverage of u. S. Senate floor proceedings, and key Public Policy events. And every weekend booktv now 415 years the only Television Network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. Cspan2 created by the cable tv industry and brought you as a Public Service by your local cable or satellite provider. Watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. The u. S. Senate is about to convene on this friday morning. The floor be open for an image to the keystone xl pipeline bill. No votes are scheduled as of last night more than 60 amendments have been filed and debate will continue into next week or republicans are wrapping up a joint retreat with the house gop in hershey pennsylvania, with the house is in for a pro forma session at 4 p. M. Eastern today. No votes are scheduled to you can watch that on cspan. Now live to the floor of the u. S. Senate here on cspan2. The president pro tempore the senate will come to order. The chaplain, dr. Barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. The chaplain let us pray. Heavenly father, giver of good gifts, thank you for another day to serve you. Focus the attention of our senators on your will and enable them to discover what best pleases you. Help them to debate without quarreling and to disagree without being disagreeable. Inspire them to become disciplined followers of your purposes, ever eager to obey your commands. Guide, strengthen, and bless them until they reflect your image of purity, honesty humility, generosity, and love. We pray in your wonderful name. Amen. The president pro tempore please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. 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 president pro tempore under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. Mr. Mcconnell mr. President are we in a quorum call . The president pro tempore we are not. The majority leader. Mr. Mcconnell mr. President i understand there is a bill at the desk thats due for its second reading. The president pro tempore the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time. The clerk h. R. 33 an act to amend the Internal Revenue code of 1976 and so forth. Mr. Mcconnell in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i would object to further proceedings. The president pro tempore objection is heard. The bill will be placed on the calendar. Mr. Mcconnell mr. President today the senate is continuing to consider s. 1, a about toil approve the keystone x. L. Pipeline. Chairman mccow mccow ski is here to managechairman murkowski is here to manage the debate. Any votes on amendments in the queue will occur on 2 15 on tuesday. Its taken us a while to get going on this bill and the last thing we need at this point is for members who have been saying they want to are amendments to be reluctant to offer them. Were looking forward to offering president obama to the capitol on tuesday. His state of the union is a unique opportunity not just for the president but for our entire country. If he lays out an agenda that corresponds to the message voters delivered in november, it could signal a truly productive moment he for our country. In november the American People told us theyre tired of washingtons dysfunction. They told us theyre tired of washington prioritizing the concerns of powerful special interests over their own. They called for a congress that functions again. And thats just what weve been working toward. They called for congress to focus on jobs and reform, and thats just what weve been doing. They also called for president obama to cooperate with congress to enact a different and better reform agenda for the middle class. On that front weve got some distance to cover. But tuesday can be a new day. This could be the moment the president pivots to a positive posture. This can be a day he promotes serious, realistic reforms that focus on Economic Growth and dont just spend more money we dont have. Were eager for him to do so. As muchthere is much we can get accomplished for the American People if the president is willing to work with us. Well be looking for signs that have in the speech he delivers tuesday night. Mr. President , i suggest the absence of a quorum. The president pro tempore the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call mr. Mcconnell mr. President i would withdraw my request. The president pro tempore without objection. The senate will receive a message from the house of representatives. The majority secretary mr. President , a message from the house of representatives. The president pro tempore mr. Clerk. The House Reading clerk i have been directed by the house of representatives to inform the senate that the alhassan passed s. 240 an act mack i. G. Appropriations for the feerlt ending september 30, 2015, and for other purposes in which the concurrence of the national is requested. The president pro tempore the message will be received. Mr. Mcconnell i suggest the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the president pro tempore the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call quorum call ms. Hirono mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from hawaii. Ms. Hirono are we in a quorum call . The president pro tempore we are. Ms. Hirono i ask unanimous consent that we vitiate the quorum call. The president pro tempore without objection. Under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of s. 1, which the clerk will report. The clerk calendar number 1 s. 1, a bill to approve the keystone x. L. Pipeline. The president pro tempore the senator from hawaii. Ms. Hirono mr. President , i rise today to speak in opposition to an amendment offered by senator mccain pertaining to the merchant marine act of 1920, popularly referred to as the jones act. I of course start by saying to the chairman of the Armed Services committee, senator mccain has a distinguished record of support for our men and women in the military and cares about our National Security but on this amendment i respectfully disagree with our chairman. Id like to take a few minutes this morning to remind my colleagues just why the jones act is an essential component of our National Security policy and shipbuilding is a foundational component of American Manufacturing. The jones act requires the maritime vessels engaged in shipping goods must meet three requirements. They must be built in the United States. At least 75 owned by United States citizens and operated by United States citizens. The jones act helps to shore up our National Security by providing reliable sealift in times of war. It ensures our ongoing viability as an ocean power by protecting american shipbuilders. As a result, the jones act provides solid wellpaying jobs for nearly half a million americans from virginia to hawaii. In short the jones act promotes National Security and american job creation. Therefore, i am unclear why some of my colleagues are opposed to this commonsense law. I dont simply say this as a member from an island state where we fend on the reliability depend on the reliability offered by american shippers for fresh food and other everyday goods but i say this as a senator who cares deeply about supporting our strong and growing middle class and creating american jobs. First, shipbuilding is a major job building industry. According to the Maritime Administration there were 1,700 people directly employed by roughly 300 shipyards across 26 states in 2013. Additionally shipyards indirectly employed nearly 400,000 people across the country. This amendment would specifically knock out the jones act provision that requires u. S. Flag ships be built in the United States, jeopardizing goodpaying jobs, middleclass class. To me, thats reason enough to oppose this amendment. Secondly, this is not the time to create the instability this amendment would directly cause. After struggling through tough times, americas shipbuilding industry is coming back. Both this congress and the administration have long stressed need for creating and keeping manufacturing jobs here at home in the United States. According to the navy league there are 15 tanker ships being built here in the u. S. Right now and slated to join our u. S. Flag fleet. The fact is these ships dont create quick turnaround jobs but are hundreds of thousands of wellpaying longterm manufacturing jobs. If these ships are not built here in u. S. Shipyards by u. S. Workers, where will they be built . Where will these jobs go . China . Other Asian Countries . Europe . The shipbuilding industry in our country is rebounding. Repealing the jones act is a step in the wrong direct. Instead of dismantling a policy that supports american Jobs Congress should be doing more to promote and grow american jobs, American Manufacturing. Repealing the jones act requirement to build ships here in the United States will unquestionably cost u. S. Jobs and weaken our position as a manufacturing leader. These are two strikes against the amendment. The third and final strike is the act that the amendment would undermine our national and Homeland Security. The jones act requirements, along with the American Shipbuilding and Maritime Industries they underpin, provide americanbuilt ships and cruise for use by the department of defense in times of need. It is easy to see why the navy and coast guard strongly oppose repeal of the jones act and all of its components. The Defense Department has concluded quote we believe that the ability of the nation to build and maintain a u. S. Flag fleet is in the national interest, and we also believe it is in the interest of the d. O. D. For u. S. Shipbuilders to maintain a construction capability for commercial vessels. Therefore, there is three strikes against this amendment if adopted. The amendment would dismantle the jones act costing american jobs hurting American Manufacturing and undermining our National Security. I ask my colleagues to stand with me, and i certainly ask the chair of the Armed Services committee to change its mind on this. I stand with nearly half a million middleclass americans and vote against this amendment if it is brought up for a vote. I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum. The president pro tempore the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call quorum call