days in recent years and i commend everyone who participated in this extraordinary debate." my ranking member, senator sessions, said the budget committee markup was -- and i quote -- "an open process where everybody had the ability to offer amendments." and senator sessions said on the floor, as the debate was wrapping up, he was thankful that the republicans had -- quote -- "free ability to speak and debate and for helping us move a lot of amendments fairly and equitably tonight." so, madam p president there is no question, the senate engaged in a fair and open and lengthy debate about the budget before we passed it and there's absolutely no good reason to ask that we do this all over again unless the intention is to simply stall the process and push us closer to a crisis. so, madam president, instead of scrambling to find new excuses for their budget conference flip-flops i hope that senate

republicans realize their opposition to bipartisan negotiations is not sustainable and allow to us get to the table to move on this. i know that there are members who do not agree with the budget that was passed. they will have another opportunity to fight for changes in a bipartisan conference which is how we do this. that is the responsible and appropriate path forward, and i hope that the senate republican leaders decide to move back to the position they maintained just a few months ago. i know a number of our colleagues on the republican side have said to me privately and in public that they believe we should move to conference and i hope that we can do that. the challenges before our country in terms of our debt and deficit and the investments that need to be made and the certainty that americans are looking to us for cannot be completed until we go to conference, work out our differences, and come back and move this forward. madam president, i hope that this time when i ask for unanimous consent to go to

conference that senate republicans will join with us so that the american people can see an open conference, move to a debate and solve this very challenging problem we have in front of us. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 33, h. con. res. 35, the amendment which is at the desk, the text of s. con. res. 8, the budget resolution passed by the senate be inserted in lieu thereof, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and that the senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the house on the disagreeing votes of the two houses and the chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the senate all with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. paul: madam president? the presiding officer: yes, the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: reserving the right to object, it's now been 59 days

that the opposition is trying to orchestrate a back-room deal to raise the debt ceiling. raising the debt ceiling is an incredibly important debate, shouldn't be done in a back room by a few people, shouldn't be done through parliamentary trickery or i should canerry, should be done out in the open under the regular rules of the senate. we are borrowing $4 billion a day. we must borrow from china to run the ordinary functions of our government. in fact, it's worse. we borrow from china to send money to china. we borrow from china to send money to pakistan. we build bridges in pakistan with money borrowed from china. it can't go on. no american family can continue to spend money endlessly that they don't have. all we're asking for is a commonsense resolution that says we can't keep borrowing.

so what we're asking is -- and what i ask is unanimous consent -- that the senator modify her request so it respect be in order for the senate to consider a conference report that includes reconciliation instructions to raise the debt limit and i ask that as a unanimous consent order. a senator: madam president, i reserve the right to object to the modification and i will object in just a moment. mr. mccain: i would point out to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that for four years, four years, we complained about the fact that the majority leader, who i see here on the floor, would refuse to bring a budget to the floor of the united states senate. then in what most of us believe was a proud moment -- i thought it was a pretty tiring experience at my age -- of voting all night, we approved or disapproved of 70 meaningless amendments but the fact is we did a budget and all of us patted each other on the back

and we were so proud we did the budget and by golly, now we'll move with the house of representatives and we will have a budget hopefully at least begin negotiations with the house of representatives, which is a majority of republicans, not democrats, republicans. so we decided we are going to do that. but now we are going to, according to the objection that was just -- the unanimous consent that was just. a senator: for in an unprecedented way put restrictions mr. mccain: in an unprecedented way. that is we instruct the conferees. we don't require the conferees because that's why we appoint conferees and that's why we approve our disapprove the result of that conference. that's how our laws are made. and that's how our budgets are made. so what do we keep doing? what are we on my side of the aisle keep doing?

we don't want a budget unless -- unless -- we put requirements on the conferees that are absolutely out of line and unprecedented. so all i say to my colleagues is, can't we after all those hours -- i forgot what hour in the morning it was -- after all those votes, after all that debate, after all that discussion and we came up with a budget and now we won't go to conference. why is that? so i'll object to the modification that the senator from kentucky just asked for in a moment, but i would first ask consent that the original request by the senator from washington include two motions to instruct the conferees, one related to the debt limit and one related to taxes. that's the way we should do business in the united states senate, is instructions to the

conferees. now, the senator from washington may not like those instructions, but the fact is that those are the way we do business. not require the conferees to take certain measures. and so if my colleagues on this side of the aisle think that we are helping our cause as fiscal conservatives by blocking going to a conference on the budget, which every family in america has to be on, because of certain requirements that they demand, then we are not helping ourselves with the american people at all. so i will object to the modification proposed by the senator from kentucky. i would first ask consent that the original request by the senator from washington include two motions to instruct the conferees, one related to the debt limit and one related to taxes. the presiding officer: is there objection to the request for further modification?

mr. paul: reserving the right to object --. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: reserving the right to object, we're talking about two different issues here. we've passed budgets year in, year out, we continue to pass budgets. of course, the budgets on our side don't raise taxes, the taxes on the other side raise taxes by a trillion dollars. there are parliamentary rules for how we address separate issues such as the debt ceiling. what we're concerned about and all we're asking the opposition to do -- including opposition within both parties to do -- is that the debt ceiling vote be a separate vote and that it not be stuck in in the dead of night in a conference combree committee with very few people selected by very few people. we have a big party on our side that can include people with different opinions, who some who are very concerned about the debt ceiling and the direction of our country, and some concerned about the debt so much

so our resilience will not flag, maintain the position that throwing our country into further debt is wrong for the country. i think most americans can understand that. we're $16 trillion in debt. we're passing this debt on to our children. it's inexcusable. somebody must make a stand and several of us are making a stand, not against a budget but saying we cannot keep raising the debt ceiling. we cannot keep adding debt to our country. this burden is going to be passed on to our kids and our grandkids. we're making a stand here and so i object to the modification. the presiding officer: objection is heard. is there objection to the original request? mr. paul: i object. ms. collins: madam president? the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from maine. ms. collins: madam president, i just want to associate myself with the comments of the senator

from arizona. now, it is accurate that no one on our side of the aisle supported the final budget, but the fact is for the first time in years a budget was brought to the senate floor, senator murray presided over a very open process with debate, with plenty of opportunity for amendments to be offered, and there's simply no reason why the very reasonable approach suggested by senator mccain that would allow us to go to conference should not be adopted. we have called repeatedly for a return to regular order in this body. well, regular order is going to conference. both the house and the senate

have passed budget resolutions, and it's important that there be a conference committee to work out the differences, which are considerable, so that we will have a framework with binding allocations for the appropriations committees. i would be happy to yield. mr. mccain: isn't it true that the people that the conferees would be held with on the other side of the capitol happen to be a majority of our party? so we don't trust the majority party on the other side of the aisle to come to conference and not hold to the fiscal discipline that we want to see happen. isn't that a little bit bizarre? ms. collins: madam president, it certainly is ironic at the least. it is an opportunity for the republican house to argue for

its budget. i voted against the final version of the senate budget, but i think we should go to conference and work out an agreement and the instructions suggested by the senator from arizona are entirely reasonable. so let's get on with the process. let's do what the american people expect us to do, and that is to negotiate a conference report that then would be brought back to both houses for consideration. and that is what i urge my colleagues to do. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i, of course, admire and have for many years now the chairman of the budget committee. she is a renowned senator, she's very, very good at what she does. we're all very proud of her. but we've just heard something

here somewhat unusual. we've heard my friend, the senator from arizona who he and i came here 30-some-odd years ago to the congress together, and another outstanding senator, senator collins from maine, come up with a novel idea. it's kind of old fashioned, but it's called regular order. what they're saying we should do is go to conference and we have had in years past lots of motions to instruct. that's the way we used to do things around here. and to get off base on a debt ceiling matter has nothing to do with what we're doing, madam president. let's go to conference. now, i don't know if we go to conference we can work anything out but we're sure going to try and that's what this is all about. and i can't imagine why after two months, after two months we can't go to conference and work

something out. the republican leader has told me for a couple years to be honest, why don't we do our appropriation bills? we have here the former chair of the appropriations committee who is now the ranking member on the ag committee. he knows as much as anyone here about financial matters. he is a man who is a humble man, doesn't talk a lot but he knows that the right -- i don't want to speak for him, but i just think that everyone here who wants this institution to continue want us to do regular order. i've heard the hue and cry for quite some time from the other side and i admire and appreciate the senator from arizona instigating old-fashioned regular order which we need to do in this body a lot. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas.

mr. cruz: reserving the right to object, the issue before this body -- the issue before this body is not a budget. the issue before this body is not going to conference. the issue before this body is one thing in particular. it is the debt ceiling and whether the senate will be able to raise the debt ceiling using a procedural back door that would allow only 51 votes. my friend from nevada, my friend from washington state, both of them could go to conference on the budget right now today if they would simply agree that this budget would not be used as a back door to use a procedural trick to raise the debt limit not on 60 votes but on 50 votes. now, i commend their candor because neither one of them is

willing to make that representation, and that is commendable, but i would point out in the budget we debated nothing in that budget raised the debt ceiling, and i would suggest, madam president, that the american people are not interested in procedural games. i think they're tired of games by the democrats and they're tired of games by the republicans. what they are interested in is leadership in this body to address the enormous fiscal and economic challenges facing this country. our national debt is nearly $17 trillion. it is larger than the size of our entire economy. the last four years our economy has grown 0.9% a year. 23 million people are struggling to find jobs. this body should be debating every day how do we get the economy moving, how do we get people back to work, how do we stop our unsustainable debt. but instead of doing that, just two weeks ago, we spent a week voting to add $23 billion in new taxes to small retailers online

creating internet sales tax, going backwards, killing economic growth, killing jobs. this issue is very simple. will the senate allow a procedural back door to raise the debt ceiling and to do it while not fixing any of the problems? now, my friends on the democratic side of the aisle believe we should raise the debt ceiling with no conditions, with no changes, with no spending reforms, with no pro-growth reforms, with nothing to stop this unsustainable spending. the president has likewise said raise the debt ceiling with no conditions. and that is why, i would submit, the majority leader is not willing to agree no, this budget conference report will not be used to raise the debt ceiling because it is precisely the hope to do so. now, this body may well vote to raise the debt ceiling, but if this body votes to raise the debt ceiling, we should do so

after fair and open debate where the issue is considered and where the threshold is the traditional 60-vote threshold where we can address what i think is imperative that we fix the problem. when i -- when i travel across the state of texas, men and women stop me all the time and say enough of the games. go up there, roll up your sleeves, work with each other and fix the problem. and just getting a new credit card, jacking up the debt ceiling with no spending reforms, no structural reforms, no pro-growth reforms is a mistake, it's the wrong path. a senator: will the senator yield for a question? mr. cruz: i will yield. mrs. boxer: here's the question. the people in my state are saying the same thing. roll up your sleeves and attack the problems, because guess what? i remember when this budget was balanced when bill clinton was president. it took literally a few months before george w. bush gave a tax break and put it on the credit card, two wars on the credit

card and the debt was off and running. but, you know, put that aside. we are where we are. don't you think, my friend, that if we could get into a conference -- and i know a lot of us here have been in tough conferences -- that's where you roll up your sleeve. i say patty murray and paul ryan are ready to roll up their sleeves and get to work. why would you give instructions -- i'd love to give instructions. i'd like to give instructions that the richest of americans pay the same effective tax rate as the secretaries. i'd love to do that. i'd love to order that. i wouldn't do that. let patty murray, paul rin, the respective committees get in there in an open process and come back here. doesn't my friend understand that what he is calling for when he says roll up your sleeves and get to work is exactly what senator murray wants to do, senator mccain, senator collins and lots of us who believe we need to use regular order? can my friend comment on that?

mr. cruz: i thank my friend from california for that question. she may well be right that one of the reasons spending is out of control is that we no longer have bill clinton as president and a republican congress. instead, we have president obama who has expanded spending more than any president in modern times. so that -- that may well be part -- mrs. boxer: you skipped over george w. bush who caused the deficits, but let's not argue that. mr. cruz: i thank my friend from california, but i wouldn't -- i have been quite vocal that i believe both democrats and republicans have contributed to getting us in this mess, and we need leadership from both parties to turn it around. i would note that in the question that the senator from california raised, she did not say one word about not raising the debt ceiling using 51 votes. and everything else about this debate is all smoke. it's all about one thing, which is do we give an unlimited credit card to the federal government to raise the debt ceiling, a trillion, two

trillion, five trillion, ten trillion, if the result of reconciliation was raising the debt ceiling $10 trillion, it would come back -- mrs. boxer: would the senator yield for one more question? then i will yield the floor. mr. cruz: let me finish this point. then i will be happy to yield the floor. mrs. boxer: thank you. mr. cruz: if we went to conference committee and it came back on reconciliation to raise the debt ceiling by $10 trillion and under reconciliation rules, 51 senators, only the democrats, could vote to do so and the republicans would be utterly silenced from participating in anything there. now, it may well be -- mrs. murray: does he expect the republican majority in the house of representatives would not participate in that vote? mr. cruz: what i expect is that each of us is obliged to carry out our responsibility to defend the interests of our state, of the -- i have 26 million texans

who i am not willing to go to and say if they ask me why did you go along with a procedural game to raise the debt ceiling, to allow republicans in the senate to be shut out, to give up any ability to force pro-growth reforms, to get jobs back, to get the economy back, to get people working, why did you give up -- mrs. murray: madam president, would the senator yield for a question? does the senator expect that he would not have a vote at the end of the day after a conference comes back to the house of representatives? mr. cruz: we may well have a vote, but if we had a vote, the vote would be a 51-vote threshold, which would mean my friends on the democratic side of the aisle have been very explicit that in their collective judgment, the debt ceiling should be raised with no conditions. mrs. murray: mr. president -- if you would yield for a question? does the senator from texas understand that the house of representatives also would have to pass this? they are a republican majority.

and, by the way, madam president, we are not talking about whether or not we should pay our bills that we have already obliged in this country. we are talking about putting a budget framework forward for the next ten years. we had a terrific debate about that. the senator from texas participated in that. offered amendments, had an opportunity to do that. the house of representatives did the exact same thing. at the end of the day, the way a legislative, democratic process works is the two bodies come together, and it will have to pass whatever our conference agrees with with a majority of republicans in the house and a majority in the senate with democrats, and that is going to be where the senator from texas will have an opportunity to say yes or no to a conference. so i don't understand the senator saying he would not participate. you have a vote. that's how the senate works. mr. cruz: i appreciate my friends -- friend from washington's effort to defend the prerogatives of the republican house. what i would suggest is that each of us have a responsibility

to our states. mr. murray: with your vote. mr. cruz: with our vote, but also to defend the ability to have our vote matter, to have it make a difference, because if this procedural trick is allowed to go forward, what it would mean, this fight right now is the fight over the debt ceiling, because what it would mean if we go to a conference committee that as sure as night follows day, we would find ourselves in a month or two with a debt ceiling increase coming back and the democrats in this body voting to raise the debt ceiling with no conditions whatsoever, which is what the president has asked for. mrs. boxer: would the senator yield for a question? i thank you so much. listen, let's cut through what's happening and tell me where i'm wrong, and i -- i really would respect your answer. he represents a lot of folks. i represent 38 million, so we're two big states and we owe a lot to our people, that's for sure. what's happening here today is very clear. the republicans, except for

senator mccain and senator collins who were here, are stopping us, this nation, from having a budget, and they're saying their reason is something might happen in the conference. well, that is not the way we work in a democracy. anything can happen any moment. let's get into that conference. paul ryan has a budget that i think is apocalyptic that you may well support. patty murray has a budget that you probably think is apocalyptic. they're going to get into that conference and they're going to work together. that's called democracy. and i'll close with this and ask my friend to respond. ronald reagan supported raising the debt ceiling about 18 times. he put out a number of statements that are totally counter to my friend. ronald reagan said, and i

paraphrase -- and i'll get the exact quote to you and put it in the record as i've done in the past. he said even thinking about defaulting on the government's bills is enough to send shockwaves through the country. the last time you guys played that game, it cost us $19 billion. we cannot afford you. you say you're conservatives, but you're leading us down that road. i beg you to think about what you're doing. i beg you to have faith and trust in this democracy. i beg you to let the people who are very responsible in the house and the senate, who are on different wavelengths when it comes to the budget, let them get to the work, and to quote my friend, let them get to the place where they can roll up their sleeves and get the job done. i think by your continuing presence, to stop us from having a budget, you were doing a great disservice, not only to this country but to your party. that's an opinion.

a senator: will you yield for a question? mr. cruz: i'm happy to yield. mr. paul: this is a debate, a good debate and it is about the debt ceiling. i am actually in favor of allowing the debt ceiling to go up under certain conditions where we reform things. i think it's unconscionable to do things saying here is a blank check, keep doing what you have been doing. we're running the country into the ground. we're borrowing $40,000 a second. should we not try to reform the process? many of us supported the last time around raising the debt ceiling in exchange for a balanced budget amendment. 75% to 80% of the public thinks we should balance our budget. you have to. why shouldn't we? i would ask the senator are you not hearing from your people at home that the debt ceiling should not be done in secret, that it should be done and if it's going to be done, it should be attached to significant budgetary reform? mr. cruz: i thank my friend from kentucky. that is exactly what i am hearing from men and women throughout texas. and i would note that the senator from california, the

senator from washington, i respect the sincerity of their beliefs, that they genuinely believe the democratic budget passed by this house is the proper course for this country, that the proper course is to raise taxes yet another trillion dollars on top of the $1.7 trillion that taxes have already increased. they genuinely believe that the proper course is never to balance the budget and allow massive deficits to extend in perpetuity. i respect the sincerity of their views, but at the same time i believe that those views are inconsistent with the best interests of this country, that the best interests of this country are to restore economic growth, are to get back to historic levels of growth that allow small businesses to thrive and in particular allow the most vulnerable among us to work to achieve the american dream. the people who have been hurt the most in the last four years under president obama, we have had four cef years of less than

1% average growth of the economy. i refer to this period as the great stagnation. the people who have been hurt the most during the great stagnation have been young people, have been hispanics, have been african-americans, have been single moms. right now, if you look at unemployment, unemployment for those without a high school degree is over 11%. for hispanics, it's nearly 10%. for african-americans, it's nearly 14%. for young people, it is over 25%. when this country has massive spending, massive debt, massive regulation and massive taxes, the result is that small businesses are strangled and die and the people that lose their jobs are the single moms that are struggling to provide for their kids at home, like the so many moms right now that are seeing their hours forcibly reduced to 29 hours a week because of the burdens of obamacare. and i believe we have an obligation to the american people to focus every day on turning the economy around, on getting jobs back and stopping our unsustainable debt.

now, my friend from california made reference to the prospect of a default. i absolutely agree. the united states should never, ever, ever default on its debt, and that is the reason why i strongly support the legislation introduced by the senator from pennsylvania, pat toomey, the default prevention act, which says in the event that the debt ceiling is not raised, that the united states will always pay its debts, pay the interest on its debts so we never default. and i would note that my friends on the other side of the aisle right now could joiner together in taking -- could join together in taking default off the table altogether. mrs. murray: if i could ask my friend for one final question. i know they want to keep talking. mr. cruz: i am happy to yield to the senator from washington. mrs. murray: the irony is really astounding.

by objecting to us to go to conference, the senators who are objecting are actually putting us right in the position of being in the place where the debt ceiling may well be part of a budget conference because the house of representatives wants to appoint conferees and have a budget done fairly quickly once they appoint conferees because they have told us they don't want to go through a series of votes, as we all did. i think it is 20 days. so if you object -- the presiding officer: 5:30 having arrived -- mrs. murray: i would ask for one additional minute? the presiding officer: is there objection? mrs. murray: by objecting to go to conference right now, what the senate republicans who are objecting are doing is pushing us to lace where the debt limit -- to a place where the debt limit will, by virtue of timing, have to be part of the discussion. i would ask the senators to think about what they are doing by their objection and forcing us into that position and

suggest that by allowing us to go to conference now -- the presiding officer: 5:30 having arrived -- mrs. murray: -- we will have a better chance. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you. on behalf of senator leahy, i would call up amendment number 998. i did -- i will once again call for the regular order. the presiding officer: s. 954 is the pending business. ms. stabenow: thank you. on behalf of senator leahy, i would call up amendment 98. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: ms. stabenow for mr. leahy proposes an amendment numbered 98. -- 998. ms. stabenow: i would ask that further reading be dispensed with much. the presiding officer: is there objection? hearing none, without objection. ms. stabenow: madam president, we have made great progress today. i want to thank colleagues for their work today in bringing forth amendments, and we will continue to work with members as we go forward tomorrow, putting

together a number of votes to bring before the body. we are working hard to do everything possible to complete this legislation by the end of the week. i think we're on good track. i would announce that on behalf of the two leaders, there will be no more votes this evening. and i would ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business until 6:30 with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, madam president. i real a reactor the hard work of the -- i really appreciate the hard work of the senators from michigan and mississippi in moving a farm bill through the senate. it really one of the most important bills we'll take up this year, and action on this bill is long overdue, and i'm very hopeful that we can continue to make progress and produce a bill that is excellent for every region of our country. of course, reining th represente

south, we always like to have special attention given to our agricultural needs, and the senator from michigan most certainly has been attuned to the farmers and rural communities in louisiana. so we appreciate her leadership. i came to the floor today, though, just for a few moments to speak about the tragedy unfoaling in -- unfolding in oklahoma, in moore, oklahoma, a city that was devastated -- portions of the city in the suburban areas -- by a horrible tornado, one of the largest to hit our nation in quite sometime, and i understand, while i do not know all of the details, madam president, that it was a very high-level tornado that stayed on the ground for almost 40 minutes. it was miles wide and created just a terrible path of destruction.

ere are, of course, adults and children that have lost their lives. recovery and rescue is still under way as i speak, and i am certain that the delegation -- both the senate and the house members from oklahoma -- are doing everything they can, working with the governor and local officials to provide as much support as they will need. i come to the floor as the chair of the committee on homeland security, and i come to the floor as a senator that, unfortunately, has had a lot of experience in disasters. ti am here to say how proud i am that there is about $11 billion available without the requirement or necessity of an offset for the period of oklahoma.

this was a battle that was fought over a year ago, led by senator harry reid and myself and others. this arrangement was made in the budget control act so that there would be a significant pot of money set aside in the event that disasters like this happened, whether it was a tornado or an earthquake or a fire or a flood. and, madam president, it's happened again. we don't know exactly when these disasters are going to happen, and we don't know the exact nature of them, but we most certainly know from past experience -- and everything that our science tells us about the changes in the atmosphere -- that think you're going to happen -- that they're going to happen and that they're likely going to get worse. that is why i have been really very focused on this issue, and

i'm proud of this senate, republicans and democrats, but i'm very proud of the support of the democratic leaders on this bill to say, now is not the time -- not this afternoon, not tomorrow morning, not friday, not monday -- to be debating offsets for victims of the oklahoma tornado. after a disaster, our citizens don't need or want a debate on funding. what they want is help, and they are going to get it from the committee that i chair. our people suffered so much in katrina, rita, gustav and ike. i have watched the east coast have to recover now from irene and sandy. i have seen horrible tornadoes and the last thing people want when they're digging their loved

ones out of rubble and preparing, unfortunately, for funerals that are going to have to be prepared for what happened, the last thing they want to see congress do is debating about how and when we're going it pay for this disaster. we are going to send them the money they need to recover, and i want to say this to senator coburn, my good friend -- he is not on the floor: i do respect his consistency on this issue, even when this tornado hit his state, he is still caller for offsets -- he is still calling for off sets. he has been consistently wrong. there are no need for offsets. i will not support offsets. and the majority of the democrats, if not the entire democratic caucus, will not support offsets for americans in need in disaster. what we're going to do is support appropriate help and efficient help to them, and let me just say for the record,

because of the sandy supplemental, which i also fought for with my colleagues from the northeast, we were able to put some reforms in that bill -- it wasn't just send the money and do what you have yo you wil- we also sent money to the northeast. we also sent them new tools in a bigger, stronger toolbox to help them. we have a lot more to do in the northeast, that is a subject for another day. i realize that they are in lots of difficulty. but we did send some new tools that will help the people of oklahoma. first, we sent them the ability to quickly establish mutually agreed-upon estimates for project cox that ha cost. that has been a real problem with local arguments arguing one thing, the feds arguing something else. we now have a better, quicker process to gray on what the -- o agree on what the project costs. the project costs will be validated by an independent

expert and panel protecting the taxpayer, which is important. ally can'ts are now allowed -- applicants are now allowed to build smarter, reducing future recovery cost. most importantly for this disaster -- and we fought hard for this in sandy -- that finally there is some provisions in the recovery bill that will allow children to be the center of attention. now, sadly, we've lost some children in this disaster. sadly, many children were injured and probably thousands of children have been traumatized. because of the new bill that we passed under sandy, there are some provisions to help. in addition, families can receive day care now through their supplemental, so the parents that are going to have to figure out a way to get back to work and rebuild their businesses and communities and their houses can have some additional federal child care,

which will help. and, in addition, i think there will be more counselors on the ground helping children than in past disasters. i see colleagues on the floor, so let me finish up quickly. we have implemented an automatic -- an automated family reukes reunification database. we don't believe there are any children unknown to their parents. all of the statistics are not in of people missing, et cetera. so -- but there are provisions right now at the work with fema helping for family reunification. and coordinators are already on the ground that specialize in looking out for specific needs of children in disasters. and i want to thank the coalition that worked with me for years to put that into place. so, again, there will be no offset. there is no reason to need an

offset. we have the $11 billion, thanks to good work of many people in this chamber and the other side of this capitol to provide this funding for this disaster. and so let's hope -- i know that fema is on the ground. they'll do the best they can. and in this case, tornado insurance, which is carried by many people in this area -- i'm doing a little bit more research into whether it is mandatory or volumvoluntary -- but a combinan of local and state and federal help and insurance and of course the great spirit of volunteerism. i am confident that after we finish this i have sad recovery and shocks that thi shock that s going through, that we will able to help them build a stronger and more vibrant community of moore, oklahoma, in the future. i yield the floor. mr. lee: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: madam president, earlier today we were asked to give our consent to go to

conference on the budget resolution. this is an important matter because we've gone now more thank four years without -- more than four years without a budget. this has been a great concern to many of us. i don't think there's one member of this body that would not want congress to pass a budget this year. we would like to see that happen. we need that. we do, however, have a concern -- some of us -- with the request that we go to conference without certain assurances. most importantly, we want a very simple assurance that any conference report that results from this conference will not be used to raise the debt limit. the reason for this is simple. this is an important matter at a time when we've racked up about $17 trillion in debt, we want some assurances that this important decision will be made under the regular order of the senate. that the normal rules of the senate will apply to this. that this won't be negotiated behind closed doors in a backroom deal.

the american people deserve more than this. they demand more than this. and so to those who may have questioned our motives in connection with this, i ask them a very simple question: will you give us an assurance that you're not going it us to e conference report to raise the debt limit? if they can answer that question to our satisfaction, if they can simply give me an assurance that that's not what they're going to use it for, then i will gladly give me consent. so i'd invite that to be the topic of discussion. all this begs the question: why wouldn't they give that assurance in what oath is wrong with the -- why wouldn't they give that assurance? what on earth is wrong with that? why wouldn't they be willing to say if we're going to raise the debt limit we're going to do it under the regular order? thank you, madam president. ms. landrieu: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: i was just going

talto talk about the tornadoes,t i will respond to my colleague from utah. there are members objecting to going to regular order on the budget, and is a one of them. -- and he's one of them. the senator from utah himself is objecting to regular order, which would be to go to conference on the budget. he was one of the critics when he was running for this office -- he has numerous statements on his way to being aboutin becomi- that the senate and house needs to have a budget. the house has passed a budget. the senate has passed a budget. yet the senator from utah is the one, along with the thor from kentucky, and i understand the e senator from arizona, senator mccain, objecting to going to conference to resolve the differences. i know the senator from utah has

read the constitution like i have. the constitution and the laws that created the senate of the united states give great strength to the minority, of which he is in the minority. but nowhere in the constitution does it say that one senator from one state has the right to write the rules and laws for the whole country. i read it lots of times. i've never seen that. but evidently that's what the senator from utah wants. he just said if we would just do what he wants, we could proceed. well, i have news for him and for the senators that are objecting, it's not about what they individually want. it's collectively what we want together, representing all the people of our country -- republicans, democrats, conservatives, and liberals. and for four years this same group yelled skraoepbld about -- yelled and screamed about not having a budget. now we have wufpblt and

now they're yelling and screaming about how to work out the differences. i don't know how to please colleagues like this literally. we had to listen to them ranting and raving for years about we don't have a budget. so we worked extra hard, even though we said at the time -- and i was one of them -- that they're right, technically we did not have a budget. but as you know, madam president, we had something that was stronger than a budget. we had spending limits that had the real teeth of law. what people might not realize is that budgets are aspirations. just like when you do a budget at home, you can say my budget this year is going to be, you know, $25,000 spending budget. it's an aspiration. you sometimes spend a little more or less. there's no mechanism for control. it's just an outline. those are important. but what we had, we thought as the democratic leadership, is

better than a budget. we had actual spending controls. but that wasn't enough for the republicans. they knew we had spending controls, but they still went on fox news and everywhere else explaining to people that we had no budget, inferring that there were no controls. patently false. patently false. we had spending controls. wehave spending controls now, spending limits that are agreed to by republicans and democrats, except that there are a handful of republicans that don't agree with those limits. so they decided, because they represent, you know, half of four states, that they want their way or the highway. now the whole congress can't go to a conference on a budget. i don't understand this. i understand protecting minority rights. i understand making sure that everyone's voice is heard.

i understand that, you know, we just, everybody can't get everything they want. but what i don't understand are my colleagues, the senator from utah, the senator from kentucky, the senator from arizona, saying, no, we can't go to a conference to work out the differences on the budget so that the united states could move more quickly to a balanced budget, after complaining year after year after year that we didn't have a budget. it is really the height of hypocrisy. and it is completely unexplainable, their position, or unacceptable. so i'm glad i was on the floor. i came just to talk about the tornado, but i'm glad i got a chance to give comment for the record about why not many, but there are a few, republican leaders that have stopped the entire budget process until they get their way exactly the way

they want it. you know, that's just not the way our government works. we don't have kings anymore. we don't have dictators anymore. we don't have people with special powers. we're all humans and we're all on equal footing and we're all elected to represent our constituents, and not anyone in this chamber is entitled to write the budget exactly the way they want it. now, if i wanted to do something, i could say just as easily as he could say, well, i'm going to object unless you promise me that x, y, and z is going to be in the budget. i could say that. so could the senator that sits next to me, senator sanders and senator carper. every senator could say that. we all have things that are just very important to us and our constituency. but if we act like that and we don't act mature and sensible, we'll never get anything done. and that's where we are. we have a handful of republican

senators, maybe less than five -- i don't know -- who are objecting every day so we cannot take our budgets to conference to have them reconciled. after yelling at everybody for four years about why we didn't have a budget, the only way we're going to get a budget is to go to conference, regular order, and work out the differences in a public meeting with public votes, not behind closed doors or not in some back room somewhere, but in a public meeting in a conference to talk about what programs or what levels of funding should be reduced, what revenues potentially could be raised. and then, according to our process, then those directions are given to appropriations committees, and we can go do our work building a budget -- not a budget. building an appropriation for defense.

building an appropriation for education. building appropriation for health, for our veterans. if we don't have a budget, we can't even go to regular order on appropriations. and as an appropriator, it's getting really frustrating around here to not be able to go to a regular appropriation meeting and sit down like we used to do before this new crew showed up and talk about meeting our budget caps and how we wanted to allocate the taxpayer money in a public, open meeting, instead of cramming things in in an omnibus bill, doing deals in the middle of the night. if they would just let us get back to regular order and do the people's business, i promise you the people of utah would be happy. the people of arizona would be happy. the people of kentucky would be happy. they just want us to get back to

regular order and try to negotiate a budget that the majority -- and not even the regular majority. around here we have to have 60 votes to do anything. so before a conference committee can come back, there would have to be a broad understanding of what was going to be in that conference. and let me say the final argument. i could understand a little trepidation on the part of the minority if they weren't in control of the house. but the republicans have control of the house. the democrats have control of the senate. so, i mean, i can understand if one party had both the senate and the house, that what might come out of conference and it could get rammed down and the minority could be caught off balance. but the minority controls the house. and so this is as fair a fight as you're going to have with one body -- you know, one party controlling one and one party

controlling the other. and, yes, the president is a democrat but he's indicated, i think his very open-minded support for entitlement reform when it's appropriate and additional revenues that are being raised. the president has not put any particular line in the sand that i'm aware of. he's been quite reasonable about this. but he cannot sign a budget unless we can get it to his desk. but we have three or four senators if they can't get it exactly the way they want it, they're going to hold up everything. i don't think that's what the american people want and i'm disappointed in my colleagues. and i yield the floor.

and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i'm told there are three bills at the desk.

i would ask for the first reading en bloc. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles for the first time en bloc. the clerk: s. 1003, a bill to amend the higher education act of 1965, to reset interest rates for new student loans. s. 1004, a bill to permit voluntary economic activity. h.r. 45, an act to repeal the patient protection and affordable care act and health care related provisions in the health care and education reconciliation act of 2010. mr. reid: madam president, i now ask for a second reading en bloc on each of these, but then i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bills will be read for a second time on the next legislative day. mr. reid: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 95. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. without objection, the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nominations. the clerk: nomination, srikanth srivivasan of virginia to be united states district judge. we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of srikanth srinivasan to be united states district judge, signed by 17 senators as follows -- reid of nevada, leahy, nelson, coons, klobuchar, reed of rhode island, mikulski, warner, whitehouse, brown, cardin, casey, harkin,

sanders, franken and menendez. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: madam president, we're moving forward on this. this will be the sixth or seventh year that we have tried to fill vacancies on the d.c. circuit. there are four vacancies there. i hope that the president sends us some more names. i understand that will be the case maybe before the end of this week. it's really outrageous we have been stopped procedurally from doing the work of this country in filling these nominations in this very, very important court, but anyway, we're going to have a cloture vote on this on thursday, as we should do, and hopefully finish this thing by the end of the week. if we get cloture, we will finish by the end of the week if we have to stay over another day or so. i will ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn

until 9:30 a.m. on wednesday, may 22. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. that following any leader remarks, the senate would be in a period of morning business for an hour with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. following morning business, the senate will resume consideration of s. 954, the farm bill. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: so we're going to work through the amendments of the farm bill tomorrow. there will be a roll call vote on s. 65, the iran sanctions resolution at 5:00 p.m. there is one hour of debate for that matter. madam president, if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

flagsed at half-staff to honor the victims in oklahoma. president obama today offered condolences to the family those skilled and injured. he outlined what the federal government is doing to assist in the federal recovery. good morning, everybody. as we all know by now, the series of storms swept across the plains yesterday in one of the most dedestruct tornadoes in

history. in an instant, neighborhoodses were destroyed, dozens of people lost their lives, many more were injured. among the victims were young children trying to take shelter in the safest place they knew, their school. so our prayers with the people of oklahoma today. our gratitude is with the teachers who gave their all to shield their children, with the neighbors, first responders and emergency personnel to help as soon as the tornado passed, and with all of those who darkness fell searched for survivors through the night. as a nation, our focus right now is on the urgent search and rescue. and the hard work and recovery of building the lives ahead. yesterday i spoke with governor

fallon to make it clear to oklahoma that they would all the resource they need at their disposal. last night, i issued a disaster declaration to expedite the resources to support the governor's team in the immediate response and to offer direct assistance to folks who suffered loss. i also just spoke with mayor lewis of moore, oklahoma to ensure he's getting everything he needs. i met with secretary this morning and the homeland security and counterterrorism adviser, lee is monaco to underscore the point. oklahoma needs to get everything it needs right away. the fema administrator, craig fugate is on the way to oklahoma as we speak. fema staff was deployed on sunday as the rating was facing

down the first waive of deadly tornado. yesterday -- -- [no audio] to boost communications and logistical support. the people of moore should know that their country will remain on the ground there for them, besides them as long as it takes. for there are homes and schools to rebuild, businesses and hospitals to reopen, and parents to console, first responders to comfort, and fightened children who will need our continued love and attention. there are empty spaces where there used to be living room and bedroom and -- class rooms. we need to rebuild them with love, laughter and community.

we don't know the full extend of the damage from this week's storm. we don't know the human and economic losses that may have occurred. we know that severe rumbling of weather, bad weather through much of the country continues. and we are also preparing for a hurricane season to that begins next week. but if there's hope to hold on to, not just in oklahoma, but around the country, it's the knowledge that the good people there and in oklahoma are better prepared for this type of storm than most. and what they can be certain of is that americans from every corner of this country will be right there with them open our homes, our hearts to those in need. because we we're a nation that stands with our fellow citizen as long as it takes. we have seen that spirit in

joplin, tuscaloosa, we saw it in boston, and breezy point, and that's what people of oklahoma are going to need from us right now. for those of you who want to help, you can go online right now to the american red cross, which is already on the ground in moore, already we have seen the yiewmpt -- university of oklahoma athousands it will provide housing for displaced families. we have seen local churches and companies open their doors and wallets. last night the people of joplin dispatched a team to help people . for those affected we recognize that you face a long road ahead. in some cases, there will be enormous grief that has to be absorbed, but you will not travel that path alone. your country will travel with you fueled by our faith and the almighty and our faith in one another. so our prayers are with the people of oklahoma today.

we will back up those prayers with deeds for as long as it takes. thank you very much. on washington journal tomorrow morning. that will be at 7:15 a.m. on c-span. a reminder that the flags are flying at half-staff at the capitol in honor of the victims of the tornado in oklahoma.

as the flags don't fly at half-staff at capitol in honor of the tornado victims in oklahoma we talk to congressman john delaney what they have to accomplish before the august recess.

>> we're back with congressman john. democratic of maryland. welcome. thank you for talking to our viewers. let me begin with the oklahoma tornadoes. it's looking more likely there will have to be emergency aid by congress. what form should that take? should there be offset? oklahoma senator said he will demand offset for aid to the home state. >> guest: i think it's early to get to the detail. i think we should provide aid and supporting the communities that have been devastated by the terrible, terrible tragedy. our prayers go out to everyone in the communities. i think we should be doing whatever we can to help. i differ to my colleagues to the oklahoma delegation to be providing the recommendations. i obviously haven't been on the ground. i haven't seen what is going on. i expect we'll get good recommendation. and i think congress to be

leaning forward to forth support the like other tragedies around the country in last several years weather-related. i want to stand up and do it again. >> host: you are headed -- you have this week of legislative tv and a week off for the memorial day recess. should this aid happen this week? >> guest: again, i think if the oklahoma delegation, you know, i want to follow their lead and i would be supportive of aid happening as soon as this week if that is what is appropriate. >> host: okay. let me move on to the irs. the president apparently didn't learn what happened at the irs. jack lou knew. the top council knew but jack didn't. the president learning about this from the newspaper. what do you make of this? >> guest: well, i don't

actually have a opinion whether the president should have known about it sooner or not. the president didn't know sooner, as he said, and which i think is important information. and this is an independent investigation. and, you know, the rule with an independent investigation you let them run the full course. if they come your way you say i want to support the investigation. and so i think the investigation was running the course and i can't speak specifically about when it's appropriate for different people to for the white house to know what is going on. >> host: has the president been strong enough on this? >> guest: i think the president has been strong on the point. i do. i think it's a point that merits strong statements, because to some extent this is activities incredibly inappropriate. and the people should expect much more from their government. certainly targeting which is what occurred here. and no level of anything the

government to be engaged in. i think the government should be as strong as we can be. i think we should find out what happened. we should make sure the remedy, and make sure the people held responsible and conditional. i think the language should be strong. for this, to some extend goes at the funneledment tal of our democracy. i think there's not a place we can be stronger to make sure it doesn't happen. >> host: what do you make of the irs questions on what happened to the benghazi, libya. what are the concerns? >> guest: i think the president had a good agenda, and i think obviously these are things he has to deal with. the administration has to deal with. we are early in the second term, and i expect we'll be focused on the agenda very soon as we work through these unpleasantries. >> host: what should be the top priority? >> guest: top priority for the president? economic growth. i think the country faces significant economic challenges, and as a country we need a

strategy. we need a strategy to make the country more competitive and create jobs and have a good standard of living. i think that's the dominant agenda or should be the dominant domestic agenda of the country which is thinking about how in a competitive world, the world utterly changed by globalization and technology, we can position our country and industries to compete successfully so we can create jobs and have a good standard of living. i think that should be the dominant agenda. >> host: here is a headline in many of the newspapers this morning. here is "politico." senate committee said apple avoided taxes on $44 billion. senate subcommittee investigating that today. we'll have coverage on c-span.org. apple is saying this is about corporate tax rate in this country, we add to the economy ceo tim cook is going testify. pushing back say we pay a lot in taxes about a 30% tax rate. >> guest: look, multiple

dimension to the question. the first is apple is an extraordinarily successful company that has been additive to the economy. it's one of the most successful entrepreneurial story in the country. it creates tons of jobs. it's a country that is positive for the economy. i think the story underscores the need for comprehensive corporate tax reform. the tax code has been or was designed through a flag -- the nature of business from a different era. from a different age. now we are in a digital age. in a technology-enabled age. our global age. the tax code doesn't reflect that. i think the situation with apple shines a spotlight why we need comp hebessive tarks reform. >> host: what is the likelihood of that happening when you have other priority that the president wants to get through. we have immigration reform, the cbo is saying economic outlook is looking better. the deficit not as bad. bestsequestration taking hold.

what is the political reality of the overhaul of the tax code. >> guest: i think an overhaul should be thought of the grand bargain field. we talk about it. revenue are a key component to accomplishing it. i think the best way to think about overhauling the tax code is the complex. there's work there. we have to do things to change the fiscal of this country. before i came to in congress i was in the private sector. i think i appreciate better than most the -- we need to change the long-term fiscal trajectory. we need certain entitlement reform. additional revenue, to look at our spending priority and based on realities where we want to be. not based on the sequester. in all of that should be deal with as a grand bargain. comprehensive tax reform is a component of that. you won't get it unless we reform the tax code.

i think it is part and parcel of grand bargain. >> host: you are serving your first term. new face to the viewers. tell them about your private sector experience. >> guest: i started two companies, both became public trading companies. i was ceo of two new york stock exchange companies. i started my first company in 1993 and became public? 1996 and sold in 1999. and health care financial partner. i started my second company a new york stock exchange company. i started it in 2000. it became a company in 2003 and ?iewl mid sized across the country. >> host: related to health care? >> caller: it currently about 700 employees, operations around the country. we finance over 5,000 small businesses. in excess of about 10 billion of asset. it's a large scale.

maul to mid size businesses. it's my career building businesses focus on financing small to mid size. across my business we created over 2,000 jobs and helped almost 10,000 small businesses grow and achieve. >> host: we have health care questions for you coming up. the viewers can ask too. let get to them. christine in new jersey. democratic caller. christine, what is the name of your town? [inaudible conversations] >> caller: good morning. i want to ask in light of the scandal going on, don't you think it would be a good idea to get to the bottom of concerns about what happened on 9/11 with building seven with them disputing the official's story? >> host: are you talking about 9/11, 2001? >> caller: yeah. there's like a thousand or 900 architects disputing the official story because it needs to be investigated further. >> host: where are you getting

the information? >> caller: all over the place. i tonight hear it in the mainstream media. i hear it online. there's a lot of people talking about it. >> host: okay. all right. >> guest: so christine, obviously 9/11 was a tragic, terrible day for our country. a day we all remember with sorrow for all of those people who lost their lives, and it was a real turning point in many ways for our country domestically and internationally. it will remain an emotional day, i believe, for all americans. for our generation it will be like pearl harbor was for the generation before us. i think there will be a lot of discussion and dialogue about what happened and how it was handled. and, you know, even the memorial built open the site, which i have seen. i was actually there early last week. i was there several times when i was in new york a few weeks ago. even that is still a highly charged emotional discussion about whether the memorial should have been built there or

not. i think we're going to be living for some time with a lot of emotions around on 9/11. the terrible tragedy where we lost so many americans and discussions about it. i think it will be part of the dialogue around that significant day. >> host: on our line for republicans. caved in -- david in jacksonville, north carolina. >> caller: yes. you are talking about the income tax. about how we are going fund this stuff. i think especially the abuses that have been gone on, surfaced in the last couple of weeks. i think it's time to show that -- we need to repeal the 16th amendment and do away with income tax and have a completely different tax system where the citizens cannot be abused by the government. i mean, you find people -- everyone keep says they are going to correct it and fix it and stuff. if you have a cancer, the only way to fix it is to cut it out. and to basically heal and do something else. so basically the -- if something

is violating or basically challenging the very republican for which we need. i think we need another system. a fair tax or flat tax or something along the line. >> guest: david, obviously i don't believe the irs irs should be abusing our citizens. i think all americans feel that way. i was outraged as you were, to see what occurred with respect to the groups that were targeted by the irs. i think we should be vigilant and stand strong and demand reforms and accountability. i believe in comprehensive tax reform. i think we need it both on the individual and corporate level. i don't think i'm quite with you in terms of whether we should be repealing the 16th amendment at this point. i believe we need comprehensive tax reform to improve our tax system and hopefully something that will get to work on this congress. >> guest: should -- >> host: should the irs be in charge of rolling out affordable care act

give what happened at the agency? >> guest: look. i'm sure i'll get it wrong. it has about 100,000 employees. it's a large organization. clearly what happened if cincinnati demands our attention. we should make sure something like this never happens again. i don't think it should lead us the conclusion that they are not in a position to do other assignments they are working on. again it's 100,000 employees. overwhelming majority which get up every day and go a great job for the american people. i think we need to make sure we deal with this issue, and be very strong on it. don't get me wrong on it. i don't think it means that all 100,000 are getting up doing inappropriate things. >> guest: have confidence in the irs? >> guest: again, i have confidence -- i think the majority are great people. what happened was terrible. i don't have confidence complete confidence because we'll see

things like this happen. any large organization is, you know, there are things that are happening from time to time that you don't approve of. what happened there is absolutely terrible. but i'm not ready to say everything the irs does at this point is inappropriate. >> host: this is from the "the wall street journal" this morning. rolling out affordable care act. it said their role has come under question for republicans who criticized the administration's plan to educate people on the new legislation. hhs secretary drawn fire for conversation with health industry executive which she encouraged them to help the non-profit organization, leading the campaign to public size the benefit. they said it was inappropriate for the government to turn to outside groups. do you agree? >> guest: the affordable care act is a large, comprehensive, implicated piece of legislation. i agree with, i think there are wonderful. like most large there is is

imperfection associated with it. we should work to move it. so we end up with the best health care. rolling out is complicated. it involves lots of, if you will, boots on the ground. i have no reason to doubt what the secretary is doing as it relates to communicating so people understand what it is. because we get a lot of questions about it. people don't understand what it is. and sometime -- making sure we have good communication, transparency is vital in anything larnlgt in complex. >> host: lewis who writes -- as potential competitors to insurance brokers and say they are effectively federal government employees who should be subject to rigorous screening. the republican committee on oversight government reform is planning to grill the dhs -- excuse me the hhs about the program in a hearing today.

in a private briefing with federal officials last month they were told there would be no criminal background checks for navigators or requirements they hold a high school diploma. is that appropriate? >> guest: i can't speak intelligently about all the detail how the navigators work, but obviously to the extend people are charged with responsibility from the government execute a role out we should hold them to a high standard. >> host: background checks? >> guest: i can't speak specifically. background checks means a lot of things. we talk about it in a lot of levels here. it's appropriated always for everything, it seems to me. >> host: larry in franklin, north carolina. independent caller. go ahead, larry. >> caller: yes, i would like to ask you two things. [inaudible] when they wrote the law about irs taxes. it said exclusively to help people out. and irs changed the law -- [inaudible] primarily on the 5o4 whatever

they are. who changed the law and what gave irs to change the law? [inaudible] number two, why don't we change the situation where we make a law for congress that anything that is purchased with state, local, and federal taxes be manufactured here in the united states? whether a foreign country or whatever. they have to set up a manufacturing facility to make things that we buy with our taxes. that was my question. i think -- >> guest: i think creating incentive and requirements particularly federal dollars put to use to buy things manufacture, it's something i'm general supportive of. we have several of those things already on the books. and they have a lot of discussion about those type of provision as we roll out new legislation. we would like things to be manufactured in the united states, that create u.s. jobs,

which i agree with, it creates good u.s. jobs. providing the products can be secured in the united states and made in the united states so not everything is currently manufactured in the united states. i'm supportive of those kind of efforts. i think we should be doing things in government to encourage manufacturing jobs creation in the united states. one of the things i care a lot about is the area exactly, as i said earlier is the u.s. competitor doing the kind of thing we should be doing as a country to make sure our private sector. the private sector creates the job in the country. the government doesn't. they level the playing field and create the -- [inaudible] the private sector creates the job. we need make sure we have a thriving private sector and manufacturing component of that we can create job to the standards of living. i agree with where you are going. ..

well, i blame to the go the second amendment they're going to join, we can just review all of our men and then look at them and see how they apply. >> host: congressman. >> guest: we have a constitution process and these things are always very emotional

issues and it's great we have a public debate to talk about these issues. one of our constitutional protections as free speech and people a lot of different opinions of different amount ends. i'm glad you feel so passionate about these issues and that is great about opportunities to be here because we hear different opinions on things. >> host: on twitter, back to the oklahoma tornado. representative delaney, is it the role to aid americans, a philosophical question about the role of government here. >> guest: i do think it is a role of government. one of the things that is important is to have an honest discussion. government has a role as relates to economic matters to level the playing field, make sure business conducts itself fairly and consumers are and make sure we do things to create environments. i tend to be someone who has

somewhat of a rigid definition of the role of government in domestic economic matters. as it relates to helping americans need when tragedies occur is a central role of our government and it's an example of when the government has to some extent shined the brightest would come to the aid of fellow americans and show it really defines the american air, which is the spirit of generosity in the spirit of compassion. i expected the oklahoma situation my colleagues and i will step forward in congress can do what we can and everything we can to help those people in oklahoma and they expect an outpouring of support for the american people in terms of generosity because that is what is to find this country whenever there's been a tragedy, which is government supports the people at our fellow citizen three spirit of generosity and kindness and compassion and support. so i do think there is a role for government.

posted other >> host: you have that legislation. on that topic, james r. to eat them. please has to let if he supports building the keystone pipeline. republicans argued this is a shovel ready project. >> guest: i'm not a supporter of the keystone pipeline because they don't dig reflects our energy priorities for the future. i'm about to introduce one of the largest infrastructure builds we've seen in a long time and it has the bipartisan support not only among members of congress but outside groups in this piece of legislation requires no preparations from government can build up to $750 billion in infrastructure entry costs and infrastructure revolution in this country and put millions of to work. but as it relates to specific for the pipeline, i don't belittle the back of the fullness of time and have a few the pipeline was particularly good investment as it relates to

the future of energy policy. >> host: your rebuild america act. goes back to apple in the story we hear they are. utilizes private partnerships, creates a fund to provide loans. the sale of infrastructure bonds was supplied the funds. no taxpayer dollars. >> host: we set up effectively the american infrastructure fund which sells take a billion dollars at the bonds. this is not money that comes from taxpayers. the bond are very long-term and have a low interest rate and are not guaranteed by the government as an incentive to buy these bonds, and they are. the rate nongovernment guaranteed investment, we provide companies with an opportunity to repatriate overseas cash and its estimators to join dollars sitting overseas can't have a hundred billion dollars overseas. to give them an opportunity to repatriate any tax-free manner.

so what we as taxpayers get is a path for repatriation of all create jobs by having the companies put aside a certain amount of money towards infrastructure. the $50 billion capitalizes the american infrastructure finally gets organized and can guarantee up to $750 billion of debt issuance is by local governments , a scummy municipalities, counties, special-purpose infrastructure 30s during the country and build infrastructure. the american society estimated to join dollars infrastructure rule. the single piece of legislation doesn't have any appropriations, no taxpayer money and ultimate public-private partnerships. posts are your drop in the bill this week? how many republicans? guessed the right with eight democrats, a republican spare but one absolutely symmetrical.

when we found this legislation, he won't tell which side of the aisle it was so much as a standard. might economic policy to really create jobs and put americans back to work. >> host: and a republican on where they can help you get a vote? >> guest: yes. we're not disclosing the names. we have been asked to drop the bill yet. but not actually disclosing the names of the members. >> host: high profile republican high-profile republican that commits leadership. >> guest: i've had conversation with many in leadership on both sides of the aisle about the bill. they're very constructive on it. infrastructure is an area where there is bipartisan support. people understand the need to invest in infrastructure. it will create enormous amount of jobs by making the country more competitive. the question is how do we pay

for a? are legislation has a way of paying for it without any appropriations. no taxpayer support leveraging private capital and could utterly transform the infrastructure investment and develop business name it states. >> host: for more information people should go to your website? dulaney.house.gov. ron, use in texas, go ahead, ron. >> caller: good morning, representative delaney. i appreciate what you're saying this for a simplification of the tax code. you know, we've got the people of the country are the ones that are paying the taxes and when nobody understands how to even file their taxes, it is frustrating. i agree with your statement that it needs to be repealed. i am just wondering, what are

your thoughts about making it simpler? >> guest: i agree with you it is to be reformed. as i said earlier and may not get the numbers right, but we have three 300 items in 200 items of deduction. i think it was wrong. i think to your question and makes it really hard for people and it's very complicated and it doesn't have to be that complicated. we also content consequences for the level of complication that exists in our taxco birkett outcomes that makes sense to americans and we see this every day. a simplification to reflect the reality of our economy with the goal of making it simpler for tax filers from individuals and corporations chemical accreting

more revenues in a way that is smart for the country should be our standard. i don't think our friends in the tax preparation business would love this statement because one of the problems the way it is now as americans pay a lot of money to attacks prepared because it's a very complicated system and i prefer to have that money in the pockets of average americans. simplifying it would save money in terms of making it easier for people to file tax returns. if the fair thing to do for americans and would avoid unintended consequences and i think would be good for our economy. i'm a big supporter of comprehensive tax reform. i don't think german camp really wants to tax reform. he's a good and decent man and a pack of eight of eight years. >> host: a couple of corporate taxes. most admen if we eliminate corporate taxes will become a tax haven and corporations would

flood into the united states. why not grow the economy? greasy tweets and peered repatriation of the work. corporations claim they will create jobs and they don't. it does dodge paying taxes. >> host: >> guest: that's what that's what the nice things as we create a path for companies to repatriate, provided they make an investment in american infrastructure. so there's no question. no one can ever say jobs will be created through the path we create to legislation. our legislation does it exactly concerns raised by the question, which is will be jobs rated to repatriation? i think there is an intermediate step. we need to lower corporate tax rates, but eliminate factions. that could yet a minimum revenue natural and potentially revenue positive on purpose of course simplify the system and hurting u.s. competitiveness.

the competitiveness point is a very, very relevant point. i don't think we have to produce your corporate income tax to be more competitive. there's an intermediate step further with a resume, simplify the system, eliminate deduction, which levels the playing field can result in fewer unusual outcomes like we see in the apple case. >> host: apple ceo tim cook will be testified for the homeland homeland security and government subcommittee. they're the ones that put out a report made headlines across the newspapers this morning that apple and other multinational companies have avoided u.s. taxes. tim cook, the ceo apple will be there to push back and we'll be covering it here on c-span. go to c-span.org for more info. why do we need to fix our infrastructure for atalanta piping fuel to run this

infrastructure? >> guest: as it relates to energy, north america has an opportunity to be energy independent, which is the chemical backfire 10 years, unlike television people think we're crazy. the natural gas revolutionist that had i don't think were doing enough to talk up the potential from this natural gas revolution. i come to the debate been a huge supporter of smart, clean, natural gas exploration, including being able to export it. i'm in favor of embracing the energy future, which i obviously like to see heavy emphasis on renewables, but also natural gas be fully embraced. it's not clear to me the keystone pipeline specifically this on to the strategy. keystone pipeline that's a smart

is oil dependency and a lot of it will be exported following the pipeline through some cherished lands and a lot of it will be exported and not even in terms of the production. that doesn't mean we should be full embracing like natural gas, which i don't actually think is a country we are talking not up enough. there's some very positive economics. interest rates are low, markets are high, houston is recovering. individual balance sheets are good stay. and then we have this energy opportunity is an outer revolution in terms of the opportunity to lower the cost of energy, keep it clean and make businesses work better. >> host: given i said, when ben bernanke testified before the joint economic committee, what are you going to ask you? >> guest: i will ask obvious about continued monetary policy can make sure it's achieving

object is. if that is held to an initial mandate, which is different than other parts of the world, where they have to obviously regulate policy but they also to stimulate job creation. i want to make sure the chairman believes his action are actually come pushing the pool job creation. it's my goal congress could do more that would be smart policies like infrastructure bill and would create more jobs and the chairman to some extent has his hands tied because he's required by his mandate to do things and a lot of the evening, while it may not be the most efficient thing, he feels required to do it based on his mandate. i want to tease that out and make sure he believes and i suspect i know the answer that he thinks congress could do more to stimulate our economy, which would give him more flexibility

not to have the policies he's had. having said that, besides an chairman for nokia acted heroically during the crisis. his actions postcrisis were smarter. i do question if written editorials about this, one of the most recent easing is really necessary and really should we focus on making sure congress creates jobs because at this point we have to have terms with them. >> host: the ap on the miami arab website has bernanke testimony will be on capitol hill wednesday for the joint economic committee. he'll be releasing minutes at its policy meeting. both of them have the potential to provoke the backdrop in financial market. dale in albuquerque, new mexico. thanks for waiting. go ahead. >> caller: good morning, congressman delaney. you'd been in the business for quite a while.

i remember i started a business years ago and i remember reading an eye for a c corporation and i this center in c-4 status. but what i remember is that work, especially the corporation commission and all these tea party people were sending it to the irs. i never had to send anything to the irs. the thing is that right now it's not a report on stephen calder last night. she a chance to watch it, please watch it. the paperwork should have been registered in the state corporations. this whole thing.

>> host: okay, congressman. >> guest: i think, and again, you have created a for-profit corporation is my sense. if you create a for-profit corporation, you filed with the state corporation commission typically at 90 simply get a taxpayer number and file your tax returns and pay your taxes. the way it works for the file for nonprofit status company filed with the local state corporation commission, but also that the irs to achieve nonprofit status. that's the difference between your situation and what happens if some of the organizations we are seeking tax-exempt status. >> host: democratic caller. hi, gail, you're on the air with john delaney, democrat of maryland. >> caller: hi, i agree with everything you said, especially about the keystone pipeline. i'm very concerned about the ecology. we are seeing all this radical weather and we have the

republicans denying science on this. i'd also like to say -- i would like to correct the caller earlier slandered representative schumer. the additional agencies that were to get some money and hurricane sandy were all specified that the money had to be spent on sandy related expenses and additionally, i would like to say i think these religious organizations and groups et cetera should not get any tax exemptions. these millionaires on televisions call themselves reverends are rolling in money and they don't have to pay tax is. we are not all christians, not

all baptists. religion must be kept out of our government and not of our politics and it is one of our biggest problems is that the republicans have chipped away at the separation of church and state. >> guest: a couple questions there. i obviously agree we should maintain separation of church and state. i think it's appropriate them receive tax-exempt data is however. i don't think that compromises church and state. what's going on environmentally and brings to mind my view this is an enormous economic opportunity. i'm other people who believe climate change is a reality and had very, very negative consequences for our country and for a world, including a

geopolitical perspective if you look at the trends and where could take us. besides it's pretty clear. 98% believe this is happening. we have an opportunity that we are proactive in addressing this. it's an enormous business opportunity and we can be a leader in what some people are calling the advanced energy economy because i think it's an opportunity and 25 years the way energy is produced and utilize and is concerned in this country will be very different in the way and in all the areas as economic opportunities. if we have the right policies in place, we can be a leader. i think it involves policies at the federal level that will change behavior that will encourage economic development and they took cleaner energy

future. as i said, natural gas is an important component of this and needs to be embraced and in many ways is a bridge to a much cleaner and much more efficient energy future. if you look economically, the cost of money and energy. that's a remarkable opportunity, one would really never thought we were going to have. the energy can be cleaner and environment can be cleaner. these can be one of the great american growth industries in the next 20 or 25 years. i'm very much a pro-business, pro-child oriented individual to resolve these areas and agree should be leaning on her from further. in the context, i'm not sure the keystone fits in well. i come to this debate thinking about it from an economic perspective, which is i don't see how the keystone fits well

into the future i see, which is a more robust advanced energy economy earlier energy independent, energy costs are low and energy is improved as a result. >> host: the "washington times" editorials about climate change, talking about the record level of co2. kato researchers have found that has been accompanied by great faith in the human condition, including global population growth of 75% in dublin of life expectancy. it goes on to say the impact of this rise in co2 appears to be low. this is a "washington times" editorial. how did your bipartisan bill compared to the kerry hutchison infrastructure bank proposal from last congress? >> guest: my bipartisan bill has many different attributes. first of all it's larger. it's about five to 10 times the

size of infrastructure bank's proposed in the past. they can provide loans like the infrastructure bank, the more significantly will act as a or insurance company, said karen to the issuance of debt or local governments. the biggest differences are bill is not funded with taxpayer money. there's no appropriation appropriation towards their bill. this fund by corporations and the tax incentive to do it by bringing back overseas earnings. it differs materially from that bill in terms of his scale, scope of what it can do and how it's funded. by an order of five to 10 fold was no government honey and have adult appropriations. they also push down state and local government and has a more independent board and not really an arm of government. it's an independent nonprofit.

i wanted to air your take since he ran to the nearest shop exchange, this is "the wall street journal" did the border jpmorgan chase is to decide whether or not jamie diamond keeps his job is chief executive. >> host: >> guest: if i were a shareholder voting, i would vote for him to keep those titles. it's not a decision for members of congress. i answer that as a private citizen and as a member of congress. is set to the jpmorgan shareholders. but her speaking as a private citizen, i'll leave it at that. >> host: will be talking on the "washington journal" tomorrow as part of her spotlight magazine series, the

cover story or bloomberg. by jamie diamond has lost its indispensable man. congressman, thank you very much. appreciate it. >> this is the way it let during james card fills 1880 campaign. this is the formal parlor

service. chance of a creationist than a lot of time at their children. they have lost two children threads in c., unless arabella advert. jameson lucretius five children all had the benefit of having two very intelligent parents who strongly believed in education. books are very important to jameson lucretia and their children love to read us all. the family said in a way to one another, often times out loud in the evening. i was one of their favorite activities. in the center of the table is this very interest and piece called the mass. they won an award for the philadelphia centennial. mrs. garfield absolutely adored her time at the exhibition and she would write pages and pages of why she saw a as they say.

a lot of people think of mrs. garfield is a very artistic lady. she's also very, very intelligent and loved the sciences. >> about her experiences as boston college, boston college, not a smart minute merman evolving education you received here. b.c. education is transformational. it literally changes lives. that is why people work so hard to become educated and that is why education has always been the key to the american dream. the divisions of race and class and culture and that god given potential. as john f. kennedy said, all of us do not have equal talent, but all they should have an equal

opportunity to develop our talents. >> secretary of state john kerry spoke at a gathering of u.s. diplomats yesterday where he discussed the dangers of the job and let the obama is doing to improve security at embassies and consulates. this is a half-hour. [applause] >> thank you very much. i know you're really upset that i can't bear to break the normal

monotony and routine at the seminar. i'm really happy to spend a few minutes with you. nancy, thank you very much, for your wonderful stewardship of the fsi. you're doing a great job and for me to join you at the graduation 100 class just the other day, on this impersonator. it was fun. i'm glad to be here with undersecretary, pat kennedy, who doesn't extraordinary job in implementing oliveira offers to consulates and facilities and has been much on top of this agenda. our chief of security for the entire state department at aig, thank you for being here with us, we appreciate it nervously. one of the things i have learned, not just in a few months i've been secretary, but

in the years of the foreign relations committee is that you can train and women for the assignments you are going to take on when you leave here. fsi does that exceedingly well. some of you have been through that before. i know we have some senior officers here in people not just fso, but other agencies in the field. the fact is that i think you know this, no training here, none of us who stand up in front of you and talk to you can teach the special instincts that brings you out here to a life of public service and particularly to caring america's message and efforts, our values abroad. that really comes through you. it comes from your sense of yourself as americans. it comes from your understanding of who we are as a country in the direction we need to move in

and the challenges that face us on this globe. your dedication to our country and determination to make the world that are. these are the singular traits a very special people who are america's face to the world in ways that so many fellow citizens will never know or understand. a little more than 100 days ago now, i was privileged and honored to become your colleagues and joined the state department family, which is what it is. i took the oath of office i began my service as secretary of state. the oath that i swore is the exact same one used wire. it's also the same on our ambassadors take in the same on people in the military and other state, people who wear uniforms on the front lines just as you are on the front lines.

all of the solemnly swear to support and defend the constitution of the united states, but what that is i assure you and understand we also pledge and defend and support each other. i want you to know every day and privilege to be in this position, i have no priority or responsibility for ensuring we do all we can within reason capacity to protect theo. the same day i took that oath, a suicide hombre in a ankara, turkey killed a local guard named mustafa akarsu. i met his family. i spoke at a memorial service for him, which we dedicated a beautiful fountain because his name means flowing waters and neither are flowing waters at our embassy for every memory of him. mustafa akarsu had guarded the

gates for 20 years in a february 1st event and to challenge an intruder who was just walking in your and that is where he gave his life. he did so bravely, acting quickly to save the lives of others. in kabul, not too long after that, i met anne smedinghoff, a brilliant, brave, confident young woman from outside chicago. she would've come right here to be part of this training this summer, preparing for her next difficult posts. but a week and a half after she helped organize my visit in kabul, she was gone, taken in yet another heinous terrorist attack as she was killed while delivering votes to schoolchildren. so i am acutely aware of the very real challenge that we face in the very real risks that we take around the world. i think of them every single day. i know all of you are deeply

where these challenges, too. you can't help about what she may be asked to do. i am a nervously appreciative. president obama shares a deep and abiding respect for an understanding of what you undergo and undertake. we are appreciative of the fearlessness he somehow muster as you confront these challenges. in the shadows of the attack in afghanistan and a ankara and of course last year's terrorist attack in the which killed chris stevens and three other americans. it is indelibly imprinted on us how important it is to protect our people and facilities. that is vice chairman of the senate foreign relations committee, i hope both classified and unclassified regimes to make sure that we understood what that ron had to do all he could to ensure that it would never happen again.

that is why secretary of state i am committed to implementing every single one of the recommend nations they reported the accountability review board and doing more. that report makes it clear that our work will never be done and we can never eliminate every last risk, but we can never stop working to mitigate those risks as much as possible. is that right now as we sit here, pat kennedy and i and greg are working to a greater capacities. we are bringing on more security personnel, put it wirings that are hyper diplomatic pose and making sure the first responsibility is to protect our people, not just classified materials. we are working more closely with the defense department, with our partners, lincoln are indices of various military commands to

make emergency extradition were central to our military mission. we are upgrading facilities and building new embassies to consulates and making sure that concerned about safety and security always gets the attention it needs and deserves. in addition to doing what we are doing in order to be safe abroad, we as a nation need to gauge and the larger conversation about the inherent dangers of diplomacy ever mindful that we undertake them clear eyed and we undertake them for a reason. we must her this conversation that we need to engage our country and is not a new one. the dangers of diplomacy are not unique to this moment in time. serving our diplomatic missions didn't become dangerous that neither ben ghazi. this is not a new phenomenon.

indeed, the reason we continue to do this work is embedded in our dna as americans. it is part of our patriotic pioneering character. no more law and lobby state department, which vice president eight-man i set out few days ago as we unveiled the additional names added to it. that while the state department bears to her 44 names, including anne's, and chris stevens's, and sean smith's, glen doherty's and ty wood's. but i ask you to remember today and i asked americans to remember today that most of those 244 gave their lives long before september 11 of 2012 or even september 112,001. the first plaque on the wall in

foggy bottom is dedicated to a man named william palfrey, the council general to france who is lost at sea when the constitution was fair to defend was still a decade away from even being written. the wall honors those that were lost in beirut and bosniak, baghdad, and attacks like that on our embassy in nairobi in 1998 and on our officers and fire capital cities. as the losses they served in perilous regions, even in peaceful times. and though we can't count all of their names, the wall also honors families and the loved ones who served and sacrificed in faraway places. as some of you may know, my father was in the foreign service when i was a young man. we were stationed in berlin when i was 11 years old in the aftermath of world war ii.

the streets were still piled with rubble. troops it on either side of the wind that divided the surmise. i remember prichard and from work her pen exploded and everyone, all the soldiers were anxiously weeping weapons, wondering whether some hostility might break out. crossings are dangerous and families were often trying to escape from east to west to a more promising life, a life that you, we represent. as a dangerous time and became even more dangerous than the wall went up and people tried to get across the wall to provide freedom and liberty. so this conversation is not new, but i believe it is more important than ever today. when we think about a grave about and honor the bravery we see in your predecessors and your peers, we cannot at the

same time wonder why we be surprised that there is danger. if you're going to bring light to the world, we have to go where it is dark. that is the meaning of service and what is american diplomacy is always about, which is why i want to underscore a very important part of this ongoing conversation, how to keep our people safe overseas and how to minimize our foreign policy -- maximize foreign policy to strengthen america. if you're going to represent the united states and countries and which are about to travel, you just need to be accessible to people on the ground and every time you do reach out, every time he touches it is in another country, every time you carry the face of americans and muslim americans, whatever communication you have, you are making our country stronger.

you are building the future. we need to remind our fellow americans we are engaged with the rest of the world because that is when our vital interests. we have to be there because when we are there, we get this done. we protect the future. and when they are not, as we have too often learn to play, the vacuum will be filled by those whose souls are vastly different from ours. we put ourselves on the line because it is in our interest to do so, because that's the way we protect others from attacking us, because that's where it makes you don't have to send our kids to war and that's the way we build connections with other countries so we can work together to solve problems that can only be solved across borders, trains nationally by reaching out and joining the global community. we have to show up in places that no one else wants to go and when we succeed building a safer

city, forging a stronger trade partnership, helping a child growth understanding what american stands for rather than learning from a hateful propaganda package or feiss ideology. when we do that, our interest serbians come scum of values upheld and the risks we take our word for it. scat takes might suggest to you it's not worth it. they'll tell us, stan said the embassy were stanley cities and stay out of countries where you're not safe. my friends, that is no way to advance our interests. that is not what america stands for. we cannot do the work we need to do to make the world safer, to build rule of law, to build the future by hating. we can't do this for by staying away. we will never overcome threats

by shrinking away from them. in countries with weak rule of law and dysfunctional government , we have an interest enveloped in a stronger institution comes to take advantage of opportunities and create the features they choose for themselves. in deed, those are the very places where we have the most to gain. every day, i get reporters prograde corp. out of the intelligence community about various threads that were facing and there'll be times when i decided the threat and a certain place is great enough we need to adjust our approach and take extra percussions at least for a while and we do and we have. that's the reality that those will be the exceptional cases, retreating behind the wire cannot be the way we do business. so i've got news for you today and news to share with america. we will not pull back.

we'll keep practicing that my father called foreign policy outdoors. working directly with men and women around the world from government official to local leaders commissioned civil society society groups in the area people on the street, we are going to build people to people relationships that help to foster trust and understanding between cultures and make that sort of engagement even stronger. chris stephens understood that. he enjoyed and respected the people he met whether this country or abroad. when he was 17 years old. to say that the american feels nervous and he then lived in the atlas mountains of morocco as a volunteer english teacher with the peace corps. one young student of his became a teacher because of english, because chris stephens touched that man's got a point in his life. he made lasting friendships that

were built on mutual respect. chris stephens greeted strangers with a friendly americans file good libyans got a glimpse of the united states, decency respect for others regardless of race, religion or cultural belief. chris is fortunate for the tune of around the world as i consider myself to have fan and as you are. as people don't have the opportunity to do what you do, and the people of another language, culture, history, sharing that, deeply immersed in their lives. today we also have digital bridges and i don't just mean facebook and twitter. the state department educational and cultural affairs bureau runs a program that connects teachers and students in the united states with counterparts in the

middle east. they are working online, learning from each other about cultures and history of forging lasting relationships. i'm excited to tell you we are right now working close lee with chris stevens samite on a public, private virtual exchange the recall the chris stevens network. this can make to the largest ever increase in people to people exchanges between the united states, middle east and north africa. we believe the below so dramatically increase the number and diversity of young people who have a meaningful cross-cultural experience, the same experience that all of you understand that some port. these are the connection that led libyans to go into the streets of benghazi after the

attack spontaneously, tens of thousands carrying signs. they were not fair not to show a things about america. they were not to mourn chris's death and celebrate democracy is a thank you to chris and america. after world war ii as i was growing up in berlin and elsewhere, i watched her country and as in other people in the future and the truman.turn, nato, the fulbright program. we watched germany, japan turn into powerhouse allies. prewashed countries like south korea under siege, bush received aid from the united states now become a donor country, giving it to other people to follow in the example we set.

that is what we have to continue to do today. america's interests demand would not shrink from the world stage. we cannot retrench or retreat. we cannot do our work from behind bricks and barbed wire. we have to be out there where people are. we have to think creatively about expanding our capabilities to address the issues that drive young people to despair and ultimately to terrorism. what happened then tahrir square and internation for those young kids tweeted each other, they aren't the result of some ideology. they were the result of a religious extremist enterprise. there were young people trying

to reach the future they've seen here in other parts of the world. as a generational revolution, expressing aspirations of people for a better future. diplomacy and security do not have to be trade-offs. president obama has were to strike a balance that ensures the outreach and engagement necessary to advance our policies in accordance with security measures necessitated by the threats to u.s. interests. later this week, president obama will discuss our counterterrorism strategy and he will discuss this balance which the administration has sought to strike. the challenges of the 21st century are just plain more complex than they were in the latter part of the last century. the fact is the opportunities we face are greater than any we've

encountered in our history. i am convinced of that. you are here because you believe the united states must continue to play a leading role. we need to make the case for welding steel. we need to show the american people, diplomacy and development efforts are worth investing in because they pay such huge returns to send jobs and our economy, safety, protection of environment and relationships with people and security of our nation. we need to hold all of our officials accountable for making this up as a priority and that includes the congress. this congress romances all the time they are a coequal branch of the federal government and they should because they are. congress needs to play a role on the world stage as well, not just investigating, but leaving on the exchange program in the middle east, providing resources

and support and investment than it risks we take today worthwhile that help us build that a fair, brighter future and more prosperous future. overseas we need to keep deepening the relationships, friendships and foraging the relationships that will benefit the american people around the world. there is someone of you sitting here who does under the sprint both because that's where you're sitting here. here at home i have an obligation to share them with fellow citizens because they need to be part of the journey. that's why i came here this morning to emphasize in -underscore we are determined to stand up for values adventurous and futures because those values and interests, freedom, opportunity for all people have

always been a beacon for people to inspire a better life. that is what history has shown that. after world war ii or deficits of the cold war remains true today. we will continue to be out there not just because that defines us as americans, but we know that is how you build the world that respects human rights, dignity, will applaud and ultimately fosters opportunity for those burgeoning populations of young people more and more, the components of populations across the middle east and elsewhere, all of whom need jobs in the future. our democracy will be strengthened when allies are strong and engage with men and

women under all walks of life. when we leave here, part is you are to be part of this great enterprise, join us. let's tell the story. let's do so proudly mncs never forget why you take the risks we do, none of us, not pat, not great, nobody charged with the responsibility will ever stop fighting for you and the resources you need to be able to undertake this great enterprise. thank you for being part of it in thank you for being willing to share thoughts this morning. appreciate it. thank you. [applause] >> in 1848, we with initial unremarkable situation here. suddenly, gold was discovered

the reason why cantonese was amongst the first to hear about it is their attorneys here. and a flash, thousands of men begin to board ships to head for the cold mountain, which is still not miss the cold mountain. looking for gold nuggets in selling their pockets with gold nuggets. they found extreme and fabulous but since nobody was looking for it, they found it in abundance. very quickly that gold was all taken out. poets have to do is we believe 120,000 people showed up in one-year rate here. in 1849, this is a situation if you take a look, you'll see looking now the base completely filled with ships.

there is a forest of ships. these were there because the passengers got to look for gold and the sailors out of abandoning the ship's and then the arguments began. california was an american territory. it began to push out everyone else. the chileans, mexicans, anyone but of course the chinese amongst those speed pushed out.

>> just a couple minutes ago, judiciary committee finished immigration and security bill, a vote of 13 to five moved the legislation to the full senate. senator chuck schumer talked about some of what the net. >> when you talk about a couple specifics parts that are less excited about, but overall and balance helps to build helps american industry and a very good way. i am excited that make companies hiring h. one the recruiting of american by the department of labor. i'm excited whether an employer is hiring americans to serve more than 85% of skilled

workers, that is important. when determining if an employer is dependent. they ensure employees will have more toward ability if they're not happy not being treated well, they can move to another and we had new transparency in reporting and data collection requirements to win a once and for all of these programs are used in the wind can make. i'll mention a couple things i would have preferred not to be in the bill that senator hatch gave the nikes. the recruiting a nondisplaced petitions drafted in our bill created a good balance in my judgment on my colleagues in utah and others disagree the companies doing the right thing would be unduly burdened by investigation and lawsuit under the existing language. the compromise makes it clear that when tech companies make a

legitimate good-faith effort to find an american adult, they won't be repeatedly second-guessed in their hiring decisions, particularly high and individuals were two individuals with the same degree of the singers working are different and needed by different companies. so this is a good compromise. it will help of the bill forward and i want to thank my colleague from utah for the hard work and willingness to meet us in the middle on this. i support it. i hope my colleagues on both sides who supported us love and i'm sorry to take up that much time, but we spent a lot of time in the senate i wanted to explain. >> thank you, senator. >> undershirts agree with the immigration bill, which now moves on to the full senate. you can see all of today's session of the markup beginning at 11:40 eastern tonight on c-span 2. a senate hearing in the comp at apple and how it uses foreign subsidiaries to u.s.