that's the bottom line. i would suggest that the high camp languages that after the gao comes up with their report that there be 30 days -- if i read this correctly, that before the postal service could then act. and it just is a little bit -- a little bit of a possibility here that the congress could respond to that decision if this is not at all practical. i would just suggest that it be 60 days. i think the senator would have preferred 90, but as a practical matter would suggest that this be a 60 day to give us some possibility of congressional action. otherwise there is almost no point putting the 30 days in year. >> mr. chairman, i totally agree.

i would go for 90, but whenever we can resolve your. >> i am willing to accept 60. they que very much. this is essentially -- let's make this unanimous. is there objection? is there objection? no objection. the amendment. this would be i can't as amended. >> no. i think their chairman. >> oh, sure. >> it is really very appreciated . >> you bet. thanks for your constructive. now we move to final passage on high camp as amended. any more comments? hearing and all in favor. opposed sene. the ayes appeared to have it. they do have it. thinking. do you have an amendment? commitment number four goes to the issue that ranking member cobourg talked about as far as

delivery in rural areas. the postal service used to use third parties to assist postal delivery in rural areas. these services are organized under a thing called the alternative means of transportation contracts. in june 2012 the postal service unilaterally implemented the pilot program in the northern planes which reduces contract use and in turn reduces mail delivery standards in these northern planes states. so all sorts of stories out there. senator i can't, i will give you one quick one. i can give you a bunch, one of them that actually is something that my wife and night. another story equally as important, rancher, of fair shot away. 400 miles to be my guess the real estate lease, said police to overnight delivery, it did not get there for nine days. overnight delivery u.s. ps. the reason is because they had

struck it. i would encourage adoption of this amendment. >> let me just say that we will let dr. cockburn comment on this, but you mentioned for a moment this is not something that he can support. i cannot support it at this time either. and i would ask you to consider. i ask you to consider withdrawing this amendment at this time and give us a chance to work with you. we will be happy to try to do that. >> i appreciate that. quite frankly, this is a pretty simple issue. it is pretty clear cut. either you is eluate. and i just assume have a vote on it. it goes down it goes down. if it passes, which i hope it does to my can live with that even better. >> with that in mind any other

comment on this? raking member, if i could. >> if you suppose we really don't need to hear from them. [laughter] >> mr. chairman, if you go to north dakota and introduce you to those x cost of delivering our mail. >> introduce it to anybody. >> dr. culver, offered the opportunity. ask him if he would consider withdrawing his amendment this time. i did make some good points. he said he would rather move it upper down and he can live with either. even if it goes down, and i think it will. >> we want positive vibes on this. but i would just say that -- i

mean, it is pretty straightforward. using third-party providers to deliver mail in a big states like montana, that air service is pretty important. think it is important to all the areas where the final project as happened, but nonetheless -- i mean, it is what it is. the story that i told, the rancher had overnight delivery. it got there eight days later. that is not acceptable, and quite frankly people look for alternative means of use. it only has to happen once, and it will never happen again. like us said, prefer it to pass. >> the program in the north and the northern plains, montana, nebraska, north dakota, south dakota. >> the service.

[roll call]

>> passes. >> the yeas are four, the nays are four. the yeas are four, the nays are three. the a's are a common nays are seven, and the motion is agreed to. >> okay. did we win that? [laughter] it sure sounds like it. i want to thank the chair.

[laughter] >> i don't know what the order is. >> whole lot just for a moment, if you will. i think we're in a position not to consider two amendments. side by side, a few well. the national association of gun rights. but we don't want is people getting caught up and never really were trying tow by law and then all of a sudden go to jail for something they never intended to do wrong which is perfectly legal by their state law. many states have concealed carry, and a lot of people to

have concealed carry in do carry a weapon with them for self-defense as well as other reasons. and so i would say that this is important and that we now be trapped into limiting it just a parking lots because it will be a lot of in-betweens versus sidewalk. there will be a lot of in-betweens. i see nothing unique about the post office. it has been awhile. really has not been in the current rash of violence. i hope people will support my amendment. >> up or down vote on your amendment. i think it might be helpful for us to year. offer an amendment after we had a chance to vote on your amendment, but can you just give us says --

>> mr. chairman, thank you. our recognize the senators broader issues. think what we have been trying to do is get to this issue. in my state we have folks were going up to the post office, have a gun in the car. we have open concealed weapon laws. you don't need a permit. you can carry a gun on you. we have people that end up in parking lots going to the post office to pick up their mail because that is the only place there is no home delivery is the post office. that is where you go. so the park and you go wind. and you may not realize that even though you store your gun in the parking lot which is where the post office has lost his court case, and that think they should not appeal it. they are doing it, but i don't think that they should. this solves the problem once and for all. that is what my amendment does.

i will patiently wait as the process unfolds. >> okay. let's return to the amendment. i will recognize. does anyone else want to make a comment or ask questions. what we just call the roll. [roll call]

>> let's move to the baggage amendment. >> mr. chairman, i don't know

the amendment number, but it might be number four. amelie that number for a place holder. this is highly focused on the issue that i know i hear a lot about, making sure that people are not breaking the law by parking in the law as a going to get there mail. we have this problem. again, the court case resolve the problem. and i just encourage a yes vote on this. >> i have a quick question. >> please. >> does this amendment say that this is permissible where it is consistent with state law? >> state and local law. >> thank you. any further discussion? >> we will call it number four. at this time will the clerk call the roll please. >> can you confirm, would this be number four? >> number for. >> all right. >> senator pryor will andrew.

[roll call]

>> on the vote of those present the yeas are 11 and the nays are zero. vote by proxy is therefore, nazer zero. yeas are 15, nays are zero and the motion is agreed to. >> thank you very much. thank you all. other amendments? okay. i understand we have nine members are here. we have a handful of amendments. i think we are in agreement. the high cam number one, number six, number one. i am not aware of any objection to any of these amendments being considered. >> yeas and nays. >> with that in mind would ask for a voice vote. and with that in mind that think

we're ready. >> i have an amendment. >> senator. >> by the way, i have number two. i will withdraw that. the chairman and ranking member oppose it. i would like to continue work on a with you. number one addresses the problem were approximately 7,500 mid-level management employees with in the u.s. postal service to not possess the right to appeal adverse personnel actions to the u.s. merit system protection board. and we have had discussions with the postal service on this. i know mr. sherman is here right now. i think it is at one point they expressed some concerns and have maybe an objection. my understanding is -- and i would like to call on them. my understanding is that they now think that it will be a minimal cost, if any and all and are not opposing the amendment. >> we have no objections. >> thank you. we talked about this a little

bit a week ago when we had this. i think without their objection it becomes fairly noncontroversial. >> any other comment? with that, with no more discussion all in favor. opposed. the eyes to have it. in the other amendments? senator -- >> last one for me. >> quit while you are ahead. >> i am on role, baby. number three, this is a provision that we talked about. this is a little different. this proactive as far as federal workers,. the one last week took everybody in. this takes effect for folks fired upon passage of the bill basically. so i think that this makes is still not perfect. this certainly makes it all less

bad. and, you know, it would make the cuts prospective basically. there would only apply to federal workers after the date of enactment. it would not apply to the ones before. there would be savings. remember that it is still about 60 percent of the claims from the post office and . >> thank you. i cannot support it at this time we have had those conversations. i appreciate your offer. i cannot support it. >> i cannot support it as well. this is the second bite. and a stand that. i understand your position. what i will tell you is we're probably going to resolve this. we have to meet with george miller in the house in terms of conference if we ever get this to the floor, but i would say this, you said it the opposite way. 40 percent is postal.

>> no, i said at the right way. >> but the point is is this is a significant problem. and our real goal ought to be putting these people back to work. again, all lot more working. i am adamantly opposed to this of this point, trying to keep the we have got in here because i know that we're going to get less when we go forward. >> if you get this fixed in conference of will buy you a pop. >> that would be great. >> any more discussion? the clerk will call greuel. [roll call] choice at : up :

>> mr. chairman the yeas are five and nays are five. on the vote by proxy the yeas are two, the nays are three. on this vote the yeas are seven, the nays are eight, and the motion is not agree to. >> any other amendments? thank you. >> i have one last thing. i am going to vote for final passage on this to move it out of the committee.

and the reason is because of your hard work and the workers under coburn. i have total respect for you guys. you have spent so much time on this. i still have some problems with the bill. i think we still need to work on it. hopefully we will get it to the floor and work on managers' amendment, but i just want to say thank you both for your hard work and all of your time. >> thank you for working with us . >> to doe. [laughter] >> mr. chairman, the chair and the ranking member, thank you for allowing me to do a few things. i appreciate that briefly. i do have some other issues that we will deal with as the process goes forward. i have concerns on larger issues, but i want to thank you for the work and how long it is taking you to bring this together. thank you very much. i will work on my other issues. i do have some, just like other

members. >> any other comments? >> i want to thank the chairman and ranking member. there is obviously more work that needs to be done, what i want to say, i think both of you recognize the status quo is unacceptable for everyone, for the post office, whether you work at the post office, the taxpayers, everyone. i want to thank you for working together on this. >> and let me say thank you very much. i want to say to dr. coburn, how much i appreciate the way they your purchase. we have basically made the blood of the we will fix this problem. obviously we cannot do it by ourselves. we take a big step forward here today. for everyone who has been a part of it, i hope you have a good bipartisan vote on final passage your staff, our staff, everybody else that has been a part of this, thank you. democratic and republican.

very grateful for the good work that has been done, the postal service, pst, others from the the key stakeholders, those representing the employees, we are grateful for the input. a good conversation. i always like to say that two keys, communication and compromise, democracy, communication, compromise. we have had pretty good communication. compromise and good collaboration. i hope we get a good bipartisan vote. with that the clerk will call laurel. >> senator.

>> final passage. but by proxy. [roll call] says to. [roll call] [roll call]

the motion is agreed to. >> i think that is a wrap. thank you, everybody. >> hold it. all did. hold it. as unanimous consent that the full majority it permitted to make technical and conforming changes to report out today. think our colleagues for working with us to put the postal service on path to future. without objection. >> without objection. that is in.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> on the next washington journal drexel university professor looks at the history and politics of the olympic games. more on that topic with leon aron of the american enterprise institute. after that former new york city police commissioner raymond kelly discusses efforts to secure the so chi olympics and u.s. preparedness. your phone calls and comments on facebook and twitter. washington journal is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> i came to washington to conduct an investigation. the department of the sec and conduct the investigations for year-and-a-half. fiver six days a week, eight to ten hours a day. and in this field of finance and

reorganization, receiverships'. and i have a great galaxy of people on the stand. never, never would even call a man if we give that he would invoke the fifth amendment. >> c-span radio in plant -- continues our series of world history with former supreme court justices. from 1967 to succeed justice william o. douglas. 4:00 eastern in washington on line at c-span.org in nationwide on ex-im satellite radio. >> now members of the house energy and commerce committee discuss energy policy on the likelihood of legislation making its way congress. topics include the debate over coal and the keystone excellent pipeline. hosted by politico, this event is an hour 15 minutes.

[applause] >> that was pretty lukewarm applause. i have to tell you. [applause] >> give it up for the house energy and commerce committee. [applause] >> that is a little better. >> we have lost a quorum your. good morning. am thrilled to be joined on the stage. congressman joe barton, former chairman. the great state of colorado. >> don't say it. >> doubled. congressman gene green from texas. let's jump right in. so, good news. last week and relax and announces his retirement after 20 terms. congressman barton, you have sat

across from him. what will you miss most? >> you are assuming a am going to mess. [laughter] >> there has to be one thing. >> actually, to be semi serious energy and commerce, the democrats put their a-team members on. you have john dingell, henry waxman to operate alone, the two people to my left. i mean, it really is. when we debate in issue in the commerce committee. the commerce committee is not like any other committee. the arrow goes to committee debates arab cultural issues. energy and commerce, we debated all. and so he is bright, smart, works hard, as good staff, and he does not play games in terms of saying one thing in meaning another. so from that standpoint you will

be missed because he is one of the best the serve in the house a long time. but from a partisan standpoint it will be nice to go in committee and not have to debate him. ..

>> if mr. dingell decides not to go forward, my friends are both dear friends. and wonderful members of congress. and i am here to say that i am not going to question the chairman. >> what about you, chairman? >> john has been a member to me and we have worked together. my wife and his wife are really good friends. >> do you think that if he does come forward that they will go behind him and support him

completely? or do you think it actually still be arranged with the others dodgermac i think that it will be a race but i think that john, again when he lost that race he was a gentleman who came back like i said and you watch him in the committee and he has not missed a beat. so i think that he would be a great chair. >> absolutely. >> dream on. >> what do you think of the departure of john dingell to the chair side? do think that that would change the committee? >> henry brings passion to his issues and i think the thing about henry is that you can use this as an observant and it looks agree really don't like each other. but people like him as they go to and from the votes.

he is as compassionate a compassionate on his issues as he is online. there's a healthy respect. what members have to do on the committee, you have to be more than just passing. you really have to have legislative jobs to understand why you feel that way. i think that i've learned a lot of what i did in the majority early, don't be mad at me, you trade me to be this way. and so that is why we were able to come back including with how the democrats operated with the first time they were in the minority. >> it will be a very different committee in 2015 including the most senior members and it will be interesting to see how the democrats respond. how do you think the committee dynamical look in a year or two enact. >> we will pick up some new members on our side of the aisle.

like i said, we will pick up a lot of new members. and that is the beauty. you have to serve a term or two in the house before you can get on the energy and commerce like joe said. we want to make sure that everyone can take that leadership with the issue that concerns them. and i think that we will be a number of new members on this just because of the vacancies that we have. >> i will say that we have a death of expertise on our side of the aisle. and we will obviously miss him a great deal. he is a great advocate and he is smart and has been there for a long time and defending to the other bodies. and we do have a real gap in our

side of the aisle. and we are very tied to consider ourselves a family and usually i was yelling something that he was about to do. and let's jump into the issues and one is clearly that the house republicans did make a decision and what is the reason for that? >> i think that the clear consensus is the keystone pipeline should be improved and the state department once again last week and i would expect in

the future that the secretary of state would approve it. they ask you about it and i want to do so with the debt ceiling that reduces the deficit and reforms entitlements and gives us a balanced budget. the keystone pipeline creates jobs. but it is really not a debt ceiling type of issue. i would vote for it on the debt ceiling, but i don't think it is something that can be attached or not to do agree that it didn't need to go into debt and it should've stayed off with the other means? >> yes, i think it's standing on its own right now and i think the movement in that direction and the administration based upon this is a tough call.

and it is going to go with national interests and the far left environmental sector of the country and they're in a tough position we have other fish to fry in this whole debt limit. and it's not as pressing and health care and i think people for republicans on board. >> i think that we need to act like mature adults and not try to attack the keystone pipeline to an unrelated issue of the debt ceiling. and this is one of my pet peeves

in the committee is that we seem to move forward without respect. and what came out last week was this. the environmental impact statement was in the approval process by the state department. so we should finish going through that reveal and go through the scientific process and then see what it comes out, whether it should be approved or not whether we have congress come rushing in the middle. and this is where it is part of it. and they were going to this process and i went out there and said this is pretty much out in the desert.

and the republicans came in and they just tried to jam that scientific review orb prove it and then the democrats came in and they tried to jim at the other direction. some of us were sitting there saying when we let this play out in that is the way i feel about the keystone xl pipeline. finish go through the process. let's let the state department do their review and then the president and the state department can decide what to do based on the science. >> we have a court case that is going to allow this to be reported out. and that will be projected, coming out and saying that this will be for millionaires. unfortunately it was the administration to stop funding. and it was a court case that said that the administration follows the law to get the evaluation review up. >> are you pretty much flooded with this at this point in time?

>> i'm from texas and houston and i've never been in a non-pipeline area. i'm a big supporter of keystone and we have pipelines coming and going from canada and mexico and texas and this approval process has taken way longer and the average time is two years up through the keystone and now are going on five great i hope that the administration will move very quickly. joel is right from pushing down in texas that has already been built and there's a lot of the state department permit coming from the canadian border to the industry along the coast and a lot of that is being done. including state department. it's been frustrating because here in the county until recently i represented all of them and they were all here years and years ago with heavier crude and to me it is easy. i would much rather buy heavier

canadian crude than what we are having to do from venezuela. i'm hoping the administration will shortly move quickly now that we have this. >> opening this up to secretary kerry and then a lot of pressure from the environmental community as well. do you think that one as it's of its made by the president that will be against the pipeline? >> no, it's going to be sometime this year. >> yes, sir. >> the president and the secretary always base their decisions on science. so based on what she said we have 100,000 or 200,000 miles of pipeline around the country and i can't build a fence post in my backyard to make sure that i'm not hitting a pipeline. so i have the feeling that we have to be serious for half a

second and i had been debated so long that in spite of the environmental religious opposition to it will be permanent. because it makes sense economically and there is no scientific or environmental reason not to. >> do think there is a mistake by making this into the president's credentials? >> i think environmental concern is dependence on foreign crude oil and that is why they have put this view out there. but i also do think, and i have been thinking a lot about this but if you look at what has been happening with the increased development of natural gas in this country and the decreased reliance upon foreign oil and with our increasing attempt to developing energy, i think that what we really need is the

environmental community and also the oil and gas community and what we really need is a long-term energy plan. and what you haven't had is a natural energy plan. as a result we just kind of go from issue to issue. we go to the keystone xl, we have the hearings and my committee on renewable energy tax credits and so on and so forth without thinking what is our plan short and long-term. and that is the reason why congressman mchenry and i have put out this. normally i don't like commission, but in this case i think it would really make sense to try to develop so that we won't fixate on one particular

issue or another. >> especially with the limited amount and we need to have every of amount that is expected for the next 35 years. and that is not a bad midterm energy plan if we are going to go with that. >> you know, we will have this natural gas substitute. and we are speeding this up with something that he wants to have on the agenda into early next year.

let's go down the line, let's see if we have action on this issue. on the oil export issue. >> yes, the study committee task force and we are going to put out a series of position takers and also some bills and maybe a comprehensive bill including supporting us. and it doesn't make sense to have as much eliminated and if you are a market-based person to do it this way. on the other hand it's more of a pragmatic political situation, is it really worth having that site and we've had it since the mid-70s oil embargo and it's not a bad strategic position to prevent this.

and you'll probably see domestic oil process in the midcontinent giving this a go hat in the market. today it will go down for $5 per barrel. >> what do you think about this as well? the possibility of seeing domestic gas prices go up, which is a political vote to take. do you have any ideas on this is a nonstarter? >> yes, my colleagues in the majority decide about this. and i don't know if they're going to bring these bills up or not. it's worth having the discussion certainly. especially as we continue. >> how would you go? >> depends on what the bill look like, mr. burden. >> okay. >> we have a procedure on crude oil exports and let's see how that works in the present state

department to deal with that right now. and there are exports to canada and different areas. we have these opportunities right now with a vital mix of crude oil or mike natural gas or we have so much more where we are going to be exporting it and in fact my favorite story is prided ourselves and we could always sell the rest. that is what we want to do with natural gas and we want to do whatever we can and sell it out in the chemical industry because of the reasonable price of natural gas in south texas. we want those downstream jobs and we also know we have enough ex-or. >> what you think about the idea? >> we do have a national energy policy and to try to adjust it

in 2007, we think that it was a diversified portfolio for our folks to come. so filing this debate even within the republican congress, it it is an argument with corn and beans and crude oil it should be a worldwide market and the return on the investment of really having the opportunity to get the additional jobs if we can expand this to sell the export refined product. we do that based upon our cover standards as well and it less difficult standards around the world. so that is what we would rather he because it is more beneficial to the wealth of the nation. but you highlight a good point and i don't think that there is a solid republican position on this right now.

and i think that we will be broadcast on c-span and its energy 113. and questions about this legislative agenda for this year, we have energy efficiency and we've tried several times to bring it up. including effort to bring it up this year? >> i would oppose that if i were asked on that specific bill. this is not going to be an active legislative congress the president and the senate disagrees with the house most issues. so any kind of a major energy initiative, i think we can debate things and put things out and we can develop things from a republican point of view. i think that we would prefer to wait in november of this year. and then try to do something

than 2015. >> would you have a similar dynamic with the democratic congress back in 2007 working with a republican president and that is were you able to do this. >> don't tell me about the act. i thought that with my body with every fiber as i could. so i will take that with a 2005 act. >> where i'm going is would that be a right legislative environment will with the house? >> it would be right for accompanying him. yes, sir. >> to agree on this on a bipartisan basis, it is willow hanging fruit. even if we disagree with the senate, i think that we can all agree that we also disagree with the senate and why cannot we sit down and try to develop an energy efficiency bill. >> we have done three or four. but there is still more work we can do a.

>> yes, i love going to the home depot and pay $15 for a lightbulb. >> that is not what energy efficiency is. >> mandatory standards, to me it is not a good thing. [laughter] >> something in the 2000 and seven energy level. >> it's not in my bill. >> the 2005 bill, there was an energy efficiency part of the bell. and in fact, that is why we have a limited standard. >> you put that in an amendment and we are proud of it. >> there were some other issues as well on energy efficiency and i think that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. more domestic production and also we need to value that resource. and if we could use it more

efficiently, whether electricity or gasoline, to have at it. because it will be part of our portfolio of our energy after. >> and congress walk and chew gum at the same time? [laughter] >> i think that we can do energy efficiency. my point is the small energy use. and this includes not energy efficiency because what is happening is that once it goes off-line and nuclear power is threatened, the promise doesn't agree the major electricity generation. fortunately we have the natural gas to fill the gap. and i think that people are naïve if they don't think that we are coming through an energy crisis on the baseload generation and i think that that should be our focus. >> we have a question from our audience. any chance for this proposal

about the commission recommendations with any movement there? >> we have had some discussion with senator feinstein and senator alexander and in order we stand on the side. but the interim storage is not off the table with us. but they have to be accepted with us and granted the report from the nrc for a million years that we would then be able to debate this and maybe someplace else. but it always has to be part of this date. >> we have 2.5 minutes left. talking about the legislative process being dead. with that, we move into the executive realm and moving forward on the epa regulations for climate change. especially the senate not being able to move with the hearing today. talking about this within an

hour. we have had this with carbon emissions and looks like this is going forward. >> one thing that we want the epa to do is follow the law. we want to follow the law. and i just talked about a letter to myself and mr. whitfield sent to the epa back in november talking about these new emissions standards. and they based those on some demonstration projects using carbon capture. it just so happens that the energy policy with section 402, if anyone wants to look it up, says that they can't do that. exclusively. we sent this letter and they are not responding to it but yesterday they did backdoor the

situation and maybe they got around this line may be what they have done is illegal and they will take a step back. so right now my position on some of the things that they are doing in the war against coal is that you may not like it if you can't change the law. follow the law. >> let me just quickly respond and say that the epa is following the law and the courts have agreed with that. furthermore, i think that the problem is not the war against coal but rather market conditions changing and wal-mart natural gas coming on the market and not only is it less environmentally sound than natural gas, but it's also not as economical to produce. so i feel badly for the coal miners and their families. but we need to help them as our economy transitions to a cleaner

fuel with natural gas. >> you have a little bit of cornerback yard in central illinois, how are you feeling about what the epa regulations are looking like right now? >> again, a lot of people have asked me. the law says that we have to be economically feasible. the plant that they are using is one that is $2 billion over projected budget and has hundreds of millions of dollars of loans. so that is not economically feasible. it does not mean that the private sector industry would not include the support from the federal government operate this. so they are breaking the law and it's pretty clear and i hope that we look at these rules and regulations. >> the difference is there is a court decision under the clean air act and the administration can include regulations on greenhouse gases. if we want to change that law so it is a congressional decision, not necessarily the court decision for the epa.

i would hope it would be reasonable about it and they would also be ordered to do that in the only way we could stop bad is to do something to pass both the house and the senate and cap-and-trade won't politically happen. but we need to do things that will control the carbon and congressional authority instead of using the court ordered epa. >> just remember in writing the law it was debated and never should've been part of an omission standard for that. legislatively there was never any support for doing what the supreme court ruled. >> you can call it call it a horrible mark of the red hat. it's time to wrap up our conversation and we thank you so much for sharing your important perspective with us and we thank you very much. we ask you to walk out the opposite way to uk man.

[applause] [applause] >> okay, i would like to welcome the environmental experts to the stage. >> well done. >> hello. well, we came this way. and i think someone needs to tell the chairman that he has a live microphone on. good morning, analyst, thank you for joining us this morning. we are from the natural resources defense council from the national association of manufacturers. let's dive right in. and we've heard this panel will congress out legislatively for action here if it's the one

thing that could move, what would you most likely see them move? >> many say that it has become so normal in terms of legislative action. i think what i really like to get from congress is not anything that will pass now with something else that they will create.

would be in order and let the state and local community and the executive branch do something with those. >> throw your best idea at the wall. if you wish they could do one thing on energy? >> pass it. one piece of legislation they need to pass. i would say otherwise i'm not unhappy with congress not acting in the energy space. i think most of the debate right now is we have the infrastructure that we need, the coal rule and epa in place be effective for climate. all of that is the a classic debate between whether the executive branch is moving quickly enough and whether congress will pass legislation to force them to move more quickly.

we're seeing the deadlines for coughs border permit i think it's in the hands of the executive branch to more swiftly and president obama with his executive order wants to move all infrastructure quickly oil and gas doesn't seem to be in the baiivet. i can see in the next year two things the administration can do that help move this on lng expert applicants. maybe six will make it. they can declare 2005 requires that 90 days after fishing approve a permit they get through. on the pipeline i think they can just move more quickly or might even see the administration move that authority from cross-border pipeline. maybe the state department doesn't the president. >> a no show on capitol hill. how do you feel about it. is there one thing they would like to see congress tackle here? >> talk about the realm of the

possibility. we put energy efficiency on the top of the list. we would love to see congress reengage in some fashion on greenhouse gases and draw the line around epa and give them a reasonable path forward. we support whitfield mansion. -- machin. how about i know a lot of thing you would love to see congress do in the realm. how about in the world of possible. >> in the world of the possible focusing on efficiency is important. there's an opportunity. most people agree around the country. creates job, would be a good thing for congress to do. also a consistent policy on renewables. having a tax credit that actually kept renewable going without the back and forth back forth uncertainty to unleash clean energy would be

important. that's not going to be in congress' domain hopefully and at least an affirmative action on reducing carbon emissions. epa has the pen on this one. they need to move forward. >> do you see, i mean, in the next two years on climate but if you can game it out. do you think we'll come back to a climate debate in the next five or ten years. it borkt cap-and-trade or carbon tax or some other mained to control carbon or remove it away from the legislative approach we're headed had in to -- >> congress has to come back to climate. it's a grave concern for the country and the planet. it's something that is being taken up international an international negotiations on it. so i don't think it's going to be in the near term.

but i think four to six years it has to be addressed. i think what will happen is we'll put in standards on power plants. we will unleash clean energy. there are 186,000 jobs created on clean energy in the last two years. by the time congress gets around to it. it's actually going to be happening in states all across the country and it'll be an easier thing to do. >> they are fighting the epa climate rule pretty hard. where is it going in your find do you think we are headed to a place where congress have to weigh in. an it becomes our policy. think about how being rolled out in a particularly dangerous way both for the power sector and

manufactures down the road. is being used as a frontline on the battle on climate change where you have climate change being a project by project basis. you see it on keystone and things of that nature. i would argue it's as dangerous if not more danger use than the other laws being used. we have a haphazard uncoordinated way of getting to this. the more we do and the more it expands. the more we are stuck with unworkable regulatory policy. >> you have been in the state department diplomatic realm as well. talk about it and france negotiations meeting at the 2015 on the climate talks. where do you see sort of the global climate dynamic going and where the u.s. is right now. are we heading for another copenhagen disaster. lots of expectations build up but ultimately nothing happens and continuing this in this endless cycle? >> i don't have high

expectations for the first round. a total disaster. it was, you know, the best deal at the time. but frankly if you make private even to keystone x l canada has to find a way to meet the greenhouse gas emission target. it has to look at the oil regulations and the reason they do that is copenhagen. i think the rollout for the next couple of years and secretary kerry understands this, the big rock in the climate change are china and india and what you do this i think the real is going ways to increase gas penetration in china and india as a institution for goal. that's the big decrease. i think with have national plan and technology tan and a policy that moves the markets to reduce those greenhouse gas emissions. i don't see binding targets in the next round.

do you see it as something that is moving forward by this or kind of in a perpetual state of -- >> yeah. i think we have a -- i don't know what sports analogy to pick. we have a problem where we tend to look at the climate negotiations as having to be a slam deng or home run or something. feels more satisfying and conclusive than what happens. in between copen copenhagen and now i think the narrative is okay the climate change debate has either gone way or con tegs there's no middle ground. there's a great deal of moderation that happened that overall helpful to the debate. you have an administration now which i'm not trying to defend their position necessarily. but it's all energy strategy trying to support domestic oil and gas protection but move toward the lower carbon economy. it's not satisfying to either end. focus more on adaptation and

technology development and the commitment to the science. those are all the things you need to have a whole hearted climate policy. i think that debate that we've sort of switched to not necessarily an all or nothing debate somewhere in the center is really important. i think that while people have been paying less attention to the climate negotiations. i think they moved in a way that are probably a lot more pragmatic for people who don't occupy the end of the spectrum. i think what you'll see is toward the end of the year people will realize there's another big rampup coming to big meeting in 2515. we have to talk about the future again and post 2020 is where there's a lot of places to try to figure out where we're headed. i think we're going see the debate come back in a fulsome way but after the end of this year. >> sure. francis, we heard congressman barton a moment ago say on the keystone pipeline there was no

way it was approved. it was a decision secretary kerry and president obama making. they're putting enormous pressure on the president to reject the pipeline. do you think you'll be successful? >> i think we are. i think that actually the state department analysis shows for the first time does climate analysis and give the president information. he needs to addresses the test he directed on the june 25th climate statement. this will exacerbate climate emissions in this country and in canada. it will expand tar sand's development there and the president is going to make it a national interest decision. we expect him to turn it down. i think there's more and more evidence that climate emissions are going up. these are the dirtiest fuels on the planet. we stro -- there has to be a strategic decision whether we're going go down a clean energy path or continually go ahead with fossil

fuel development that is destructive to the climate. so it's definitely in his hands. we think that the information is there the analysis is complete. and the climate case it exacerbates the problem. it fails his test and should turn it down. >> let's go down the line on keystone. >> the project it is is in the national interest. we thought so for a number of years. when the permit was first submitted the world series champs were philly. it seems like ages ago. it's -- it's getting the point frankly for a lot of my members and lot of investors around the world it is a sign that the sunts necessarily open for business. this would be a strong signal particularly in light of the president and the state of the union said he was going cut red tape for infrastructure project. here's exhibit a. there's no bigger poster child needs to be cut than this project right here. it's in the national interest. t been shown again and again and again for economic reasons.

it's in the national interest. enough already. it's time to move. >> i have a slightly different reading of the environmental impact. the way i read that one like the three and the energy department study before again, that the canadians produce this oil one way or the other either will come by rail and truck or will go west or come here. but the pipeline is not the approximate cause of increase creased production and the alternative modes particularly rail will have higher greenhouse gas emissions than aside from the pipeline versus rail safety issues. therefore the environmental impact is relative negligentble and the institution impact it's one to 20 million tons. so i think it's a very hard for the state department to construct a national interest determination that said it's not the national interest. the energy security piece of it one way or the other 830,000,

you know, barrels of day by land and pipe not stowngt weather. economic it's got jobs. you can argue about the number and the cultural and social benefits have been addressed. i think it's hard to say no. what i hope there will be a refocus. the president will encourage the canadians to be granular about how they meet the copenhagen target and the tremendous environmental group will focus on the big rock in the debate which will be the coal rule and willing continued implementation of the fuel efficiency. when you get those global sources and the stationary source then you make progress. it's a huge political question for the president. the environmental community invested so much in trying to influence this decision. do you think they made a mistake by focusing open making this a test on president obama's green credential at this point. >> no, at salutely not. it's tremendously effective for them. i don't think t great for u.s. new jersey policy.

it's not necessarily the question. one of the things i think is useful for is post copenhagen and cap-and-trade. it's the to call point. it's a point that is serving as a litmus test where the country stands on low carbon pathway. that's fine. my question has been what do you do post keystone? after yes or no. it's not the last pipeline that get permitted on north american continent. you will have more. so do you do to make a decision of the establishment of further policy; right? and unfortunately, i think, rather than move the debate forward i feel it hold up the debate which is about one pipeline and one project. if it -- because i fundamentally i'm maybe in the minority. it seems implausible. but i don't think a decision is coming any time soon. i don't think the politics are exactly clear. if you continue this place where you don't have a decision you

have maifsz amount of unintended consequences on both sides; right and not actually getting to the heart of the debate. i support what david was saying was let's refocus on other things, and look like and communicate sort of a stronger more robust, more effect i have on both sides of the ledger pathway forward for climate change. perhaps the chicago cubs will win the world series. >> we can always hope. what comes next after the keystone decision? the most important thing are the carbon rules for power plant and target and on target to come out with a proposed rule in june. it's the single largest thing we can do to reduce it. we can bring that down. get the u.s. on the trajectory for the 17% reduction. and a very significant step forward on climate.

it's the absolute center piece of the president's climate plan. it is where the environmental community is focused. there are 3 million comments supporting the proposed rule for new plant. we expect more this year. people galvanized in every state across the country to address this issue. there is tremendous tension, i mean, of priority focused on the largest single thing we can do. which is reduce emissions from our power sector. and, you know, completely organized and galvanized on that. nobody should think that we're not focusing on a very important commitment the president has made and assuring that he will meet that commitment. >> we give you the last word here. time to wrap up. we have the next panel in a minute. thank you for taking the time to talk with us today. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] okay. our final discussion today. i'm delighted to bring in senators job burr burraso and senator white house to the stage. >> glad to be with you. interesting discussions so far this morning. we have a little bit of time here to barrel through. a bunch of topics here today. we've been talking keystone quite a bit. i want to start there with you. how amazing. you have two former colleagues of yours making the final decision here.

john secure i are and barack obama. what kind of pressure do you plan to bring. the senate democrats who oppose it plan to bring? >> i want to make sure that there is a fair and logical decision. i want to make sure that the decision helps our national interest in exurdzing in leadership in the area of carbon pollution which is a global problem that is hitting home in villages and farms and fisheries around the world, and if we look like we've punt odd than to protect a special interest or domestic interest, i think it will hurt our national profile and national security policy now and in the future very considerable considerably. i want to focus on the fact that the question as answered in the original. i'm looking at the more recent one, is kind of a self-fulfilling prophesy because

they build in the presumption that all the tar sands will be developed anyway and then they say relative to that how harmful is to develop the tar sands. it's not the way you frame the question obviously there's not going to be much harm. i think everybody who knows anything about the pollution density said there will be harm if the tar sands are developed and we actually as a country have something to say about whether or not through diplomatic and commercial and other means. >> senator, john kerry the "washington post" this morning

in the editorial in the pipeline good policy it's time to green light the keystone project. it's interesting. there have been five different environmental impact statements. and over the five years they've comet out, one was called the draft supplemental environmental impact statement. then two years later, the supplemental draft environmental impact statement came out. they came to the same conclusion it's time to move forward with this. it will be developed, used and thepipe shrine a better way to do it than trucks or trains or other ways to move the energy. in term of the power you have congressman barton and earlier say they were pleased that this wasn't put in the house debt limit proposal that was coming forward. it was not part of the bargaining. are you okay with that it's not something that republicans are opting to go forward to try to force a decision through the debt limit negotiations?

>>. >> one, the house decides what goes in the debt limit negotiations. i would like to see it in there. the president had lunch with the senate republicans in marge of last year. he doesn't swrit us that often. i asked about the keystonepipe line. he said we will have the decision before the end of the year belief the end of 2013. all 45 republican senators sent the president a letter this is what you told us when you met with us in march. we want an answer. er don't object to there being a vote. we have a responsibility? congress to pay the country's bills and to avoid the economic catastrophe that would come from a default.

if we go down the road of one party trying to hold that basic process ransom, then two can play that game and pretty soon you end up with we're recurring damage to our economy and threats and the worry one day something goes wrong and we don't actually do it. we've been so responsible about attaching demands to a basic responsibility of congress to pay the country's bills. i think the president's position, which is nothing know we're not going to -- we want you to do what you're supposed to do which is be responsible by paying the country's bill and not use it an opportunity take hostages or extract ransom. we're about to see some musical chairs happen in the senate when you vote either today or the next couple of dais on max baucus to become the ambassador to china. you're up in the seniority.

talk about what a does to the panel. do you think it will be different? in term of pushing idea legislation policy here in the coming in the next year? >> ron and i work closely together. we met earlier this morning on an issue we have the senate energy committee meeting that starts at 9:30. we'll get get you out in a little bit. he'll still be chairing. my focus is actually to work over the next year to make sure that lisa murkowski chairs the energy committee on. what do you do to make it happen? or one of the things that happened and they did a count on this since last july until the beginning of this week there are only votes on four republican amendments in the united states senate which is astonishing. democrats have been shut down on offering amendments to all legislation seems to be written in harry reid's office behind

closed doors. committee chairman have lost a lot of their authority and opportunity to bring forth legislation. it turned a one-man show. he's doing the bidding in the white house. there's -- not this white house. the other white house. [laughter] there are concerns to what amendments you can get through. i'm going to don't travel the country and talk with groups of people about electing republicans who are much more focus order making is sure that we can make energy as clean as we can. as safe as we can without raising costs for american families and costing american jobs. i can't let john's point go unresponded to. my take when you have a party relentlessly filibustering and obstructing the senate on every measure including ones that end up being fairly noncontroversial, you force

cloture, the only mechanism for operating the senate, which is to the minority's advantage they pile up the 30-hour block of cloture time and can't be used for anywhere else. you have built a wall around the senate and put the majority party in a position difficult to governor. to turn around and say too many decisions are being made in harry reid's office and on not on the floor it's a little bit like the ever fan throwing himself on the mercy of the court as an orphan. the scene of the crime that he killed his parents. let me bring it back to the bigger picture. you want to go there? let me just ask. we have equal time. and i know you don't want to go to the sochi. i'm happier to be here.

the room i had was nicer i would imagine than the reporters are staying at. let me ask you bringing back to to the landrieu. senatorboxer didn't see eye to eye. setting up a landrieu-boxer dynamic. we're not seeing tons of legislation moving. is there some tension there. do you think we'll see pro production coming out of the committee and the epw has to push in another direction? senator comes from a big flrnlg state. a fossil fuel state. so does my friend john. i think wyoming gets about a billion dollars a year in state revenue from the coal industry and employs thousand of wyoming folks and mary is in a similar

situation down in louisiana. i respect that people who have that home state profile are going to work to try to hear their subsequents and may be sure the reviews are reflected in the united states congress. that's as old as representation. the industry have gotten in to such a reckless, sell fish, and bullying posture politically you can't have discussions about things with them. the industry, the coal and the oil folks are in a state of denial about climate and feel they have enough clout in congress they can stone wall everything. so it actually may prove to our benefit that somebody like mary can come in and broker what is now, i think, a very dangerous position, frankly, for the coal and oil industry.

there's a point where you can bully people and insist having everything your way. refuse to admit that carbon does harm to the planet. refuse to see the oceans are acid fying and but that's a game that runs out. when it runs out if you have never been decent along the way, then payback is a tough thing. [laughter] it could be both. do you watch senator white house give the floor speeches? >> i think we have had 50. taken over in al gore on continuation. give very regular second opinion speeches on the affordable care act. of[laughter] we coour time. occupy your time on the floor. it's bad for patients and providers and nurses and doctors who take -- >> i shouldn't have got him started. [laughter] i apologize to all of you. they need from a doctor.

i'm the only republican as well as on the energy committee and the epw. you get environment public works. and actually there's at lot of bipartisan work on the publishing works part of that. the word of bill, transportation bill, but on the environmental side of it is not because of the dynamic of this. you know, i think of the three e that tie it together. energy security for our nation. which means affordable energy and energy more at home. economic growth, which is really the affordable side of that. it doesn't help all us to make energy more expensive for families. it doesn't help us as a country. there is a cost competitiveness, a more expensive energy. we see it now in europe where they're having energy poverty. germany, where we were together a year ago. talking to the leaders there after they decided after fiewk

fukushima to shut down the power plant. the cost of production is higher. there are families a story in the "new york times" who has a full-time job and a five-watt lightbulb. he has 25 watt lightbulb. they need to see a lot. that's what we're looking at in germany. there are cost of the climate policy. and the third i think we need is environmental stewardship. the third e. and in wyoming for people there it continues to be one of the most beautiful places in the world. it's a destination resort. >> it's a little far from the ocean. when it comes to renewable i think we need it all. and true loll of it. and something like wind is no

matter what we do by 20 years from now we have 2.5 or 3% of the total energy. and the footprint is so different. even government officials and the epa agrees that the amount of energy generated by one natural gas power plant you need 300 square miles of wind turbines to produce that same amount of energy electricity that you get from a couple hundred acres where the footprint of the plant. i put a caveat on it. in the equation we talk about about cost, the industry would like to take all the harm that carbon causes to the fishermen in rhode island who can't catch winter flounder anymore.

fell in to the sea who used to have a lawn and a road and a beach in the sea. to mom at rhode island hospital while the child responds to the nebraska -- nebraska loser. they would like to have all the costs and pretended they don't exist in the equation. when you gimmick the market structure that badly by taking what is literally tens of billions of cos every year and pretended they don't exist you're not really doing the math that the senator suggests fairly. that's my concern is that the cost that coal imposes on the rest of us are real. and the fact they don't fit to the price to the market and cause really bad economic decisions to be made i know there will be tough outcome in

wyoming if we go down the road strongly. but i think it's our responsibility as part of the solution to work with senators from wyoming and other places to make sure their economy and workers are protected in all of this. it's not anybody's job to hurt anybody. but the alternative i have workers -- i don't want them hurt. m that folks in my state feel all the time. recently said he was skeptical of the climate change. i think he was referring to the snowfall here in the winter time. do you agree there is manmade and causing what we're seeing right now senator white house as hoe sees in the backyard and hears from the constituents? >> my house todays it 20 below

zero but the real-feel temperature is 47 below zero on casper mountain right now. i believe there is climate changes. i believe man has the impact on that. how much of that i think we do not know. i focus on the economic impact of the legislation. it's a matter behalf we do about all of this and do it in a smart way, efficient way, a way not very costly. door it with a scheme like they have in europe even the european union energy plan 2050 talk about that. i think we have to put value in to that. something they call the social cost of carbon. i think it's $20 a ton. >> 37 i think now.

any updated it based on the scientific data. they want to be able to the costs were of the regulation they want to say are lower than the cost not doing regulation compared to the benefits they say you shouldn't do this regulation. they have the raise the social cost of carbon from 20 to 37. then you have the environmental extremist groups saying over 300. of the patients over the years who are long-term unemployed. and the cost to that individual that doesn't show up in any of these numbers that the administration uses in term of their health care cost are up, heart disease, issues of the

depression, abuse of substances, abuse of family members. there's a cost to that as well so there is a huge social cost of regulations on human beings and how it affects their family and lives. that's why i continue to fight against efforts that make american energy the red, white, and blue and specifically coal the most available, affordable, and secure source of energy it. let's what we do know. we know when you put more carbon dioxide in to the at fear it warms up the planet. it was science since first written up when lincoln was president. it's not some new environmental development. this is stone cold solid science. when you put that much carbon to the at fear, the ocean absorbs a

lot of it. absorbs 90% of the heat and 30% of the carbon. we know in chemical at a rate we haven't seen since before the dinosaur. we know the carbon in our atmosphere is that point higher than the history of human kind for as long as humans have been on the planet. it's been about 170 to 300 part per million. it's a measurement. it's not a theory. now it's at 400 roughly and climbing. that's a big experiment to take for a planet that has been hospitable to us for 800,000 -- 8,000 centuries. so, you know, put them together

and look around at sea level of 10 inches in new port, rhode island. acid fying oceans, ohsers being killed off by the sea water in washington state. the warming we see everywhere that is not one day. there are still cold days. we're not getting rid of those. there's not only warming when you put more energy to the system you -- you get more extreme. we see it all around us. and the challenge that i get -- you can't say that drought or wild fire or that storm of caused by climate change. you can. neither can you say the home run was hit by barry bonds because of the steroids. but you still don't want him on steroids because it's not fair and it distorts the game. what we're doing is distorting the planet in ways that are from a scientific point of view, at this point, literally undenial.

et percentage is going down. so much more other places. china, india, realistly you could turn off the entire united states today and global emissions don't increase for the foreseeable future at least in 2050. this is a global problem and we need to exercise global leadership. it may be the only issue in which the republican party doesn't want the united states to exercise global leadership. they want to just say china or india is going to do if. we have to give up. [laughter] >> yeah. [laughter] [applause] note just give up. i think we shouldn't hurt our economy at the same time if the other countries are continuing to do that and put us at the significant disadvantage to what

is happening other places. i don't think help us as a nation to be a strong secure nation to put the families across the country. higher energy costs where there's going to be no global impact essentially. jeff's economy gets hurt. patty murray's oyster fisheries get hurt. a lot of people that get hurt if we don't do something. it's not a situation which the economic concerns are all on one side of the equation. no matter how much we may wish that was the case. >> i think if you turn off the u.s. tomorrow, those things will continue to happen. regardless what we do in the country. we have something to say about the chinese. they are making immense progress in indeed. they are making progress so far we are in a kind of mushing tile and competitive danger of losing

leadership in these new technologies to china and becoming an importer and consumer of green energy rather than the inventer and manufacturer of green energy. and if we lose that, inured to protect legacy fossil fuel. then we have lost a very, very important battle because i don't, frankly, want our country to be imporgtd the -- importing the scholar and wind and other things that empower our future. china is still using more on the fossil fuel. the mix is going down. the use is going up because the economy is exploding so fast. the mix is going down and they insist on it going down further. i'm told by our embassy and

intelligence folks the number one concern that the chinese leadership has about the danger of regime change is their population is going get fed up with the pollution and the poison, fed up with the damage they're seeing and they'll have a green spring of a different kind. that's why they're spending something like a half billion dollars on clean energy and renewable energy in the next four years, i think it is. if you lean in that much they're using the next generation nuclear technology we develop and not going build here. they're going build there. there's a competitive issue as well we need to pay attention to. >> we have countries in europe that -- over $100 billion and have pulled back because it's not subsidies for this much more expensive article in the economist who weeks about about

the wind turbine off the coast of england, and staggeringly expensive energy and families can't afford it. they continue need carbon base which is why we need work on technologies to be able to make that cleaner, better, more efficient use. >> i'm all for that. >> for sure we can agree. you can carry on the debate on the senate floor in the coming days. thank you very much for the time to talk to us today. [applause] i want to thank you for watching and following us. and finally a big thank you if to the energy department. have a great day. we'll see you next time. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> have the government stand

against it should be -- [inaudible] pontificate in the facts. >> [inaudible] >> a whole list of what have been ruled over the years on unparliament tear expressions. and indeed a few weeks ago i

think the present prime minister withdraw a remarking he made which suggests that the leader of the opposition was -- there was a lot of parliament tear expressions. it was and withdraw the accusation of lying. and instead of accusing whoever it was of telling a lie he is said to have said i will call it a terminal logical -- nobody can could ever find that in the official report. c-span's former london producer with the behind scenes look at british parliament. sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's q & a. the senate considered legislation to extend

unemployment benefits that expired at the beginning of the year. democratic senator jack reid also put in an amendment that would have paid for the three of month extension outlined in the underlying bill. here is some of his remarks from the senate floor shortly before the vote occurred. in a now hours the channel leer have -- 1.7 million american job seekers and help reduce the national deficit by 1.12 i believe my colleague understand it's a fiscally responsible way to help job seekers who are are still struggling in the gat math of the great recession. ask people to look for while at the same time bolstering consumer demand and supporting the economy. why is why they estimated renewing unemployment insurance for one year will save 200,000

jobs. this is -- we must do this. on behalf of the families who are struggling, on behalf of our economy that needs the support. this is something that must be done. now the question is whether we can move this critical bill forward and send help to struggling through no fault of their own. everyone understands that qualify for unemployment insurance you have to be working and lose your job through no facility -- fault of your own and don't search for work. and the reality in this market is there are, in many casings, three applicants for every job. and we have all heard the story. the software engineer who worked for 20 years that put out 300 résumes. who follow people around to give

them résumes. i heard story of an individual who was so persistent trying to get a job in the financial service he show up early in the morning and put his résume in the local newspaper for the head of the bank he was interviewing with. that eventually got him a call back, i'm told, but not yet a job. it's very difficult. we can do what we've always done is help these struggling americans and help our economy. every point in this process, i believe we have responded to the issues raised by our colleagues to try to get this done. instead of a full year of extended unemployment benefits, which i proposed, which we typically do, we comprise on a short term extension. in order to just get it doing. just to get it done. since december 28th people

lost unemployment benefits. they went off a cliff. every week 60,000 more americans lose their benefit. it's up to 1.7 million now. it'll be several million before the year has run out. and so instead of atm one year extension. we're asking for three month. most of it now, or a large part is receipt to active to make up to the people who lost their benefits beginning on december 28th. i must thank him for his tremendously this is bipartisan effort. the bipartisan effort because unemployment knows now political or geographic dimension or ethnic or gender dimension. it is an american problem and we're responding on a bipartisan way. we put what we thought was a pathway to provide immune toit

job seekers. and give us a enough time to work through the complex issues that many of my colleagues have raised. issue about make the progress overall more effective. can we incentivize individuals still to seek more employment more efficiently. can we integrate trade. all of these are important issues. in the context of a three month emergency extension, the first thing to do is get the relief to the people and then to sit down consciously and deliberately and work on the detail. democrats put forth another consultation. many others who provided thought, provided input, et. cetera. this is not way or the highway. it was trying to find a

bipartisan pathway. we propose a fully paid for extension of the unemployment insurance. then we started off with 11.5 months fully paid for. we used paid for that would have been an extension agreed to in the bipartisan budget agreement. a major policy change proposed by senator portman none of these changes are easy for us to accept on our side. the tradition are the routine has to be unpaid for on unemployment extension. very few times have we paid for these. their considered an emergency spending. people are struggling out

there. we accepted the premise our republican colleagues suggested. we accepted the -- we couldn't pay for it by tax revenue. paid for by something else. and so we took a proposal that was indebted in the budget and try to use that together with the proposal that was first presented. the vote on the underlying measure the short term extension three month extension unpaid and senator heller joined us and i thank you for that. still not the significant number of republican colleagues necessary. not only to move the measure forward but also do the right

thing. and we're here today, mr. president, we've had another round of extensive discussions and consultations and now about to pay for a three month expertise tension of the unemployment benefits. which is fully paid for. i will point out in february the extension will go forward until march. we're reaching the point ironically we might have more receipt to active payment than perspective payment. that's why we have to move. we have to move today.

in order to consciously and thoughtfully and cooperatively and collaboratively work with our colleagues. we have continually would have agreed to make concessions that i used to think it was the nature of flil comprise. principle complil comprise. and we've tried. now we have a three month bill paid for technique called pension -- which we have enacted on a bipartisan basis the fact the vote was 79-19 in the 2012 transportation bill. there is not a controversial. it's something we have embraced before. it is something that does not involve revenues. which is one of the benchmarks our colleagues laid down. we have a short term fully paid

for ui benefit that can go out immediately to people woo are suffering nap is paid for by noncontroversial mechanism. and essentially it will do what i think we have been requested to do by our colleagues. our ask is simply support us in the effort so we can get this legislation accomplished. one interesting thing about this not only it was in the transportation bill, due to expire and we'll extend it. it's been used on numerous e indications on colleagues by both sides to pay for various assembly of different legislative approach -- proposals. there is not a controversial mechanism. i don't think it is controversial. people hopefully recognize it is

necessary. in this situation. also included provision in this proposal that has been champ oned progress i havely and thoughtfully that will bar individuals of income over $1 million from receiving federal unemployment insurance benefit. that's my recollection. i'll defer to the record. then the other factor which i will argue to my colleague is as we try to pay for this extension, we're also able to approve 1.2 billion over ten years to reduce the deficit. if my colleagues are looking for proposals at a fully paid for reduce the deficit and provide needed assistance to americans who have worked and looking for work and apt job, we need their

vote this afternoon. so i hope we can move forward on this bill. help unemployed americans who are searching for work. help employers because this pension mechanism helps employers. and also reduce the deficit. that's a pretty good try feck that. something i think we should support. and other point i want to make. the notion that unemployment insurance, federal long-term benefit should be a political issue, i think, in stark contrast to history. congress has renewed ui on a bipartisan basis in passed on numerous e indication. we did it three times under president reagan. we did it five times under president george w. bush. so i think that is the president

to get it done today. that's pretty good under two republican presidents. but one of the questions comes up it's -- republican leadership. not some of the members we collaborated closely. do they the president to pass? or will they so no, no, it's to get the -- it's so compelling. let's talk about process. it's about how many amendments we have. this is about whether or not we can reform and reauthorize an entire legislative program based on a three month extension. most of which is becoming rapidly receipt to active. receipt reauthorsed to deal with long-term unemployment. on bipartisan basis. it is fully paid for.

it is fully paid for by a noncontroversial technique that does not revenues. in that the paid for is something that the corporate world supports. there are others who might say they're disappointed because it's another major issue. it's the military retiree. it's the thash will be dealt with. i just want to point out that coll will does not become effective reductions until december of 2015. . . of -- u.i. lost their benefits december of last year. they're already suffering. there is no more time in terms of we can fix it before it takes effect. we need to act today. and indeed, it's been estimated that this $20,000 -- 20,000

veterans who have been 0 long-term unemployment benefits because of our failure to extend them. for those 20,000 veterans i don't think it would be sufficient to say you're not going to get your unemployment insurance because we're worried what is going to happen in 2015 to some other veterans. if you want to help veterans today, you can help 20,000 of them by voting for this provision going forward. let's help our unemployed and our veterans, and not use one group against the other for a legislative advantage in terms of any one particular measure. the emergency for unemployment insurance that encompasses at least 20,000 veterans is today, not a year or more from now. we can't turn our back on the 1.7 million americans and it's growing each week. we've got to help them. it's been 40 days