ave a solution. my comprehensive bill requires agencies to promote economic growth and job creation by ensuring the benefits outweigh the costs of regulation. simple as that. we need to be listening to the folks, too as well who have to live with and fay for the effects of these rules. i'm hearing from stakeholders they are weighing the time and expense of responding to regulations against the fact that this administration keeps giving them the minimum allowable time and then doesn't even consider their input. bottom line, fewer americans are bothering to participate in the comment period process. stakeholder input is crucial and needs to be considered. right now time varies on how long the comment period stays open sometimes it's as little as two weeks. my bill would ensure the period would stay open for at least 60 days. my colleagues, as we all know,

sometimes the people who are most affected by these rules don't even know they are subject to the changes. my bill would mandate that agencies provide warnings, appropriate default rules and as closure requirements to the public. right now just the opposite takes place. the administration skirts stakeholder input by issuing an interim final rule, they're called i.f.r.'s and they become effective immediately upon publication. my bill allows delay of implementation if that rule is challenged in court and until the court rules a decision. all too often new regulations are proposed and finalized while existing regulations are not being enforced. i've heard from a lot of folks in kansas that the problems these new regulations claim to fix could be solved only if the current regulations were properly monitored. simply put the solution is not

more rules and regulations it's considering the existing ones. my bill mandates that an ongoing review of regulatory actions to identify those outmoded, ineffective, insufficient or excessively burdensome rules or as the president once put it, rules that are just plain dumb, and allows agencies to streamline or expand the regulations. we need regulatory reform. my bill codifies the president's executive order while closing the loopholes and gives it the rule of law. i don't know how the president could disagree with that. now, the u.s. chamber and the national federation of independent business, the farm bureau, the competitive enterprise institute have all endorsed my bill. last year i had 35 cosponsors. need about 70. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation stay engaged as this process continues.

mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. president, it appears to me upon close inspection that we do not have a quorum and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president we're getting close to a time when we're going to be able to see a reality here. we've been talking about the keystone pipeline for a long period of time now. when i go back to oklahoma, people say why if you have something that no one is against who doesn't have a particular reason institutional reason to be against it, everyone's for it and when you see the jobs, the no single thing that we've dealt with in the last -- well, the last three or four years

that i can recall has talked about 42,000 new jobs that otherwise are not going to be there, good-paying jobs. i admit i'm biased a little bit being from oklahoma, the cushing, oklahoma is the hub of all the pipelines going through america. but i see that there's really no logical reason, some people say, well, i heard someone on the floor a few minutes ago saying well, all that dirty oil sands up in alberta we're going to be -- you know, there's a great environmental risk to that. and yet they know full well that if for some reason the people who are just opposed to fossil fuel altogether like president obama, if they are successful that they're still going to produce that stuff up there. china is chomping at the bit because china has a great need for the very ingredients of the pipeline that we do here in this country and they already have

talked about a transportation to the western part of canada to get it to china so it's going to happen. in fact, you could argue if you're concerned about some of the environmental problems if they do exist they would be greater if china did it than if we did it. for example, china doesn't have any emission controls on all this stuff that we are talking about, like we do in this country. and i think there's some things that are factual i think everyone is aware of it, one is that president obama has had a constant war on fossil fuels since the time before he was even president of the united states. and when you look at what he has done and how he has committed and we've heard all these quotes when he's talking to the far left environmental groups, the tom stairs and others -- tom

styers, he's one opposed to the pipeline. having said that, having put the chart of up on what happened in my state of oklahoma. in oklahoma, the only visit this president has made to my state of oklahoma was about a year ago -- was it about a year ago? two years ago? that he came in and was -- in the background there that's a picture of him in cushing oklahoma and those are the barrels, those -- this is what's taking place right now in cushing and he was talking about in his quote there is as you can read, mr. president i'm directing my administration to make this project a priority talking about the keystone pipeline, to go ahead and to get it done. well he's making that statement and he came down to hold that meeting in cushing oklahoma, to try to make them believe that

he was actually for a pipeline. now, he went on to say that he was going to make sure that he wasn't going to do anything to keep the pipeline from going on further south. let's get the picture here. you've got cushing, oklahoma right in the middle of the united states and the pipeline would continue to go south to the texas coast. well he said he's not going to do anything to stop that and there is a good reason for that p. that is he can't. he doesn't have jurisdiction. that didn't cross an international boundary. the borders, the international borders that is crossed is in canada so that's the area where he is still to this day doing all he can to keep that from being a regularity. the southern leg it could be finished and he can't do anything about that. so we have been -- i mentioned tom steyer, i want future that chart up. he's probably a real fine

person has a strong commitment to try to stop fossil fuels and he's the one who made the statement back before the november election he was going to raise $100 million and put $50 million of his own money and raise $50 million in in addition to that and put it in eight campaigns, i think we know probably which campaigns they were and to see if he could resurrect the issue of global warming and if he could stop the pipeline. all that happened back then, and i think it's important that people understand that he wasn't able to -- he was willing to put his millions of dollars in but he couldn't raise 50. so instead of that he put $70 million of his money in the races. this is not just me talking. he's very proud of it. and frankly i appreciate the fact that he isn't trying to hide what he's doing. i know he has some political interests, i know that he has a commitment to try to keep --

try to stop the pipeline. i'm not sure what hats that's based on other than just the people who whom he caters. but nonetheless he has a great deal of influence in this administration has reported this week, a couple of weeks ago that he has visited the obama white house 14 times. that's as of that time which led a member of the watchdog group of public citizen to say -- quote -- "tom steyer has not just got the ear of the president but he clearly has the president's attention." again, that's this watchdog committee making that statement. so we are looking at it now we know that the white house meetings were often with president obama's counselor and chief environmental advisor john podesta. we remember him from the clinton administration. he's been a lobbyist now for quite some time and he is actively involved in this issue. and the reports have also

surfaced that steyer and podesta have met with billionaire liberal activist george sawus days after he the. that affected the election but they still lost. if i'm guessing right on the races he was involved in there's not one that won. republicans, you know, took over ten seats and that's -- that was quite a good year. so maybe he wasted a lot of several million dollars there. when we look at it and you think that what he has done to fossil fuels and that's been his war every time -- and i've heard on the floor twice today already people say well, look at the success the oil industry has had under the obama administration. well i have to suggest it's been in spite of the obama administration and the proof is very easy. of the -- the revolution that's

going on right now in the oil industry is one that has been very very successful, and on private land and on state land, the amount of production in -- since obama has been in office has actually increased by 61%. that's incredible. so they say he must be really pro-oil and gas because of that. and when in reality all of that 100% of that 61% of increase has been on state and private land. on public lands federal land that he has control over, it has not been an increase of 61% or even 6%. as a matter of fact, it's been a reduction, a reduction of 6%. so that's going on and that's all a part of this war that's taking place right now. i'm very anxious to see how these votes turn owvment i noi when people realize that the number of jobs that are there -- i guess very excited about it and i can't help but think that

we're going to be successful. i want to meption mention though -- i wasn't going toward this, but i want to do this. a person i consider to be a very good friend on the floor here, one that we have philosophically disagreed with each other about as much as any two people koorks and that's the senator from vermont, he is sincere he believes what he says, and yet some of the thing that he says he says, i believe are wrong. i don't want to question what he believes to be the truth. and others, too. another good friend of mine is the senator from california, senator boxer. frankly i'll miss her around here. i understand she's announced her retirement. but nonetheless on this the issue they're talking about on global warming i listen to this and i think you know, where do they come up with this stuff because we know for a fact that many of the things that they talk about are not true. i keep hearing 97% of the

scientists are saying that they believe that co2 is the cause of catastrophic climate change and the world is coming to and he we're all going to die and yet when you look at the -- i remember -- this goes back to about 2002 when this became an issue, and i will remember this for a long time because that's when the first bills were introduced. at that time ive thought global warming was true. they were all going to do what they could to stop it. trainingly, at the very first i thought it must be true. that's what ive says, until they did a study. and this was the wharton school, some of their scientists along with m.i.t., the charles rivers associates and others, and they said what were would the costs woo be? because everyone was talking about the world is coming to an end. but is this really -- what is the cost going to be? well they all agreed on a range. that range has not been refuted by anyone.

the range is between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. i immediately went back to see -- whenever i hear a big number, i go back to oklahoma and count the number of families who file federal income tax returns and then i do my math. that would cost the average family in oklahoma $3,000. so you think well, are we sure we're going to get something for the $3w,000? and i'll share with you mr. president, because a lot of people have forgotten this. there was at -- lisa jackson was the first administrator of the e.p.a. appointed by president obama. i asked her live on tv in our committee, i said, now let's assume that we pass some of this legislation that puts in cap and trade or do it even by regulation. is this -- is this going to stop co2 emissions or lower co2 emissions worldwide? and she said, no.

she said, and the reason is that the problem isn't here in the united states. the problem is in china it's in india, mexico, and other places. and so in thes event that they were able to do that, then this would not lower -- in fact, you could use the same argument and say, if you pass a cap and trade and do something as they're talking about doing and we've heard on the floor today then it's -- it would have the effect of not reducing but increasing co2 emissions. as we chase our manufacturing base over-cease where they have -- overseas where they have to somehow find someplace where they can generate electricity it'll be in countries like china, india where they don't have any of the restrictions in emissions. so you know, even if you're a believer that the world is coming to an end and gloacial is -- and global warming is going to kill everybody, still in spite of it

it's not going to reduce worldwide emissions. i guess that's what they really want to $. so you hear about the consensus. i remember at that time dish made a speech on this floor questioning the science. i said, i assume there are scientists out there minority part of the ipcc, the intergovernmental panel on climate change and that those scientists know better, they know what the relate city and i started getting 230e7b calls. i got phone calls from scientists. where is that chart with -- all right, see awful these -- all of these are recognized scientists. how many are there 58. there are 58 of them that are there. you have great scientists, like richard lindzen. he's scientist at m.i.t. i think you could argue that he would be in contention with among the very best-informed scientists out there. and what he has said in the past

-- richard lindzen said controlling carbon is a bureaucrats dream. if you control carbon, you control lievment life. i remember how upset he was with al gore. this is richard lindzen of m.i.t. he said, "to treat all change as something to fear is bad enough but to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse." now we have so many things that have happened. just the other day it wasn't long ago -- i don't have the exact date but i think it was -- let's see which -- one of the universities did a survey of all the tv weatherkaftserscasters. 63% of those believe that any global warming that is occurring is a result of natural variation and not human activities. to say that 97% of the scientists it's just not true. but if you want to believe it bad enough, it will. so we have a lot of -- a a lot of

information out there. "nature" journal a well-respected journal in 2013 said, "there is considerably -- there are considerable uncertainty as to whether increases in extreme climate variability is oat occurring. the munich reinsurance company said global weather-related as does tearings have declined by 25% as a result -- as a proportion of g.d.p." so we have all of these things. and the ipcc, they're the ones who are the ones that are always be quoted. that's a branch of the united nations. the united nations that's where all this stuff started. and certainly it would inure to their benefit to have people believe that we have to look at some international organization like the united nations to protect us from all these droughts and all these things that they say are going to happen. we had another little thing happen -- i only mention this

because nobody has yet on the floor recently. i think everyone used to -- believes that everyone is already away of it. remember climategate. climategate, mr. president was when they were having one of the big united nations parties and it was going to be in copien copenhagen. i remember a lot of our people went over there to tell the 191 countries that were participating that the united states was going to pass cap and trade, was going to do all of these things and then of course they -- i went over at the very end of it and made my little talk and assured them that in spite of the fact that president obama had been there secretary clinton at that time had been there, secretary kerry and all the rest of them, to say we're not going to be doing it in the united states. if anybody believes what they said that we're going to pass cap and trade we're not going to do t they tried it already. there are 35 members -- at that time it was a much more liberal senate than we have today. only 35 that would actually vote for something like that. so at that time coincidentally

is when climategate came up. climategate was when they analyzed some of the things that the ipcc has said in talking about -- and had all these quotes and e-mails that totally debunked the credibility of ipcc. still today they are talking about it, though. to give you an idea, christopher booker with the u.k. telegraph said "this is the worst sign p tsk scandal of our general raismghts" the scandal he is talking about is to try too make people believe that climate change is going to destroy the world. "the financial times," "the closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science is surprising mean even to meevment the stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering." again we're talking about climategate. nobody talks about it anymore. but this is a fact. the physicist from the ipcc who is no longer there said "climategate was a fraud on the

scale i've never seen before," talking about how they're rigging the information to try to cook the science. and so we had all these -- here's one that was in "newsweek." said "once celebrated researchers feeling like a used car salesman. some of the ipcc's most quoted data and recommendations were taken straight out of the unchecked activist brochures." so these are the things that are going on. i just hope that people, as we develop this -- right now we should be really concentrating on the vote that's going to be coming up having to do with the pipeline. but, as the committee of jurisdiction is looking at this i can assure that you we're going to be having hearings -- one hearing we're going to have is to get some of the best scientists around to evaluate, to see what the truth is on the global warming issue. but in the meantime let's go back to the pipeline.

i can't think of any argument against it that is overwhelming. and the mere fact that people say that, if they don't like the alberta sands or the production, it doesn't mean that we here in the united states of america are going to stop them from doing it because they'll just doing -- do it and ship it to chiefnlt so we have a huge issue here that we're concerned about. i can't think of anything that i've seen in the last four or five years that's going to be producing more jobs in america than this issue. with that, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h. con. res. 7 which was received from the house. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 7 providing for a joint session of congress to receive a message from the

president. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now mr. president, i understand there is a bill at the desk and i ask its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: h.r. 33, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to ensure emergency services volunteers are not taken into account as employees under the shared responsibility requirements contained in the patient protection and affordable care act. mr. mcconnell: i ask for a second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14 i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be read for the second time on the next legislative day. mr. mcconnell: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the bill s. 32 be discharged from the committee on finance and it

be referred to the committee on the judiciary. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president i ask unanimous consent when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. friday january 16, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour deemed expired the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and the senate resume consideration of s. 1 as under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so we were able to reach an agreement to proceed to the keystone bill this afternoon and start processing amendment to bipartisan jobs and infrastructure bill. there are several amendments pending from senators on both sides of the aisle and i would encourage everyone to work with senator murkowski and senator cantwell to get in the queue for consideration. the next votes will occur on tuesday, january 20 following the weekly conference meetings.

therefore, if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. friday, january 16. and keystone keen

keen fits in with that -- keystone x.l. fits in with that. i have with us the first amendment to the keystone x.l. pipeline senate bill 1 and it is in the nature of a committee substitute. and what i will assure members is that the substitute that we have in front of us is almost a mirror image of the bill that we reported from the energy committee just last week, we reported it in a bipartisan basis, we had good discussion at that point in time, but we have in front of us that substitute amendment. but when you look to the amendment itself, it's pretty simple. we are truly talking about a two-page bill a bill that is simple in content a bill that

is really very clear very readable in terms of what it does and what it does not do. it's hardly 400 pages long, again, expands just over two pages, would whet pretty wide font pretty large margins you can read it in a couple minutes and better yet understand it. and that's because the bill itself is very simple. what this measure does is approve the cross-border permit that is needed to construct the keystone x.l. pipeline. and it does this with important provisions. it fully protects private property rights, it requires all state and local obligations be met including those related to siting. there has been some discussion that somehow or other the senate

is engaging in in routing engaging in siting. this bill does not approve a pipeline route. we are not a planning board. our bill only approves the pipeline's cross-border permit. and it only does that, it only does that because we have been sitting, we have been waiting for some six years 2,300-some-odd days waiting for this cross-border permit. some have suggested this is some big giveaway. there is no subsidy in this bill it doesn't evade any regulations, it does not preempt any environmental study, it will not cost taxpayers a single dollar. again, i would encourage my colleagues look critically at the language of this bill. what this authorizes is that

cross-border permit. there's been a lot of discussion about the jobs created and the environmental pros and cons on both sides. we've had good, strong debate already, already just as we have moved through the procedural process of this. but what i think is important for us as a body to appreciate is the point that we are at now, the point where we as members can take this simple, straightforward bill and offer up amendments that we believe would make it better or enhance it. and so as we go forward in these days i am encouraging members on both sides bring your amendments forward. let's have the give and take, the back and forth that this sentence was once so famous for.

i've been asked how are you going to handle amendments on the floor? is it going to be a situation where the majority determines what the minority will introduce, what we will have an opportunity to debate and decide? that's not how we are handling it. the majority leader has promised a full debate, and he's also gone so far to say it's not unlimited, we're not going to be on this for months, but we are going to give members an opportunity to speak to the issue of the day. we are going to give members and opportunities to speak to the opportunity of the day. , the issues of the day that are so important to our nation's economy. you come from an energy producing state as do i. we know this and the prince of the that come to our states and local economies we no the independence that comes

when you your not reliance on others, particularly others who wish you ill for resource empowers your country and allows you to be great. we have seen the benefits of good energy throughout the entire country so why would we not want to allow for a piece of infrastructure because that is when the pipeline is, a piece of infrastructure to cross our border from our closest to her closest friend and ally canada moving where they are set up to handle this type of oil. there has been a lot of discussion that this is just going to be a transference of oil from the north in

canada to the united states and out the other end but i think if you look at the state department report. he appreciate the fact that it makes no sense to use the united states just as conduit. when our refineries those that are designed to handle they we will be in a position to refine that for our benefit here in this country. and for those in canada who are looking to move there product.

replace what we are currently receiving from israel in which provides us with that heavy crude currently which are he replied in the gulf coast areas and refineries. we will place to cover plates that from oil. i would much rather have a tighter a tighter relationship with canada then i would with venezuela. the benefits, the merits of this legislation are very substantive and the fact that we have been held back in the ability to advance this pipeline. keep in mind this is not the case in 1st impression.

it is important to relationship the right size to five important to really relate -- important to recognize the relationship we have with our friends to the north is important as well. one of the things that we will see come forward here on the floor through the opportunity for robust debate and amendment is a discussion about the environmental aspects of the keystone xl pipeline and the oil sands from which they stand. we will have an opportunity to discuss the issue export and the significance of our energy exports in terms of the benefits to our economy, trade perspective: balance of payment, the significance of that the opportunities we have in other areas related to energy energy efficiency i know my friend

and colleague for all file wishes to an amendment that he we will introduce today but this is a long time telling to not only have a chance to talk energy, but the opportunity for us to vote on energy related amendments. mr. president, i have much that i want to relay and convey in response to some of the comments that have been made by colleagues on this floor in the past couple of days. we will have an opportunity to speak directly to that. as was noted in the agreement we we will have this measure in front of us. we will put some amendment forward this afternoon. afternoon. we will not be voting on any amendments today nor will we be voting on any amendments on friday but we

we will have an opportunity for good, consider discussion on friday and going in to next week. on behalf of the majority leader i have been asked to announce the next roll call vote we will ought to five happen on january 20. what of that allows us is an opportunity beginning to encourage members to come forward with their amendments and based upon the agreement that we have outlined two on the republican side, 200 democratic side, get them out there and on the table, let's talk about the, have the opportunity to do more of same again on tuesday and then we can actually start moving through a process that i hope is good and robust and encouraging

encouraging not only for the american public the vast majority of americans are supportive of keystone xl pipeline. i think it we will be good for us in the senate to get back into a a habit of advancing amendments allowing the floor managers work together, beside a process lay initiatives out have the back and forth, take the floats what we do what we should do and to get back to what we no to

be regular order. i i want that to be a terminology that all members understand instead of just some have been around for more years than others. to to get back to a process feels pretty good today. i am pleased to begin with just that. with that mr. president senator portman was here on the floor as we began our unanimous consent request. i understand that he would like to his amendment. >> mr. pres. >> all right. excuse me, mr. pres., i need to i need to -- >> yes? >> thank you, mr. president. i had noted that sen. portman was here first would based upon the orderly would defer to sen. mark

eaton for spring up his amendment and then tend to senator portman for his. >> the senator from massachusetts. >> amendment number 13. >> the clerk clerk we will report their amendment. >> the senator from massachusetts purpose of amendments number 13 to amendment number two. at the end of section to add the following. >> i i asked consent that further reading of the amendment be suspended with. >> without objection. >> if i may be recognized. >> the senator is recognized. >> to speak briefly on the amendment. i think the chair of the energy community while we we will not be having a full debate at this time on this summer for we are in fact beginning with a critical

issue, one that relates to climate change, american energy independence, the impact that of legislation can have among consumers, drivers are country it deals with the mission of young men and women in our country go overseas and want to protect tankers of oil brought back to our country. the 1st question, question, is it going to stay in the united states of america? of the canadian tar sends oil, it is the dirtiest in the world. the pipeline, like a straw, is going to be built through the united states down support arthur, texas.

you do not have to be an mba from a business school to figure out what this looks like. it is something that basically says since the price of a barrel of oil in a global market is $17 higher they want to get it out of the country which is why it is going to end in port arthur texas. and exports on. so what the amendment says that i will be making out here on the floor of the senate and is the oil is drilled for in canada, put through a pipeline in the united states that oil cannot be exported to make stays in the united states. the promise of energy independence and our country is, in fact, what this agenda is all about.

otherwise the united states takes all the environmental risk, the planet takes the environmental risk, but the economic benefits flow to others. not feel called puerto feeling all puerto rico being tipped upside down to have money shaken out of the pockets on a daily basis. the razor made many claims. they have said have said that it was for north american energy security. it is really about exporting oil. they have said it is about reducing prices, but it is about getting the highest profits. they said it would not harm the environment but it in fact will worsen climate change and rick dangerous oil spills. they have been trying for six years to get this pipeline built, even when it is clear that we do not need it. and so this is really the keystone export pipeline.

we must keep that oil here. this is something that benefits the american people. putting it into a pipeline that we will be exported and only ensure the planet gets hotter becomes more dangerous for future generations. ladies and gentlemen, this is very important. the planet is running a fever. there are no emergency runs for planets. we have to engage preventative care.

mr. president, i look forward to more complete debate on this issue. at this at this time i yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. president. >> the senator from ohio. >> the clerk we will report the amendment. >> the senator from ohio proposes amendment number three to amendment number two, after section to insert the following. >> i ask unanimous consent the amendment may disposed of. >> without objection. >> i rise today to thank sen. senator murkowski for giving me this opportunity today. it would seem normal. this amendment is one that

relates to energy efficiency. i support the underlying bill but i also support the strategy of saying, let's produce more energy and use the energy that we have more efficiently. making businesses more competitive. it's a key part of all of this strategy that we discussed. its nuclear area goals or call. efficiency up to be part of it. it's an amendment that is the result of a lot of years of work, senator machine who was mentioned earlier, senator franken many others. our cosponsors are senator shaheen, a gardner mentioned this is legislation that is clearly bipartisan and should not be controversial.

it takes part of the broader legislation. it is already passed the house of representatives and brings up as the floor. also legislation that passed the committees in the senate and the house and in the floor of the house last year including the support of the president of the senate today. thank you. but for provisions, for provisions, and they are all pretty straightforward. donovan has a mandate, a cost. all of them are voluntary. the 1st is kind of an important one. it is establishing a voluntary market-driven approach to align the interests of commercial building owners and their tenants. they would like to have the ability to say this has the ability from the

housekeeping seal of approval. an energy star seal of approval. approval. it lets people know this is an energy-efficient building it is voluntary, not a mandate that we will help in terms of reducing consumption. the 2nd provision is one that is timely and a lot of us have worked on over the years. this would be a great example of that. it is unintended but something we need to do. for water heaters around the country, hundreds of electric cooperatives that use electric resistant water heaters.

it is an energy efficiency effort. we want to see more of it. it establishes a new standard that effectively undermines this program because it makes it impossible for companies to produce these kind of water heaters. it exempts allowing ms. co-op programs. it is important to them that it be handled and handled now. if not then these companies will stop producing water heaters and will not be able to continue these programs. the 3rd provision has to do with the federal government and that the federal government ought to practice what it preaches. ..

agencies have to coordinate with the offs of management and budget with the department of energy to develop an implementation strategy that includes best practices measurements and verifications for the maintenance purchase, and use of energy-efficient and energy-saving technologies. i.t. has been a source of great inefficiency in the government. this legislation says let's require these agencies to actually clean up their act to be more energy-efficient in the area of information technologies. again, it's a nonpartisan approach. it's one that's been supported by both sides of the aisle. finally, along the same lierntion the fourth provision requires the federally leased buildings without energy star labels obama and disclose their -- benchmark and without energy star label's benchmarking disclose their energy using data. if you are not a federal building you have to report this information but these are going to federal government lisa sohn affects all taxpayers should have an interest to make sure

these buildings also have the energy efficiency provisions to avoid wasting taxpayer money. i think these are important provisions. these are not controversial provisions. i think they begin with the idea that let's produce more energy but we truly have infrastructure to bring the energy to the consumer and let the consumers way where we are using more energy are also using it more efficiently. i hope i receive the bipartisan support on the floor we have seen in the past as a part of this underlying legislation. i would like to to talk about that for a moment mr. present about the keystone xl pipeline construction. we have been talking about this forever and frankly we have. this has been going on for almost seven years now i believe believe. think about that. this is just to get the approval of the pipeline to get the approval has taken seven years. it's time to stop talking about and to move forward on it.

the keystone xl pipeline has taken almost seven years invite comparison to build the hoover dam and less than five years. the entire empire state building was constructed in one ear and 45 days and the entire transcontinental railroad wasn't constructed by hand in six years so there is no reason we should move ahead with this. we have learned a thing or two about this pipeline during this period of time we have been debating it and everything we learned leads us to the conclusion that this makes sense to move forward. we know we can do it safely. we know we can do it in environmentally sound way. we know we can create thousands of good jobs during its construction and yet as we have been here today with the keystone xl pipeline debate rather than a source of jobs we are not moving the country forward. i think we have waited long enough. there has been debate on the floor and i have heard it over the last couple of days and last week will it create jobs? yeah yeah it will. the state department said it

will in the state department are the ones who tell us it's going to increase our economy by $3 billion increase the gdp of america and would also create more than 40,000 jobs during its construction both through the building of a pipeline and the pipeline project to american manufacturers. by the way it passes through my own state of ohio. ohio produces the kind of steel that goes into the construction of the pipeline. ohio produces the monitors to go on the pipeline but we also produce other things like the pumps and compressors so this will create jobs in my home state of ohio. in talking to these workers who are going to roll that steel for them this is important too. some of the critics of the pipeline have attempted to undermine these numbers by claiming the jobs related to the pipeline are not permanent. i don't know what to say about that except are any construction jobs permanent by that definition?

the administration talks all the time about the need for more infrastructure projects to create more jobs. this is an infrastructure project. by some measures it may be the biggest infrastructure project in america if we approve it. will create not just jobs with good jobs. this is the kind of work we want to have. this is why a lot of the labor unions are excited about this because they know it's going to be able to lower unemployment to get people back to work to have lost their jobs. others have expressed in my rental concerns. let's look at the facts. let's look at the science. every environmental study that is being conducted the pipeline is passed. in fact we know the pipeline is morris safe in the alternative. the alternative is transporting oil by truck, transporting the oil by train and as the sierra's report is that a lot of the soil doesn't come from canada. it comes from the balkans and america and north dakota.

so some of that oil is now being moved by truck and train. it's more efficient. less costly but it's also safer environmentally. let's debate this issue and i'm happy to do that but let's try to stick to the facts and the fact is this makes sense. for those who oppose it i would ask them what is the difference in the pipelines with constructed in this country? oliver states we have pipelines. we may build as we won't be the first pipeline to carry oil across international boundaries by the way. it won't be the second or the third. it will actually be the 20th pipeline to carry energy across the boundary. the fourth one that imports oil from canada. just to give you some idea of how the process has been in the three pipelines been approved in the 15 months on one another 24 months in 20 months.

the permitting process for keystone xl has dragged on for over 76 months. and counting. i've heard people on the floor say what's the rush? why are we rushing this? i don't think we are rushing. this makes sense to go through process and have the ability to move forward with these jobs in energy security they provide. by the way with this debate is over we need to think about hermetic system. to me this is an indictment of our entire permitting system in this country. we need to do something about it it. you can get a project to improve them by the way we are not just talking about on gas projects. i'm talking about other energy projects, solar projects. i'm talking about hydroprojects. i first got involved in this issue because there is a hydroproject on the ohio river of all places. it was being held up by federal regulation and we were trying to get it through and we said we can't believe how complicated is to get a permit. as soon as we get one permit

they require citizens to be done sequentially and we are losing investors. those investors are going not just across the river to another state that going for another country because the permitting system is so bad in this country. that is why this bipartisan legislation senator mccaskill from senator mccaskill from missouri is my co-sponsor. we are hoping to bring it to the floor soon because the american government shouldn't be standing in the way of good projects particularly energy projects that are so important. the american government shouldn't be standing in the way of good american jobs and that's exactly what's happening. we need to streamline the approval process and it can be done in a bipartisan way. so it comes down to this. we hear a lot about energy strategies in the senate. everyone seems to be for it. it's a position american people support overwhelmingly reject them to support many times to express my support for energy

policies that includes renewable coal and increased energy efficiency as we talked about earlier. we want to continue to see energy prices fall and continue to see a reliance on stable parts of the world decline. and all of the above energy program includes keystone pipeline. if you support the above -- if you don't support the pipeline explained to the american people why you took away 40,000 good-paying jobs and oppose the project that was more environmentally safe alternatives now and energy strategy that can keep securing north american energy independence which also affects our national security. worse not to be dependent is good for national security. let's keep the money here in north america. let's stop the delay. let's make the construction of

the pipeline a reality. we have spent time in her states over the last month and we have heard the american people want us to work together. they want us to cooperate where we can particularly on issues that relate to jobs and the economy and getting things moving in this country. i think this current legislation can be a model for how a state can operate and it's time we heard the message voters have in november. the final bill will be a process, and open process where people come to the floor and debate as i have today not just some underlying legislation but the amendments on energy efficiency. at the end of this process will likely contain some policies that i fully support them by the way the bill probably contains policies that don't support because that's what happens in the process. people will make their best argument and people will vote yea or nay depending on their states and constituents. that is what happened here on the senate floor and that's a

good thing for our country and a good thing for getting direct policy. when the amendment process is complete i believe we will have produced a bill that advances the goal of implementing a true all of the above energy policy while creating more jobs for the american people and protecting our bremen in better ways. that's what we all want and that is why this legislation is a win for all americans. madam president i yield back my time. >> ohio senator rob portman and speaking in favor of his proposed a memo to the keystone xl pipeline bill. senators reached an agreement to move forward on the bill with debate on the bill and amendments expected in addition on friday when they gavel back in at 9:30. the u.s. house continues debate

on homeland security spending with the current measure the short-term measure set to expire at the end of february. the 40 million proposed measure would lock the executive action allowing some undocumented immigrants to stay in the u.s. the measure announced by the president in december. we spoke to a capitol hill reporter for details on that and the overall homeland security spending measure. >> host: seung min kim is the congressional reporter with "politico" and she joins us to talk about the homeland security spending bill that's coming up in the house and also the amendments for immigration. the house is scheduled to debate immigration policy. how and why is this coming up now? >> guest: it's coming up together right now because the funding for the department of homeland security runs out on february 27. as you'll note its only mid-january and republicans are working ahead of time to make sure the homeland security agency is funded and that's

because they want to attach controversial legislative language that basically guts president barack obama's executive actions on immigration. democrats will support it. very unlikely is impossible to get 60 votes in the senate the right now you can look at it as the opening salvo to debate over funding the homeland security agency. >> host: verify the amendments and one of them being offered by house republicans including pennsylvania congressman who sent out a tweet about the amendment. he said the most important priorities in the funding obama executive amnesty will now get a house vote this week including daca. what will this amendment is specifically? >> guest: it's actually seeing how the debate moved to to the rights which congressman barletta was involved in. the conversation began last week when looking at this overriding executive action that the president announced last november. now the sections are sweeping and it could affect 5 million people that's what barletta and

other members of congress including congressman aderholt who wrote legislation want to do is to attack older executive actions including what they call the deferred action for the dreamers you came here who were brought here illegally. they got a similar reprieve from deportation along with work permits from a the 2012 program. republicans want to override that and they also want to override a series of memos dating back to 2011 that sets priorities on immigration enforcement. >> host: what about the other four amendments that are going to be offered? what are some of the details? >> guest: the ones offered by congresswoman marsha blackburn of tennessee approaches dr. directly saying no they can't take any new applications. they can't currently renew applications. right now the dreamers who are under the daca program are on a

two-year work permits so that in fact has made immigrants eligible for deportation again. you have a couple of other amendments one saying that immigrants accused of domestic violence or sex offenses are at a higher level for deportation. there are a couple of minutes from republicans saying it's kind of the sense of a congress symbolic revolution that you shouldn't prioritize people who are here illegally over people who are here illegally. >> host: what about funding for daca? is there anything in those amendments that would affect the funding and how that would come across? >> guest: basically when people say they are blocking implication they use the so-called power of the purse meaning congress which directs basically how the federal government controls the money that is what congress is trying to do for the implementation to

stop. a problem with that is a lot of these programs are what we call fee funded. daca as well as a similar program that the executive action the president announced in november are going to be run by the united states immigration services and that the agency under dhs. that agency almost entirely defunded. they won't get money from congress was a little bit tricky trying to figure out how exactly they will fund an agency that's not funded by congress. the republicans think they are essentially saying no money can be used to implement these actions. they think they have found a way to do it but at the same time president obama is short of veto it will become law. >> host: what about house democrat nancy pelosi holding a number of news conferences talking about their objections to the amendments that are any democrats going to be supporting these amendments? >> guest: it seems very unlikely.

there are a couple of house democrats but with republicans on immigration legislation is likely to be a couple of miles. a lot of very conservative house democrats who voted with republicans on a lot of these measures in the last congress are thinking about former congressman of georgia and congressman rahall of west virginia lost their re-election bids and are no longer in office. you can expect pretty much near unanimous if not completely unanimous house democratic opposition when we see these votes on wednesday. >> host: one more question you mentioned the details here. what is president obama's response on the underlying bill, the homeland security spending bill. he is opposed to it. why in could this lead to essentially government shut down or at least of the agency come every 27th? >> guest: it's interesting. actually the white house as well as the department of homeland security actually both expressed

support for the underlying bill. it's about $39.7 billion funding the homeland security department that runs through the rest of the fiscal year. it's a very diverse agency that oversees so many different operations regarding national security. they are fine with the underlying bill at the spending levels they have set for the various agencies. it's really those immigration amendments that they are taking issues with so it does get attached to the underlying bill it doesn't matter if they like the funding bill. it will get vetoed. >> host: seung min kim with "politico" thank you for your time and you can follow her at seung min kim and writing for "politico".com. thanks a lot. >> guest: thanks for having me. >> it's that time of year we bring in a state of the state addresses and the moderations coming up at 8:00 eastern. governor scott wacha republican governor of wisconsin.

earlier today house republican leaders held a briefing to talk about their upcoming agenda including homeland security stand -- spending in immigration policy. with begin with remarks from house speaker john boehner. this is 10 minutes.

>> good morning everyone. first congratulations to the ohio state buckeyes and the great win last night. you will noticed our new member from montana who happen to play at oregon and you see mr. walden both wearing the ohio state ties. as the day goes on because they lost the game and lost the challenge for mr. stuyvesant myself mr. teaberry. this week the house will act to fully fund the department of homeland security appropriation while blocking the president's unilateral action with regard to immigration. we will also pass to mark common sense jobs built. later today at the white house the leaders will be there. we are going to make it clear the president that we are listening to the american people that want us to work together on their priorities and their priorities have to do with the economy and jobs.

we hope you will start to listen too and reconsider his opposition to some of our jobs built. we also hope the president will update the authorization of use of military force with regard to our fight against isil. the events in paris last week remind us just how real that terrorism threat is and we offer the french our prayers and their our support and we promised them our vigilance and our resolve. >> as the speaker said we will be going down to the white house today. i'm hopeful to have a discussion with the president. i can work with anyone who wants to work. in that short amount of time the president offered by veto threats of bipartisan bills. it's a unique opportunity where we can find common ground to work together in america has not

not -- divided government we have achieved big items from reforming tax bills to welfare reform. newt gingrich and bill clinton were able to find common ground so this would be a unique opportunity where we could work together and after wednesday we go away on retreat. i believe we are starting it correctly with the house and senate republicans together uniting and an agenda that moves america forward to this new american congress. >> good morning. my prayers go out to the people of france and we stand unified with the french against terrorism. if you look at working on this tomorrow we will thing -- bring legislation to establish the rule apply make it clear that as the congress not the white house who writes immigration laws. our members have been very actively working together to get

a good bill that is going to be brought forward to pass the house and go to the senate. as it relates to chop an economy am happy to see the son of man for it on the keystone pipeline with 63 votes to me that. the supreme court decision supreme court decision in the press that really clears the way and removes one of the hurdles the president himself was placed in his veto threat to give us the opportunity to move that built the president's desk and have him sign it and create those 40,000 jobs. >> this is week two of america's new congress and we are excited to be moving forward with solutions that are going to improve people's lives across this country. they are solutions focused on building the economy from the bottom up not washington's economy is going to help middle-class families keep more of their paychecks and solutions they really make their lives better. it's an exciting week. this is the first time in 10 years the house and senate republicans have come together at a retreat.

i am encouraged that we are going to build the spend time together and chart a path forward and really provides us an opportunity just to have those conversations and to listen to one another make sure that we are listening to the american people as we move forward. as i think about the new congress so much of it is not left versus right or republican versus democrat. it's really about the past versus the future and what is the future we want every person in this country? that is what we are committed to doing focusing on improving peoples lives and giving them a better future summer matter where you come from no matter your background or your walk of life this is a place you can make those dreams come true. last week was just the beginning of legislation that focused on reducing energy costs and helping veterans and empowering small businesses and innovators and america's new congress is excited to be at work.

>> everywhere i go whether it's a town hall or just going to the grocery store i hear about how the federal government is making people's lives more difficult especially in the area of over regulation and unreasonable regulation. ms already 2015 the obama administration is making it worse. esrd issued over 300 new rules ended the federal registry. a recent study suggests every family has the burden of close to $15,000 every year due to regulation and the total cost to our economy exceeds $1.8 trillion due to regulations. there is obviously a time in a place for commonsense regulation but when hard-working americans are stagnant the last thing families need is for unreasonable rules and regulations to live by. we have an obligation to address this get to the root of our

real atari system and work to increase the transparency within the row making process to have strong reforms to solve the problems with overreaching ill-considered federal regulations and week two of this american congress the house has already focused on that. >> i am a mom of four children ages 18 to 22 and i'm used to being a referee and a problem solver. actually it's good practice for this job. as a new member of congress i'm proud that in our first week we passed bipartisan legislation that will hire more of her nation's hard-working veterans and restore the 40-hour workweek and improve the construction of the keystone pipeline that will create thousands of jobs. we are off to a strong start and i look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues across the aisle as is resolve problems and move america forward.

she. [inaudible] >> i will let them make that decision. we see a lot of candidates making announcements in the coming months i expect. it's a very open process. may the best person win. [inaudible] >> you know we have got a lot of new members on both sides of the aisle and our first goal is to help everybody understand what the budget process is. virtually i would say 75% of the congress don't know what reconciling spending or revenue

in the budget agreement so there's a lot that has to go on. at some point they will decide if we are going to have reconciliation that we do we will make some decisions much later on in my personal preference would remain just that, personal. [inaudible] >> there are boating to block the president's overreach his executive overreach which i believe is beyond his constitutional duty and frankly violates the constitution itself. this is not about the issue of immigration. what it is it's about the president acting lawlessly.

[inaudible] >> maybe next fall. this year's fiscal year process and we have next year's fiscal year process. now we have a new process. our goal is to fund the department of homeland security and their second goal is to stop the president's executive overreach. this is not the way our government was intended to work. the president said 22 times that he didn't have the authority to do what he eventually did. he knows the truth here and so do the american people. our job is to listen to the american people and hold the president accountable. thanks.

>> the speakers briefing from this morning meanwhile revealed this afternoon a grand jury has been indicted and ohio bartender for threatening to kill house speaker john boehner. michael robert hoyt allegedly threatened to kill cumbersome boehner who he believes is responsible for ebola according to reports by the "associated press" and the criminal complaint. mr. boehner is a member of the country club where he formerly worked and the "washington post" post." you can see "cnn." democrats held a briefing today with reporters and then build in the tax aimed at getting the democratic message out to voters before the 2015 presidential election. here's more from minority leader nancy pelosi and communications chair steve israel. this is half an hour. [inaudible conversations]

>> good afternoon. it was quite a day. we started early this morning talking about what's happening on the floor today and tomorrow. but now we are talking about the congress in general. the new congress in the new year and the opportunity for us to communicate our commitments to the american people and their commitment to the financial stability of america's working families, our interest in infrastructure and bigger paychecks. that's the distinction we will continue to make until we can persuade our republican colleagues that it's very important to the financial stability of america's working families to have the better of the structure and bigger paychecks. i'm very pleased today that we will be announcing the summation

of an important committee to chaired by steve israel and on the committee we have some of the best communicators and the congress representing the diversity, geographic genders, generational and in every possible way. all of them committed to helping america's working families and either making the distinction of finding common ground. our country is strong because we do have police and we fight hard for them but we understand we have an obligation to find a path forward to work together. where we can do that certainly we will find common ground and where we can't we will stand their ground that we would hope appealing to the american people what president abraham lincoln said public sentiment is everything. the point is the american people

right in on these decisions. we couldn't be better served in that regard them by the chairmanship of steve israel who has served under an issue of substance and policy as a leader whether it's about politics and understanding the american people he has been a leader and i'm very honored that he has agreed to take this responsibility. >> thank you very much leader pelosi and thank you to the democratic caucus for for taking a boat to organize are structurally democratic policy communication center and allow us to a point such a talented group of members. these are the messengers of the messengers. this is a group that understands fully how to frame an effective message and ineffective messages based on good old solutions for the middle-class working families so i think we are in good shape to have eric swalwell from california locking caster

from texas joyce beatty from ohio gem hunt from connecticut jan schakowsky from illinois hakeem jeffries from new york richard neal from massachusetts donald mark ross from new jersey john airman from kentucky mike doyle from pennsylvania joe kennedy from massachusetts and betty mcclellan for minnesota john deland from maryland and chellie pingree from maine. one of the things we know and have learned is you can't have an effective message when you let her down to the 22 points i'm going to be brief and clear and frontal on this. i spent more years and the democratic congressional campaign committee working with leader pelosi and everywhere we go we would hear this. democrats need a message. i know my colleagues have heard the same thing. you need a message and today we have built the infrastructure that's going to deliver that with clarity and consistency.

an effective message doesn't tell voters what to think. it builds on what they feel and we have a sense that there is an acute anxiety among voters right now. i have lived it. i grew up in levittown long island. in the 70s my mom took a job typing. i don't know plus the dormant for typewriters are but i watched "the brady bunch" and the click clacking of the typewriter because my mom had to earn extra income. he went to community college because my parents gave me the news monday that they couldn't afford to send me to a four-year university which is fine. i wouldn't be in congress without that community college. i graduated on student loans so i understand that anxiety. we get the sense this is really about family values because all around the family's dinner tables in america people are talking about three things. they're looking at their pay stubs saying you know i'm not

sure we can go on that vacation you hoped for. not sure we can can go out to dinners we help so they are looking at their paychecks and they i want to make paychecks progress. they're looking at their kids wondering if those kids are going to be part of the first generation of americans in history that will do worse than their parents and they are complaining about folks in washington republicans in washington who seemed to be about serving the special interest at all times. there's a sense if you're rich congress works for you or your poor congress works for you but if you're in the middle congress doesn't care about you. those are the dinnertime conversations that we have listened to and those are the people we are going to be messaging two. it's not going to be an easy task. when you look at the republicans in congress they look alike they talk alike, they walk alike and they think alike. we are diverse caucus. look at us. we represent a diversity of ideas which means sometimes our message is going to reflect that diversity and there

are-somethings we agree to and i'm going to wrap it up by telling you what we don't agree on in the democratic caucus and that this paychecks progress. jim cargill said good messaging in the 1990s as the economy stupid. in 2015 it's my paycheck, stupid is what so many people are thinking. secondly we democrats will make sure that the next generation that's even better than the current generation and third we are going to take on special interests. that is what we stand for and here's how we are going to message at the number one you cite yesterday when we had seven of our members go to the floor into one minute on the republican majority. we had to compromise the department of homeland security in order to achieve an ideological goal that they have on immigration. he's on the steps a day when

virtually every member of our caucus elko -- galvanize them all placed on this issue so number one rapid response number two coronation amplification of legislation. you cite yesterday when kristen holland proposes bill that would provide a tax cut to middle-class families. we will be embracing that. number three greater cooperation and coronation with the white house and the senate. we have met with the senate at the democratic policy communications center. you will see closer ordination and collaboration and we have been meeting with the white house. then you're going to see a new and aggressive focus on social media. jared polis is going to have been and he will have a few words in a minute. you will see a new focus on value. eric swalwell and joyce beatty will talk to them them you will see an aggressive focus on diverse voices like joaquin castro is going to talk to that.

in the past with democrats we have a 150 messengers but the problem is we have 150 messages. we will continue to have 150 messengers but there will be one message and that's the message that's going to resonate with the american people. with that let me turn it over to jared polis who leads along with john yarmuth on the issue of social media. jared. >> thank you. we have an unprecedented opportunity. more and more eyeballs are turning into new media facebook, twitter, reddit tumblr vine whatever is here today whatever will be here tomorrow. we know that our policies and our values resonate. the challenge we have as democrats is to have the appropriate way to package the message for new media so it has its own viroqua growth potential to go well beyond our own reach its individual members.

working with members in a democratic groups to optimize or messaging for the fastest growing demographic group which looks at new media increasingly and allow us to return message directly to people across the country. it's an important part of many conference of media strategy. growing part of any messaging strategy and win the democratic caucus plan to devote considerable attention to creating the right messages for each and every medium in the media. thank you. >> congressman polis thank you and the member who is going to spearhead the 30-somethings and are unique and distinguished messaging to millennials and others is heir to swalwell. >> thank you leader pelosi and steve israel for asking me to be a part of this. it is exciting to find new ways for the party of the future to talk to the future and that is what this effort will represent. millennials make up 80 million americans approximately a

quarter of the population and it turned out in the last election at half that number. there were real opportunities here to talk about generations and being a part of that generation being the first in my family to go to college and someone who carried six -- six figures in student loan debt i can identify what melendez care about. this first access to education and knowing you can afford to go to college if there's going to be good paying job in a good paycheck that will fail to pay off your student loans and help you start a family and want to do that via home. right now milenials are worried about whether they will pay to go to college and whether they can pay off their debt and buy their first home. this 30 something group which we are going to revive and have former members like debbie wasserman schultz and honorary alums helping us out along the way. we will deliver that message so i think a leader in steve israel for asking me to be a part. >> thanks eric.

reversing the diversity of our caucus and taking taken over the messaging on that will be joaquin castro from texas and joyce beatty from ohio. joaquin. >> thank you to leader pelosi and chairman israel for convening this group of the house dp cp. more and more the congress of the united states is reflective of the people of the united states and we know that of course is still a work in progress. this group i think is an opportunity to make sure the many diverse voices across the country are heard and they are reflected in the message that the democratic party puts out to the american people. we know that message is one of building an infrastructure of opportunity that will help people of all stripes all political backgrounds all ethnic backgrounds achieve their american dreams and i'm excited to help do that here with this group. thank you. >> and from ohio joyce beatty.

>> thank you so much. thank you leader pelosi, thank you congressman israel. today we stand here united because we have a message. the input of the members gathered here today and do them americans across this nation will contribute to passing a unified message that resonates in each and every household. today we will share and send a message that our democratic caucus is united in speaking with genuine voices, voices that will stand up for opportunity, wages, women and workers in america. our message is linked and latched and the strong democratic principles that we bring to the table that will reflect the genuineness the uniqueness of our nation through

race, ethnicity, culture and geographic needs from coast-to-coast and yes the heartland between. we hold american values and our hearts and we will fight for them every day in one message for the people, about the people and i'm proud to to not only join but unite with the 16 members because we have a message that we are sending to the people and to america. thank you. >> thank you very much joyce. do any of our colleagues want to speak? >> thank you steve, leader pelosi to thank you for being here. one of the things that has become very clear to me and others is over the past few years we have been the victims of a great conspiracy of

misinformation particularly on social media about the facts of certain issues. became clear during the affordable care act when there was a concerted effort by those who oppose any reform to misinform the american people about the law and that continues to this day. one of the things that we have begun to focus on during the last year and will concentrate on again is trying to inform the american people about the facts no spin, no sloganeering. this is going to be an informational campaign so that voters actually see us as more than people trying to get their votes by people who are actually trying to educate them about not only what government does but how it connects to their lives and their welfare. i think that's one of the things we have not done as well as we should have done and it has cost us and we want to emphasize that kind of activity over the next few years. >> before recognized don

norcross or new jersey let me pick out on something that john said. one of the most frustrating aspects has been looking at polling and knowing the vast majority of americans agree with their positions on virtually every issue. it's just that they don't always know we have those positions. so john is right we have to do a much better job of articulating those positions because when people hear and understand them they want to support us. don norcross from new jersey. >> thank you. diversity comes in many shapes and sizes. we see people standing behind us to reflect not only the democrats in the house but america. up until approximately 10 weeks ago my job each and every day was to find the men and women of new jersey jobs however that message wasn't resonating out there. what you see behind us today is speaking to those people to ensure that the trust of

congress particularly in the democratic caucus is there for them. we represent their values and more importantly we represent them and we want to make sure that their voices are heard. not just the mega-wealthy but everybody in america because that quite frankly is the american dream. thank you. >> john delaney from maryland. >> i want to thank our leader in steve israel for giving me an opportunity to be part of this terrific group of members. the world is changing very rapidly. technological innovation and global interconnection are putting tremendous pressure on the workforce in the united states of america and the average american. it's incredibly important that we as a congress have a conversation about how we take these forces and bend them to benefit more americans, not stop them but to bend them to benefit average working-class americans.

that is what democrats are committed to do. we are leading in this conversation. we want to help prepare future generation for world that's very different and we want to help hold the hand of the current generation and help them get through this very difficult. map of opportunity that period of time oil and pressure and change. that is what democrats are committed to doing. we are embracing these changes. we are embracing these facts and we want to have a conversation with the american people and layout for them the policies that will lead us to the future and get us through this. machover at the change. that is why communicating this to the american people is so important because we have in our opinion the solutions to help us have a better america is so more americans can participate in these marvelous changes happening around the world. it's a privilege to be with my colleagues and have an opportunity to be part of this conversation. >> i grew up in chicago in the 50s and 60s.

my mother was a public schoolteacher. my father sold furniture. we are definitely not rich but we were not worried and today so many american families come home for dinner to a big plate of worry. and they don't see government right now answering their worries. the democratic caucus stands with those people who are concerned about their paychecks becoming stagnant over so many years and feeling the system has been a bridge so the very rich keep getting richer and they are worried about clinging to middle-class status. this message group is going to convey to the american people that we are not just saying that we are on their side but we actually have proposals that are going to make a difference that are going to list infrastructure and bigger paychecks and meet their concerns and their needs.

>> of afternoon and let me first thank leader pelosi and congressman israel for giving me the opportunity to participate with such a magnificent group of folks that have the honor and serving the eighth congressional district one of the most diverse districts anywhere in the country. approximately 33% of the people that i represent were born outside of the united states of america but people come from all over the world to brooklyn and queens to pursue the american dream. fundamentally what house democrats are about is bringing to light the american dream for everyone. we want to move the country forward while clearly house republicans want to turn back the clock. americans are fundamental interested in three things that the democratic party and house of representatives are all about, a good job, a good education for their children and a good home. we have got the solutions to

make those aspirations a reality and i look forward to being part of this wonderful team that will communicate that to the american people. >> its downward pressure on wages. people that are hard-working need a job and people who are working need a pay raise. that is what has happened. incomes have been stagnant. it's complicated for a variety of reasons domestically and internationally but not to miss the point the middle classes found themselves treading water. that is the issue that we have spoken too throughout american history. inspiration and aspiration and that is where we need to focus our message. >> i thank chairman israel for bringing us together in this

way. i'm so proud of all the participants and for those who have not spoken today they will speak first the next time we come together. the message is a clear one. just the facts as mr. yarmuth said. we want the american people to understand what the differences and that contrast hopefully will lead to agreement once the public is aware of what the choices are. again we have diversity in every way including diversity of opinion as to how we shape our message and come to the solutions we are offering to the american people. this is really important. it's not about democrats and republicans. it's about the future of our country. as congressman beatty said it's about american values and that is what our task is to do, is to not just focus on issues that divide us.

again the choices come in the form of legislation as we had a debate on the floor today. we talked about that in the early morning press conference in the freezing cold. the fact is in december the republicans refuse to put forth a homeland security bill. our first responsibility is to protect and defend and they said not yet. we saw what happened in paris last week and you would think that would have put more pressure on them to put together a bill that we could slide into law immediately instead of saying being mischievous in terms of the immigration issue saying the president doesn't have the right. every president democrat or republican sense president eisenhower have exercised it so we have our differences. let's hope we can find our common ground. in order to do that we need the public to understand those differences. with that i am sure our group

would be pleased to take any questions you may have. i promise some of you that i walked by in the hall that we would do that. thank you other match for coming. as you all know the president has respectfully invited the house and senate democratic and republican leadership, a chunk of us, not everybody but a large number of us to the white house today to encourage this public agenda because the press was in the room at the time talking about the use of force, trade cybersecurity and issues like that. i can only speak to my own participation which is to say i'm grateful for the opportunity for us to come together in a

bipartisan bicameral way and i think the president for that. the leadership of this administration in bringing this group of five plus one the security councilmembers together to engage iran in this discussion and hopefully it will be fruitful. and of course an authorization of the use of force with the presence confirmation and strong and put on it. my focus though was better infrastructure and the issues i mentioned but also better infrastructure bigger paychecks. my point to the group was the financial stability of america's working families is the goal that we have to have to have that stability. to the extent that any of the issues we are talking about to the extent that increases the paychecks of america's workers those are the standards we

should hold to. it was a good meeting. in the end it was determined we probably had better communication and can find common ground. we can probably find common ground on cybersecurity and hopefully the authorization of military force and some other issues but right now today we have the big difference as to why this congress will not honor our responsibilities and the oath we take to the protect and defend with a homeland security bill and by bringing up immigration points and i made that point at the meeting as well. >> was anything brought up on they missed an opportunity by not going to france? >> that didn't come up in a meeting. >> do you think of something i should've happened this past week? >> i think would happen i think what happened to is spontaneity

it to it and presidential travel is not a spontaneous action. i do think that issue has been widely -- when congress a moment of silence and some of us had spoken on the floor to it. we have spoken at public events. i and my own district -- we are charlie. when 9/11 struck we are all americans. when charlie was struck we said we are charlie. i will close by saying i mentioned on the floor that we only have two paintings on the floor in the house chamber. one is of our patriarch the great president george washington our founder and the other is of the marquee day lafayette in recognition of the role that france played in the

battle for independence. the strong bond and it has been a country in the forefront of liberty a quality and we share those values and i think whether we were standing there physically our country as they are with the french people. thank you all very much. [inaudible conversations]

>> dr. anthony fauci or guest on q&a is on the frontlines battling against diseases. >> we have drugs right now that when given to people who are hiv-infected if someone comes in and i can show you the dichotomy in the early 80s if someone came into my clinic with aids the median survival would be six to eight months which means half of them would be dead in eight months. now if tomorrow when i go back to rounds on friday and someone comes into our clinic who is 20 plus years old who is relatively recently infected and i put them on a combination of three drugs cocktail of highly activated inter-biotherapy biotherapy i can have curly look them in the eye and say we can do mathematical modeling to say that if you take your medicine

regularly you can live an additional 55, 50 years. so to go from knowing that 50% of people are going to die in a month to knowing that if you take your medicines you could live essentially a normal lifespan just a few years less than a normal lifespan that's a huge advance. ..