mr. president, for the vast majority of nebraskans this is about certainty. nebraskans want a decision made. this has been going on for six years. it is time for the president to make a decision. i'm also working on some commonsense amendments to improve the arduous nepa approval process and to protect private property energy production. and i am also going to be offering amendments to set commonsense limitations for federal land designations. i'm excited about the opportunities we have to pursue policies where we can champion

the productive use of america's energy resources in this congress and where we will be able to capitalize on our country's energy prosperity. and i am excited and looking forward to an open amendment process where we can do our jobs where we can offer amendments where we can debate those amendments. and most importantly where we can vote, because that is the only way that we are held accountable to our constituents, the american people. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: mr. president i ask consent that senator newer if i be -- that senator murphy

be recognized for five minutes following my racks. the presiding officer: thank you. mr. franken: thank you. i also ask that a fellow in my office be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 114th office. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: i rise to talk about an amendment i coauthored with senator murphy and senator manchin. our amendment recognizes the importance of the iron and steel industries in our country and ensures that if the pipeline is built, it is built with american iron and steel so we can create more jobs and strengthen our economy. mr. president, the congress has had a long history of using buy america provisions in order to maximize the economic benefits of infrastructure projects. "buy america" provisions make

sure that more goods and manufactured items used in infrastructure and other projects are produced here at home. in fact, as recently as 2013 congress passed a provision in the wrrda act to require the use of iron, steel and other domestically produced goods in water infrastructure projects. and that's important because it means that we keep jobs and profits here at home instead of sending them abroad. unfortunately, mr. president there is no such requirement when it comes to construction of the keystone x.l. pipeline. in fact, according to trans-canada itself, half of the pipe for the u.s. portion of the pipeline would be sourced from foreign countries and even for the other half that would be put

together here in the united states much of the raw material like the seal that goes into the pipe, could be sourced from overseas. this is a problem that our amendment addresses. our amendment would require the use of domestic iron, steel and other manufactured goods in the construction of the keystone x.l. pipeline provided material is readily available and affordable. if adopted our amendment would create jobs for iron ore miners like the ones across the iron range in my state of minnesota. it would create more jobs for shippers who ship the ore across the great lakes or by rail or down the mississippi. and it would create more jobs for our steel workers who work in our steel mills across this country. at the same time, mr. president we specify in our amendment that these requirements would be implemented in a manner

consistent with our trade agreements. mr. president, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said we shouldn't put such restrictions on a private company. we have to remember this isn't your typical private company. the underlying bill to authorize the pipeline would throw out the established approval process for the construction of a cross-border pipeline by a foreign corporation. that means all of the important assessments regarding things like safety and the environment that our federal agencies might have made on this project are tossed by the wayside. so if congress is going to intervene on behalf of this foreign company then the least we can do is to make sure that the company building the pipeline uses american-made iron and steel. this is a very pragmatic

amendment, mr. president. we all have different views on the approval process for this pipeline. and while i believe that congress should not circumvent the approval process that we have in place, i think we can all agree that we want jobs here in america. so i invite my colleagues to stand up for our domestic iron and steel producers by supporting my amendment. thank you mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. must havemr. murphy: thank you i come to the floor to support the franken amendment c which i believe is the pending amendment on the floor today. mr. president, this is only my second session in the u.s. senate but i imagine that it means something to be senate bill 1. it probably means something even more to be senate bill 1 in the

new republican majority senate. why? because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have had eight years in the minority to think about what should be the first bill, the number-one priority of this new republican senate. eight years to think about every problem that american families are facing, to vet every possible solution to these problems and decide what is going to be the first bill that we're going to debate to make this country a better place. and so there were a lot of things that the new majority could have chosen. we could have been sitting here talking about a tax cut for the middle class. or we could have been talking about a proposal to make college more affordable. we have been talking about a proposal to grow small businesses all across the country. but we're not talking about those things. after eight years of stewing over the problems that america

faces, senate bill 1 is an oil pipeline. and as my colleagues who are in opposition to the underlying bill have said, this isn't just any oil pipeline. this is a pipeline to ship foreign oil right through the heartland of the united states senate most likely on its way to foreign customers. and it's not just any oil. it's the dirtiest oil that i can dream up. building this pipeline and increasing the development of tar sands in canada is the pollution equivalent, according to one study of putting four million new cars on north american roads. but not to worry say many of the proponents of the bill. admittedly many dispute some of those underlying studies. but the real point here is jobs. it is about creating jobs here in the united states. mr. president, this is a sight

familiar to every single american. it is a mcdonald's franchise. on average a mcdonald's franchise employs about 30 to 40 people. that's nothing to sneeze at. 30 to 40 people having a job is a big deal. but the united states senate doesn't normally worry itself with debating the establishment of a new mcdonald's franchise. it's a big deal to a local community but it's not something that necessarily moves the needle in terms of the national economy. and yet the keystone pipeline would create the same number of permanent full-time jobs as the average mcdonald's franchise. now, yes it creates construction jobs. i don't want to discount the fact that it puts a lot of people to work building the pipeline. but you know what also puts people to work? building a new high school, building a new rail line,

improving our crumbling infrastructure. that puts a lot of people to work as well. and in the end the added value to the economy of a new school or a new bridge or a new rail line dwarfs that of a pipeline that without the adoption of the markey amendment to be offered later is quite possible just taking oil from one company sending it through the united states to another country never mind all the environmental side effects of continuing to develop this oil. so i'm going to oppose the underlying bill but i'm here to speak in support of senator franken's amendment because if we are going to approve this pipeline, let's do everything that we can to make sure that even though we're only going to create 40 full-time jobs that we're creating as many part-time jobs as possible. that's why it just makes sense to require that the iron and steel that are going into this pipeline come from america. and we know that we need to pass

this amendment because keystone has already promised that half of the steel and half of the iron is going to come from overseas companies. 330,000 tons of pipeline is going to come from overseas countries. this process isn't new. we just passed a wrrda bill, bipartisan consensus. buy american provisions were in there, the american recovery act, buy american provisions were in there. we had laws on the book for a long time that apply buy american provisions for companies that are doing business in and around industries regulated or funded by the united states government. so this amendment will just make sure that at least in the short term we're going to put a few more americans to work, even if we're not going to do anything about the rather paltry economic numbers in the long run. supportive of the franken amendment. i encourage my colleagues to support it as well.

a senator: mr. president? mr. hoeven: mr. president i'll be brief. i just want to make several points. one is in regard to this amendment, to my knowledge they're talking about situations where a project is publicly funded funded with taxpayer dollars. in this case, i just want to point out by way of closing that this is roughly an $8 billion project, but it's privately financed. this isn't a publicly funded project. it's financed by private companies. and in fact will create hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, state local, federal government level to provide dollars back to the taxpayers with absolutely no tax increase. but at this point mr. president, i have three unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and the minority

leaders, and i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: with that -- with that mr. president, i would yield the floor and also note the absence of a quorum. i yield the floor at this point. the presiding officer: thank you. under the previous order the senate stands in recess until 2:15 p.m. >> the senate taking a break now for weekly party lunches. they will be back at 2:15 eastern time and the second expect vote on a number of amendments to the keystone xl pipeline bill including one from minnesota democrat al franken which requires not only us-made manufactured goods be used to

build a pipeline. the senate is not expected to finish the bill today. lawmakers will gavel out later in reconvene at 8:30 eastern to president obama's state of the union address. our preview of his speech begins at 8:00 eastern with a speech scheduled start at nine. you much vote on our companion network c-span. joined us later the second 40 that on the foreign policy priorities of the european union from the brookings institution. the eu high representative for foreign affairs will deliver remarks and take questions at 2:45 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> tonight, president obama delivers his state of the union address. live coverage begins at 8 p.m. eastern including the president's speech, the gop response delivered by newly elected iowa's senator john ernst, and your reaction to open phones live on c-span and c-span radio come on c-span2 watch the president's speech and

congressional reaction from statuary hall in the u.s. capital. the state of union address live on c-span, c-span2 c-span radio and c-span.org. >> c-span2 providing live coverage of u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy events. and did weekend of tv now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2 created by the cable tv industry have brought you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> the senate today continue work on the keystone xl oil pipeline bill. just one of the topics north dakota republican senator john hoeven discuss this weekend on newsmakers. this is about half an hour. >> newsmakers as please welcome senator john hoeven of north

dakota. is the sponsor of the keystone xl pipeline bill that the senate is considering come and we'll talk to about him about that and other issues letter to energy and policy. let me introduce our two guests. amy harder is the energy report and she's been following this debate for quite a while. niels lesniewski its cq roll call congressional reporter and we're pleased to both of you. >> senator conrad i've been debating this bill for six years now with the administration we doing the pipeline since 2008. more and more people are saying on both sides this debate is overblown, that the climate impact is not that big. do you agree with those people who think this debate is not, cannot be as big as it is? if you think that do you really think it should be the first bill the senate is pushing with republicans in control? >> first off not only have been aware of this project for think the stitches wouldn't work on a but you been out to north dakota

to see firsthand what's going on. you and many others know it will. it's a bigger issue, about building the energy infrastructure we need to truly be energy sector. i like to refer to as the north american energy security meaning the energy we produce in the united states together with canada we produce more energy than we consume. consumers are reaping the benefit right now. look at the gas price at the pump the gas is down more than 1 dollar a gallon at the pump. if we equate that to attacks that it would be more than $100 billion for american consumers to the point is this. we need to build energy infrastructure to have the kind of energy plan we are building for this country, for north america. that's what this is about. the others are trying to block it. it's not just this project. it's the bigger picture. >> on your point on oil prices do you think these low oil prices present an opportunity for congress to pass a whole variety of measures that might

hard to do in a higher gasoline invited such as perhaps higher gasoline and diesel taxes, exporting oil? there's been a growing number of academics is that it's a prime opportunity. >> i'm not a fan of higher taxes. either as governor or in my job in the senate to we need to do tax reform and you get revenue from economic growth not higher taxes but in regards to other types of legislation yes, we've got to build the kind of business climate in this country that empowers the investment to produce more energy more cost-effectively, the infrastructure to move it more efficiently more safely, and at the same time that develops and deploys the technologies of the gives us the better environmental stewardship. that's what we have to do is build that climate for investment, continue to grow our energy resource. i wanted to ask because you have the first sort of bite at the apple in terms of getting a bill on the floor this year, it's the first test of the new open amendment process, something

that is entirely unfamiliar to a lot of recently arriving senators from the leadership of senator reed it i'm curious how that's going in terms of the progress that has been made. and if you see, at what point you see majority leader mcconnell possibly pulling the plug in saying okay we've had enough of this people are not bringing their amendments to the fore, we have to move on? >> that you really good question to dovetail off what you said, why is this the first bill. it is not only for the reason i just described is what kind of build the right kind of energy plan for this country but also because we have this open amendment process which means returning to regular order in the senate. republicans, democrats can bring their amendments down, offer them, have debate, get a vote. so we will have a good debate on energy which we need to have. we work to get the job done for the american people but we are

hoping that this helps create more bipartisanship and open up the senate, break through the gridlock not only on this legislation but at the legislation as well. i expect we will be on this bill probably for several more weeks so that people have the opportunity to offer amendments and vote on them. >> and how was the amendment negotiating going? i know or i figure that you're involved in senator murkowski of alaska was the chairwoman of the committee is probably taking the lead on the effort but how is that going so far? >> i think it's going well and i want to give senator murkowski a a lot of credit for work to do this process going and being very open. she can work with both sides of the isles both will. were welcoming all amendments. we already have a number of amendments that are pending. we will vote on them next week starting on tuesday. and so i think that's going very well. some of those amendments of corser for people who are for the underlying bill and some opposed. >> some of the amendments that

event offered a pretty controversial on both within the democratic and republican party. senator ted cruz the republican from texas has offered an intimate to repeal the oil export been. there's some people on both industry and on capitol hill that would rather not see a vote on the. do you think the senate should vote on lifting the ban on oil export? >> we have talked about this before. it's a debate we need to have come a discussion we need to have. people need to understand why it is a benefit in terms of growing our industry in this country and long-term lower gas prices at the pump benefiting the consumer, more jobs, economic growth. we are still doing our homework. so whether this is the time when we would get enough people to support something like that, it may be a little soon but again that's a debate we need to have a discussion, part of having a bigger energy debate and that something we anticipate working on this you regardless whether it's on this bill or maybe on some other legislation that we will be working on a little

tighter. >> senator, bernie sanders independent from vermont, is pushing and dynamic process a sense of congress because climate change is real caused by humans, something needs to be done. it seems among the democratic party the way some sort of climate change member that would be likely be voted on the question of whether not senator mcconnell will allow a vote on the. you think there should be a vote on that? do you think it could be caught commercial for some members of the republican party? >> we will have an open in the process of he wants to offer a free sure he will get a vote on. i don't senator mcconnell or anyone else is trying to block them. i would expect senator sanders will offer anonymity we'll have a vote. like i said, we will have amendments from republicans and democrats. some amendments that from people who support legislation and some that are opposed. >> how would you vote on the senate resolution that climate change is real? >> senator sanders offered of that type of amendment in

committee but it's not what i would support. what i did in committee as i motion to table at every photo to table it. i made that very point, why don't you offered on the floor? we will have an open process. if it's the same he offered in committee i would vote against it. >> today friday, nasa and noaa scientists announced 2014 was the hottest, warmest climate year on record. i'm wondering how that statistic, that fact in the broader energy debate that you've been referencing? >> i think makes a point i tried emphasized and that is the way that you get more energy on a more affordable basic and more dependably and move it more safely is if you build the infrastructure and make the investments to develop and deploy the new technology that helpless produce the energy in a more environmentally friendly way. when you block the kind of investment to do that which is what the administration is doing with keystone you prevent us from developing the technology that help is great better and

departmental stewardship. for oilsands produce oil on a per barrel basis, the greenhouse emissions have been reduced by 20% since 1990 almost a third. right now both shell and exxon have multimillion dollar projects going on up there to do code generation and carbon capture and storage. if we can develop carbon capture and storage up there that can be applied to this country another places around the globe. that's how you develop the techno- geek. >> -- develop the technology. >> even broader in the infrastructure area we are hearing that the president is going to have come has made some announcements about infrastructure today the vice president i believe that the epa administrator and the secretary of agriculture as well as the mayor of the district of columbia have an event today on that. what do you think the federal is there anything you're looking here in terms of infrastructure that you think you might

actually hear from the president in the state of the union address next week? >> what i'd like to hear is that he will work with us to work with us. our number one focus is creating jobs and growing the economy making sure all americans have opportunity for a job. this very first bill is about jobs. you know the key is to start working with us instead of when we have legislation that is support on a bipartisan basis and that has overwhelming public support the first thing he does is issued a veto threat. work with us. so that's number one but in terms of infrastructure i think we've got to do how we build this you every think we can do a six-year and long-term highway bill. i think that's got to be a priority. that's something you should talk about. also working on trade. we should expand trade. that's good for all industry sectors whether it is at energy manufacture, you name name it. lecture about areas where we can come together. >> are you into camp on the highway bill peace, are you in

the camp with some of the republican collect everything democrats as well who are talking about using revenues that may be gleaned from a corporate tax overhaul or possibly using reconciliation to try and come up with the way forward on funding the highway bill that might not be a gas tax per se? >> if you mean repatriation i think that's an idea that has a lot of merit and actually a lot of support on both sides of the aisle. and so that's one of the reason i think we can get a long-term highway bill done they should because i think if you use repatriation have opportunity to have those revenues to do the highway bill without raising taxes. i talked to the ceo of microsoft. microsoft alone has something like $80 billion parked overseas that to bring it back would face a large tax burden, but if we did something odd repatriation that could bring it back creates revenue we could fit in infrastructure like and the highway bill. >> the reference a veto threat on a pipeline, you were for vote

short of an override. on those findable? >> we will see. of course that's why we're having the open dynamic process to try to auster our partisanship and maybe get something that can attract for more votes so it is that the 67 vote threshold. if we can't than our plan b would be to bring the bill back attached to other must pass legislation either broader energy legislation for example or perhaps an appropriation measure. and there is precedent for doing that to the first case to the i had written which we pass in 2012 the attached to the payroll tax holiday and past. >> of course that would make president obama make a decision correct? >> you are showing you truly have followed this. >> and he rejected it. >> and that's why we came back and wrote this bill which has congress approving the project. >> the president has been critical of the pipeline in the

last several months timing quite well with november's elections in fact. he's been saying that the jobs are temporary and, therefore some of not as good as perhaps some other broader infrastructure jobs. he's been saying it won't lower gasoline prices do. we can debate the facts all day. what a want to hear from you is what do you make of these negative comments? do you think the signal he is committed to reject the pipeline? if he does, what can congress do at that point? can you approve it through your bill i can? >> we'll address everyone of those criticisms and we use his own administration's information, his own environmental impact statement to rebut the reason for the excuses he is given for not approving the project and it's really hard to understand why he doesn't make make a decision to if he is opposed to it as some rationale to turn it down why are we so sitting here six years later and he hasn't done it quacks and then when you have poll after poll showing 65-70%

support from the american public for the project and we have a bipartisan majority in the house and the senate and every single state on the road from all six states have approved it, why does he still not make a decision? and then he says he is a process? how can you say get the process when you hold it up for no viable reason for more than six years? again, it just doesn't make sense but i think it goes back to the fundamental fact that the american people want this done and he is essentially holding it up on for special interest groups. >> what if he rejects the pipe and? >> i have always said i think we will win on the merits, and so i think if he rejected again, we ultimately would a privet congressionally. it goes back to the merits. ..

>> if that is true, your appropriation bill is -- that department is running under stopgap spending. i'm curious if you have any takeaway particularly from the recent retreat that republicans in both the house and the senate were just in hershey pennsylvania -- >> right. >> -- on what the prognosis is for keeping the department of homeland security funded past the end of february. >> well as you've seen from speaker boehner, leader mcconnell and others chairman mccall on the house side, you know, we're going to make sure that homeland security is

funded, but at the same time, do can everything we can to block the executive order issued by president obama. >> going back to the keystone debate, of course, the underlying bill is a mere two pages and 400 words long but in that debate the senate is debating so many other issues. so i want to ask you a couple things about epa's agenda, of course a very unambitious agenda. their plans to regulate methane from the oil and gas industry. what are some of the biggest things out of epa that you're looking at including the methane regulations and also the carbon regulations for power plants? and i would also like to specifically ask you about the renewable fuel standard, requiring increasingly large amounts of ethanol. of course, north dakota has lots of biodiesel, so can you comment on whether or not congress needs to step in and change this law that epa's a year behind in

getting? >> it has taken longer than they should, obviously. but, you know, in terms of some of the things they're doing, for example, you mentioned the 400-plus-page report on waters of the u.s. well, it's no surprise to anybody that they produced a big report to justify what they've already done. and i think that you'll see their support in congress to either defund waters of the u.s., i think i have the votes to do that right now, but we may actually have the votes to deauthorize it. that means 60-plus votes on the senate floor. and i think we've got a real shot. i'm on the ag committee, and i think we'll get democrats with us on that. we may actually deauthorize it. in terms of co 2k, that's a tougher country -- co2, obviously, that's a tougher one. obviously, the it would to defund through the appropriations subcommittee on the energy and water subcommittee, and i'm on both of those. that's going to be more difficult to do. on methane, here's what i'm

talking about with the state of the union. we're putting legislation out there that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions will reduce flaring. my north american atlantic energy security act would actually help us build more gathering systems so we could reduce the flaring on federal lands in north dakota dramatically. and so and even things like keystone provide infrastructure that the environmental impact shows will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. so, mr. president, work with us on this legislation, and we'll get those reductions rather than once again having the president or his agencies go unilaterally and issue regulations that will actually prevent us from producing more affordable energy and getting better environmental stewardship. >> if i can follow up on amy's point there just a little bit. >> sure. >> because you mentioned the interior epa bill. >> yep. >> and i know that this is probably way too early in the

process, hearings have not even begun on the appropriations will bills, but is that bill something that looks like the kind of thing that's veto bait this terms of the number of riders that you would like to attach to it, are there things that are probably not something that the president would want to sign? >> yeah, right. see, you both show the fact that you're up there all the time and have a good working knowledge of this. that's exactly the balance there, is that we will have riders in that bill. that's a bill that when senator reid was in charge of the senate would -- that bill would never come to committee. but we're going to take it to committee, we're going the take it through committee and we're going to bring it to the floor. so we'll have riders in there that address this regulatory burden problem. the key will be how many of these issues can we address and still move the bill across the floor and get 60 votes. then the president will have to make a decision. but again, i go back to i hope we see from him some movement

towards congress on all of these issues. >> we have six minutes left. >> great. just going back to the renewable fuel standard, that's a very contentious issue that really brings in a lot of strange bed fellows, livestock and some environmental groups the oil industry opposing it and the ethanol industry, and the obama administration continues to support this law. do you support the renewable fuel standard, and do you think it needs to be changed at all? >> i support market-based approaches but i don't think now is the time to eliminate the rfs because you've got to again, provide some surgeonty to the market -- certainty to the marketplace. and that's what i've always contended is you've got to have a regulatory environment out will that businesses can count on so they can make these investments, and we can build our energy future meaning all of the above truly. but, again, try not to pick winners and losers, just try to create that good environment, encourage the investment and then let's, like i say build

our energy base from all these different energy sources, and i think that's what benefits the consumer pote in terms of joyce -- both in terms of choice and competition. >> i saw senator fine sign and senator toomey have introduced an amendment to your keystone bill to eliminate the rms. >> again we're going to have an open process, they can do that. i don't think that fits with what we're doing as i just described, i think that's a discussion we can always have. but we're not saying to anybody that you can't bring your amendment forward, have the debate, and if you want with get a vote. >> and as you look through -- so far at least it looks like you've succeeded in maybe early, there may be weeks more to come, but so far you've succeeded in avoiding things that are not at all related. something like the rfs, maybe

something you don't necessarily want to see, the time may not be right, but at least it's on an environmental or energy question. >> right. >> are you having -- how have the conversations been going in term of getting colleagues to stay away from diving into the health care law or immigration or something that is not related at all to energy? >> because leader mcconnell has said that we're going to have this regular order open amendment process and that we are going to be bringing bills through committee and bricking them to the -- bringing them to the floor, i think people understand there are going to be other opportunities for these amendments which may fit better on another bill and maybe they've got a better chance to get votes and actually pass an amendment on another issue. so that's why so far the amendments seem to be more focused on energy. we'll see. there are maybe some others. but i think it's because people understand that we're going to have, we're going to return to regular order, and there'll be

other opportunities. >> and if you have amendments that succeed as part of this debate and it seems it's entirely plausible that it could, is the amendment that senator portman and senator shaheen have which is a recurring issue with energy efficiency which was actually in the previous question is inverse, you were attempting to attach the keystone pipeline measure at one point to the energy efficiency bill but if that amendment succeeds or other amendmentses succeed, do you have a message for the house on if this should just take up your bill and pass it with the amendments that may be attached to it so that it can go to obama right away? >> well, we'll conference with the house, obviously. but the underlying bill is the exact psalm bill. you know i gave them our bill. they passed it. you know i think that energy efficiency measure could actually help us maybe get some more votes. so i think be -- if that gets

put on there, that might attract some votes. >> we have two minutes, i'm going to close with this, kind of broader scale. would you talk a little bit following france and our attention on destabilization, i wonder what you could tell the public about falling energy prices. some friends some foes are oil-producing states and what you see as the prospects for global relations based on falling energy prices. >> with well -- well first, of course, these events remind us that we've got to combat terrorism and islamic extremism, and we've got to do it on a global basis and that we have to get our allies across the globe involved. and, of course anytime something happens like these tragedies, you know, our hearts and prayers go with out to the victims and their families. but it actually does tie into this discussion we're having on energy. we don't can want to be dependent -- we don't want to be

dependent on opec for our energy, and what we're doing to create more energy and to work with canada to create more energy, it's not just benefiting our consumers at the pump in a big, big way, it's also helping our allies. look at vladimir putin's aggressive behavior vis-a-vis the ukraine, western europe's dependent on energy from russia, but we have -- the russian ruble is down in its monetary value by half because of the drop in oil prices. so understand that when we build our energy future we not only help ourselves we help our allies, and we hurt our opponents that are petro-dependent like iran and like russia. >> that is it for our time. thank you for being with us this week. >> thank you. >> newsmakers is back with amy hart of "the wall street journal" and neil of roll call. we've just talked to senator

john hoeven about the keystone pipeline debate in the senate. much of our conversation really with the senator focused on something that's going to sound pretty arcane to the american public and that's open amendment process in the senate. why is it significant? >> well, in some ways that's the most significant long-term piece of the conversation that we just had for the senate itself. over the last several years when the majority leader was harry reid of nevada and the democrats were running the show, there was a persistent complaint from republicans and even some democrats that he was too controlling in restricting the ability of senators to offer amendments. and so what the new majority leader, mitch mcconnell, is attempting to do is to sort of let the floodgates open to some extent to allow senators to have more opportunities to cast

votes. but that comes with it the potential and, in fact, the likelihood that they're going to have tough political votes that they're going to have to take if, in fact this process goes forward. and the amendment that amy was talking about that senator sanders has filed and has floated regarding the reality of climate change or the view on the reality of climate change is that sort of amendment. and it remains to be seen how tolerant republican senators will ultimately be towards having to vote on these amendments particularly as the elections grow closer next year. >> and the senate doesn't have a germaneness rule which is what you both refer to, so the senators could use this or any other major piece of legislation to bring up other topics they're interested in. this is fairly uncharted territory for the senate. what are the expectations about how it's going to work? >> well, i think that's all very much in flux still. i wouldn't say and give with

mitch mcconnell credit for an open amendment process until we see this open amendment process. something that i think we need to keep in mind is that most, if not all of these amendments probably won't get enough votes to become attached to the bill. i think, you know, the threshold is 50 or 60. most of these will probably not get 60 votes and even if they do get 60 votes the underlying bill has a veto threat facing it from the the president. so all of this is really just to see where senators land on certain issues. it would be very interesting to see how -- what the senate thinks about the science of climate change, for example. i would say the amendment goes a bit further than that and therefore, will probably not be a good barometer to tell where senators are on that issue. for example, exporting oil something the country hasn't done since the 1970s to see where these people are on these issues, i think, will be telling to especially washington and other lobbyists trying to make change here.

and then just one last point, i think it's important to remember that they do want to have additional energy debates and i think one of the things we'll be seeing inside a republican caucus which i've seen already is a lot of internal talking and urging certain senators not to put forth certain amendments. and i think that is how you will see some of these controversial votes be avoided. >> the other thing that senator hoeven mentioned that i thought was rather interesting was the balancing act that they're going to do on the interior environment -- interior epa appropriation bill where if republicans were left to their drutherses, they would attach -- druthers, they would attach hundreds, maybe thousands of these policy riders that attempt to restrict the ability of the epa to implement all sorts of regulations or to take all sorts of action. but again, because of this 60-vote requirement to get over a filibuster in the senate it

sounded like senator hoeven thought the goal should be to actually create a bill that can actually get to the president's desk which means they're going to need a number of democratic votes, some of which they'll get because there are democrats who don't particularly like the way the epa is currently run. but there are others that i'm not so sure, and they might have to hold back. >> but in any case it sounds like legislation is going to take a lot longer. >> it is. i'm certainly going to be busy for this congress. and he said several weeks. and so i think a lot of that, some of that's logistical. we have the president's state of the union on tuesday and things like that. but, yeah, i think this is up charted territory for a -- uncharted territory for a lot of people. it's something we're not really used to. and staff of senator reid actually doubt senator mcdonnell can do this. >> that's it for our time, but it sounds like there'll be lots

more opportunity to talk about the pipeline since the senate will be considering it for quite a while. thank you both for your questions this week. >> thank you. >> and the senate in a break for weekly party lunches. they're expected back in about an hour 2:15 eastern time, and voting this amp on a number of amendments -- this afternoon on a number of amendments including one from minnesota democrat al franken which requires that only u.s.-made manufactured goods be used to build the pipeline. and the senate not expected to finish that bill today. lawmakers will gavel out and then reconvene at 8:30 eastern to proceed to the house chamber for president obama's state of the union address. our preview gets underway at eight with the speech disedged for nine and -- scheduled for nine. join us this afternoon for a discussion about transatlantic relations hosted by the brookings institution with the e.u.'s high representative for torn be affairs -- foreign affairs delivering remarkings and taking questions on c-span3.

and tonight at nine president obama's state of the union address. we'll have our preview program starting at eight. here's a look back at president obama's state of the union speeches from the past six years. ♪ ♪ >> mr. speaker the president of the united states! [cheers and applause] >> despite our hardships, our union is strong. we do not give up. we do not quit. it's because of our people that our future is hopeful, our journey goes forward, and the state of our union is strong. the state of our union is getting stronger. we've come too far to turn back now. we have cleared away the rubble of crisis and we can say with renewed confidence that the state of our union is stronger. it is you, our citizens, who

make the state of our union strong. [applause] ♪ ♪ >> and president obama delivering a new state of the union speech tonight before congress, and we'll follow that with live coverage of the republican response from iowa freshman senator joni ernst. next, a look at the heritage foundation with remarks by arizona republican matt salmon. he's followed by a panel discussion on conservative policies. this is about 40 minutes. [inaudible conversations]

>> all right. of. [inaudible] we can work on our afternoon sessions. i'm going to introduce matt salmon to y'all. matt salmon was elected to congress first in 1994 a pretty important year a year that the collective memory here at the heritage foundation looks very fondly on. during his service matt was named watchdog of the treasury for six consecutive years. he earned the taxpayers' hero award from citizens against government waste. and he's remained faithful to a self-imposed term limit pledge and retired his seat. and now he's back. and what's really great about having congressman salmon back is he's kind of able to take a lot of these young guys and teach 'em how to organize and

teach 'em how to be can conservatives in congress and teach 'em what they need to do to be an effective legislator. we need a lot of that perspective right now, because i think as conservatives we have an opportunity -- that's what we're talking about here -- an opportunity in 2015 to pass the kinds of pieces of legislation that will influence the conversation in 2016. and that will result in a mandate in 2017. so that's what we're working towards right now. so one of those pieces of legislation is one of the is what congressman salmon will talk about this morning, or this afternoon. this bill would insure that the american people would have the ability to communicate with one another electron create without the government -- electronically without listening in. our communication between loved ones families, friends colleagues that we share ideas, passions and in so doing form those associations that make up

civil society. a government big enough to put a chill on these kinds of communications by listening in is a very dangerous thing to the health of a nation. so what we're going to talk about this morning is how this legislation would relate to that. so please, join me in welcoming matt salmon to the podium. [applause] >> you know, the fourth amendment to the constitution is such a important issue that my republicandown parts -- counterparts, or my republican supporters, excuse me, in arizona just had their organizing meeting. maricopa is the largest county in arizona it's where phoenix is. and one of the bylaws that they adopted when we organized was actually that members who are elected to congress and state legislatures all across the country are to be reminded how important the fourth amendment

to the constitution is. and i'm one of these guys that is very very mistrusting of government, always have been. believing that government's always looking for an opportunity to further its interest at the exclusion or harm of the regular people. and then i'm thinking about how sometimes law enforcement, you know, there's a quote on my office wall that my wife stenciled for me. and if any of you ever come to my office over in re byrne, you'll see it -- rayburn, you'll see it. those who are willing to trade their freedom for security will probably lose both and deserve neither. that's on the wall in my office, and i look at it every day when i wake up. but as i was driving over here with my staff, i was thinking how our law enforcement people are just so gunning hoe to do their -- gung ho to do their job, and there's this young man standing up on a wall right by

the western side of the capitol mooning the world, and this girl was taking his picture. and the d.c. police -- the capitol police were about 20 feet away, and they weren't doing anything about it. i'm like wow, maybe i ought to change my speech. [laughter] that was quite an eyeful, i'll tell ya. and i was mixed emotions whether i should take a picture for posterity. not for posterior, but for posterity. [laughter] anyway, i did not take a picture, but i did see it, and it's a true story. anyway, last year i introduced a bill on the heels of the irs establishing a policy regarding the 180-day rule that if an e-mail had been out there for 180 days, that they didn't need a warrant, they could go in, and they could p inspect these kinds of e-mails without having to go through the judicial process. and so anyway, my bill takes the necessary steps to make sure that that 180-day rule is sent

off into to blif on-- oblivion. it eliminates the 180 day rule and requires a warrant to access any and all electronic communication held within an welcome tronic storage. it also requires a search warrant, requires a government to provide the customer with a copy of the warrant within ten days if they are a law enforcement agency and three days if it's another government agency such as our beloved friends at the irs. it requires disclosure of all customer records and it outlines the details of how and what information they have had to go in and secure so that we have some transparency, and we know exactly what they're using that information for and that it is for the purposes that they say they're using it for. and then finally, it requires the gao government accounting office to issue a report that includes an analysis and evaluation of all of the

customer communication and records that they have warranted, gotten through warrant so that we know that they're doing exactly what they say they're going to do. i know that with what happened recently with sony and the hacking of their system and some of the cyber warfare that's gone on by russia now north korea and others that a lot of the big government types try to use this as, you know an excuse to come in and usurp more and more and more authority. and while i do want security just as much as the next person, i want to make sure that we do it within the confines of our constitution, whether it's dealing with cispa, whether it's dealing with the patriot act -- which, by the way i was one of the people that worked with justin amash and others to try to get the patriot act redrafted. interestingly enough, last year we were able to get a rewrite of

the patriot act that, i think, satisfied our needs and it came out of judiciary unanimously. and then what happened was the leadership changed it around to something none of us could vote for. after it already came out of the judiciary committee unanimously and guys like, you know, ron desantos myself justin amash supported it, then they changed it to be something that we couldn't support. and so, you know, with all the calamity and the terrible things that happen across our world, there's a rush to go in and, i think, do things the wrong way. and i think that we can have our cake and eat it too. that's what our founding fathers envisioned. they envisioned a free society. and after all, if we give away our freedom to protect our freedom can, what's it worth? i mean, we have got to, i think fight the fight and do everything we can with vigilance. we all want for the bad guys to be apprehended but by the same token, we're not willing to trade away our freedom for a security or even a false

security. so i really appreciate the opportunity to be here today. i was hoping to be part of the panel, but i don't know if they did this on purpose, me being the conspiracy theorist i am, but we have votes in just a couple minutes so i have to get back to the hill. and hopefully, that young man has his hasn'ts up by the time -- has his pants up by the time i go back. [laughter] anyway, thank you very much. it's a thrill to be here. [applause] >> thank you congressman. and, yeah, you all will notice that our schedule this afternoon may be a little bit moved around because there are lots of votes this afternoon that are suddenly popping up. i would right now what we'd do is i'd like to invite walter lohman the director of our studies center, up here, and we're going to broaden the panel beyond just this topic. walter, you can lead the panel. thanks.

>> all right. good afternoon. i hope you'll forgive me for being as efficient as possible with this panel. we don't have a lot of time, so i'm not going to waste much time with sort of overarching thoughts and long introductions of our panelists. what we wanted to do was just get right to several issues that are major priorities of the heritage foundation one in the trade field. claude barfield will speak about tpa and tpp and any other trade issue that he wants to hit on. as you know, heritage has long been a strong supporter of free trade and free trade agreements. rupert claim -- chambers is here, he's going to talk about taiwan, another major interest of heritage over 30 years since the founding of our asian studies center.

rupert is president of the u.s./taiwan business council. claude is our resident scholar at aei, a frequent partner and collaborator. and then david entera who's also with heritage. he's a research associate for homeland security and cybersecurity issues. he's going to talk, i think principally about visa waiver but is also available to answer any questions you might have about our positions on the issues that representative salmon just discussed. so with that, let me turn it over to claude to get can us started. each panelist will speak about 5-7 minutes, and then we'll get to -- >> i have my watch right here. i'll stop in mid sentence. [laughter] thank you, walter, and thank you, heritage more inviting me back to aei -- to the heritage foundation. i've got seven minutes and i want to talk about the trade agenda this year. let me make two up-front points so you'll remember before i get into a little bit of the weeds.

with seven minutes not too many. i think one of the things to note is that 2015 could very well be a banner year for trade in terms of trade agreements and trade policy in the united states. there's the trans-pacific partnership which is coming to agreement with 11 other nations in the pacific which is close to the end and we'll know one way or the other in the next months, couple of months. there's an agreement which is much less farther along with europe, and then in the wto the world trade organization, there are two sectoral agreements one on information technology and one on services which have a fair chance of coming to fruition, i think, sometime during 2015. we will forget that even though the doha round the big round has crashed, the wto is quietly moving along in other areas. so that there's a lot on the plate. i should say that i don't think with the u.s.-european there's

any chance at all that it'll be finished this year. and we can talk more about that. but i think it will move along. so it's a large agenda the largest agenda since the early 1990s when we had the nafta agreement then followed by a big agreement in the world that created the world trade organization with the uruguay round. so that really was, is on the plate. the second thing that i should note dealing with the politics of trade, and this causes me heartburn a little bit and certainly people in this audience, it is not a bad thing, actually, in terms of trade policy whatever we think about president obama and the democratic administration, it is not a bad thing to have a democratic president who is in favor of trade agreements, whatever his checkered background on trade policy but now is i think, fully committed to tpp and to the u.s./european and to wto rounds. that, on the one hand, with a republican congress on the other. the difference being that if you

look back to the bush years the democrats were so adamantly opposed to anything that the president did and there was something about bush himself maybe and the other questions of foreign policy that would have been true with any, i think, republican president. there is a chance, i think that obama will pull in a small segment of his party because he is the president, and he is in favor of this. we'll come back to in this in questions. now, the thing i forgot to mention that has got to trigger all this is the -- and sorry that the congressman had to leave, because it would have been interesting to see what he had to say about this -- is that the congress now has to give the president so-called trade promotion authority to kick things off. and is i'm not going to go into detail. it's a grant of authority going back beginning with the nixon administration which came about because our trading partners said look we need some assurance that if we put our bottom line on the trade agreement, that you will -- the congress will agree to it. whatever the president says,

congress will agree or it or at least to something timely n. the '60s congress had not agreed to several things that the kennedy administration had put forward, and in other cases they had just dawdled and done nothing. so what the congress did -- and this continued to our own time -- is pass a i'll come back to what this actually is, it's not a regular piece of legislation, passed new rules that the congress told the president that we will, we will give you instructions, and we want you to follow them. if you do follow them, we will promise you a vote within 90 days of the time this comes to us up or down without amendment. and that has been true since then. i know just in passing that some conservatives, and i was telling walter i think there's sometive groups meeting today -- some conservative groups meeting today about the thought of the president. for those of you who are worried who consider yourselves quite conservative, this has come up

before. and i remember in 2002 -- ancient as i am -- going to robert bork and then i think bork talked to ed meese who was here at heritage to write pieces about why this, as far as they were concerned was not too great a grant of authority to the president. so i'll just leave it at that. the only other thing i want to talk about for a few minutes a couple of minutes is the tpp, the trans-pacific partnership. as i said, in the final stages one way or the other of negotiations. serious negotiation began in 2010, and since then we've had 23 24 -- i've lost count, actually -- of actual negotiating rounds, if you will. there are 11 nations besides the united states. the tpp has been called the first 21st century agreement and what people mean by that is that for the first time much of the trade negotiation is not the things that happen on the border tariffs or taxes, things of that nature but actually

barriers to trade and investment that are inside a nation's border. the kinds of things that stop, that stop a lawyer in the united states from working in japan or construction projectses because of different rules and regulations. and the aim is not to totally mesh them together, but to have some sort of mutual recognition and actually lower barriers and discrimination. so it is covering such things as the rules for state-owned enterprises, public monopolies, health and safety regulations intellectual property, services regulation. i mentioned i think, construction lawyers, telecommunications banking finance, that kind of thing. so that is the key to it. but there's another side, and this gets me to the other point i want to make about how the negotiations are ran out. you do have a lot of 20th century issues which the united states has been pushing with australia and japan and others, but there are also some very important what we would call

20th century issues that the united states is going to have to step up to the mat on if this comes to conclusion. such things aztecs tills and -- as textiles and clothing and shoes and sugar old issues. and what a number of the smaller countries in asia the vietnams the malaysias peru and chile are saying, okay we may be willing in the end to go along with what you're pushing us internally, but we need you to compromise on the issues that have been around that you have refused to compromise before. and so it's that, without getting into more detail now, it's that that juxtaposition really which is really the core of the negotiations. i think that there is a good chance that the congress will pass tpa. they're working now on a bipartisan bill, actually, that was put together last year when senator baucus was chairman of the finance committee before he went to china. i think there is, there are discussion cans going on --

discussions going on that seem to be fruitful between the senate republicans and house -- senate republicans and senator wyden who would have been the incoming chairman had the democrats won. from what we see wyden old is interested in transparency and enforcement issues and may be able to make compromises. one final thing in terms of again, the politics here, democrats verse russ republicans, and -- versus republicans, and what the republicans would hope to get is they need democratic votes to get maybe a fifth or a third of the senate democrats and maybe more if you look at history. and then to get maybe 20% of house democrats. that is -- house democrats are much more if not protectionists at least skeptical of trade agreements than senate democrats. so there's the hope that you will get that. i think the one thing that the republicans are going to have to swallow -- and hatch is key here because he detests this legislation -- is some kind of

trade adjustment assistance. that is assistance to workers who allegedly have been put out of work by trade agreements. this is a terrible program. it doesn't really help anybody. and hatch has known this. but i think he has signaled that well, in order to get the tpp, i may very well swallow that. one final point. the tpp is more than a trade agreement, and this could be true with any trade agreement. it's true with europe too is the so-called mega regional agreements. the tpp has become the symbol of the u.s. pivot to asia. as scholars here and at aei have pointed out the military, the security part of this is woefully lacking. and we cannot live up to the commitments as what is on the table right now. so the tpp has more than even when it was started become the symbol of u.s. leadership in asia. and if it goes down, it will be

repercussions far beyond economics, but into our military, security and diplomatic relations with asia. the china are standing in the wings with an alternative regional agreement which is an intra-asian agreement that does not include the united states. okay. >> great, thank you. let me make just one very quick point on the taa trade adjustment assistance issue, i mean, our position here at heritage we're waiting to see what's in the tpa before we say very much about it. and similar goes for tpp. we're very supportive of the concept and have said so multiple times. we actually want to see what's in it before we pass judgment on it. but trade adjustment assistance if it is in the tpa, it's actually in the bill i think it will be a huge problem for us and for many others -- >> separate bill. >> i mean that's where i think most people assume it's going to come out. it's not where they're starting, it's sort of a game they're

playing. they want it in from the beginning. but hopefully folks on the hill will hear that message as they have before and not force proponents advocates for free trade to vote against such a terrible -- vote for such a terrible agreement. rupert? >> great, thank you. i've started my stopwatch so as not to get on walter's bad side. my name is rupert chambers as you can hear i'm from south carolina -- [laughter] that's right. scottish by birth american by choice. i'm the privilege of talking about taiwan policy, but i'm going to start with chinese policy. not for a moment that i believe taiwan is a subset of china policy. in fact, we get into significant issues, quite frankly in our relations with taiwan and more broadly our interests in the asia-pacific region when we make taiwan policy a subset of china

policy. but i'd like to make a couple of observations about the present state of china policy at the moment. a great deal of high-level engagement takes place with the chinese, and we have very little to to show for it. when we do have headlines and you scratch the surface a wee bit, typically you find they lack substance. problems fester with little end in sight and i happen to believe that our relationship with the chinese is adrift. there's no response to chinese increasing assertiveness in the region. china is thus able to sort of salami slice their way through changing facts on the ground whether they be disputes over islands, eezs or other areas of disagreement. on regional and global security issues where we notionally would look for the chinese to cooperate with us where we would have shared interest, we find the chinese ip visible. in fact -- invisible.

in fact, we often find them supporting those entities like the dprk the russians this ukraine, iran isis. we find the chinese to put it charitably unhelpful. and we have very little response to the increasing clampdown on human freedoms this china. that's somewhat out of my running lane, but i think it's worth observing this notion. so basically as we look at china policy right now it's adrift. i personally am pushed to point to that personal presence within the administration who are in charge at the moment of china policy. one of the united states' most important relationships. i'm not saying, i'm not going to add to get right i think that's not the right expectation to create. but nevertheless, there's little creativity. and on the other side of it, i worry greatly about insufficient efforts with friends and allies

to leverage opportunities on back of chinese intimidation and chinese policy. and that leads me in to tie won for -- taiwan for a second. i just want to talk about taiwan arms sales that's the most contentious, high-level issue, the stuff you might see on the front page of the journal or the post, and then a wee bet i'm going -- wee bit, i'm going to pull on the thread that claude pulled up tpp. taiwan arms sales is an essential component of america's security advantage in the region and was embedded in the taiwan relations act which was passed in 1979. and calls upon the united states to assist and support taiwan in its legitimate defense needs. and i think mostly we've done a pretty good job, but things have got dodgy, quite frankly, as chinese power and assertiveness has cast a longer shadow can. and as i've noted up front we've managed to paint ourselves in a corner from time to time where we seem to bend backwards

to acquiesce to chinese positions on the issues as opposed to representing the issues of our country unabashedly. we are looking at a period in which taiwan arms sales have been on hold, i like the word frozen. i know it's more contentious but nevertheless. while the administration is presently working on a package for release at the end of this year, it will include updated secondhand equipment, replacement munitions is the term that is used for musicians -- munitions that taiwan already has, significant items like taiwan's requirement for new submarines as well as taiwan's requirement for replacement fighters for its aging f-5s and its french mirages remain unaddressed. we have, thankfully, got some important support in congress for these programs, and i like to refer to taiwan arms sales as

bare knuckle boxing. not because i've done any literally, but in respect to participating in it here in d.c. it really is a blood sport. and i would point to 2011 and senator cornyn's pressure on the obama administration at that juncture and his negotiation with then-secretary of state mrs. clinton on what ultimately turned out to be the september 2011 f-16 upgrade program. that to me frankly is the way the more contentious issues are addressed with taiwan arms sales at this juncture. but china's military to military mission continues unabashed, and we continue to argue that congress plays an essential role, indeed can, a role embedded in u.s. law to promote the security relationship between the u.s. and taiwan. and most importantly, politically and materially to advocate on behalf of arms sales

to taiwan. just one minute on tpp. finish as claude -- i absolutely associate myself with claude's comments, as i always try and do. claude makes the point -- >> [inaudible] >> sorry? >> dangerous. >> dangerous, i know. he makes the point about the centrality of the trans-pacific partnership for the u.s. in asia. for asian countries, we deal with asian countries on a daily basis, trade is at the center of their interests. they think about trade when they think about engaging the united states. and that is at the center more broadly of security. and that can be broadened out and include defense issues, capacity-building, other things. trade is at the core. the trans-pacific partnership is at the core of expectation with our regional allies at this time. and as claude absolutely nailed it, if we don't pass it, it's going to have a significant strategic impact beyond any

economic any economic address on the interests of our country in the region. we have to get this over the line. when it comes to the more parochial issue, we have to get taiwan as a part of that. a taiwan outside of the trans-pacific partnership is economically marginalized. those in it, if it's in it it has an opportunity to participate on a level playing field, grow its economy, engage its trading partners, as i said on a level playing field. outside it's a strategic threat to taiwan's economic well being. a taiwan increasingly in china's economic orbit and increasingly marginalized from ours is destabilizing. and that's a threat to peace and security in the taiwan strait and in asia. so i'll leave it there. thank you. >> great, thank you, rupert. we had rupert here to talk about taiwan but i should also point out getting korea eventually into the tpp is another priority. at least of ours. outside of your world in some respects. but -- david? >> thanks walter.

so to put a little twist on the trade theme we've got going on today, i'll be discussing the visa waiver program what the benefits and some of the concerns for the plan are and then i'll conclude with the next steps forward. so, first, what is the visa waiver program? the vwp allows people outside the country to visit for 90 days for business or pleasure. a country must meet several criteria. first, a country has to have a non-immigrant vis a vis refusal rate of no more than 3 -- vis a vis refusal rate of no more than 3 %. thirdly, the country must also present no discernible security threat to u.s. law enforcement or national security. currently, 38 countries are participating in vwp with chile being the most recent addition to the program.

these nations have also agreed to various stipulations and obligations to join the visa waiver program. they must share intelligence with the u.s. on known or expected terrorists exchange biographic biometric and criminal data with the united states, share information on lost and stolen passports, increase their own airport security requirements and provide u.s. citizens with the reciprocal ability to travel to that country without a visa. these features all greatly enhance security by providing u.s. law enforcement and security agencies with more information and intelligence with which to look for potential threats. the visa waiver program also helps the state department focus its limited consular and visa resources on countries and individuals about which less is known and how could be greater security threats to the united states. furthermore, the visa wafer program is -- waiver program is not without security and screening procedures of its own. every traveler from a vwp

country must be prescreened through the electronic system to check various databases for information about the person's eligibility to travel to the united states and whether he or she is a known security risk. at any point during the ticketing or travel process u.s. officials can prevent an individual from entering the u.s. if they are deemed to be ineligible to enter the united states. so in terms of benefits, more information sharing, better airport security abroad and being able to better focus our finite consular resources. these all improve u.s. security. second vwp has huge economic benefits. vwp makes trade and tourism easier. visitors to the united states increased by 36% between 2000 and 2013. 40% of all visitors during that time came through the visa waiver program, so it's a huge program for trade and travel. lastly, the visa waiver program

is also important toward foreign policy and public diplomacy. allowing individuals to visit the united states so that they can improve their understanding of our country and our culture. this can only benefit the united states. it is also a huge boon in our public relations with other foreign and friendly governments. there are concerns with vwp, however, and specifically these concerns center around european passport or holders joining isis, the so-called foreign fighter program, and the fear that they will somehow abuse the program and come to the united states to attack us here. making the issue worse, there was a 2012 gao study that found many countries were not sharing information as they were required to do. at the time her taj wrote that it was -- her taj wrote that it was time to -- heritage wrote that it was time to hold these countries responsible. the congressional research service issued a report in the beginning of 2014 that found

nearly all countries were sharing nearly all information as they were required to do. more recent conversations have indicated that all nations are now sharing information, there are simply some nations are working on automating certain aspects of that sharing. so vwp's promoting security through these information-sharing arrangements by canceling suspending or crippling this program, the u.s. would likely have less information available to it with which to make visa decisions is and watch out for potential threats. so what should the u.s. do going forward? first of all, the u.s. should always be looking for ways to enhance information-sharing arrangements and improve the type of information we get from applications and expand our ability to screen individuals and connect the intelligence dots. but these types of improvements don't have -- can be made within the existing vwp framework. it doesn't require that we cripple or cancel a program. indeed dhs just made some of these changes a couple months ago when it expanded the tube of information that it now requests

on esta forms to better cross-check data against known information. second, the united states should also be looking to judiciously expand the visa waiver program. the more friends and allies that are contributing information on potential terrorist threats, the better able we are to prevent these individuals from ever entering the united states. the visa waiver program would also allow us to better focus our finite consular resources. the way to make this expansion happen would be to replace the visa refusal rate with the visa overstay rate or some combination, the amount of people from a given country that overstay their visa. it's a more accurate metric and we should be using that instead. it's worth mentioning that the visa waiver program and its reform and expansion have often gotten caught up in the contentious immigration debate. there's no reason to hold the visa waiver program hostage to more contentious elements of immigration reform.

congress should consider vwp on its own merits, not on the merits of amnesty. with its many benefits the vis a vis waiver program is more valid than ever, and the u.s. should be using all the intelligence tools at its disposal to find and stop these terrorists. visa waiver program is one of those tools and to stop it or cripple it now would make the u.s. less secure less prosperous and less engaged with friends and allies. instead, we should be looking to improve and expand the program. thank you all. >> great, thank you. [applause] thanks. we actually ended with four minutes for questions -- [laughter] so any questions? one thing i wanted to ask rupert maybe just to put a fine or point on his points about taiwan arms sales specifically is what can we do to press the administration on making the sale? what can congress do?

because it's such an executive prerogative to whether or not to do these things, and if they're not so inclined, it's hard to know where to go. what can we do to force this thing? >> yeah, i -- thank you for the question walter. what's worked in the past, again childish but blunt force trauma holding the consideration of congressional holds and key defense and state department officials who have oversight to taiwan policy. we have opportunities within hearings, you know ashcroft's hearing for sec-def as i understand it, will be early next month. there's an opportunity for the committee to question him in detail on the present state of the obama administration's arms sales policy towards taiwan. the consideration of key hearings is another area in which congress can play an important role. and just finally also i happen

to believe one of the more worrying trends at the moment is the u.s./china mil-to-mil relationship. and, again it sort of fits with my point about process over result right? we're vested in an open-ended process, but to what end? we see that time and time again. i think iran's probably another camp of that or is another example of that. but the exchange that the administration seems to have made is we're not going to do arms sales because we don't want the chinese to stop doing these mil-to-mil relations with us so is we're abdicating to support an ally and friend in the region with material defense systems and weapons that it needs to, ins essence pitch up these headlines and this open-ended process. and so anyway, my point here is there's a possibility that congress can link ongoing funding in legislation such as the ndaa for u.s./china mil-to-mil programs to a

commitment that asserts arms sales steps have been taken and then congress can be specific. f-16s for taiwan, submarines for taiwan, you know x program, y program, inclusion in -- [inaudible] these sorts of things. >> okay. i'm going to use every second that we have here, so i wanted to ask claude something. i think the only, the only place where there's any sort of daylight between us on trade and tpp and tpa generally is i think we care about all the same issues in the negotiations, etc. i think you're maybe slightly more confident that those issues are on the right track to getting resolved in the right way. because none of us have much access as to what's going on in the negotiations. i'm hopeful but remain skeptical and wait until we actually see the agreement. what do you think the two or three big issues are in either the tpa or the tpp that will need to be resolved in a

satisfactory way in order to move forward on the agreement? >> well, with tpa if -- and i think this is not going to happen. both the administration and the republicans have been very response i about one of the key things is, and unfortunately, some of the free trade community have gotten involved in this -- is whether or not you put in tpa very draconian measures about currency. you'd have to intervene. that will blow the negotiations up. coming at this late date. and secondly not going to -- [inaudible] economists are all over the map on what you would use as criteria. so that's -- i think one of things on tpa and tpp that is talked about, i don't think it's going to be an issue or if it were an issue, then again it would blow up, and that is the provisions on labor and environment. youwhat you can do on labor and the environment. everything i have heard is we may not be spirally happy with

the -- entirely happy with the agreement made in 2007, the so-called may 10th agreement but that's the language. now, republicans have accepted that language. at the time i opposed it, but they've accepted it but i my if they start to go beyond it, that would really screw things up. on the tpp when people ask me that question, it's really hard to answer. i don't think there's one issue or set of issues, health and safety or intellectual property which is a really draws a lot of lightning, i think the key is the package. the package for the united states, the package for japan, the package for vietnam. that you've got to be able -- every country has got to have at least a chance to go back and say to its constituents and whether they don't, they're not democratic small d in vietnam or really democratic voters in

australia and new zealand, the united states. you've got to be able to say, look, we think we really got a lot out of this. we think on balance to the congress and the american people that this is really a good deal economically for the united states. in order to get that we had to give up the following things. but we are prepared to defend the totality of the agreement on the basis of the compromises we made. the obama administration is no different from the bush administration or earlier the clinton administration, the first bush administration. every administration has got to make those calculations which right now the tpp, they are in the final stages of making. what can we get here and what can we sell back there. >> great, thank you. well, we're going to leave it there and invite tim back up to take the program to the next step. thank you very much. >> thanks, guys. [applause] >> tonight president obama delivers his state of the union address. live coverage begins at 8 p.m.

eastern including the president's speech, the gop response delivered by newly-elected iowa senator joni ernst, and your reaction through open phones live on c-span and c-span radio. on c-span2 watch the president's speech and congressional reaction from statuary hall in the u.s. capitol. the state of the union address can live on c-span c-span2 c-span radio and c-span.org. >> c-span 2, providing live coverage of the u.s. floor proceedings and key public policy events. and every weekend booktv. now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2, created by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> and c-span2 live here at the area in the u.s. capitol known

as the ohio clock waiting for lawmakers who might make remarks as they exit from their weekly party lunches. earlier we saw homeland security secretary jeh johnson walk by, he didn't stop to make remarks. oil pipeline votes expected shortly after the lunches wrap up and later tonight live coverage on c-span2 as the senate gathers at 8:30 eastern time to proceed to the house for the state of the union address. we'll have live coverage on c-span with a preview ott 8 p.m. tonight. and working on a resolution to condemn the terror attacks in paris over in the house today. [inaudible conversations]

>> and, again, in the u.s. capitol live here on c-span2 waiting for lawmakers who might make remarks as they exit their weekly party lunches. we're going to keep our eye on this reporters' stakeout and in the meantime show you a discussion about tonight's state of the union address from "washington journal." [inaudible conversations] >> host: thanks for joining us. >> thanks for having us. >> host: could you tell me to start off with what the president hopes to achieve tonight, mr. orzulak? >> guest: it's a chance to sort of set an agenda for your program both domestically and through foreign policy, but it's

also a chance to sort of put forward your policies and to say, you know, this is what i'm going to be about this year congress is about something and it's setting the terms for the debate going forward. it's really one of the few chances the president has to speak to the nation without a media filter, to sort of present his ideas directly. so while it's the bane of every speech writer because they invariably turn into what people call lawnty risks -- laundry lists, but they can help make a case for your plans. i worked for a president who did that really well and, hopefully tonight we'll hear a sense of what the next two years is going to be about. >> host: ms. cary? >> guest: yeah, paul's right it's a chance to make your case directly to the american people. i think in the current political environment i'd like to think it's a chance the change people's mind and say oh washington really can do things, they really do have a plan and

try to convince people that there's some momentum for positive change in the united states. >> host: so you said it was the bane of every existence. talk about your experience in writing about this these types of speeches. what's it like writing a speech for george h.w. bush? >> guest: oh, it was the greatest job i ever had. i was very young at the time, i was a 25-year-old speech writer and so i started out working my way up. so many times i wrote girl scout of the year awards ask -- [laughter] the national spelling bee winner. and i would ten times rather write a speech like that than the state of the union address. [laughter] because with the pardoning of the thanksgiving turkey, for example, which was one of my specialties, that one you were guaranteed to be on the nightly news, and nobody said that was a terrible speech. [laughter] so state of the union, tremendous amount of work, months and months of work. and really when's the last time you ever heard anybody quote from the state of the union?

it's not known as a memorable speech. it's important for all the reasons paul just said, but it's not fun to write. >> host: i suppose the response from the president is something you look forward to with trepidation as well. >> guest: right, right. the worst response you could get from a president would be a giant x across an entire page. that is when you know you've gone off track, you've lost his attention, and you've got to figure out how to get back. the best response you want is when they circle one word and start writing in the margins and you've sparked a thought and the fire has been lit. that's what you want as a -- >> host: mr. orzulak, some of your process with president clinton. >> guest: i, too, was a back bencher as it were as a speech writer but -- didn't write a lot of things that will probably be carved into marble over the years, but state of the union -- nobody really writes the state of the union. what it is, it's a huge process, as mary kate said. and the chief pen, the lead pen is sort of the steward of the

process. you're aggregating information that comes in from the cabinet, all the different cab innocent agencies from the -- cabinet agencies, from the president's staff policies and this white house has reached out this time to ceos to solicit their input and other leaders across sectors. so you're getting this massive amount of information, and you're trying to fit it into some thematic, something with a central narrative and a position that people can follow. and that's -- every single speech writer has one thing in common as they start out wanting to get rid of the laundry list of the state of the unions, but the process doesn't lend itself to that. at the end of the day, you know mario cuomo said you campaign in poetry, you govern in prose. this is the prose. this is the work of government and bill clinton always relished these moments because what he did everybody -- what he did better than anybody was explaining things. that's why president obama called him the explainer in chief. he thought in that time he could

make a case for why he believes so passionately in what he was putting forward which is part of the reason why he had the longest speeches in history. >> host: ms. cary wrote about getting xs and circles, what kind of responses did you get from president clinton? >> guest: he got very involved. the process usually started with the staff assembling a lot of memos and briefings before christmas, and he would do a lot of reading and after christmas this process would go through where he would rewrite a lot of things until the week off. and he famously, of course every president has a different process. mary kate's boss as well as this president kind of locked things down a few days earlier, president clinton rewrote things famously on the way to the state of the union. it works for each president because everybody, you know, everybody works differently. >> host: again, the process of writing the state of the union and some insight from our guests and you may have questions about the process the state of the union, the results

202-748-800 for democrats 202-748-8001 for republicans and 202-748-8002 for independents. how much of your main themes of the speeches was already revealing? some of the major themes have already been telegraphed over the last two weeks by this president. what was that like during the tame you were writing? >> guest: that's consistent with it. we often had a situation where the director of speech writing would go into in to the president and say, okay, for the next two weeks we're going to be talking capital gains, tax cuts whatever, and there'd be a list of topics and it was up to you how you were going the weave those together and make it interesting in a way that was local and colorful and things like that. so the speech themes were decided well in advance by, you know, people with bigger paychecks. [laughter] >> guest: we had the benefit of a president thatted that similar

themes through the administration which were opportunity, responsibility to community, the middle class and every speech somehow fit that framework. ronald reagan famously had three central themes for every state of the union address and if different policies didn't fit in those themes, they weren't in the state of the union which was why his were always so short. but you want to in any given year reflect what's happening in that year, but you also have an overall eight-year around. we're getting to the point these last two years when legacy is a much bigger issue. so framing which he'll do tonight talking about the resurgence is real, talking about the pact that we've created more jobs in a month than anytime since the '90s, you know, it's framing the last six years and really giving a sense of where the next two years are going to close. but it's with an eye forward as well as an eye back to help

people understand the change that you've driven and that you try -- you hope to complete. >> host: and i guess in light of improving job performance numbers, people are saying that helps too -- >> guest: certainly does. the president's approval rating is up nine points in the last month, and i don't think that's an accident. the economy is doing better, but it's not doing better for everybody, and i think that's what the president is going to address tonight, and that's why the focus is on middle class, job creation tax relief and community college. those things that help the middle class succeed. >> host: ms. cary? >> guest: i would disagree on one point which is i hi the list of topics that i've seen that are going to be in tonight, if you look at the latest gallup and pew polls of what are the top priorities to american voters, the economy is still the top one, but that has declined, and what's surging up according to pew this morning was terrorism, the budget deficit and strengthening the military. and all of those are going up. and i don't think we're going to hear that much about any of

those in this speech. and i think that's kind of a strategic mistake. i think people want to hear about terrorism right now. the president probably feels defensive on that subject because of what happened in paris, but i think if i were him, i would have a lot more foreign policy in this speech than i think we're going to hear. >> guest: i do think though, he has laid out a lot of cybersecurity terrorism programs that he's going to be talking about tonight, you know, in walk of sony and everything that, you know, the centcom getting hacked the day that he delivered a cybersecurity address. you know, this is the battlefield over the next ten -- >> guest: right. i think people want to hear about that. >> guest: definitely he'll talk about that. he'll talk about the fact that after 13 long years, afghanistan has come to an end, an end that we, you know to the extent possible, you know, helped make as peaceful as possible. but he, i think he will address terrorism, and i do think there are some big issues that could define this congress, things

like climate change, things like entitlement reform which is a big priority for the republican majority and, certainly budget issues. they'll all be discussed. and i think what tonight is is sort of setting the scale for okay, if we're going to compromise over the next two years, here's where i'm coming from; i'm about the middle class, i'm focused on helping the middle class succeed, providing opportunity and then let's have our discussions about everything else the next two years from that that sort of position. that's where he is. >> host: guests here to take questions. gainesville, virginia, democrats' line. you're up first for our guest go ahead. >> caller: yeah, good morning, sir. thank you for taking my call. so my comment is i'm a registered democrat, and my dependent is that president obama has done a wonderful job since he took office in 2009. everybody must remember the mess we were in when he came to office. we were actually falling apart

as a nation, as an economy. and without republicans lifts a finger to help him, he rescued this economy, and he brought forward, and the most important thing to remember is this economy today is not like the one in the late '90s or middle 2000s, because there's no -- [inaudible] anymore. this growth is sustainable. so even though we don't see 5, 6, 7% growth -- >> and no lawmakers appearing yet here before the microphones at the ohio clock in the u.s. capitol. you can continue watching this reporters' stakeout over on our companion network c-span3, or online c-span.org, as we take you live to the senate floor, about to gavel back in to work on amendments to the keystone xl oil pipeline bill. we could see votes shortly after they return from party lunches on a number of amendments including one from minnesota

democrat al franken which requires that only u.s.-made manufactured goods be used to build the pipeline. the senate not expected to finish that bill today lawmakers will be gaveling out and then reconvening at 8:30 eastern time to proceed to the house chamber for president obama's state of the union address. a preview of that address at 8:00 eastern and the president's speech at 9 on our companion network, c-span.