the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from tes recognized. mr. hensarling: i continue to be fascinated by my democratic colleagues are against wall street but voted for dodd-frank for a bailout. they designate firms too big to fail. so their rhetoric is hurting wall street. and i'm happy to yield to the gentleman from kentucky who is the author of the title. mr. barr, i yield five minutes. mr. barr: i thank the chairman for his leadership and i thank my colleague, mr. fitzpatrick, for his leadership. and i rise in strong support of his legislation h.r. 37, the promoting job creation and

decreasing small business burdens act. this bill is about jobs and it is about economic growth. and it is about jobs on main street. make no mistake about it. essentially the same legislative package passed the house last fall by a bipartisan vote of 320-102. if i may, i want to talk about title 8 of this legislation, which passed the house last april by voice vote and it contains language from a bill i introduced in the last congress h.r. 4167, the restoring proven financing for american employers act. i worked closely with my colleagues across the aisle to craft sound commonsense language to clarify the volcker rule regarding the treatment of collateralized loan obligations. let's talk about the volcker

rule and what it does. as currently structured this rule will substantially disrupt the market from c.l.o.'s, a vital source of capital for companies that cannot access the corporate bond market. there are's two negative impacts of this rule. it will have a serious negative impact on banks. many small and community-sized community banks and will have to restructure of $70 billion under this rule unchanged. it will compromise credit vaket for american companies that are beneficiaries of this innovative source of credit. c.l.o.'s hold $350 billion of industrial loans to some of the most din milk job-producing companies in america. one of these companies, the world's largest manufacturer of

mattresses, foundations, pillows and other bedding products is head quartered in my district. it seems to me that the medicine that is being prescribed by the volcker rule forcing banks to sell p.c.l.o. paper and a loss of credit vaket for a wide range of main street companies job-producing employers, would be a far more damaging result to jobs and the economy than the per seffed disease. from holding aaa c.l.o. paper that are different and distinguishable from mortgage-backed securities that led to the runup of the financial crisis. it is important to know what this title does and does not do. it doesn't do away with the volcker rule. if you listen to my colleagues on the other side of the rule, you would think it is doing away

with the volcker rule. it doesn't do that. so without the adoption of this grandfather provision, the volcker rule would make illegal certain investments that were perfectly legal and safe when they were made. the volcker rule as currently written applies to c.l.o.'s attaching legal consequences to decisions by private parties who did not anticipate these consequences at the time the decisions were made. this would disrupt the plans and expectations of c.l.o. investors and will create turmoil and force banks to sell c.l.o. debt. the cost of financing will increase financing and will reduce liquidity and america's capital markets. let me make a point here. much has been said about main

street versus wall street. this is about main street jobs. the independent community bankers association, the american bankers association talk about how this will help community banks grow capital and support local development and capital formation on main street. the bipartisan policy center says this isn't the optimal solution. and buyers who kl purchase c.l.o.'s at cheap prices and this would create losses at banks and wind fall profits that can buy them. the provision represents a small and commonsense solution, not a roll back of dodd-frank but keeps the volcker rule intact and keeps banks in compliance allowing for an universe of

c.l.o.'s to be sold or paid off. it will keep the volcker rule intact and provide phased-in compliance to banks that made decisions allowing the finite universe to be sold or paid off over an added two years rather than forcing them into a fire sale. the band is retained entirely for c.l.o. issuances. in conclusion, a lot of talk about deregulation. as for the idea that deregulation was the basis of the collapse.

in contrast c.l.o.'s were not the root cause of the crisis. they performed well during the crisis. regulators have many tools to ensure bank c.l.o.'s do not pose a risk. the notes have never defaulted. and with that i yield back and i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense main streets jobs bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman fromalora is recognized. ms. waters: i would yield to myself as much time as i may consume. there are so many inaccuracies in some of the testimony that i'm hearing from the opposite side of the aisle. i don't know where to start to try and clear some of the points that they are attempting to

make. first of all, let me start with this business with how community banks are going to be hurt. this is simply an attempt to hide behind community banks and scare the members of this body into believing that if they don't support this bill, that somehow, their community banks are going to suffer. the fdic said that 95% of c.l.o.'s were owned by banks with more than $50 billion in assets with the preponderance owned by sti, jpmorganchase and wells fargoo. jpmorganchase has $35 billion, wells fargoo has $24 billion and sti has 4.7 worth of c.l.o.'s.

what are we talking about when we use this kind of messaging to claim that somehow we are going to hurt these small banks? that is absolutely not true. and i want to tell you that the community banks have not been in the background putting out tremendous sums of money on this lobbying effort. according to the "new york times," the current effort to underminimum -- undermine d.o.d. frank has been -- dodd-frank has been textbook. they have spent money on lobbying on 704 registered lobbyists. and get this picture. we keep seeing attempts by any

means necessary from the opposite side of the aisle to push contrsleion into packaged bills some of those bills having been supported either on committee or on the floor. it is not enough that they lost when they put this on the suspension calendar. they have come back with a rule that does not allow for any debate. and they're determined to win this majority vote, even in the face of a veto. who are they trying to protect? if it is true that 95% of the c.l.o.'s owned by banks are owned by those with more than $50 billion in assets, and i told you who has the preponderance, then that is who is being protected. that is the biggest banks in america. that is who is being protected. this money $74 million, these

are the big banks that are spending the money on lobbying on this legislation. and so this business about protecting main street, about protecting the small businesses simply attempts to misguide and mislead knowing that most folks don't understand the c.l.o.'s market. this legislation along with many other pieces of legislation are complicated. dodd-frank is an attempt to reform what had gone terribly wrong in this country. and we have seen attempt after attempt, probably more than 100 attempts in the financial services committee to try and undermine dodd-frank, to get rid of dodd-frank, to break it up piece by piece and again by any means necessary.

and so, if you can answer why all of these attempts why all of this money is being spent, why protecting just these three big banks in america, then you can see that this is not about main street. this is note about small businesses. this is now about relationships between too many members of this house and of this congress with the biggest banks in america, who are determined to destroy dodd-frank. and they have tried all of these tactics. and they have tried somehow to make people believe that we don't care about this fire sale that we are going to cause the big banks. no, i don't worry about causing a fire sale of the big banks. i'm not here to protect the big

banks. i'm truly here to protect main street and small business entrepreneurs and business people in this country. and so, with that, mr. chairman i would like to further just talk about title 8 and how it does not benefit small businesses. c.l.o.'s comprise only of actual loans, exempt from the volcker rule entirely. only talking about c.l.o.'s that contain other instruments like credit depot swaps commercial-bank papers et cetera. the volcker rule will have a minim pakistan on the c.l.o. market. nothing in the rule says that other buyers of c.l.o.'s need to stop their purchases. hedge funds or can continue to purchase. the restriction only affects

banks. big banks, whichville tremendous access to taxpayer subsidy through the fdic and the federal reserve window. there are analysts that have said that the market slugged off the volcker rule and the industry can do just fine moving forward. 2014 saw record instances for new volcker compliance c.l.o.'s. banks will have five years including three years of extensions to comply with this extension. the republicans want to give them seven years. opposition is this enough is enough. eventually the volcker rule has to become operational or else dodd-frank becomes meaningless. these c.l.o.'s are leverage loans by buyouts by large

companies. this is more about private equity. for example, leverage buyouts are when a private equity firm pays for a controlling interest in a company by taking out a loan against that company sad willing the company with debt. the aim is to reduce costs often by firing workers and slashing employee pay and benefits in order to sell the company for a profit. this isn't just about job creation, but about job destruction. mr. chairman i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. . mr. hensarling: i'm happen poi to -- happy to yield four

minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fitzpatrick. the chair: the gentleman is -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. fitzpatrick texas it's hard to believe that a package of bills that comes to the floor of bills that passed the house 422-0 another passes on voice vote, have become controversial. becomes controversial why? because they're about to become law. and they should become law. all these bills have democrat and republican co-sponsors, all of them have gained democrat and republican support in the committee and on the floor of the house. and these bills should pass. i want to thank chairman hensarling for his long-standing leadership in reining in out of control washington regulators that are hurting small business and main street lenders. smart regulations allow the private sector to innovate and create jobs while protecting

taxpayers and consumers. however, one size fits all regulations hurt the economy by treating small and medium-sized companies as if they are large, multinational corporations. no main street small businesses manufacturers farmers, or ranchers caused the financial crisis, yet they are subject to thousands of new pages of regulations that were supposedly designed for big wall street firms. mr. speaker that is not fair. that's why i've introduced this bill, it's a bipartisan package of commonsense jobs bills that provide regulatory relief to help grow the economy from main street up. not from washington down. this bill is made up of individual measures that previously passed out of the house or the financial services committee with overwhelming bipartisan support during the 113th congress. it is a recognition of the fact that regulations, no matter how well intentioned, can be made more targeted and can be made more effective.

more than 400 new regulations imposed on our nation's small and medium-sized companies impedes their ability to access the capital needed to grow innovate, and create jobs. these regulations may have been targeting wall street, but their burden falls heavily on main street. that's what this bill seeks to fix. these legislative prescriptions represent serious bipartisan commitments to make our regulatory system more responsive to the needs of the workers and the local businesses we all represent. the american people want republicans and democrats to work together to strengthen our economy and help the private sector create jobs like only it can. good-paying jobs and greater opportunities are the foundations of real economic growth, growth that's strong and growth that's sustainable. growth that lifts people up from poverty. that kind of growth can come from -- that kind of growth can't come from washington and won't happen unless small business owners entrepreneurs

and work verse the freedom and opportunity to use their god-given talents and creative ty to earn their success. mr. speaker, there's a lot of talk in this town about bipartisanship and finding middle ground here in our nation's capital. yet at this very moment, groups on both the far left and far right stand in the way of even incremental progress by pulling members of both parties to the extremes. i know if things are going to get done in this body, it will be with strong bipartisan support from principled yet pragmatic lawmakers willing to put politics to the side and work together for the common good. as someone who seeks out that course, i'd like to recognize those members willing to look past the demagoguery and misinformation in order to support this bill. i have high hopes that this congress can restore the faith of our constituents in the legislative process and the role of congress in strengthening our main street economy and we can start with this bill. i urge my colleagues to voin me -- join me in vote yeg on the bill and in doing so putting

aside political posturing in favor of bipartisan reforms to get people back to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you, mr. chairman. despite what my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle have said this package of bills does not simply constitute a technical set of changes to dodd-frank or to our securities laws. in fact these changes are substantive and the package is widely opposed. my friends on the opposite side of the aisle keep talking about they're protecting main street but let me recite for you what main street is saying about this bill. let me read for you some highlights of the opposition letters we have received. in addition to opposition from president obama, secretary lew and former federal reserve

chairman paul volcker himself main street is represented by, number one americans for financial reform. americans for financial reform says that h.r. 37, quote, includes new mexico rause -- numerous changes that can have significant negative impacts on regulators' ability to police the financial markets so that they function safely and transparently, quote-unquote. and they go on to oppose title 8 of this bill, citing a wall street journal -- citing a "wall street journal" article outlining how regulators are increasely warning baverpbings and the looser underwriting standards for leverage loans. further representing main street, the afl-cio says h.r. 37 this they oppose the bill because it, quote, would loosen key dodd-frank protections wisely put in place after the

2008 financial collapse. the leadership conference on civil and human rights notes about h.r. 37 that, quote one lesson of the financial crisis is that deregulation in areas that appear technical and arcane can have significant impacts on the financial system and thus on the well being of ordinary families particularly in the communities we represent. and finally public citizen noted about h.r. 37 that we should not provide more c.l.o. relief because, quote, the largest banks dominate ownership as i demonstrated a moment ago of the c.l.o.'s. so mr. chairman, i think we should heed the warning of main street. the warning of these groups who truly represent main street. and so with that, i will reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: i'm happy now to yield one minute to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. pittinger, a member of the committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pittinger: thank you, mr. chairman, for your leadership, mr. fitzpatrick. today i rise in support of h.r. 37 promoting job creation and reducing small business burdens act. we're here once again debating simple measures aimed at growing the economy relieving some of the unnecessary burdens imposed by dodd-frank legislation. even tim geithner, former secretary of the treasury, stated that the volcker rule and the implications of it being regulated were not material in the demise and harm due to major institutions. rather, as a result of extended credit. this legislation included in this bill is bipartisan which is why so many of my colleagues already voted in support of it in the 113th congress and again last week.

this is a jobs bill. the relief we can give to small business today directly impacts their ability to create jobs. for instance, although small companies are at the forefront of technological innovation, they often face significant obstacles in obtaining capital in the financial markets. these obstacles are often due to the largest burden of regulations for regulations placed on small companies when they go public. we need competitive markets that encourage innovation and develop a regulatory environment that recognizes the difference between small, private companies. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: there's been a lot of talk about bipartisan support or lack of. there have been a lot of talks about how the republicans have

been able to get democratic votes and that somehow we should be happy, we should be satisfied, and that they really don't understand why it is that we are opposing not only the bill but the tactics that have been used in several attempts to pass legislation with controversial bills tucked into the big package. let me give you a summary of amendments that republicans refuse to consider as we've attempted to work with them. mr. ellison and mr. issa offered a bipartisan amendment to strike title 7 of the bill so that all public companies will have to report their financial statements in a computer-readable format. mr. sherman and mr. custer both offered amendments striking the c.l.o. title.

in a similar vein because republicans refused to hold debate on the c.l.o. title, others offered an amendment to require regulators to first determine that such a delay was in the public interest. mr. lynch also proposed to revise the delay from 2019 to a date we previously considered and approved in the house, 2017. this revised date is one that we have thoroughly considered in the house. we never considered in the house an extension for two more years to 2019. in an effort to prevent the spread of systemic threats, mr. lynch proposed that an affiliate of a financial institution whose failure could pose a systemic risk to our economy should be required to clear its derivatives. mr. lynch raised a concern that companies like g.e. capital might be able to take large bets in one part of their company but receive relief from rules intended to mitigate those risks in another. mr. lynch also offered three

amendments on title 11. all intended to ensure that employees understand their compensation. elsewhere in the bill, mr. capuano offered an amendment to title 10 requiring companies to disclose political campaign contributions. in the same title, mr. ellison required the s.e.c. to finalize its dodd-frank rules related to executive composition data within 60 days. mr. grijalva proposed an amendment to restore the swaps pushout provision republicans eliminated by attaching it to the cromnibus last night. mr. ellison and mr. grijalva proposed a substitute amendment to help the congress focus on ending budget sequestration. finally, i propose we find a way to pay for part of the budget of the cash-strapped s.e.c. by imposing a user fee on

investment advisors. this is a commonsense proposal that has been supported by investment advisors investment advocates, former republican chairman spencer bachus s.e.c. chair white and the state securities regulator. despite the fact that the s.e.c. can only examine an advisor on average once a decade, our committee didn't even consider this issue last congress. and so, that's an effort to, mr. chairman and members, to show that we have attempted to work with the opposite side of the aisle. we've attempted to offer commonsense amendments that have been absolutely rejected without any consideration being given to them. and so, we find ourselves here on the floor, 9:00 this evening attempting to debate a bill that's going nowhere that has

been issued by the president, a veto message. year here -- we're here debating again about whether or not we're putting our taxpayers and main street and our small businesses at risk going back to some of the same tactics, some of the same ways that were used by the banks that brought us to the point of a recession, almost a depression. somehow in the short period of time we have forgotten what happened in 2008. we have forgotten about how many businesses were destroyed. small businesses were destroyed. we have forgotten how many elderly folks lost money in their 401k's. we've forgotten how many homes were foreclosed on. we have forgotten about how we brought this country to the brink of a disaster. and so let me just say, dodd-frank is an attempt for

reform. and it's not even a tough reform. as a matter of fact, many of us consider it rather mild. but we have on this side of the aisle been fighting day in and day out in our committee to try and just see the implementation of dodd-frank rather than the destrix of an attempt to reform an industry that caused great harm to this society. and so with that, mr. chairman, and members, i will yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california yields back the balce of her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: i now yield two and a half minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy, the chairman of our oversight and investigation subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. duffy: thank you, mr. speaker. i've listened to the ranking member talk about this bill tonight. and you'd think the sky is falling if this c.l.o. portion

of our package is passed. the problem with that argument is that 53 of the democrats on the financial services committee with republicans, voted to pass this package last year. only three democrats dissented. only three. then it passed this house floor by a voice vote. if this bill was so disastrous for the american economy, i would ask my good friend across the aisle, at 9:00 on a tuesday night where members of congress have nothing going on, where are the democrats? where is the outrage? there's only one. there's only one. because many democrats in the last congress voted for this bill. because they agreed with it. now, it didn't get anywhere because it fell into harry reid's trash bin. but the volcker rule directed

under dodd-frank was supposed to stop big banks from using insured customer funds to engauge in lessky investments -- risky investments. c.l.o.'s, they had a default rate of less than .5%. these were safe. this wasn't what caused the financial crisis. the cause, the cause, fannie and freddie securitizing loans that had no documentation, no verification of income, subprime mortgages. and in dodd-frank, the root cause of the financial crisis wasn't addressed. because fannie and freddie weren't even brought up. listen, when we talk about dodd-frank, the ranking member is so concerned about dodd-frank being chipped away, but the c.l.o. issue, it wasn't even in dodd-frank. section 619 states, of dodd-frank, nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or restrict the ability

of a banking entity or nonbank financial company supervised by the federal reserve board to sell or securitize loans in a manner otherwise permitted by law. c.l.o.'s, they were excluded in dodd-frank, which the ranking member voted for. but not only that, in the first proposal of the volcker rule, c.l.o.'s weren't even included. can i have 20 seconds? mr. hensarling: i yield the gentleman 10 seconds. mr. duffy: they were not included. and it was only in the final rule that we realized that c.l.o.'s were so dangerous. this is a political ploy. join the american people, join common sense and join your fellow democrats. let's support this reform package. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker i'm now happy to yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. huizenga

chairman of the monetary policy trade subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. huizenga: thank you, mr. chairman. i too share my friend from wisconsin's frustration at this. this is sort of like saying, we're going to have a cookie that's getting baked here on the house floor and our friends across the aisle approve of the eggs, they approve of the butter, they approve of the sugar and they approve of the chocolate chips but they don't want the final product. i'm confused as to why we cannot put all these ingredients together and get this done, finally. the american people are begging us to get this work done. and that is why i rise today, mr. speaker, to support h.r. 37 , and part of that bill has my bill from the last congress. but excessive and unnecessary regulations have been hurting our economy, increasing cost to consumers and investors, and reducing wage growth,

restricting access to private sector capital that our nation's job creators need, in order to grow the economy and create jobs. this unanimously passed bipartisan legislation is a exillation of common sense, regulatory relief bills that have been carefully crafted to help grow the economy for main street and not from washington, d.c. and my bill actually is part of that. 11 of these bills have previously been passed by this very body or the financial services committee with overwhelming bipartisan support. in fact, my bill idea came not from anybody on wall street, not from anybody in washington, d.c., but from a mergers and acquisitions lawyer back in my district, back in grand rapids, michigan, who said, we've been struggling with this problem and we need some help because we cannot get the s.e.c. to move on this. so that's why i have put together the small business mergers and acquisition sales and brokerage simplification act and that has been kindly rolled into this larger package.

it's been estimated that approximately $10 trillion of privately owned small family-owned type businesses will be sold or, worse yet, closed in the coming years as baby boomers retire. i don't thinkny -- think any of us would think that's a good thing. they play a critical role in facilitating the transfer of ownership of these smaller, privately held companies. who benefits? small communities and the workers that they employ and that live in those areas. this bipartisan provision would create a simplified system for brokers performing services in connection with the transfer of ownership of these smaller, privately held companies. in today's highly charged political environment, however it's hard because it would be nice to show the american people that we have positive effective initiatives that should be passed. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlanrotes recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, live free or die, i am now very happy to yield 1 1/2 minutes to

the gentleman from new hampshire, mr. guinta, a member of the committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new hampshire is recognized. mr. guinta: thank you mr. chairman, for yielding. mr. speaker, i'm happy to rise tonight in support of -- as a co-sponsor of h.r. 37. back in april of 2012, president obama signed into law the jobs act. the bipartisan piece of legislation which makes it easier for small companies small businesses to access capital markets by easing the burden of certain securities regulations. despite its sweeping scope, the dodd-frank act, those little -- does little to spur the type of capital formation that is essential for any real and lasting economic recovery to take hold in our nation. without the access to capital, business slows and without regulatory certainty, capital disappears. a small company should not be subject to the same regulatory demands and requirements that a

fortune 500 company is required to meet. that is why h.r. 37 follows on the success of the bipartisan jobs act and continues the financial services committee's extensive examination of finding bipartisan solutions. this package includ 1pies of legisti tt en fm foiathe nkg membpand endorsed and voted for in the past. we need to make it easier for small companies to access public and private markets so that they can grow higher and provide greater economic opportunities for our citizens. contrary to this rhetoric, we here -- this is not a massive overhaul of dodd-frank. it's a bill that recognizes that dodd-frank is not perfect and it recognizes market disruptions are not a smart result. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker,

i'm now happy to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert, a member of the committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. schweikert: thank you, mr. speaker, and mr. chairman. i'll try to speak fast. i missed all of you in my couple year's absence. have you had ever had a chance when -- have you ever had a chance when you're heading toward the microphone to think that the debate you're listening to is tongue in cheek? can we do a quick explanation of c.l.o.'s? these collateralized loans. it's commercial paper. that's what the vast majority of it is. it's been around for a very long time. here's the absurdity that's coming in the rule. if i have commercial paper they'd massachusetts -- that's made up of marginal loans, two years from now i get -- the bank continues to get to own that. but if that paper that collateralized managed debt, actually has a covenept in it where it -- covenant in it where if something goes wrong, i get to grab equity of the

company, all of a sudden they can't hold that. so the more secure c.l.o.'s, you don't get to own in two years. the more marginal, you do get to keep on the banks' books. this is first absurd, but it's perfectly rational to say, look, why don't we take this part that expires in two years, push it out two more years, so there can be an orderly unwinding of a fairly absurd rule, but the rule is the rule? so a lot of this debate around the c.l.o.'s, i'm sorry, it's great hyperbole, but it has almost nothing to do with what the actual product does. and understand over the last 20 years, c.l.o.'s that were a.a. or higher not a single instrument went bad. even -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. schweikert: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlanros rogd. mr. hensarling: how much time do i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has three minutes remaining.

3/4 of a minute remaining. mr. hensarling: i yield myself the balance of the time. mr. speaker, what we have really witnessed here is a debate between the left and the far left and the far left doesn't want the left to work on a bipartisan basis. that's sad. i think that's what the american people want us to do. and the american people by and large, they don't want to occupy wall street. they just want to quit bailing it out. and bailing it out is exactly what the dodd-frank act does. it is time to grow this economy from main street up, not washington down. and that's what the big debate is. almost every bill here mr. speaker, is a modest bill to help small businesses, to help capital formation, to put america back to work. they passed on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis. let's show the american people

that we can do it. don't let the far left torpedo america's hopes and dreams. i encourage all the house members to support this legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. all debate -- all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 27, the previous question is ordered on the bill. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to make technical corrections to the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act, to enhance the ability of small and emerging growth companies to access capital through public and private markets, to reduce regulatory burdens and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19 further consideration of h.r. 37 is postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it

adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair announces the speaker's appointment, pursuant to section 4-a of house resolution 5 of the 114th congress and the order of the house of january 6, 2015, of the following members to the select committee on the events surrounding the 2012 terrorist attack in benghazi. the clerk: mr. westmoreland of georgia and mr. jordan of ohio, mr. roskam of illinois mr. pompeo of kansas mrs. roby of alabama and mr. brooks of indiana. -- mrs. brooks of indiana. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i would make a

unanimous consent to adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands ed house also debated legislation today that would change part of the dodd frank

financial regulation law. the bill debated today would delay the voguele rule two years and the rule that prohibits banks from engaging in some forms of risky trading. we're expecting final passage votes on the homeland security spending bill and financial regulation bill tomorrow following live coverage of the house when they return here on c-span. >> the congressional reporter joins us to talk about the spending bill coming up in the house and also the amendments as far as immigration is concerned, the house is scheduled to debate this immigration policy. how and why is all of this coming up now? >> so it's coming up together right now because the finding for the department of homeland security runs out on february 27. now, as you'll notice, it's only mid january and republicans are working plenty ahead of time to make sure the homeland security agency is funded and that's because they want to attach these

controversial legislative language that basically guts president barack obama's executive action on immigration and democrats will support it and very unlikely and impossible to get 60 votes in the senate but right now you can look at it as like the opening salvo to the debate of funding the homeland security agency. >> five amendments and one of them being offered by house republicans including pennsylvania congressman and he sent out a tweet about his amendment and said most important priorities in defunding obama executive amnesty will now get a house vote this week including daca. what will this amendment do specifically? >> it's interesting to see how the debate moved considerably to the right which congressman barletta was involved in and the conversation began with last week with overriding the executive actions the president announced last november and now those actions are sweeping and could affect up to five million

people, but what barletta and other members of congress including aderholt, who wrote much of the legislation was to attack older executive legislations including the deferred action for childhood arrivals those dreamers who came here and brought here illegally at a young age and got a similar repreeve from deportation along with work permits from a 2012 program. republicans want to override that and they actually want to override a series of memos dating as far back as 2011 that set the administration will priorities on immigration enforcement. >> what about the other four amendments that are going to be offered? what do you know about those? what are some of the details? >> the one thing offered by congressman marsha blackburn of tennessee approaches daca directly saying no they cannot take new applications and cannot currently renew any applications right now the dreamers who are under the daca

program only have two-year work permits so that effectively makes hundreds of thousands of young immigrants eligible for deportations again and you have a couple other amendments, i believe congressman desantos says immigrants accused of domestic violence and sex offenses are at a higher level of deportation and there are amendments as well from republicans saying it's the sense of the congress this symbolic resolution you shouldn't prioritize undocumented immigrants, people who are here illegally over people who did it in a legal way. >> what about funding for daca, is there anything in the amendments that would affect the funding and how that would come across? >> basically when i say -- when people say they're blocking the implementation that's how they use it and use the so-called power of the purse saying congress which directs basically how the federal government controls the money that's what congress is trying to do, blocking funding to let

the implementation stop. the problem with that is that a lot of these programs are what we call fee funded, daca as well as a similar program that the latest executive actions the president announced in november, they're going to be run by the united states citizenship and immigration services and that's an agency under d.h.s. and that agency is almost entirely fee-funded and don't get money from congress and it's been tricky trying to figure out how exactly you're going to defund an agency that's not actually funded by congress but the republicans think the language they put together when they're essentially saying no money, not even fees, can be used to implement these actions. they think they've found a way to do it but at the same time, president obama is short sure to veto this and won't become law. >> what about house democrats nancy pelosi they've been holding a number of news conferences talking about their objections to these amendments but any democrats going to be supporting these amendments that we could see? >> a few lawmakers and aides

today say it's highly unlikely and there are a couple democrats who do vote with the republicans on this immigration legislation and likely to be a couple at most, a lot of very conservative house democrats who actually voted with republicans on a lot of these measures in the last congress, i'm thinking about former congressman john barrow of georgia and nick rahal of west virginia, they lost their legislation bids and no longer are in office. you can expect pretty much unanimous, near unanimous if not complete democratic house opposition when we see these votes on monday. >> one last question you mentioned the potential to veto here, what is president obama's thoughts on the underlying bill here the homeland security spending bill. he's opposed to it. why? and could this lead to essentially a government shutdown at least of the agency come february 27? >> it's interesting actually, the white house, as well as the department of homeland security, secretary jay johnson, they actually both

express support for the underlying bill at about $37.9 billion in funding for the homeland security department that runs through the rest of the fiscal year and spunds obviously immigration is a big part of it but it's a very diverse agency that overseases so many operations regarding national security and they're finding in the underlying bill the different spending levels they've set for the various agencies, it's really those immigration amendments they're taking issues with. so if those bills get attached to the underlying bill it doesn't matter if they like the funding bill, everything will be vetoed. >> thanks for your time and we'll follow you on twitter and you're writing at politico.com. thanks a lot. >> thanks for having me. >> president obama met with congressional leaders tuesday at the white house to discuss policy and issues for the coming year. he made a brief statement to the press before that meeting.

>> everybody all set? good. well i want to welcome the congressional leadership here to the white house. harry reid is absent because he's still convalescing a bit from the mishap in the gym but know he'll be back strong next week and i've had a chance to talk to him. i want to thank the speaker and leader mcconnell as well as him nick durbin filling in for senator reid and nancy pelosi and the leadership today. some folks i haven't seen and i had an opportunity to wish them happy new year. to the speaker, i just want to point out, i said there would be some things we agree on. having a college football playoff is clearly something that we can agree on, i called for it when i came into office. i think it turned out pretty well, particularly for ohio, so i want to congratulate the ohio state buckeyes for their

outstanding victory and commend oregon as well for fielding a great team because their quarterback is from my original home state of hawaii. and i also want to just talk to all this leadership about how we can keep the progress going that we're seeing, particularly in our economy. the latest job report indicates that the recovery continues to move in a robust fashion. we've now created 58 straight months of private sector job growth, about 11 million jobs created in the private sector. unemployment rates come down faster than any time in several decades. we now are seeing the strongest job growth overall as well as in manufacturing since the 1990's. we are producing more energy than ever before. the deficit has been cut by 2/3. and we're finally starting to

see some movement last year in wages going up. and at a time when families are also enjoying some lower gas prices. so we're in a position to make sure that 2015 is an even stronger year. and relative to our competitors, we are holding much better cards but the key now is for us to work as a team to make sure we build on this progress. obviously, there are disagreements around the table on a whole range of issues but there are also areas we can agree and that's where we're going to be focused. just to cite a few examples, we will talk about the cybersecurity next week, with the sony attacking that took place and the twitter account that was hacked by islamist jihaddist sympathizers yesterday, it just goes to show how much more work we need to do both public and private

sector to strengthen our cybersecurity and make sure that families' bank accounts are safe and our public infrastructure is safe. i talked to both the speaker as well as mitch mcconnell about this and think we agree this is an area where we can work hard together, get some legislation done and make sure take we are much more effective in protecting the american people from these kinds of cyberattacks. i think that there's going to be opportunities for us to work together on trade. there's going to be opportunities for us to work together on simplifying the tax system and making sure everybody is paying their fair share. there are going to be opportunities for us to streamline government so it's more responsive. and on each of these issues, i'm going to be listening to everybody around this table. and i'm hopeful that with the spirit of cooperation, putting america first, we can be in a position where at the end of

this year we'll look back and say we're that much better off than we were when we started the year. so i just want to thank everybody for being here. and i'm very much looking forward to not just this discussion but some real collaboration over the course of the next several months. all right? thank you very much, everybody. thank you, everybody. >> on the next "washington journal" congressman scott perry of pennsylvania, a member of the homeland security and foreign affairs committee on the d.h.s. funding bill and the amendments to block president obama's immigration order.

then freshman arizona representative reuben gallego, a former combat marine and member of the armed services committee discusses immigration and veterans health care. "washington journal" is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span and you can join the conversation with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter. >> here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span 2, saturday night at 10:00 on book tv's "afterwards" wall street editor brett stevens argues our enemies and competitors are taking advantage of the situation abroad created by the u.s. as it focuses on its domestic concerns and sunday night at 10:00, democratic representative from new york, steve israel on his recent novel about a salesman and top secret government surveillance program and on american history tv on c-span 3 on saturday at 3:00 p.m. eastern on lectures and history, george mason professor john turner on the

early mormons and their attempt to create a new zion in the american west in the 1830's. and sunday afternoon at 4:00 on real america, nine from little rock the 1964 academy award film of the desegregation of little rock, arkansas, all white high school. find our complete schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think of the programs you're watching and call us email us @comments @c-span.org or send us a tweet at c-span # comments. >> during his annual state of the state address, new jersey governor chris christie spoke about new investments in his state and his work with bipartisan groups to accomplish products like the rebuilding of camden. the governor spoke from the statehouse in trenton, this is 45 minutes.

[applause]

>> thank you. thank you very much. thank you very much. thank you very much.

>> mr. speaker, mr. senate president, lieutenant governor guadagno, former governors members of the legislature honorable members of the supreme court, family and friends and citizens of the state of new jersey -- i come before you, as required by the state constitution, to report on the condition of our state. the state of our state continues to get better. new jersey is better off than it was last year at this time, and it is certainly far better off than it was just five years ago. while many first years of a second term show a hangover from the campaign and its partisanship, we have fought through that tradition and have real accomplishments to show for that action in 2014.

in a year with plenty of politics from some overly partisan corners of this chamber, new jersey has made progress -- growing our economy, creating jobs reforming our criminal justice system, and improving some of our most challenged cities -- like camden. we've done it because a majority of us care more about our state and new jersey's middle class than we do about scoring partisan political points. since last january, the total number of people employed in new jersey has grown by over 90,000, and the number of unemployed has dropped by nearly 30,000. we recorded our 5th consecutive year of private sector job growth, and the unemployment rate continues to steadily go down. we have attracted and retained companies -- from subaru usa to the philadelphia 76ers to sandoz.

we have grown our economy and more people are working, supporting their families and knowing the power of going to work every day in new jersey today than one year ago. that is good news for new jersey's families. we have done this while holding the line on government spending and government employment. we also extended the successful cap on a key driver of property tax growth. and we passed real criminal justice reform in new jersey. this bipartisan reform of the bail system keeps violent offenders off the streets and gives non-violent offenders who often sit in jail because they can't afford bail a chance to reclaim their lives.

this is good for public safety. this is good for families. this is good for new jersey. now, despite this progress, despite so much evidence of an improving new jersey, it has become fashionable in some quarters to run down our state. i get it -- that's politics. but let's be clear. our growth in this past year has been part of a trend. a trend that began five years ago. it is easy to forget where we were and how far we have come. five years ago, our unemployment rate was 9.7%. over 440,000 new jerseyans were out of work. today, the unemployment rate is 6.4%. we have cut unemployment by

over one third in the last 5 years. and that's good for the new jersey families who now are working. and we have created over 150,000 private sector jobs in new jersey in five short years. five years ago, we faced massive consecutive budget deficits -- $2 billion for fiscal year 2010 and a projected $11 billion the next year, on a budget of only $29 billion. we fixed it by making hard choices, the way middle class families in new jersey have to do it in their homes. today, we have balanced five budgets in a row. and we will balance a sixth this year. and we didn't do it the washington way, by raising taxes. we did it by cutting spending, shrinking government, and fundamentally reforming the way government operates.

this administration believes today -- and has always believed -- that new jersey and america, will be a better place for middle class families by shrinking the size of government. at every level. back then, state spending had grown by 56% in the years from 2001 to 2008. today discretionary spending in our state's budget is $2.5 billion below its level in fiscal year 2008. that is fiscal restraint. back then, the size of government was out of control.

today, the number of state government employees is 6,000 -- 8,500 lower than it was five years ago without one layoff at the state government level. that is prudent management of the state work force. back then, new jersey's highest in the nation property taxes had increased more than 70% in ten years. we averaged a 7% growth in property taxes per year. every year for 10 years. today, we have had four years of less than 2% annual property tax growth. now it's because of the property tax cap we passed together in 2011 is working. it is continuing to work for the people of new jersey. this is a bipartisan achievement. by everyone in this chamber. we also came together this year to extend the reforms of

interest arbitration awards. this act has continued to make property tax control possible. in these past five years, we have delivered needed tax relief to small businesses. here in new jersey. the $2.3 billion small business tax relief package that we continue to phase in is improving new jersey's business climate and making our state more competitive. that approach is explicit in the sweeping, bipartisan changes we've made to new jersey's economic incentive programs. i want to congratulate you -- we have streamlined these incentives. and we have better targeted them to areas of our state that need investment most. and the verdict is in -- and the early returns from the economic opportunity act show that it is working to attract and retain businesses. in key parts of our state. in total, our pro-growth policies and streamlined economic development efforts have brought in over $12 billion dollars of new public

and private investment in new jersey in these last five years. the fact is that, the deeper they look, the more businesses like what they see. from forbes media to vf sportswear, from wenner bread to bayer health care, companies have chosen new jersey as a home for expansion. we have assets that many other states just cannot match. a highly educated work force, a world class transportation network, proximity to large markets, the shore. new jersey has so many attractions. we are america's number two state in biotechnology, number four in per capita income, number three in the use of solar power, and in the top ten in data centers. the results of this past year's survey by the new jersey business & industry association said it best. "overall", the bia said, "our members believe the state is continuing to move in the right

direction. things are looking good for small business in 2015. now, i know that many of you in this room believe that income tax increases are the way to go. so yes, sometimes we will simply have to disagree. i have vetoed four income tax increases passed by this body. and make no mistake -- i will veto any more income tax increases that come before me. and i will do it for one simple reason -- the higher our taxes are, the fewer people and businesses will come to new jersey and the more who will consider leaving.

raising taxes is the old trenton way, and it didn't work. taxes were raised 115 times in the eight years before 2010. people and businesses in turn didn't support them and left our state. between 2004 and 2008 the departure of wealth, investment, and income was staggering -- some $70 billion left the state. we have begun a new direction and we need to go further, not reverse course. because despite all our progress, we have more to do. we have to open our ears and listen to our people. open our eyes and see what is happening around us. new jersey just lost mercedes benz usa to the state of georgia. mercedes, in new jersey since the early 1970's, is leaving for a very simple reason -- it costs less to do business in georgia than it does in new

jersey. don't take my word for it -- the leaders of mercedes said it themselves. economic incentive laws help -- but lower taxes are better. we will not win the fight to keep and create good paying jobs for our middle class families in new jersey unless we lower taxes. yet i cannot make this a reality alone. it is you, and only you, the state legislature, who can lower taxes further and make new jersey more prosperous for our middle class families and their children. i urge the legislature today to open your eyes and ears to the lessons of mercedes and to act now to lower taxes and prevent another such departure. and the employment displacement it leads to for middle class families in this state.

we have also done much in the past five years to reform our education system. for the first time in 100 years, we came together to reform tenure, so that failing teachers can be removed from the classroom. for the first time, we brought the concept of performance-based pay to schools in our largest city, newark -- so that we can pay the best teachers more. we've reformed and re-energized public education in camden under the leadership of paymon rouhanifard, a cooperative school advisory board and a supportive mayor and council. we have expanded charter schools.

and together we have enacted urban hope legislation to create renaissance schools in our highest risk districts. finally, for four years in a row, we've provided a record amount in aid to our public schools -- over $11.9 billion in the current fiscal year. but on this, we cannot and should not rest. more school reform is needed. and a great first step would be to listen to the visionary leadership of senator cain and to pass the opportunity scholarship act, to give parents a choice of a school that meets their child's needs. let's give families an alternative to chronically failing neighborhood schools. let's keep driving for better outcomes. let's give parents and students more choice.

not less choice. more choice. at its heart, education is about realizing the potential of every individual. in these past two years, you've joined me in applying this principle to those who face special challenges in life including the disease of drug addiction. in this last year, we expanded the mandatory drug court program you helped me enact into four new counties building on those in which courts were established immediately after the law's enactment in 2013. i have a simple view of this. drug addiction is a disease. it can happen to anyone, from any station in life. and it can be treated.

crying at the senseless, needless funerals of our children and our friends is not enough. every life is an individual gift from god no matter what condition we find it in. no life is disposable at any stage of life. we have an obligation to help people reclaim their lives. and if we have the tools to help those with this disease to save their own lives, we should use them. and in my opinion it is a sin for us to not use those tools and help give them their lives back. requiring mandatory treatment instead of prison for non-violent drug offenders is only one step -- but an important one.

treatment is the path to saving lives, and i want to make this very clear. for as long as i amgovernor of new jersey treatment will be mandatory in our system and will not yield to the scourge of drugs in our society. i am proud that in these last two years we've also launched a program to integrate employment services with treatment, so that we can help those with drug addiction not only get clean but get back to work. i am proud that together we enacted an overdose protection law to provide legal protection

to people and especially to health care professionals who are trying to help. and in the time we instituted our new program on making narcan available to law enforcement, in new jersey alone we've saved over 700 lives. that's good work. i am proud that we are trying to help non-violent offenders get access to college through the nj-step program. and today, i would like to announce our next steps in helping those battling the disease of drug addiction by improving the way we deliver these services. right now there are numerous federal, state, and county government programs, providers and nonprofit partners, who fund and deliver some form of adult addiction services. how to access those services can be difficult and overwhelming when confronted with the unintended bureaucracy

of options. and the effects of their condition. contacting multiple agencies and trying to identify the right treatment is challenging enough, but even more so for individuals in crisis. if we are able to make it easier for individuals battling addiction and their loved ones to access the right services at the right time, we can save lives. this year, our administration will launch the first phase of a reform effort to make all of these services available from a single point of entry. there is no "wrong door" in this approach. those faced with addiction will be able to make one phone call to access available services and resources anywhere in the state. just one phone call to provide real time information, assess available treatment options, and connect them to the help they need right then and there.

this is how good government is supposed to work. by coordinating all of our programs and services across state government that are designed to help those dealing with addiction allows us to maximize our resources, ensure dollars are not going to waste and get real-time information from our partners across the state. about the effectiveness of these programs. think about it. just one phone call to connect with someone who can walk an individual through the options that best work for their recovery process. it's the smart way to make sure we don't have people stuck in a system utilizing services that don't actually work for them. once this reform is underway we will extend this same concept to those adults with mental illness. planning for this has already begun. this coordinated approach builds on our commitment to rethink how government services are delivered so that we are being smarter, more efficient, and more targeted. going back to 2010, we put in

place a model to better connect populations most in need of assistance with the kind of care they actually need -- whether seniors, people with disabilities, or adults with substance abuse or mental illness. we reformed the state's medicaid program and created an innovative system that gives senior citizens and people with disabilities easier access to care and greater choice. our whole emphasis has been to deliver the right level of service to the right person, in the right place. as a result, we've increased and improved the options of assistance and care provided in a home setting and in the community, while reducing our reliance on more traditional institutional care, whether in nursing homes or developmental centers. this approach has worked under medicaid, improving services and holding down costs for seniors, those with

developmental disabilities, and for all eligible citizens and families. under my administration, new jersey's medicaid spending -- imagine if you ever thought you'd hear this. through new jersey's administration new jersey's spending growth on these groups has trailed the national average and is now cited as the second lowest in the region. that's what real innovation and reform can do, provide services and lower costs for the people who are paying for them. that's the way government is supposed to work. we are also taking this model directly to our communities. last fall we created the facing addiction task force, a

12-member team chaired by pastor joe carter of newark's new hope baptist church and co-chaired by former governor jim mcgreevy. governor mcgreevy, thank you for standing up and being a part of the solution. this group is working to fight drug addiction by ending the stigma associated with this disease and focusing on treatment and prevention. i thank them for their willingness to step up and lead this fight. they have come forward with a one-stop model for connecting comprehensive services to ex-offenders battling addiction as they leave incarceration or drug court and reenter society. this is just smart government. by helping an individual connect the dots from treatment to temporary housing to employment and training services, we are helping them

lay their own foundation for a successful re-entry into society. think about what that does for new jersey's state and for the families that will be positively affected by having this member of their own clan no longer drug-addicted, living outside of incarceration working, paying taxes, and being a positive role model for their children and their grandchildren. in newark, paterson, atlantic city, toms river, trenton, and jersey city, a single physical location will be run by a non-profit organization in coordination with our administration, local officials, and community partners. by directly connecting those who have suffered from addiction to the services they

need at a most critical juncture when they're re-entering society, we're helping themavoid a cycle of dependency by transitioning them from government services to the workplace. this doesn't just reduce long-term service costs to the state, but is the best way to ensure they become hopeful -- we're not talking about statistics, but people who could be my son or daughter, your son or daughter, your husband or wife. this is the best way to ensure that beyond the statistics, that they become hopeful again optimistic again happy again, and productive members of our society. we should want that for every one of our citizens. and as long as i'm governor, we're going to fight to make it happen.

now, of all the long term challenges we face, one of the largest and most immediate is our obligation to provide pension and health benefits for state and local employees. this is not just a new jersey problem. this is a national problem. states across the country are struggling to fund critical programs because pension and health costs are eating up every tax dollar they can get close to. we first took the lead to try and solve this problem in 2011 when a republican governor and a democratic legislature came together to go up against the entrenched special interests. it was hard.

it was loud. it was the right thing to do. together we defied the conventional wisdom and enacted historic reforms that reduce the cost to taxpayers by over $120 billion over the next three decades. this was a huge first step. today, the health of the pension system is stronger than it was five years ago. in fact, gains have totaled over $35 billion -- which is way above projections -- thanks to our sound management and smart investment strategy. but the fact is that while we have been making up ground, the pension fund is underfunded because of poor decisions by governors and legislatures of both parties, over decades, not years. these sins of the past have made the system unaffordable. but we do not have the luxury to ignore this problem.

we know this because even as our administration has contributed more money to the system than any in history, it is not enough. let's repeat that again amid all the clamor. this administration has contributed more money to the public pension system than any administration in history, and it is not enough. it is an insatiable beast. the pension fund's problem is a long-term one. not a short-term one. and it is related to every other program in state government. right now the $90 billion unfunded liability for pensions and health benefits is three times the size of the annual state budget. think of this way -- in order

to close the current shortfall in just the pension system alone every family in new jersey would have to write a check for $12,000. that is the nature of long-term entitlements which grow faster than the economy. in that regard, our problem here in new jersey is not that different from washington's entitlement problem for all of these reasons, last summer i appointed a bipartisan commission of experts -- a pension and health benefits task force -- to make recommendations for tackling the twin problems of pension and health benefit costs. i asked them to think outside the box, and they are hard at work. i thank the members of the commission -- led by tom healy a former assistant secretary of the u.s. treasury -- on their efforts and willingness to tackle this pressing issue. a long-term solution and sustainable future for our pension and health benefit plans

are difficult but worthy things to achieve. we took a historic first step in 2011. let's make 2015 the year we finish the job. [applause] now coming out of the last recession, america remains a country ill at ease. america's economy is growing but it is not growing enough. new jersey's economy is growing but it is not growing enough. last week's jobs report was good, but real wages declined. the economy is simply not as strong as it could be, or as it should be. we are a nation beset by anxiety. it is understandable. economic growth is low by post-war recovery standards.

america's leadership in the world is called into question because of a pattern of indecision and inconsistency. during this time of uncertainty it seems our leaders in washington would rather stoke division for their own political gain. and this culture of divisiveness and distrust has seeped into our communities and our neighborhoods. is bipartisan in its nature. as i traveled the country over the last year, this anxiety was the most palpable emotion i saw and felt. more than anger, more than fear anxiety. i saw it on the streets of chicago and felt it in the suburbs of maryland. i heard it from farmers in kansas and from teachers in colorado. i felt it from veterans in maine and from workers in arkansas.

but the wisest words came from an 82 year old woman in florida. she held onto my hand tight and said i'm 82 years old, and i have a question for you. she said "what's happened to our country? we used to control events. now events control us." but right here, in this great state, we have the tools not to give in to anxiety. we know that economic recovery has delivered the most good for the most people. and we know that the policies of lower taxes and less intrusive government have created higher economic growth and better paying jobs for our middle

class. we know that a commitment to education at every level is another key to a better tomorrow. we just have to have the courage to fix those schools we know aren't working and to empower principals, teachers, parents, and students to reach for their highest aspirations. we need universities that can take our children there. we know that our ability to make these investments in education infrastructure, our cities and our communities is dependent on our willingness to control the smothering costs of entitlements. we know these things as a people, yet too often in the past our leaders have failed to act on them and the result is a sense of drift. let me be clear. we need to address this anxiety head on. we need to renew the spirit and

the hopes of our state, our country and our people. a renewal of our commitment to the hard-working families who are the backbone of our state. a renewal of our commitment to the simple belief that our people deserve better than a bloated national government that imposes costs on our states which suffocate our people. a renewal of our commitment to the ideal -- and the hard work to make it happen --that new jersey's best days can lie ahead. that we don't have to accept anything less. a renewal of our commitment to the belief that new jersey and its people deserve better from us, those they have chosen to lead. we need a new jersey renewal and an american renewal. i renew my commitment to new jersey today to make the lives of our citizens more prosperous, more healthy, better educated and truly optimistic.

so that when we stand here in one year, and i will be standing here in one year -- [applause] -- for some reason, i see less of laws on the side of the room. i do not understand. i will give them a more try. i will be here in one year. [applause] when we are all here, our today will be better than our yesterdays and our tomorrow will be filled with real opportunity.

we may argue from time to time over the best means to get things done. that's the nature of public debate and i will always be willing to engage in it with you. but our goal, together, should be to make sure that new jersey remains one place where a better life is possible -- for us, for our children, and for their children -- through determination, hard work, and a commitment to the greater good. there is no better example of what we can achieve if we put aside party and pettiness than the results we are seeing in camden. [applause] i am honored to be joined by leaders who have helped to make this happen. dana read, mayor of camden.

the superintendent in camden, and chief scott thompson, chief of the metro division of the camden county police department. these are the leaders getting the job done. [applause] think about camden for a minute. a city devoid of hope five years ago, a city riddled with violent crime five years ago, a city beset by a corrupt and ineffective government five years ago, a school system that failed camden's families almost

every day just five short years ago. then an outstanding leader stepped forward for mayor. a county government stepped in to lead boldly. and i asked all of you to support a new vision for camden. did we just throw money at the problem as has been done before? no. my conversations with these leaders were that we demand partnership and accountability and we are getting results. through the economic opportunity act of 2013 a city that has suffered from divestment for decades is now seeing a new tomorrow. $600 million dollars of private investment in camden in the last year alone. in a city suffering from epidemic crime, we acted boldly. we terminated the city police department and, partnering with

the county, put a new metro division on the streets with 400 officers for the same price we were paying for 260. hear that again. for every mayor, city in this chamber. for every mayor listening on television, for every mayor that will read this tomorrow and the next day 400 police officers on the street for the same price we were paying for 260. it took guts. we needed to be bold. but what are the results? murder down 51%. [applause]

firearm assaults down by 1/3. in the city once called the most dangerous city in america. all violent crime of every type since we made this change, is down 22% in what was called the most dangerous city in america. it is not just numbers. these men and women of the police force, the camden county police metro division, are working with neighborhood groups to bring calm and peace across the city. in camden schools, we partnered with the local groups to bring new leadership to the schools and a renewed accountability to the classroom. the urban hope act has expanded opportunity and new schools are being built once again in camden in a public-private partnership.

hope and optimism are up --fear of failure is down. i have been in camden high school in number of time. those children are once again feeling a sense of pride about or they go to school and whether future look like. that is because we lead boldly. in camden's downtown, a new medical school and new investment by rutgers university is helping to bring bright new citizens to camden's neighborhoods. no one could have believed it was possible five years ago. today, it is happening because we put action and results ahead of politics, partisanship and a shared failed history. i am a republican. she is a democrat. and it has not mattered for one minute. and i make this offer to every major city mayor in new jersey.

if you are willing to put down the sword of partisan politics, i will extend my hand in partnership and we will rebuild your cities the way we are rebuilding camden. [applause] january 13, 2015. we are at the beginning of a new year. a new time in our state history. so this year, let us recommit to action -- to creating the conditions for growth, to

preparing our children for a better future, to addressing our long-term problems, and to valuing every life. no matter what condition we find it in, no matter what stage of life it is that, no matter what value judgment we cannot stop myself making. that is our job as public servants. and that should be our common agenda for the year ahead. i believe in a new jersey renewal which can help lead to an american renewal both in every individual home and in homes around the world. i pray today that you will join me in that renewal as so many of you in this chamber and in this state have done before over the last five years.

i am proud to be your governor and i will never stop fighting for our new jersey renewal. thank you, god bless you, and god bless the great state of new jersey. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> on the next washington journal, scott perry of pennsylvania, a member of the homeland security and foreign defense committee on the dhs funding bill and the amendments to block immigration reform. and a freshman arizona representative and member of the armed services committee discusses immigration and veteran health care. washington journal is live every

morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. you can join the conversation with calls and comments on facebook and twitter. >> president obama travels to iowa wednesday to speak about raw band access. we will join the president at 3:40 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> the c-span cities tour takes both tv and american history tv on the road, traveling through u.s. cities to learn about their literary life. we partner with comcast to a vision -- visit to west virginia. >> there are two volumes. the reason i thought it was important to collect these histories is that wheeling transformed into an industrial city in the latter part of the 19th century and early part of the 20th century.

it is kind of uncommon in west virginia in that it drew a lot of immigrants from various parts of europe in search of jobs and opportunities. so that generation, that immigrant generation, is pre-much gone. i bought it was important to record their story, to get memories of the immigrant generations and the ethnic neighborhoods they formed. it is an important part of our history. most people focus on the front to history, civil war history. of equal importance in my mind is the industrial period of immigration in wheeling. >> wheeling starts as an outpost on the frontier. that river was the western extent of the united states in the 1770's. the first project funded by the

federal government for production was the national road that extended from cumberland, maryland to wheeling virginia. when it comes here to wheeling, that will give this community which about that time is about 50 years old, the real spurt it needs for growth. over the next 20-25 years, the population of wheeling will almost triple. >> wants all of our events from wheeling saturday at noon eastern on book tv. and sunday afternoon on american history tv on c-span3. >> senator rand paul of kentucky spoke tuesday about judicial restraint versus activism and the need to protect individual liberties. his remarks came at the heritage foundation conservative policy summit in washington. this is 25 minutes.

>> good morning. we have had a couple of good days. i know some of you have been here the whole time. a lot of media interest in the subject we are covering. i think the country is learning that conservatives have some great ideas that could make a better life for every american. that is the whole point of what we are doing here today. i am excited to introduce our next speaker, who is just as comfortable on the cover of a magazine as he is filibustering the senate. when he was running for office washington establishment was afraid if he got here, he would cause trouble. their fears have been well-founded. i am very proud that i supported him when it was not cool. i was told i was stupid, he could not get elected. i am grateful that he has proved all of the critics wrong.

rand paul, i think, has been a fresh face on the political scene. very important in the conservative movement. i have set a number of times that the only majority that is left or freedom-minded americans is the majority that comes from welding a lot of the libertarian ideas with conservative ideas. i believe that the libertarian concepts of individualism self-reliance, free markets, are certainly consistent with the foundations of conservative thought. if we can well -- weld with those the values to build a strong society and guarantee a strong defense, then we will have a majority of americans who understand how to build a stronger country and brighter future and more opportunity for every american. rand paul represents that in many ways. he has shown that folks who are

not traditionally interested in politics or -- are interested in a lot of the things he says or talked about, which is very important to the movement. he has attracted millennials. he has spoken on college campuses. he has shown our ideas are persuasive when presented in a persuasive way. we are honored and excited to have rand paul at the heritage foundation. he has been here many times since i have been at heritage speaking on a number of issues. today, i think he is here to stir you up a little bit more than he has before. please welcome senator rand paul. [applause] >> thank you. thanks, jim. i think you are doing a great job. they say online that we have 20,000 or 25,000 people watching online. i asked jim if this was off the

record and would say anything i want. he said no one will be in there from the media. so here goes. you hear a lot of speeches. everybody is going to give you a lot of speeches. i would like to make it more interactive, so we will call the growth. media, you may participate also. i would like to know who thinks judicial restraint is a great philosophy versus judicial activism. who in the crowd thinks your legal philosophy would be judicial restraint? this is going to be a tough sell. how many people think judicial activism is a way to go and that is what we should have? nobody. this is really going to be a tough sell. does anybody know what justice roberts did not strike down obamacare? judicial restraint. so i guess everybody here is for obamacare.

you think the court should stay out of obamacare and it is just fine because the majority wanted it. that is what justice roberts said. he said we should not get in the way of the majority. do you know where that comes from? that comes from oliver wendell holmes the great progressive in the longer case. he says that the court has no business getting in the way of what the majority wills. if you are for judicial restraint, i guess what happens when a legislation does bad things? what happens when legislature says, we are going to pass jim crow laws through the 19th century. should we have an activist court that comes in and overturns that? so the only slide, we have one slide, where is it going to be? i cannot see it. we have a timeline, basically.

restart in 1905 and go all the way through obamacare. in each of these cases, what should conservatives be for? constraint or activism? we go to laughtner where state legislatures were becoming more progressive and restricting the liberty of contract. you had an activist court in that case that rules that says states cannot interfere to the right to contract. so are you for activism or restraint when it is with regard to state government interfering with the liberty to contract? we move on a little bit later. we get into the new deal. here it is the federal government. the federal government is passing all kinds of laws, assuming new powers, that were not essentially in the constitution. you once again have an activist court in the beginning. you have an activist

conservative court who overturns federal laws, one after the other, until you finally get a majority of fdr appointees who say judicial restraint is the way to go. but then you move on a little bit longer. as you come out of the depression, you go into the time where we are looking at brown versus the board. you are looking at racism and segregation. what is the position of judicial restraint? the position says let the states do whatever they want. is that the conservative position? i frankly think it is not my position. if the states do wrong, i think we should overturn. there is a role for the supreme court to mne -- mete out justice. there is a book called "the conscience of the constitution," which i think is a great book.

if we believe in state rights, could you be basically in favor of what john calhoun said? he supported slavery. john calhoun supported a tyranny of state government. utah thought state government could do anything it wants. is that the liberty position? the conservative government position, that we believe so much and small government that there is no role nationally to say to a state government they cannot do certain things? when it comes to brown, i am not a judicial restraint guy either. i am a judicial activist when it comes to the new deal, but i am an activist when it comes to brown. i think the federal government was right to overturn state governments saying separate but equal is fine. plessy versus ferguson, a mistake. it is judicial restraint. when you get to brown, i am an activist. then we go to the next one, the next when we talk about when we want to know about activism versus restraint.

it is griswold. why are we even having this discussion? does any of this have anything to do with politics or current events? does anybody remember george stephanopoulos' questions in the presidential debates? he asked them what do you think about griswold? a lot of them did not know what griswold was. state for control said you can't sell birth-control to women. that saying let the state do what they want, or you might say individuals have rights also. you might say, maybe i am for griswold. there is a question again, are you an activist or restraint. in roe