-- we will see if we can get in juanita. can we make it quick? caller: we appreciate your work. guest: thank you. thank you for having me. we are delighted to be part of your series. host: the series continues next week. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., february 12 2015.

i hereby appoint the honorable evan h. jenkins to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2015, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than thmari a mory leade and the noty whip limited to five minutes but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. for more than 70 years our government has followed the most spectacular failure in

policy since disastrous 13-year experiment with the prohibition of alcohol. 43 years ago the national commission on marijuana and drug abuse released a report finding that the federal ban on marijuana is unjustified and inappropriate, yet, for most of that time federal policy has been frozen in amber. countless lives have been ruined for a substance that majority of americans think should be legal. still 25 million adults use it every month. despite finding in federal law that marijuana is a scheduled 1 controlled substance with no therapeutic value 213 million americans live in 34 states and the district of columbia where medical marijuana is recognized and legal in some form and over a million people use it as medicine. in 1996 voters in california marked a significant change in course when they legalized medical marijuana with a vote

of the people and almost three dozen states have followed. in the fall of 2012, voters in the state of washington and colorado approved adult use of marijuana. and it should be noted the sky didn' fall, big cracks didn't appear in the earth and problems with marijuana didn't get worse. in some instances it became more manageable. for the federal government, the tide continues to turn. last session of congress had six successful votes on the floor of the house to rationalize our foolish policies, including reining in federal enforcement and opening opportunities for legal industrial hemp cultivation. last fall voters in my state of oregon, looking at the evidence and experience, like in colorado, approved adult use by an even larger margin than previous states. the marijuana reform train has left the station. it's time for the federal government to redouble its efforts at developing policies that work. congressman jared polis and i will reintroduce this week our legislation to establish a federal framework to end the

failed prohibition. it will pave the way for states to chart their own course, to legalize tax and regulate marijuana according to what individual states want to do, just like they do with alcohol. we will save tens of billions of dollars on failed enforcement, incarceration and lost revenue. we will choke off a profit center for drug cartels that have been enriched by our failed policies. and we will make it easier to enforce laws to keep marijuana out of the hands of our children and have money for government services rather than waste money on failed policy, arresting people for something that a majority of americans now think should be legal. for those of us who've worked in this field for years, it's an exciting time. my legislation will deal with the taxation of marijuana and we look forward to refining it, to be able to have the tax at a proper level, to support government services but also reasonable enough to choke off black market supply. it's time for us to enter a new

era of marijuana policy for research protecting our children for economic development and individual liberties. i strongly urge my colleagues to examine the legislation that we've advanced and be part of this long overdue effort at reform. the speaker pro tempore: the chair now recognizes the gentleman from alabama mr. byrne, for five minutes. mr. byrne: thank you, mr. speaker. back in december, president obama gave a major speech regarding united states policy towards cuba. the president said, quote, i do not believe we can continue doing the same thing for five decades and expect a different result, closed quote. in other words, the president is saying that when something isn't working we need to try a new approach. i wonder if the president and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree that we should apply that same standard to our national -- nation's education policy. as a former member of the alabama state school board,

former chancellor of postsecondary education for alabama, i think it's time for a change. for the last 50 years, federal education policy has failed our students, especially our nation's poor students who need us the most. just look at the statistics. only 38% of high school seniors can read at grade level and just 26% are proficient in math. survey after survey shows that united states is lagging behind other countries in terms of education. we clearly need a new approach and that is why i was proud to support the student success act yesterday in our committee on education and the work force. for too long the focus has been on the needs and wishes of washington special interest groups instead of on the needs of those who matter the most, the students. it's time we change that. immediately, two glaring flaws come to mind when looking at current policy. first, our local teachers and administrators are drowning in

paperwork and mandates. while only 10% of the funding for k-12 education comes from the federal government, the general accountable office has found that 41% of the paperwork comes from the federal level. that's unacceptable. second, title 1 funds which are intended to support our nation's most vulnerable, are picking and choosing winners by forcing money to some schools and not allowing that money to others. the money should follow the student. we shouldn't allow students to remain stuck in failing schools. every child deserves a fair chance. mr. speaker this top-down heavy hand of federal approach to education is not working and frankly it is outdated. it is not the 1960's anymore. there are more than three television networks. we aren't all eating wonder bread. our phones aren't rotary phones tied to the wall and our

education system shouldn't be stuck in the 1960's either. instead of focusing on special interest groups, let's turn the focus to students, parents, local leaders. while the other side is always quick to point out the d.c. special interest groups that stand by their failed approach, the student success act is supported by the national school board association which is made up of more than 90,000 local school board members. these are the very people who are actually dealing with federal education policy and how it actually works on the ground every day and they want a new approach. democrats and republicans in these loke -- and these local school boards want a new approach. our teachers need the flexibility to innovate. that's why it has narrowly scope grant programs and has a flexible grant which allows schools to use teaching methods that work best for their

students. during committee debate yesterday, my colleagues on the other side were so committed to these same old failed education policies that they even defended the universally disliked highly qualified teacher requirement. while i agree we need the best teachers possible in the classroom, who are federal bureaucrats in had washington to decide what makes you highly qualified. teachers in southwest alabama and all across our country agree that the highly qualified teacher provision is simply not effective. yet, my colleagues on the other side and their special interest buddies refuse to give up power and allow us to move in a different direction. it's time for the federal government to get some humility. washington bureaucrats don't know how to educate our children but local superintendents, school boards, teachers and principals do. so let's empower them. it's time we restore local control over our education policy and put power in the hands of those who know our students best.

let's put the focus on the student for once and that's exactly what this act does. i think the president may be on to something. we shouldn't continue with the failed education policy that has failed us for decades. we should get away from the centralized approach to education that has failed the students throughout america. mr. speaker, the student success act offers that new approach and i urge the leadership of this house to bring the student success act to the floor for a vote and let's empower parents and local education leaders and for once let's put the students first. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, for five minutes. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. good morning. mr. speaker, almost 14 years after the horrific terrorist attacks on september 11, 2001, the american public does not yet have all of the information

available regarding the circumstances surrounding those attacks upon our country. particularly, 28 pages of the bipartisan joint inquiry into intelligence community activities before and after the terrorist attacks of september 11 2001 which remain classified. since 2013, my colleague, congressman walter jones of north carolina, mr. massey of kentucky, and i have been working together to craft and garner support for house resolution 14 which calls on the president to release the 28 pages of the 9/11 joint congressional inquiry. i sincerely appreciate congressman jones and mr. massey's willingness to collaborate on this concerted effort on this issue. over the past few weeks, calls to declassified the 28 pages have been in the spotlight due to recent allegations by convicted terrorist moussaoui, who conspired to kill americans

and will rightly spend the last rest of his life in prison. whatever the motivations for his recent accusation of complicity by agents in the 9/11 attacks, his testimony does bring to light important questions. most notely is the fact that as a nation we have not yet fully accounted for the sources of funding and lodge cyclal support that a-- logistical support. we owe it to the families that lost loved ones on that day, to provide the complete accounting and events leading up to the tragedy of 9/11 and it is a grave injustice that 28 pages of the bipartisan, bicameral congressional inquiry remain classified 14 years after september 11. this was not a mere redax of a few specific -- redaction of a few specific phrases but the wholesale removal of 28 pages in length.

it may be a matter of national security to classify these pages back in 2002, but it's now a matter of public interest and good governance to release them in 2015. i am in firm agreement with former senator bob graham of florida who oversaw the inquiry. my colleague walter jones of north carolina and mr. massie and members of both parties who like myself have read the 28 pages and believe that disclosure will not jeopardize sources in gathering this information. i firmly believe that declassifying the findings is appropriate for a number of reasons. as thomas jefferson said, quote an enlightened citizenry is indispensible for the proper function of government and self-governance is not possible to enable them to exercise oversight closed quote. in other words, there can be no accountability without transparency. we must advocate for the need to make these pages public in

order to shine a brighter light on the information contained therein and utilizing to in framing our foreign policy going forward. in addition, i've met with spouses, children, siblings, parents of the 9/11 victims as well as representatives from 9/11 families united for justice against terrorism. they have provided powerful testimony and heart-rending submissions regarding how important it is to seek the truth and bring it all those to account who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. at a time today when the world continues to face challenges from expanding terrorist organizations, such as isis and boko haram and al shabaab, as well as al qaeda and its affiliates, we must be mindful of the urgent need to bring their financers and their supporters to justice as well. at an even more basic level, our commitment to one another as citizens in a society that

values freedom and justice demands that we mold accountable those who aided and abetted the savage attacks on our homeland and murdered thousands of innocent americans. when that fundamental duty to protect american citizens has been breached, it is not enough to say that we will never forget. the military and civilian personnel at the pentagon the first responders and office workers in the new york office towers the passengers and crews of those hijacked planes and all those families whose hearts still ache, we owe it to them. so i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to not only take the time to review those 28 pages but also consider supporting the house resolution 14 as these families and the american people deserve to have their questions answered. i want to thank you, mr. speaker, for your indulgence and i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins for

five minutes. mr. collins: just recently i'd like to start off with a positive note president obama submitted the federal budget on time for the first time since 2010. while i appreciate his timeliness and the constituents in my district don't appreciate the tiss regard for fiscal responsibility. the budget for congress which is starts the fiscal year with our country in the red. what organization starts off the fiscal year by saying they are going to purposely spend more money than they take in? how many folks around the dinner table actually have their conversations at the start of the year, you know what? i want to start the year broke and end broke. that's what the president's budget does. the president presented a congress a $ trillion budget. yes you heard me right, trillion with a t, the proposed budget request, $4 trillion in spending but only provides, get this, $3.5 trillion in revenue.

i was not the best math student but i can see a problem here. that leaves the government a half trillion dollar deficit. wait. hold on a second. let me go back and correct myself. i misspoke. that leaves the u.s. taxpayers with a half trillion dollar debt because let me remind you, the government makes nothing. everything we spend comes from right here, my pocket, your pocket, and everyone else in this country's pocket. i just checked, the population of the united states is slightly over $320 million. so every man, woman, and child would need to add an additional $1500 to what they owe in taxes to include newborns in order for this budget to even break even, and that's just for 2016. the president's budget is a political document that reflects a very different view of fiscal responsibility than most people have. let's go through it and discuss the good, the bad, and the ugly of this budget. first the good. now it is true that our national

deficit is shrinking. is it because of the president's policies? no. it is because of the ingenuity and determination of the american people. the private sector is now growing and has been for a while even as the administration has attempted to stifle business and anti-growth policies like obamacare. other regulations that continue to put sand in the gears of american business. even if the president's own budget documents, he cites economic growth has helped accelerate the pace of deficit reduction. he likes to go around the nation and do speeches on how the deficit has decreased to its lowest level in decades during his presidency. the problem is that's an inconvenient truth that he decides to leave out that the biggest drops occur after 2010 when the republicans took control of the house of representatives. the republicans were able to go on a concession on reductions in spending plus sequestration enter the fray which aided in the decrease of federal expenditures. while sequestration is not the budget to congress had hoped

for the president is trying to capitalize off this budget negotiation side effect. president clinton liked to take credit for the budget surpluses the country experienced in the 1990's which were the result of the republicans' contract with america. now president obama wants to take soul credit for a decrease in the deficit, a reduction in spending that he has had to make do with. the bad? the president wants to raise taxes on americans at the worst possible time as we are emerging from the financial crisis. president obama's taxes target job creators and middle class. one was so egregious that even the democrats said we can't go along with this. the president has had a tax proposal to cut tax benefits on college savings plans, the 529 college plans are a mean by which close to 12 million families save for college, many of them middle class americans. this comes at a time when student loan debt is approaching trillions of dollars. hidden deep in obama's budget is state of the union loan program that's recently been discovered to have 21.8 billion shortfall.

his plan to subsidize student loans has created a loss equal to the annual budgets of the department of intearors e.p.a., and nasa. the ugly. this budget he discusses by 2025 the federal debt will have reached $73.3% of g.d.p., almost 3/4 of our nation's collective wealth. the president defines the country's $18 trillion debt as being fiscally sustainable. for him 73% of our g.d.p. is acceptable. and i quote, the key test of fiscal sustainability is whether the debt is stable a share of the economy resulting in interest payments that consume a stable share of the nation's resources. go figure that one out. the most disheartening part of the president's numbers are incorrect. the congressional budget office, a nonpartisan analytical wing of congress stated by 2025 the federal debt will actually rise to nearly 79% of g.d.p. when the

federal debt would be $26.3 trillion. c.b.o. states our debt is currently 74% of g.d.p. the question you're asking now is, what is causing this increase in government spending? i bet you know the answer but i'm going to tell you anyway. the c.b.o. lists many factors all of which are contributing to our bust in our federal spending. with that this budget is again another example of what does not need to be. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from alabama, ms. sewell, for five minutes. ms. sewell: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to celebrate the life and legacy of jimmy lee jackson. jimmy lee jackson was one of the foot soldiers who died to ensure that all americans have the fundamental right to vote. this 26-year-old marion, alabama native was brutally killed at the hands of an alabama state trooper on february 18, 1965.

after attempting a voting rights rally while trying to protect his mother and his 82-year-old grandfather. the state trooper confronted the family at max cafe in marion and shot jimmy lee jackson as gun point range for simply shielding his family from the intimidation and retributions being carried out by law enforcement. to think that this occurred because of the audacity of this young man and his family to peacefully protest for their constitutional rights. which led to his brutal murder at the hands of law enforcement. it was a senseless murder of jimmy lee jackson that served as a catalyst for the voting rights movement in selma, alabama. jimmy lee jackson deserves to have his proper place in american history as a true agent of change. likewise the city of marion is rightfully the starting point of

the historic road to voter equality that led marchers from selma to montgomery. i have sponsored efforts and look forward to the national park service adding the city of marion to the historic trail from selma to montgomery. the senseless killing of jimmy lee jackson shocked the consciousness of the american public and galvanized local leaders to be even more resolved in their fight against inequities in voting. who was to blame for the death of jimmy lee jackson? dr. martin luther king professed as he eulogized jimmy lee jackson at his funeral we are all to blame for his murder. dr. king said it best. a state trooper pointed the gun, but he did not act alone. he was murdered by the truthality of every sheriff who practices lawlessness by the name of law. he was murdered by the irspornt of every politician from governors of towns and on town

who fed his constituent the stale bread of hatred and the spoiled meat of racism. he was murdered by the timidity of federal government that would spend money every day to keep troops in south vietnam and cannot protect the rights of its own citizens seeking the right to vote. and he was murdered by the coudwardness of every kneeing grow who accepts segregation and stands on the sidelines in the struggle for justice. now justice should be blind, mr. speaker, but in many cases it's not. everyone knew who killed jimmy lee jackson, but it wasn't until 40 years later when michael jackson, dallas county's first district attorney reopened the investigation and the wheels of justice slowly began to turn. yesterday this august body unanimously passed h.r. 431, a

bill that would award a congressional gold medal to the foot soldiers who participated in bloody sunday, turn around tuesday, and the final march from selma to montgomery. it is past due, mr. speaker, that these brave men and women take their proper place as agents of change in american history. while jimmy lee jackson did not live to participate in the march from selma to montgomery, he was there in spirit. it was his spirit that gave strength to the weak, that gave courage to the scared and that gave hope to the hopelessness. to his family i say this nation owes his family a debt of gratitude for which we can never repay. my hope is that this national recognition of the significance of the death of jimmy lee jackson will spur a renewed commitment in all of us to continue to fight for justice and equality for all. we the beneficiaries of that

struggle must continue his fight. we must continue to stand together. we must continue to be united in the fight for justice everywhere it is needed. jimmy lee jackson did not stand on the sidelines waiting patiently for justice to come. nor should we. dr. king once said, if you can't run or fly, then run faster. if you can't run, then walk. if you can't walk, then crawl. but whatever you do, you have to keep on moving forward. we must continue to stand together because our greatest and biggest fights are yet to come. we still need federal oversight to ensure that every eligible voter in these united states is able to cast their ballots and that every vote matters. jimmy lee jackson recognized the importance of the vote. he recognized the power of the ballot box. we owe it to ourselves and the memory of jimmy lee jackson to

continue his fight. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. >> mr. speaker, thank you very much. i come here today to the house floor to address an extremely important topic and a timely topic for our nation. investing in high quality pre-k case.

it's imperative to the success of our children, our schools, and communities. two years ago in this chamber president obama laid out his plan to provide universal, high quality, pre-k for every child in america. like the president proposed such a bold and awe dishes plan for our country? well it's simple. it's imbeen proven that children who participate in high call, prekindergarten programs are more likely to have greater academic and life achievements down the road. the benefits of a high quality prek education, including increased eager necessary and preparedness to learn, a higher reading writing, and mask correspond and social abilities access to quality prek is a much better predictor of achievement than race, family income, or even apparent's education. there's been so much research that has been demonstrated that access prekindergarten programs

have substantial long-term benefits. children that have attended prekindergarten are 20% more likely to graduate from high school and 22% more likely to own a home. additionally, these individuals are more likely to be employed and less likely to commit violent crimes. and i have to tell you, mr. speaker, one of the things that saddens me the most about my home state of texas is that we are leaving a lot of really bright young people behind. mr. veasey: nearly 555,000 preschool-aged children do not attend a pre-k program despite what i laid out earlier about less likely to commit violent crimes, more likely to own homes. you think it would be a no-brainer and we would be committing more towards pre-k education. leaving behind this many children, 550,000, over half a million, really does pose a

serious long-term economic effect to our great state and something that needs to be addressed. it's apparent that high level prekindergarten education produces individuals that are more prosperous and more likely to contribute to society in a positive way. and to help states like my own boost their pre-k education programs, president obama and the department of education delivered on his state of the union address and they released preschool development grants. these grants will help expand a high quality preschool programs and tarring thed communities and when the announcements were made in december again, i got to tell you, we do a lot of great things in texas and we often do it bigger and better, but i was really disappointed, mr. speaker, to learn that our state had $120 million of this

grant funding to invest in our children and ultimately our future. . over half a million kids being left behind. it's really -- was really a sad day in the lone star state. this money would have been used to improve pre-k education, expand access to children in low-income communities who need these services the most and losing out on this money should really be a wake-up call for texas and the policymakers there that we must create a plan to improve our pre-k system. texas failed to meet even the minimum requirements of this application to provide at least 50% increase in preschool slots available. and that's just really unacceptable. my state needs a comprehensive pre-k plan that works to increase access to high-quality programs, set higher learning standards improve curriculum and increased teacher training,

all those are really very, very important keys. the failure to invest in our young children is a failure to invest in our future. here in congress and back home, i intend to work tirelessly to provide for the best education system that our nation can provide. but, you know, and there are some bright spots. i talked about how the state because of the failed application policy that was really handled poorly, how we lost out on $120 million and over half a million kids are suffering because of that. but you know, i do think that it is important that i point out some of the positives. and there has been some bipartisan work along these efforts on pre-k and i do want to thank one of my former colleagues in the state legislature, state representative eric johnson of dallas, and a lady i did not serve with out of georgetown texas near austin, marsha

farney of georgetown to not only increase funding by $300 million, but improve curriculum teacher training and lower student-teacher ratios. in this global economy we live today and tomorrow, students won't be competing for jobs in the workplace of neighboring states but we'll be competing with kids and students from all over the world. mr. speaker, let's do this for texas. let's do the right thing. let's help these children and i yield back my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in rec

>> meanwhile, the hill reports that president obama's request for new war powers against the islamic militants poses a major challenge for his closest ally on capitol hill, representative nancy pelosi. the house minority leader's under pressure to support obama's anti-terror agenda, particularly in the face of republican criticism that his proposed authorization for the use of military force the aumf, is too narrow to be effective. she's also being pushed by a growing number of liberals in her caucus who have just the opposite concern that the resolution is too broad and could lead to another drawn out conflict in the middle east. that's from the hill. active day on capitol hill of hearings and senate work as well. the senate is in today and they will vote on the nomination of ashton carter to be the next secretary of defense. coming up this afternoon at 2:00

p.m. eastern. also as you have been hearing, you have been seeing, philadelphia has been chosen by the democratic national committee as the site for their 2016 presidential convention. and they will help hold -- hold that the week of july 25, 2016. we are hoping to bring you coverage of nancy pelosi speaking with reporters coming up in just a bit and also if we can before the house comes in, speaker boehner is going to speak to reporters. we'll have those live if we are able here on c-span. in the meantime, a look at the conversation, some of the conversation from this morning's washington journal. "washington journal is quote continues. host: guest: [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, ♪ -- host: we are joined by congressman dana rohrabacher. what is your impression of this authorization of the president sent over? guest: i have not read it yet

so i hate to give a specific decision on the language. it's going to have to have some very tough language, or definable terms that would give me comfort that the president is not going to use this as an excuse to put large numbers of combat troops, you know regiments or divisions of troops , in that area again. host: we've been fighting isis for six months now. what changes with this debate happening in congress? does anything change with what is happening, in terms of over there? guest: yeah, well, first of all there are many people who want to get totally out of that region, which is we've heard some callers say. but we do know we've got to support those people and those elements in the region who are

opposed and offer a different alternative to the islamic people who live there in the middle east. and i think that isil has crystallized that, that we have to offer an alternative. that is not mean we pick up the sword and fight their fight for them -- that does not mean we pick up the sorted by their fight for them. but we should be behind the alice-asisi and others who are willing to fight. and we can draw others into the coalition, so we don't have to send american combat troops. but we should be supporting them with backup air support, etc. host: one of our collars in the first segment was advocating for more support of the kurdish

peshmerga fighters. guest: exactly. host: do you think they are our best option right now? guest: well, they, and the jordanians. king abdulla and the crown prince of abu dhabi. as well as egypt. we've got people there. just focusing on what we can do to help those people defeat this evil force. and isil, you have jury remember -- you have to remember, this seems like a new force, but it's nothing more than radical fanaticism. the words that our president does not seem to be able to utter, islamic terrorists, but that is what they have been for over 10 or 15 years. this is the same group, really.

it may not be the same organization, but the same group of people who slaughtered 3000 americans on 9/11. we make mistakes when we are not giving wholehearted support to those people in the region to fight the fight themselves. host: if you want to talk to congressman dana rohrabacher this morning as we have this conversation, the phone lines are open. the numbers are on the screen. and as those viewers are calling in, i want to ask about your recent trip to northern iraq and what your spirits was. guest: i visited irbil which is in the kurdish region. i believe we should recognize the kurds as an independent country. many of our problems stem from the fact that we have british

colonialists, these imperialist of 150 years ago responsible for drawing a lot of these lines. and a lot of these countries were not countries. they were just the creation of some british imperialists 150 years ago. the kurds deserve their own country. they are a national entity. we have been trying to bend over backwards and placate groups of people who are not necessarily our friends. we are trying to calm in a people -- to accommodate people who we don't know if they are friends. stick with your friends. find out who they are. give them as much support as you can, and let's forget about baghdad. let's deal with the kurds. host: and that includes military legal aid to -- guest: the kurds? absolutely. host: what about arming syrian

rebels will stop at the place you have expressed concern in the past. -- what about arming syrian rebels? it is a place you have expressed concern in the past. guest: the president needs to get it right. using the words islamic terrorist might indicate a mindset that might give him the wrong directions as far as who to support and who not to. for example there were demonstrations early on in his presidency. they called it the air spring. welcome he was very supportive. and guess what, in a ron -- in iran where he should have been supportive of the democratic elements, he couldn't bring himself to support those people against the mullah regime. i think the president has some judgment problems based on his own perceptions of who is the

good guy and the bad guy. we should be doing what we can -- we can determine that, all of us. who is our friends? and get behind them. the good not localized to get solidly behind president a l-assis and provide him helicopters at a time that we know egypt is just teetering on becoming radical. if we lose egypt, it's gone. in our present has a link of a halfhearted support to the non-fanatics in egypt. -- our president has only given halfhearted support to the non-fanatics in egypt. host: go to our first call. caller: we gave wholehearted support in iraq. i remind you of the transportation minister who was put in there by officials.

his name is al-amari. he is pro-radicalization and has been leading militias and he is a shiite. i would like to know, give me the names of those syrian moderates that you are so blatant on arming. guest: i never use the word moderate. you used the word moderate. we are talking about people who are freely to the interest of the united states and are not engaged in fanatic, radical islamic terrorism. yeah, there are a lot of forces there that may not be considered democratic or moderate that we could get behind to defeat this enemy which threatens our security as well as the security of every person in that area.

-- in that area who is not a fanatic muslim who will not join their team. for example, this is more controversial. i don't see any reason why we should not be trying to enlist assad. he has an army and an air force. his armies never going to join forces with the radicals to attack western interests there. at the very least, we know that. these other people are trying to help what has happened. -- are trying to help and what has happened yet we have been giving our weapons to the bad guy. and by the way, let me just note -- when i come down on the president about his shortcomings in being able to deal with radical islam and make the right decisions to position us toward

overcoming the challenge, i do not say that the republicans should be growing -- crowing. we have to remember, it was george w. bush and his invasion of iraq that got us into this situation so deeply in the first place. host: on assad for a moment, do you seem as a legitimate actor in a process? guest: yes power military -- in world war ii, we helped joseph stalin, for pete's sake. this is really the thing group that brought these are radical fanatic islamists and we need to make sure we can work with those people who will help us defeat that which is our primary enemy. host: how you are on with

congressman dana rohrabacher. guest:caller: my biggest concern is that if we central out there that they weren't taking care of the troops a first time. i am a disabled vet and have been waiting a long time for my v.a. claim. the president is in charge of the v.a. and i have to admit i talked to jeff miller and bipartisan support and i have concerns they are not taking care of us

>> key should not be doing policy days on what's going to prevent people from attacking us in a islamic world. we should do what makes sense for us, to make sure those people in the islamic world who are muslims and willing to work. i believe 90% of the muslim people certainly don't go along with these radicals. but the radical islamic terrorists are motivated by their religion. and they are trying to radicalize their fellow muslims and the worst thing we can do is make this a muslim versus christian battle because right now we have many muslims who will -- the northern alliance that defeated the taliban, for example, in afghanistan. they are all muslims. we should have been backing them all along. by the way, in afghanistan our government was basically backing

the taliban during the 1990's, and when we should have been supporting those people in -- who ultimately became the northern alliance. that would -- then we ended up having to send troops into afghanistan to do their fighting. we didn't have to do that, either. i'm all for -- i was all for making sure we provide those people like the northern alliance, the air support they need or the weapons they need to be able to defeat these radical islamic fanatics. but for us then to -- which is what george w. did endlinged up putting in american combat units to do the fighting for these people, that's when things go haywire. it puts us, puts our people in jeopardy. we have more veterans we have to take care of because they are putting their lives on the line rather than having those local

people do it do the job they are supposed to do. high pressure orlando, florida. line for democrats. morning. the chair: good morning. listen i only -- i only have a couple comments to make and all these comments is the first thing this representative said i did not read the speech. i don't know what's in the papers. of president obama. what he asked for yesterday. now, he had that from yesterday until this morning, but he hasn't read it. he was probably trying to make his plane tickets to go home. he's only got -- guest: those type of personal insults are unnecessary. the fact is that you have -- that i plan to study this -- what the president has suggested and, yes, i was busy doing work here in washington yesterday.

you don't have to insult people who work here thinking that we don't care as much as you do. i find that my colleagues they care a lot about their job. they are good people. and i've got my disagreements with them, believe me. i'm an outspoke general guy -- outspoken guy. you just heard me criticize the republican party and i'm a republican but i don't doubt people are trying to do what they think is right. i just think that some -- many areas, we disagree. you didn't have to try to insult me on that. host: expected to go through the foreign affairs committee in the house, would it come to your subcommittee first? guest: not my subcommittee but committee. i'm on the foreign affairs committee. host: the subcommittee you chair. guest: no. it would not. ed royce is the chairman of the full committee. it will go directly to the full committee. host: what is your expectation

on this -- it was just introduced yesterday, when a final vote might happen on this. months? weeks? guest: i would imagine within a matter of weeks. even sooner. i don't have a -- as i say i don't have a read on this particular -- the president's made an offer. i don't have a read on it yet. host: that back and forth, are you expecting it to go on? guest: i want to take a look to make sure that there are some real limitations on the type of military forces that we can put into that region again. i do not want to see the major deployment of tens of thousands of american troops go back into that part of the world again. that's wrong. it doesn't work. and -- so i'll look at what the president's asking us to do. host: what about a specific time limit?

there's been reporting the language in it, a three-year time limit could be renewed by congress. is that something that you would be ok with? guest: it sounds ok to me. three years, to what extent, what are the limitations he's putting on the actual deployment of large -- american troops before i give him three years to do anything that he wants, no. i don't think i'm going to do that. host: california next. line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning, representative rohrabacher. this is ken. we have met before. and i hope we can change gears here a little bit. when you're looking at isis in general as being the problem that they are, it seems to me like all i rather about most people if you are inducted into issa have identity problems. why can't we -- into isil, have

identity problems. why can't we do something about offering a better deal? maybe creating like a level of a red cross or something where they can be given a good identity to support people and to help the people and who become homeless or injured? honor them. turn their weapon in and be part of the cure instead of part of the pain. guest: you think maybe we should offer the s.s. and hitler's armies a way they can feel better about themselves and not have to wear their uniforms? anybody who has gotten involved with that organization knows that they are murdering people. they are putting guns to the back of their heads. murdering -- burning people alive to try to terrorize you and me. this isn't some psychlogical esteem problem we are going to

solve with psychology. we are going to have to defeat these people and we need to work with those people -- we will kill them so they don't kill us. host: line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. how you doing? ok. you know i hear this gentleman sit here and say president obama won't call these muslims radical muslims. ok. guest: terrorists. caller: what do you call christian when is they behead blacks, castrate blacks? throw firebombs and churches killing innocent children all because we are black? why don't you call christians radicals? guest: some have used that phrase. my dad was in the military. we lived in north carolina when i was growing up. this is in the 1950's. and i fully aware that we had people who were -- called themselves christians who were

carrying cross, burning cross, who were brutalizing and terrorizing america's black population. so i agree there are a lot of people who deserve the criticism that you just made, but it's not me. host: a different region of the world this week, this morning we just found out that a cease-fire deal has been announced, president putin of russia announcing that a cease-fire in eastern ukraine expected to go into effect on sunday, this comes in a week in which we know the white house has been debating sending aid to the ukrainian government. >> good morning, everyone. time check. with only 16 calendar days and only five legislative days left until the department of homeland security is scheduled to shut down, house republicans refuse to admit the dangerous collapse

of their anti-immigrant grandstanding. senate republicans have told the house republicans their bill cannot pass in the senate but still the house republicans refuse to acknowledge the facts. yesterday every house republican voted to block consideration of a clean department of homeland security bill. on tuesday, asked whether the house would take up the d.h. spending bill, house majority leader kevin mccarthy said, why do we have to? why do we have to? here's why forcing the department of homeland security to shut down endangers the american people. violating the psych red oath we take to support -- sacred oath we take to support and defend, our oath of office. our first responsibility to protect the american people. republicans should stop holding our homeland security hostage and bring forward a clean, long-term funding bill immediately. instead of addressing these

urgent priorities for our security republicans were bringing forward two permanent nonpaid for tax extender bills. together they increase the deficit by nearly $100 billion. . we need comprehensive tax reform that strengthens working families, promotes growth and reduces the deficit. also yesterday, the president submitted a draft for new authorization for use of military force to congress. it ends the outdated 2002 authorization that authorized the iraq war. it restricts the use of ground troops and includes other important limiting provisions as we go forward.

congress must now debate the draft, make our own positive proposals on how we protect the american people. that's a bigger debate than the provisions of this aumf. it's a debate we should have been having since last august we've been calling for the speaker to let us bring something to the floor so that we could debate it. he said no, next year, all that. and then he said we can't act until we see something from the president. well that's not so. but now we have seen something from the president. and what we have to do is consider the threat and evaluation of the threat. we have to see that it is in our national security interest to address that threat, and we have to make a judgment as to whether what the president has put forth is commensurate with the threat. many of us believe that he's on

the right path but not necessarily committed to the words in this draft until we review them more carefully. you all know that subjects are about timing, threes years, about geography unlimited in the president's proposal. there are members who have some -- something to say shall we say, about the timing and geography. but the most serious part of it is the scope and that would have an impact on timing and geography. and in his -- and what the president has put forth, there is a limitation. i'll just read it exactly. under the section on liltations, "the authority granted in subsection a does not authorize the use of united states armed forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations." that is a limitation. as you know, senator mccain has a different view of giving

unlimited authority to the president. we have some in our caucus who proceeds cautiously on that and that's the debate we will have. the first debate is about an evaluation of the threat and what arrows do we want to place in the president's quiver to deal with the threat. yesterday, again, was a busy day. not busy day in terms of getting things done around here, but nonetheless we went to the floor to award the congressional gold medal to the foot soldiers in the march march on selma, the legislation will award the gold medal when it is minted and presented but we had the authorization for it yesterday. it was very interesting to hear the debate -- inspired, very praise worthy of the people on the march on each side of the aisle. beautiful words on the floor about the foot soldiers. but there are foot soldiers who

are marching for voting rights and what was missing from all of that is we heard tales of the courage of these marchers and violence that they suffered and putting their lives at risk for the right to vote. it was all very inspiring to hear the admiration for the foot soldiers. what we would like to have seen is the commitment to honor their work to give the commitment to passing the voting rights act. yesterday, a judiciary chairman sensenbrenner and our ranking member, john conyers introduced the bipartisan voting rights act and mr. sensenbrenner has been part of that bipartisan initiative all along. what we need is for the speaker to bring the bill to the floor. we had hoped it would happen last year. they didn't bring the bill to the floor. it's just nice words on the floor is no substitute for

honoring the sacrifice of those marchers and that is to pass the voting rights act. i'm very pleased that our democratic outreach engagement task force, led by congressman clyburn, who himself was part of the civil rights movement, will be introducing legislation in the weeks ahead. again, hopefully by the time we go to selma, the first weekend in march, we'll have reason to be hopeful that the 50-year anniversary will be marked by a recommitment to the bill in the form of legislation passed in the congress. i remind you that when we brought this forward in 2006 when we wrote the -- when the bill was written in 2006 and put together, the vote in the senate was unanimous. it was unanimous. in the house only 33 people voted no. and that was a more -- a broader bill than what is being put forth now by mr. sensenbrenner and mr. conyers. so it has been bipartisan with

great pride. hopefully they'll bring the bill to the floor soon again. i'll be pleased to take any questions you may have. >> ms. leader, what is the end game of the drama, a two-month c.r.? >> that's not an end. that's not a end. a two-month c.r. is not an end. a two-month c.r. is a continuation of uncertainty. and they ought to just face the fact that this president has the right to do what he has done by executive action. he has the right in the law by legal authority as well as by precedent of other presidents. and they want to overturn that using the constitution and the rest and saying, therefore they're not going to fund homeland security. the very first responsibility we have is -- it's hard to understand but two months is nothing, as their leader said, why do we have to do that? why do we have to -- why do we

have to do that? so if they don't understand why we have to do that, they don't understand that maybe 100,000 people will be without pay. people who -- more importantly who should be at work protecting the american people. how would they like to be without pay because they're not protecting the american people by honoring their oath of office? so it is -- two months is not an end. an end is to pass the bill clean just as they did -- there should be recognition that 11 appropriations bills were arrived at in a bipartisan way that we supported. not that i'm saying it was a bill i would have written but they were compromised and they should be supported by the work product that came forth and those 11 have gone forward and

they will be funded until the end of the fiscal year, until september. only this one they held up. in december when they decided to have a c.r., a continuing resolution the cronibus -- cute -- they said, oh, we'll do it in january. as i said that was december. oh we'll do it in january. january, the whole world was galvanized the issue of anti-terrorism and domestic safety and homeland security except again the hermedically sealed chamber of house of representatives where they came back instead of just moving with it they dug in their heels. so two months, that's not a solution. that's not an end game. you have to ask them how they're going to face up to the responsibility to support and defend. >> madam leader, calling for a clean bill, how is it saying

you're willing to shut down homeland security to protect illegal immigrants from deportation? >> the president has the legal authority to do what he did. he has it by the law and that has been recognized in court cases under other presidents. and so he has it under legislation. he has it under legal affirmation of that and he has it under the precedent of other presidents. and that would be the biggest protectors were reagan -- president reagan and president george herbert walker bush with their initiative over and above what the congress did. so it's not a question of protecting people in our country. it's a question of respecting the authority of the people president of the united states to -- authority of the president of the united states to -- did you hear anything from reagan, president george h.w. bush, a champion when he did that?

it's an excuse and a very poor one to say i'm not going to honor my first responsibility because i have a problem. as the president said, if you don't like what i have done, pass a bill. pass a bill. so this is -- this is -- they're in a fix. we'll see how they get themselves out of it. we stand ready to work with them to protect the american people. >> madam leader. >> about the voting rights act. has there been any indication from republican leadership they'll bring the sensenbrenner-conyers bill to a vote? and more broadly, do you think the republican party is committed to getting this update done and if not why not? >> well, you have to ask them. i don't see any evidence of that yet because we had all of last year since the court acted and correctly in my view. the voting rights act had -- i don't know if if they used the word obsolete but that was the inference to be drawn but we passed the bill overwhelmingly

and it became law in 2007 and this was, what 2013 when they did the court decision. more than a year ago. so there has been plenty of opportunity. don't get me wrong. this compromise -- this bill is a compromise. there are many out there who think we should go farther in correcting what the court did. but this is a compromise that we would have hoped they would accept because it is a compromise. there is a drumbeat for doing a better voting rights bill. we're saying let us get something passed. with chairman sensenbrenner's support, who has been a champion on these issues, let us move -- let us move forward. i don't know of any commitment. certainly they didn't make any yesterday. >> do you think the republican party is interested in protecting voting rights? >> i would certainly hope so. i would certainly hope so. >> madam leader, in regards to the aumf, i can't find that's

enthusiastically on this. the president could essentially continue to operate the way they are. no geographic limitation. a real concern how long special forces troops can be prolonged in the area. how do you sell this to your members? >> it's not a question of selling. we are all considering it together. in our caucus, we sort of -- we build consensus and we listen to each other. taking your points one at a time. in terms of the 2001 aumf, the administration said they didn't put it in this bill because it would be -- this is a big package to move. so if we want to deal with that we should deal with that separately. and that's something we all have the prerogative to do. the second point on geography well, someone -- iraq and syria.

what about jordan? that goes into naming countries. that's a conversation we smud have. i'm not saying one side is right and one side is wrong. it's a conversation we need to have, but it's easier to say no limitation rather than start naming countries and then you've left somebody out. giving a road map to the al qaeda as to where they can go because we're not going. and that's a consideration. in terms of the timing, three years, i think the timing and the geography are related to the scope. the scope is really the issue. as i read the limitations are that this authority granted in subsection that's not authorizing use of u.s. armed forces and enduring offensive ground combat operations. and so that is the k that we need to have. there is no question that there's no appetite in the public for us to go into any more war. there is no question that american people had been scarred by the false premise of the iraq war and the duration

and the obligation we have to our veterans when they come home and the challenge it is to meet that. so when we proceed -- as i say, when we give arrows in the president's quiver we have to match it to the threat, its relationship to our national security and how we can help other countries fight the fight with their boots on the ground, not our boots on the ground. >> your rise on the iraq war issues is very well-known within democratic circles. you were a critic to the iraq war. very much to your benefit. how do you view this? >> i don't -- my -- what i was told when i opposed the iraq war, quite frankly, by members of our caucus was if you oppose this war, your future is ended in the leadership of the democratic party. they didn't understand. and i said, if i'm the only person to vote against the iraq war i'll be the only person to vote against it. my responsibility as ranking member on the intelligence

committee tells me that the intelligence does not support the threat that they are putting forth to the american people as a justification to go into war. the intelligence did not support the threat. and i told that to my colleagues and for this and other reasons. their own reasons, many members -- in fact, i think over 60% of the house democrats opposed going into iraq. i was already with at that point. i was told, if you vote against this -- if i'm the only one ra, ra ra. that was really more from my knowledge of the intelligence and the fact that that was being misrepresented to the public. again, many -- maybe -- i don't know, some democrats voted for it. they have said. i wish i hadn't. but the fact is in making judgments about language that

we got yesterday 9:00 in the morning, people want to review it they want to see what it is. but it has to be proven to them. they don't start at a place of just show it to me and i'm there. it has to be proven to them that this is -- an evaluation of the threat that this proposal is commensurate with the threat and it has limitations on the president. i don't ever remember a president sending legislation to the congress to limit his power as commander in chief. so i think the administration has to be commended for that. and we have to be commended for exercising our independent judgment as to the terms and make positive suggestions or not accept it. that's -- this is a very personal decision that people have to make and it is -- it is affected by what the threat is, what the proposal is, what the alternative could be and what the consequences could be. i would hope that in the three

years of this, isis will be defeated and that we can go on to our future instead of having the -- being in a war-like posture from 2001. i don't -- i don't think that this description here puts us anywhere near the posture of afghanistan and iraq. i hasten to add, this is a limitation of presidential -- yes, ma'am. >> just to follow up on the question of limitation. you and other members have said you want to limit the ability -- deploy ground troops. >> yes. >> republicans control both houses of congress and they want to remove those limitations. given that political dynamic and the fact this could be marked up by republican committee chairmen who want to take away those limitation, how likely is it that it will pass? >> it's going to be hard and i hope we can find common ground to have bipartisan support for how we protect and defend the american people. but that takes work.

it's called legislating. you may not recognize it because it hasn't happened quite much around here. it is. when we had the vote on going into iraq in 2000 -- i remember -- it was in 1991 -- january, 1991. when we had that debate it was one of the best debates in the congress. it really -- it really is important for people to express their knowledge of, again our national security interest, what our options are and make choices about it in a way that is value-based. it does not question anybody's motivation but instead tries to find common ground to be united as we broe tect the american people. it's a very, very, very serious responsibility to authorize the use of force and put our men and women in uniform at serious

risk. and that is taken very seriously by members. >> madam leader, moving down -- [inaudible] with the events in yemen in the past few days, what does that say about the administration's policy and does that show that there has been a problem there or something that u.s. and this administration could have been more attentive too? >> no. what's going on in yemen is a difficult situation. we were working with the yemeni -- the government of yemen to fight the forces of al qaeda -- the manifestation of al qaeda in yemen. they are now gone. i'm pleased that our personnel were able to get out of yemen safely. but there's a lot going on in the world, and it -- i think -- i don't know what would happen in terms of yemen as we go down the road, but any of these incidents points to the fact we need to have probably no

geographic limitations on what we're doing. that is not to say -- what they're talking about here is protecting our embassies while we're out of there. we're talking about rescuing american personnel. those are kinds of examples that we're talking about when we talk about not enduring defensive ground combat operations. so what we have to be talking about is how do we maintain the authority of our government to go in and rescue, go in and defend americans and the rest. and that's what's relevant about this. the middle east is complicated. as you know -- as i'm sure you know in yemen, there is -- apart from al qaeda there are differences of opinion tribal and all the rest, and we can't correct all the world's problems but where there is a threat to us, we have to have some ability to protect the

american people. thank you, all. don't forget, in case you were forgetting, what is it, this sunday, the last day to sign up for a.c.a. sunday is the last day for open enrollment. enrollment has been extremely successful and exceeded expectations. so go to healthcare.gov for life -- healthier life liberty, the freedom to pursue your happiness. we're very proud of the affordable care act. thank you very much. oh, by the way don't forget, evaluate's day coming up. -- valentine's day coming up. as a nice valentine's day, you can sign up for health care. thank you, bye-bye. >> and just a bit here we will have live coverage of house speaker john boehner scheduled to speak to reporters at 11:30. the house is coming back at noon eastern taking up a bill today permanently renewing tax

credits for charitable contributions. also, debate rules for a bill that will take up tomorrow one that permanently extends the credit allowing small businesses to write off certain expenses. the white house issuing a veto threat against both those bills. house legislative work at noon. live here on c-span. the senate is in today and on one of their potential votes coming up in the coming weeks "politico" write about loretta lynch, debate is getting partisan, they write. democrats are now increasingly slamming the republicans' handling of barack obama's nominee for tone general, "politico" writing that the confirmation is being slow walk by republicans. in fact, chairman grassley of the judiciary committee, announced that the vote will be after the president's day recess. well, a vote coming up before the president's day recess in the u.s. senate is that of ashton carter, nominated to be president obama's fourth secretary of defense. that's coming up this afternoon at 2:00 p.m. eastern.

you can watch that vote and all of the senate debate over on our companion network, c-span2. while we wait tore speaker boehner to speak with reporters, back to more of this morning's journal journal. -- "washington journal." another congressional california member of congress, jerry mcnerney. he is a member of the energy and commerce committee. the house passed another keystone pipeline deal. this is the second of the year. 29 of your fellow democratic members voted in favor of this specific measure. what happens to this measure from here? there is some expectation of a veto from the president. is that a veto fight he can win? guest: he has issued a veto threat, and i think he will follow through with that. i am not sure if it'll sustain in the house and senate. host: some of the democrats to

join republicans on this bill have called this a jobs bill. they said they are supporting this measure because of the job creation. where do you stand on what the keystone xl pipeline can do for jobs in this country? guest: it is not an easy call. it has the potential to create jobs in this country. in my opinion, the keystone pipeline is not really necessary. we are already the biggest oil producer in the world. oil prices are falling. if the pipeline got built, i am not sure it will be used because it would be too expensive. host: the bill the house voted on yesterday was a senate version of a keystone approval bill. one that they debated and had many amendments. with their amendments in that process that you supported and amendments you hoped could be another piece of legislation down the road? guest: the were amendments such as acknowledging that climate change is taking place.

i think it is important for the senate to stand up and say that and pass with sufficient votes. those were nonbinding votes. they didn't have any outcome on the bill itself. they have a good message on some of them, but they didn't do much. on the other hand, if we can get that certain thinking into legislation, that can be helpful. host: one amendment was on energy efficiency, an area that you are obviously outspoken on. guest: energy efficiency is important because you get the biggest bang for your buck when you can reduce our consumption of fossil fuels which contribute to climate change. if we incorporate energy efficiency thinking into our energy policies in the future, we will be better off. host: we are talking with congressman jerry mcnerney.

he will join us for the next 45 minutes or so on "washington journal". " kevin is up first, calling from iowa on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. first, i want to say the first congressman you had on there saying he was right about the christians. my point on the keystone pipeline is how can any congressman want to pass the keystone pipeline when there are farmers in nebraska that are against it going through their property. you are giving a foreign company the right to go through american

citizens'property citizen's property. i don't understand how you are giving a foreign company the rights to go through a citizen's property. guest: thank you for that question. i tend to agree. lots of people in nebraska are concerned about the pipelines going through the farmlands and the region. the pipelines have failed. to have been big spills in the past. it is the right to refuse a company putting big equipment on their land. i voted against the bill because i think it is an environmentally detrimental bill. the full to nebraska should have a right to say no to this. host: if gas prices go back up

is there more pressure on this administration and congress to pass the keystone x pipeline? -- the keystone xl pipeline? guest: it will have a large impact on the way people think. if gas prices are low, people will be more interested in conservation and ways to save money. when gas prices go up, there will be actual pressure to do that. right now, gas prices are low and they seem like they will continue to drop. that is an important factor in how we think about the pipeline. in terms of gas supply, i think america will continue to be a big supplier. host: what is your reading of the process that the president and state department and executive administrations are going through in the approval of the keystone pipeline? guest: they are looking at all the aspects to make sure the

pipeline does not hurt the american economy. to want to make sure it is not an environmental problem in terms of spills and the effects of global warming and climate change, which could be aggravated by the dirty form of oil coming out of canada. host: we have jesse in maryland on the line for independents. caller: a of quick points leading up to the question. fossil fuels and global warming, with nuclear power being the sustainable clean energy source and for the sake of getting behind the state's energy completely and the federal government's promised to the nuclear industry decades ago that they would provide repository for the waste. why not for some resources

behind more nuclear research? guest: thank you is that people are so distrustful of it. afraid of nuclear accidents so we need to make sure that technology is sound, that it's safe, that it's fail-safe. and we need to be very transparent to the american people about what we know, about the potential for accidents, about what would happen if there was an accident. if people aren't comfortable with nuclear power it's not going to happen, but i think it's in our national interest to make sure that we have nuclear power available and we develop nuclear power at a level that would be supported by the american public. host: you have a background in wind power. if you can talk a little about that and at what point if ever, renewable energy production can replace some of these other energy needs that

we're talking about here? guest: well, thank you. yes, i'm very passionate about renewable energy. i spent 20 years or so developing wind turbine wind energy technology. it was a great way to spend a career, and i've seen the technology start from a very -- a very primitive technology and year by year improve and become more reliable, more cost-effective. and now wind power is very reliable. it's very effective. it's cost-effective. solar energy is coming down. we're seeing more and more solar energy installed in california and around the country. around the world. in california we have mandates as to how much power from the -- power companies comes from renewable energy and we're seeing we're able to meet those goals year by year. it's just a matter of making the determination do it and letting our technology, letting

our entrepreneurs develop the technology using innovation. it's a great thing to see happen. i think we have a great future. now, i think we can gradually displace more and more of the other forms of energy with real renewable such as wind, solar geothermal and i think the future's great. host: one question on the proposed keystone x.l. pipeline from twitter. this is already being moved via train tanker cars. seems like a moot point. which is better or worse, train or pipeline? guest: well, trains are more expensive and they are also subject to failure. i think we need to do is look at american oil. keystone -- oil from the tar sands is dirty. it produces a lot of carbon. per unit of energy that's produced. we have american oil. but, yes i think the twitter

is right. trains pose risk. pipelines pose risk. any form of energy that we use is going to have some detrimental affect on our environment. so we need to become more efficient. i think that was one of our earlier comments is that you get the best bang for your buck with energy efficiency. we need to reduce the amount of energy that we waste, and i think we can come to a place where we have sort of a sustainable system with a small amount of fossil fuels being used. some nuclear and some renewables. host: let's go back to maryland. bowie, maryland. republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for having me on. i think in the interest of transparentsy i think it's better for you to say you typically advocate for renewable energies and that way people are not taken aback with the idea you don't like the sort of fossil fuel angle of energy. just my question and my

concern. what i don't get is that this oil will be refined here in the united states because we have the best refineries. we have one that can handle it. if we're going to build the keystone pipeline, and the question is about eminent domain, what about finding a way to compensate landowners so if they do build the pipeline they get a benefit out of it? host: congressman, i'll let you answer. guest: well, i think you're right. fossil fuels and in particular liquid fuels, are going to be needed forever. we're going to have airplanes. we're going to have cars. we're going to have transportation needs that require liquid fuels. so we need to make sure that we have the supply of liquid fuel in this country. we need to make sure there are sufficient refineries so we don't subject our customers to supply hikes and price hikes in a volatile market. but on the other hand, we need to balance that with the need for the environment the need to create energy that's

sustainable. [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] >> good morning, everyone. republicans continue to focus on creating jobs and improving our economy. the priorities of the american people. today, the ways and means committee will consider congresswoman jenkins' bill to strengthen college savings accounts. the president tried to tax these accounts but we're working to expand them which means more savings and less debt for our students. i think you can expect this bipartisan bill on the floor very soon. yesterday, the house acted in a bipartisan way to approve the keystone pipeline. this will create tens of thousands of jobs or at least 42,000, according to the president's own state department. more than 20 of our nation's governors this morning sent a

letter to the white house asking the president to consider signing this important bill. there is no good reason, none whatsoever for the president to veto this jobs bill. when it comes to funding the department of homeland security, there's no dispute amongst republicans. house republicans and senate republicans all agree, and frankly senate democrats should stop blocking debate on the house-passed bill. that's the thing. the senate democrats don't like our plan. but thanks to senator mcconnell, they can now offer amendments in the senate. something they weren't able to do in the last congress. but for senate democrats to simply block debate on the bill that funds many of their own priorities is as senseless and undemocratic as it is. the funding for homeland security lapses washington democrats will bear the responsibility. earlier this week the president criticized the inappropriate

use of a filibuster. well, i don't think we need any more lectures. what we need to do is pick up -- he needs to pick up the phone and call his own party to tell them to move ahead. for the past year, i've been urging the president to outline a strategy to defeat and destroy our terrorist enemies. and to its credit, the white house did the right thing and submitted language yesterday authorizing the use of military force against isil. that said, i do have concerns about the president's submission. i want to give our military commanders the flexibility and the authority that they need to defeat our enemies. and the white house readily admits that authorization they're seeking is more restrictive than what they already have in place. if we're going to defeat our enemy and win this fight, we need a strong, robust strategy and a strong, robust

authorization. and that's exactly what republicans will make the case for as we move through rigorous hearings and oversight on this issue. >> mr. speaker, you said at one point a few weeks ago that government -- that homeland security department would not shut down. you offered your assurances that that would not happen. can you still offer those assurances today or is that a possibility? >> the house has done its job. we passed the bill that funds the department and stops the president's unilateral actions with regard to immigration. it's up to senate democrats now to do their job. >> it's possible it will shut down? >> the house republicans have passed a bill. we've done our job. i will get that little booklet out of the gift shop and you can read it. the house passes a bill. the senate has to pass a bill. senate democrats are blocking debate on the bill. >> is it problematic if homeland security personnel aren't paid and are putting their lives on the line to protect people like you and

president obama? >> it will be bad. that's how the house passed the bill to fund the department. >> are you ok with funding lapsing? there's a lot of people in your conference that say it's ok. they're essential personnel. >> no. we passed a bill and now it's up ho senate democrats to help pass the bill. >> if republicans believe that on principle they also have democrats who agree with them, why not heed the calls of these democrats and have that as a separate debate? >> they can offer amendments in the senate if they get on the bill. they can make the changes, their body can do whatever their body has to do. the house has done its job. we've spoken. and now it's up to the senate to do their job and we can meet in conference, try to work out the differences. >> mr. speaker, you talked about giving commanders in the field enough flexibility. we had a problem that's erupted in the past couple days in

yemen. do you think that that speaks to the administration policy? that's the first part of my question. do you think that reflects the issue of giving people enough agility in the field but in this aumf, if the president says if we have to go to another part of the world to fight these type of fighters, shouldn't the president have to be charge in that and not commanders in the field when you're talking about completely different theaters? >> as you heard me say from this podium for the last several years, the president needs to have an overarching strategy to deal with this growing terrorist threat. he's yet to do that. he continues to look at this as a counterterrorism effort when in fact there's a war under way and we're in the midst of it. but the president has tied his own hands and wants to tie his hands even further with the authorization that he sent up here. i think it's time for the white house to develop an outline for the american people how we're

going to address this worldwide terrorist threat and to make sure that the president has the authorization to deal with it. >> and talking about places like yemen, it be that concrete, that specific? >> i think the president should fight the war wherever it is. simple as that. listen i've been involved in these debates over the authorization of military force since my first week in this congress some 25 years ago. when george herbert walker bush asked the congress to support his efforts to drive saddam hussein out of kuwait. and i've been involved in a dozen of these debates ever since. and i do believe that the commander in chief is the commander in chief and ought to have the wherewithal to go fight the enemy. the president ought to have that wherewithal with regard to this fight. >> that being said, it sounds like you guys do have a big difference than the president when it comes to the aumf.

are you convinced it gets done, are you convinced you can bridge these differences? >> we'll go through a rigorous set of hearings and oversight and try to develop an aumf that fits the battle that we're in the midst of. >> do you think it will pass this congress? are you convinced it will pass this congress? >> let's take it one day at a time. >> mr. speaker in light of the terror threat that's out there, is a short-term c.r. a possible solution to avoid a funding gap if we're heading toward the end of the month? [laughter] >> i'm going to start laughing. the house has passed its bill. we funded the department of homeland security. and we stopped the president with regard to his executive actions. it's real clear. it's time for senate democrats to get into the game get on the bill and if they don't like what they've done they can amend it. simple as that. thanks. and happy valuen tine's day to all of you -- vealt's day to

all of you. -- valentine's day to all of you. [laughter] >> we also covered the democratic leader pelosi. the house is coming back in about 20 minutes or so at noon eastern. they'll take up a bill tax credits for charitable contributions and debate rules for a bill they'll take up friday permanently extending credit for small businesses to write off certain expenses and veto threats from the white house for both bills. we'll have live house coverage when they return here on c-span. the senate's in session, meanwhile. you can follow that on c-span2. senator harry reid the democratic leader, is recovering in his washington residence after surgery today to restore vision in his wounded right eye. the a.p. says his office will return to work after next week's recess. today in the senate, they will vote on the nomination of ashton carter to be the next

secretary of defense. that vote coming up at 2:00 p.m. eastern. again, you can follow that on c-span2. we'll wait for the house to come in and take you back to this morning's "washington journal." every time they show the map on the pipeline, they are showing like it is coming through missouri. why are they showing that? is a coming to missouri -- is it coming to missouri? how close will a be to the missouri river? guest: when they show those large maps they are more or less cartoons of what is really happening. the detailed map will have some contour in it. host: if you want to see the map that is in the " washington times" today is here. the expansion is the dotted red line here.

one of the conflicted areas of where it goes through is here in nebraska. let us go to steve in scottsdale arizona. good morning. caller: good morning. i was watching the debate yesterday on the house floor talking about we need efficiency with our fuel. it seemed like it was very inefficient. they had the same arguments repeated over and over again. republicans said the exact same thing maybe 100 times. democrats had their view with the same thing. can we figure out a way to more efficiently debate the issue? let us have all the scientific facts and analyze them.

then let us come up with a solution. they are saying obama will veto it so the whole thing is a big waste of time. i sat and watched it for three hours and thought what a waste. host: thank you steve. a lot of times, these debates that consist of each side rehashing talking points. guest: several pieces of legislative initiative have been introduced knowing they would not go anywhere. i think we voted for the 54th or 55th time to overturn the afford will care act. i think this is our third vote this week on the keystone pipeline. these are not going to go anywhere. i would rather see us sit down and put these partisan games

aside and do what is necessary for the american public. there are plenty of issues where we are working together. for example, on energy efficiency, an issue we have talked about on privacy. when issues become too volatile, it is difficult to compromise. that has to do with the way campaigns are financed and the way negative attack ads are out there for anything you decide to do that is controversial. we have a lot of work to do in this country. one of the things we can do to make things better is to reform the way the campaigns are financed. host: if the debate sense familiar to you, this that from the wall street journal story on the keystone vote -- this is the 11th time the house specifically as approved the keystone legislation. since 2011. charles is next in virginia on the line for democrats.

caller: good morning. i have three questions i would like to ask. the first question is is this pipeline going to benefit the people in the united states? the second question is is the reason why our guest solo low is because they're trying to pass the pipeline? my third question is what oil company in the united states is behind all of this? i will turn the tv on to hear my answer. guest: i wrote them down and i hope i got them right. there will be some benefit to americans if the keystone pipeline is put in. mainly in labor. transcanada has been meticulous about developing logic labor agreements -- project labor agreements. i think that was wise of them to do that.

there will be refineries that will employ people that will be beneficial. i don't think it will have much of an effect on gas prices in this country. because of the way the world oil market works, most of the oil will be shipped overseas. host: the other question was that he wanted to know the oil companies that might benefit from the keystone xl pipeline. guest: i don't know the answer to that question, charles. one of the other question you asked is about the gas being so low because of making the type line pass. the recent gas prices are dropping now is because american producers are producing more oil than they have in a generation since the 1970's because of

hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. new technology has been developed over the past 10 years. there is a lot of -- there are a lot of different market forces at play. host: we are talking with congressman jerry mcnerney of california. and energy consultant in congress. the subcommittees he works on -- environment and the economy. we have about 20 minutes or so left with him this morning. dean is waiting in north carolina on the line for public and's. didn't -- on the line for republicans. caller: it is my understanding the nuclear energy that we produced the waste from -- we have no place to store it and no desire to find a place to store it. for nuclear waste that is 15

plus years old. if the green and renewable energies are being bought up by the oil companies and if that will continue to happen, how can we expect the cost to come down on green energy or renewable energy? guest: thank you dean. nuclear waste is an issue when he to be worried about. i did work on nuclear waste as a graduate student. i have a phd in mathematics. it was one of my studies. there is technology that would be to ensure the safety of nuclear waste. problem is getting a local region to accept putting it in their region. it is understandable that people would be reluctant to allow nuclear waste.

you not only have a potential for some waste leakage, but also the transportation of nuclear waste to the facility and so on. right now, we have the -- the department of energy in the past did a poor job of informing the public of what the project meant and what it was about. there was no transparency. people turned it down. this goes back to my earlier comment about transparency. if you're going to do something like nuclear waste coming to have to let the people know what is happening. you have to be completely open about the risks and rewards. there are rewards to putting nuclear waste in your region. it will create jobs and technology. that is our biggest challenge. it is a sort of political public relations challenge with regard to nuclear waste. there is a lot of nuclear waste out there that needs to be dealt with. the sooner we do with it, the

better. your other question was about renewable energy. it is a free market. if they wanted to buy stocks in renewable energy, it should be allowed to do that. the market will determine whether renewable energy is a couple -- is acceptable. i have seen it come down to three cents or four cents a kilowatt hour in a good location. it is competitive would just about any form of energy. it will find a way into the market. solar is just about the same place. the market will determine the future ever global energy in my opinion. some require 30% of the energy to come from her and will bowls -- to come from renewables. that will help determine the future of renewable energy.

host: i want to bring you into a discussion that is happening on twitter about the keystone xl pipeline. pointing out that the original keystone pipeline comes all the way down to the gulf. someone responded on twitter that it comes down to capacity at how much oil can be shipped through the original route and how much would be -- and how much more would be shipped through the new keystone xl route. when these groups that support the pipeline come before your committee, can you talk about the capacity argument? guest: i haven't heard the capacity argument so much. the southern part of the keystone pipeline is already in place. it is the part through nebraska and the northern part that needs

to be constructed. thehost: the southern part from cushing to the gulf coast here. guest: that is right. the problem is that the heavy oil is different than the oil that is normally pumped into the united states. it is heavier. can use to be heated under a higher pressure. the pipeline has to have special properties that are not required in other pipelines. that is part of the problem. the capacity of the existing lines may or may not be sufficient. i would not want to put that heavy heated high-pressure oil into the existing pipelines without a lot of engineering beforehand. host: on the line for republicans, good morning. caller: good morning. i am a republican, but i think this climate change problem is a problem for civilization.

there are two books that are very important that have recently come out. one is called don't even think about it, why our brains are wired to ignore climate change by george marshall. wired to ignore climate change. there is another book this changes everything. capitalism versus the climate. there was a pbs special about the melting glaciers. is there some way that congress do they have a book study group? host: congressman? guest: climate change is progressing. even the most committed republicans are starting to admit that. is it caused by human activity? can the united states do anything about it? those are concerns that need to be addressed.

we are dumping a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. the temperature of the ocean is increasing. we see migrations of biological systems. the evidence is clear that it is happening in the longer we wait to take steps to a dress climate change, the more expensive the solution might be if there was a solution at all. we need to take steps as soon as possible. i will continue to be that drum. it could change the makeup of civilization if it is left untreated.

host: sheldon whitehouse, a democrat from rhode island, with his charts, discussing climate change. viewers can look those up. in the meantime we will go to frank, montana. good morning. are you with us? we will try another frank scranton, pennsylvania. caller: my question is -- host: turned on your tv and talk through your phone. caller: these pipelines will be going through private property. through rivers and railroads and highways and parks and going

through sacred indian land. hasn't the united states stolen enough land off indians already without going through their lands? on top of that, it will go down through the refinery. what will happen with the residue from that? it is the doherty us -- it is the dirtiest oil on earth. host: several concerns from frank. guest: thank you for those questions and concern. i agree that the pipeline is going to have to go through private property. people should have some amount of say of whether that is allowed or not. >> "washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern and always available at c-span.org. we will leave this portion as the u.s. house prepares to gavel in for legislative work. today taking up a bill that permanently renews tax credits for charitable contributions.

they'll also debate rules for a bill they'll take up tomorrow permanently extending the credit that allows small businesses to write off certain expenses. the white house has issued veto threats against both bills. in the senate today this afternoon at 2:00 eastern they'll vote on the nomination of ashton carter to be the next secretary of defense. follow the senate on c-span2, and now to the house floor here on c-span.