and so we require there to be mandatory ethics training on that acquisition-related interaction so it's clear what you can and cannot do. secondly on acquisition strategy, we require every program start out with an acquisition strategy. it has to be done in writing and upfront and dated as needed. this strategy would consolidate at least six different requirements into that upfront strategy and has to include what is the most appropriate type of contract for this particular acquisition. this is another area where one size clearly does not fit all. it has to consider whether multi-year is appropriate and include risk mitigation strategies just like commandants have to have war plans, and we need to have it for our plan. and it has to consider incentives. so, for example, one of the things we want to consider is shared savings on service contracts, which are not currently allowed. and the third area, we want to simplify the chain of command tore acquisition decisions. so a number of requirements on milestone a and milestone a are going to move from a legal certification to just a decision. and as a recovering lawyer, i can attest that the fewer lawyers that are involved in the process, the smoother it's probably going to go. one of the reasons i think we have gotten so bogged down in bureaucracy is we have tried to paperwork our way all of the risks. not only does that never work, it slows everything down and creates a situation where no one is responsible or accountable

for the success or failure of a program. this will raise the dollar thresholds on a number of authorities such as simplified acquisition to make it easier for people to get things done. and we make it clear that the role of the testing community is to test and advise, not to make decisions. fourth, we thin out regulations and get rid of paperwork. in fact, there are going to be dozens of reporting requirements that are going to be eliminated. over and over again, i hear that program managers and industry are forced to manage the process rather than manage the program. g.a.o. came out with a report that evaluates the usefulness of a bunch of these certifications that apply to every single program. some are useful, some you won't be surprised to learn are not. so, for example, several years ago, congress was concerned that several programs were not paying

proper attention to corrosion resistance. what got interpret d by the bureaucracy was that every program had to have a corrosion prevention report which had to be staffed and written before that program could proceed. it even applied to computer software, not generally known as a high-corrosion risk. now, in truth is, d.o.d. has taken some steps to fix this issue, but this is an example of how the system has gotten so bogged down. the best summary of the current system that i heard over the last 16 months was by one of the leaders working in the system every day. the current system is like a bus, where the driver is the program manager and he or she is responsible for getting that bus or that program to a certain place on time and on budget.

yet, the bus is full of passengers and every passenger has their own steering wheel and their own brake. so that makes the driver's job pretty hard. and when the bus ends up in the ditch as too often happens, then all those passengers scatter away and climb on another bus. the driver is left there trying to figure out out how to get out of the ditch and back on the road. we need to eliminate those steering wheels and brakes and then we can hold that driver accountable for getting the bus where it needs to be on time and on budget. that's what i hope these proposals move us toward. finally, let me just mention three other things. there's more to the proposal than i have outlined here in addition to the changes in law. we are going to make public this

week a separate document that is draft report language. and that includes several studies and markers for future legislation. so, for example, one area where we need to do a lot more work is in service contracts. but we are having trouble to get the information we need to look at that, so we're requiring the department provide us additional information in that area. and that will help guide our steps in the future. second point is part of improving the acquisition process involves changing the way congress operates. we are also pretty tied to tradition and often, difficult to change. but our military cannot be acknowledge i will without congress taking steps and encourage that agility. third, i agree with those who argue we have the unique opportunity now to make needed reforms.

few secretaries of defense know the pentagon -- have known the pentagon better than secretary carter. he along with the service secretaries and the joint chiefs are all committed to reform. they understand that it's essential. that commitment is strong on the hill as well. chairman mccain and i agree that reform must be one of our top priorities and we have excellent partners in that effort with senator reed and adam smith. many others on our committees are involved as well on a bipartisan basis. several long-term observers have pointed out to me that never before have all the stars been so favorably aligned where we have the necessity of reform in key positions and commitment to make it happen. the point is, we can't waste this opportunity. as long as i'm privileged to hold this job, this is for the sake of ensuring that our military is prepared as possible

for the wide array of threats we face today and the challenges that confront us tomorrow. we will never get all the way there, but we have to move steadily closer to a department of defense that is efficient effective and accountable with military capability that is strong and agile. the impetus of existing plans is always stronger than the impulse to change. we have to overcome that and we have to set aside our skepticism. we cannot allow blind attachments or inertia to cause our men and women to suffer cruel events. if we are smart and persistent we can say on top. for there is much in our country

and around the world that depends on whether we are successful. thanks. [applause] host: thanks for coming back to csis and great privilege to host you and listen to this preview. it's very exciting. i liked what i heard and i think a lot of others did, too. for the benefit of the audience. i'm andrew hunter, director of the defense initiative and had the privilege of working in the past for the house armed services on acquisition reform. mr. thornberry: we shouldn't have let you get away. mr. hunter: i didn't go too far and this is an issue we are tracking closely.

i want to ask you a few questions and once you had the opportunity to respond to that we'll open it up to the group here. we have folks with microphones that will come around. let me start out by -- start at the end, i'm curious as to what you see as the ideal or successful outcome for this effort, both in terms of this year's activity and i think you have indicated in the past that this is not a one and done exercise. if you could speak about what does success look like for this year and what might success look like over a five and 10-year type of a time frame. mr. thornberry: this is not a one-year effort. and if you try, you are probably going to make more mistakes than help.

so this is just the beginning. and what we are trying to do at the beginning is deal with some of the fundamentals. i talked about the essential nature of the acquisition work force and some tools to help improve that. the acquisition strategy and the chain of command in making decisions about acquisitions which i think is fundamental. that's where we start. what i hope, if all of this is enacted and all of this works out perfectly, what i hope is that we have a more streamline change of command and more accountability that goes with that chain of command. again, this is never a destination that you reach. this is just trying to swing back the other way from that pendulum that has gone so far. mr. hunter: you mentioned

senator mccain and his support for this and that also matches obviously my understanding and his public reputation, but the senate doesn't always follow the will always of one person and not clear that it follows the will of even the senators at most points in time. but how do you see this playing out in the senate? how does the picture look to you on that side? mr. thornberry: the key place to start is, i think senator mccain is just as committed to this as we are in the house. so it will be a major part of his efforts. we have talked about this from day one when each of us were chosen for these positions, and we are coordinating closely every step of the way. you are right. doesn't mean the senate committee is going to have the same language as the house committee. certainly both of us will go to

our respective floors, various amendments come and go, and so we'll have to reconcile all that. but i think there is a tremendous amount of common perspective here and that's part of the reason i'm persuaded by people who say this is fairly rare, especially those skeptics who said i have heard this before, it is fairly rare to have that commitment in the senate and house and the department and you really do have it this time and it takes that, in order to make the changes, not just at a superficial level but in a deeper cultural level. but people who work in the system are hungry for that. that certainly came across to me in the meetings i had with program managers inside government, industry people. people want to do things. they don't want to fill out useless reports. and so much of their time, effort and money is spent on paperwork these days.

mr. hunter: i like the way you framed it, the importance of agill ti in the system. and and certainly a lot of folks have commented and we have been looking at it here how defense technology and commercial technology and interplay between the two is going to make change. you mentioned the pace of change and just sort of the nature of where technology development is happening, both in terms of commercial versus defense and a much more global exercise. so as you look down the road, how do you see that changing the way the acquisition system needs to operate, both in terms of the laws that you are working on, but you mentioned the regulations? well, i think it is just fundamental because we cannot take 20 years to field a new

airplane with technology moving at this speed. and so that's why streamlining the system is absolutely essential. and the point about commercial technology being where much of the innovation happens means -- in fewer instances can we start from scratch from the military developing the requirements and doing all of the work. there has to be that much greater cooperation and integration of commercial -- with military and that's part as i mentioned, part of the reasons that we have the proposals that we do. but i think your point gets to what i think -- part of what you got to change here is the culture and the incentives and a lot of people who work in the system have been criticized in

the past, say, for being too close to industry, so now they have the stand-offish sort of attitude. too often the current system rewards people who take the lowest bidder and we'll figure out the rest of the stuff later. it's important for us to start with these fundamentals. the acquisition strategy where you do the work upfront and thinking through what do you need to have a successful acquisition here. and then streamline that chain of command so you can hold accountable the people who actually make the decisions without the other people having their own steering wheels and brakes. i think we are going to have to do that or else we really will be left behind in not having that technological edge that has been key to our success, at least since the end of world war ii.

mr. hunter: you mentioned industry and the big focus and the partnership between industry. industry filled with very patriotic individuals who work hard on these problems, but they are responding to share holders who have expectations, which is reasonable. how do you see that dynamic in terms of incentives for not just the folks in industry but the share holders to make sure their incentives are outlined with what we are trying to do? mr. thornberry: i quoted from ash carter 15 years ago, we have to align our procurement process with market incentives, because if you are going crossways it's not going to work. and too often it may not be crossways, but they aren't going in the same direction. what that requires is that streamline process so you can have more accountability.

but it also means more innovative sort of contract types. i mentioned shared savings on service contracts where if you win the contract and you can do it a little cheaper, you can keep part of the savings and the government keeps part of the savings versus where too much of the time is now, you spend money in your account and if you don't it, you will get less. that's going the wrong direction. and so part of the reason i'm insistent this has to be a multi-year effort in order to really understand the incentives now and begin to change them because that's what's going to change behavior, it's going to take time and a more streamlined accountable system is a key first step, but there are many more steps to go in order to have that alignment going in the right direction and be the fastest integrate -- integrator leader of technology but hopefully this is a positive

step. mr. hunter: about time for someone else to ask a question. could say your name and where you're from and microphone is headed your way. >> so i'm a professor from george washington university. it's wonderful to hear you talk about things like incentives and you acknowledge some of the difficulties for change. but i just want to say before i get to my question that i think when you talk about reducing the bureaucracy, any focus you have on reducing the coast drivers they would have direct effect on the bottom line. don't lose sight of the fact that every one of those you eliminate has direct benefit to the government. one of the things dave did

before he left csis talked about the fact since the economy tightened up, the single biggest change has been the reduction in money spent on research and development and the most dramatic reduction has been in independent research and development. you talk about maintaining technical superiority. thoorn thorn i share that concern completely as budgets are tight. you have to pay the fuel bills and you have to send the paychecks out and what gets cut is the r&d and broken budget process, what does industry see, they see dysfunction and tend to put less of their own money into it. as we evaluate the president's budget proposal and move toward our own defense authorization bill, i think we will look at some key technologies that are and what does industry see, they see disfunction and tend to put less of their money into it. so as we evaluate the president's budget prime minister and move toward our own defense authorization bill, we will look at on key technologies

that are going to be important for our future and seeing if we can do a little better, because i do think that is important. i hope what we can get is more stability in our budget process where industry says there is a future there. i have to say, one of the things that concerns me the most, getting back to our discussion, is you know, lockheed and north thrup are going to deal with the department of defense. other firms can take it or leave it. if it was too much hassle to deal with the department of defense, they can leave it. part of the reason to improve the way we contract for goods and services is to make the department of defense a little friendlier to do business with so we can take advantage of

commercial advantage and some of the other companies that are on the fence whether they want to deal with it or not. audience member: snfment indiscernible question]

[indiscernible question] trn torn as i say don't expect all problems to be solved in a swing ever single swoop. audience member: formerly with the defense department. over the years, many have criticized the military complex and there have been ways to lead it to the current administration and complete absence of defense-related firms. whale there is benefit others

have said this barring of people who have the expertise and the pro curement procedures prourks need a lot of expertise. what are your views on the ability of senior skiffs and being able to go back into government? mr. thornberry: thorn this is one of the areas where the pendulum has swung too far and not because of some law that congress has passedb -- and it has gotten worse with this administration. wart of what we think is what we have to is this close cooperation of industry and government and that will include people who move and for the.

who do you end up with? people who haven't had experience and what you are dealing with. part of the season i think it is essential to simplify that command, you can be more transparent and hold more a accountable and we have a requirement of p.m. who are part of the process to have ethics training that is targeted to these sorts of situations. if you are a all government employees who have season, but targeted for this sort of interactions a make it understand that that cooperation is essential and includes people who will move to different jobs.

[indiscernible question] >> google and companies all across the country. how does that play into your plan? mr. thornberry: how can the department of defense be the world's fastest integrator of innovation and technology into defense systems and how can the department of defense be a friendlier place nor commercial innovators to sbract with. all of that does fit together with the reforms we are talking about. but part of the reason that these reforms is so essential is

that eroding the superiority that i mentioned, is taking away one of the key strengths we have had over time. if we sit here and twiddle our terms and it goes it is going to be really hard to recover. mr. hunter: right here. audience member: i'm with northwestern university. my question pertains to the fourth priority ta you mentioned about cutting down the paperwork. while i understand your goal as i appropriated it is to keep the program manager instead of having nonconfusing bus drivers.

my concern is that say you have this bus and the and trifere who would be the program manager and they have aquilt of the caption whereas the people with the extra steering wheel would be you rinning the travel bus. my question is if the practice manageres in charge, how are we going to ensure by the people who are not incidents how are we not getting the sale and even if they don't require rubber sam ps? >> you start out with the assumption that somebody is going to mess up and it's going to happen. these are human beings, complex

decisions. somebody is not not going to be minnesotaed for the right seasons. that is the problem that happens. how do you design your design? do you stein to eliminate any chance of apping, who are or you design the system to have the best chance? there is a different here. an example to me is that wal-mart could eliminate shoplifting bavelgly down to zero a person scoming in and out of their stores. that isn't in their best interests and neat they are is in our business interests and which has the overall effect on

the system of preventing us from fielding modern technology in a timely way to prevent someone from having their own motivation system. we are probably responsible. something goes wrong and we say you pass passed a law and that every program has to have a creation point. we over jite and we have to be her not to overreact. the liftest system and the better chance you have to find instances where it hasn't gone as well. the more complicated your am.

and there is so many waist to manipulate the system. the simpler you make it and less of that you are going to have that you can't paperwork or regulate your way out of human frailts. >> the acquisition report or their version of their selected acquisition came out a month ago, it was in the press. i got a very interesting e-mail from someone and what they found in those findings is that a little over half of major weapon systems had experienced cost-ups. and the note said if you're a cost estimator you do a 50-50. so he was delighted.

he said this is hitting the nail on the hawaii. that's not how it played out in the press. mr. thornberry: great point. >> good morning chairman. very refreshing to hear a lot of the themes you're talk about. my name is james with the brookings institution. i was wondering if you could talk -- how you laid out the case for reform. you mentioned three area, military personnel, overhead and acquisitions. i mean, the inertia against change is very powerful as you said and change agents like yourself and secretary carter have a shelf life as you know -- maybe you don't. [laughter] i definitely do. i don't know about him, but do i. and the inertia is so powerful is so powerful but i was glad to see that people were the first

that you focused and acquisition reform. i wonder if you could provide more details. i assume you're talking about on the uniform side. are there any reforms on the civilian side as well? thank you, sir. mr. thornberry: we have a situation now where if you want to go in acquisition you have to stay in acquisition rather than be able to be in acquisition a while, move to the operational community so it limits the pool of people who want to get into acquisition. now this is -- there are arguments on both sides of this debate. and as part of the reason i want to put out there for a month and get feedback from it. do you think we're making it worse? do you think it's better. i understand there are arguments on both sides, making sure people get joint duty credit for being in the acquisition system, for example, a variety of things like that to help increase the pool an then also support the

people who do come into the acquisition system. when you start changing -- start changes on the civilian side you get into a different set of laws and so forth and we are looking at how some of those might work. so i do think people is the key and as i just referencing -- what do people get rewarded for? what do people get punished for in the system? when it comes to their career, their upward pro gregs those are the things you really need to understand to understand whether changes you think you're making are really going to take place because that's what affects people's day-to-day decision-making and so as i said i'm not pretending that i understand all of that. but i hope that beginning with opening the pool using the

defense -- the workforce development fund on a permanent basis and developing these kind of increase training for commercial and ethics things gets us on a good start for -- for further improving or for switching been improving, i think, from what it was a few years ago. audience member: but no plans to do anything on the civilian side? mr. thornberry: we may. see that kind of runs into the second area of reform which is overhead which is civilian and military. it's not just civilian. so we may well be taking some steps in that area. but today what i was just trying to focus on is the way we contract for goods and services. but your point is exactly right. these things are interrelated. and just as the military compensation stuff is related to this. so if you want somebody who can

be competitive with google, you want somebody to understand what google is offering and integrating that commercial technology then you're going to have to be competitive for that really top talent which gets us back to the personnel commission recommendations. is the government competitive for that top talent? and do their recommendations make it more or less likely that we'll be able to compete with google for the software engineers in the past. the point that all of these things do intertwine is absolutely valid. host: i think we have time for at least one more depending on the length. just here on the back, we can -- audience member: congressman thank you for your efforts on behalf of this very important activity. obviously, we recognize that

change needs to happen. your comments earlier regarding the barriers that exist within the department regarding the insertion of commercially derived technologies. clearly the secretary understands the value of commercial technology as does deputy werk as does frank kendall but all of those individuals will be out of the department in a couple of years. what can the house do? what can congress do over the course of the next two years to reinforce an orientation towards leveraging outside innovations outside technologies? mr. thornberry: well, i think we can get it tufe a good start. and secondly we can hem educate and lead the discussion. i think one of the major roles that congress can play in national security at large is to help shape the national discussion of -- of -- of what's

good for the country especially going in to a presidential election year, especially in a time when according to the polls national security is either the number one or number two concern of most people. this is a real opportunity for us. and -- and it's an opportunity for us to -- to -- to elevate the discussion and to focus on where we are and the trend. so that's part of the reason as dr. hamry mentioned we pent the last two months in our committee focusing on security, on technological trends and where things stand before we start looking at specific budget proposals. and i think that has made a big difference in -- including me, opening the eyes of all committee members and understanding where this trend is where we stand and -- and where -- where it's headed.

you know, nobody can guarantee anything. so i don't know how future elections are going to go, but as long as i'm privileged to have this job, this is going to be a major focus for me because if you look back in history it has been congress that has been key to major reforms at the department. and goldwater nichols is the most famous example. but there are a number of times in the first speech i gave since i was chairman i talked about former chairman vincent requiring that some big holes be laid down that became some of the key aircraft carriers at the battle of midway. congress has been the one that have made a key difference. if we don't, it's not going to happen. i guarantee that. so for all the skeptics say this is just going to be come and go. it's not going to last.

it's not going to really matter we're going to do our best to make it matter. my point is, i'm -- one of my favorite sayings these day and i'm sorry, i can't remember where it came from so i'll just borrow it is the pessimists are usually right but it's the optimisms that change the world. and when it comes to acquisition reforms, i really think that applies. yeah if you want to be -- if your most important thing is to be right, then be negative and skeptical about it. but if you want to make a difference then think about what can happen. and that's what we're trying to do, both the house and the senate with the leadership at the department right now. host: time for one more. audience member: chairman thornberry, thank you so much for your remarks. i'm dak hardwick. my question to you is about our international allies and partners. as we know the u.s. military is

not the only use other the acquisition defense system. and i'm curious how you see our international allies and partners in their role in the acquisition reform to make it easier for them to access the acquisition system for u.s. military industrial stuff going overseas? thank you. mr. thornberry: i will say over an over again, there are lots of issues that we don't fix with what i'm going to release this week. one of the issues is the slowness of the bureaucracy to deal with foreign military sales. when we have customers that are ready to write a check and yet it's our bureaucracy that seems to think it knows better and slows it down or puts conditions and makes it more difficult. incressingly it is those foreign military sales that help provide us the industrial base to creep technology or keem capability --

keep technology or keep capability at home. so the more we sell stuff overseas the more we're hurting ourselves. the other thing that we don't solve is the whole intellectual issue. i could recite a fair number of issues we don't solve. but i mentioned we've got a data base of more than 1,000 suggestions. this is a start. and we're going to use that data base of suggestions when it comes to these problems in future years. some of my colleagues may offer amendments this year. i can't tell you they won't. they certainly can. but as far as i'm concerned we're going to keep after it for a variety of issues until we try to -- until we come closer to the kind of system that we all hope and -- and -- and need out of our department of defense remembering that the bottom line goal is how can you best defend the country?

that's what this is all about. host: well, we've come to the end of our hour. chairman thornberry: thank you so much for being here this morning, a really great start or continuation of the effort. very much look forward to having a legislative language release on wednesday i think i heard you say and i imagine there will be lots in the room who are interested to give you feedback on it. but good luck in your efforts. mr. thornberry: thank you. [applause] >> the first time the judiciary committee will take up salley yates. she serves as the acting deputy attorney general an previously was the attorney general for the northern district of georgia. watch live coverage tomorrow morning at 10:00 eastern on c-span 3. later in the day the senate

aviation panel will look at innovation safety and privacy concerns of drone aircraft. we'll hear from officials from the f.a.a. and amazon.com. live coverage starts at 2:30 eastern, also on c-span 3. texas republican senator ted cruz announced monday that he is running for president. here is part of what senator cruz said and you can watch his entire remarks at c span.org. >> i believe in you. i believe in the power of millions of courageous conservatives rising up to reignite the promise of america. and that is why today i am announcing that i'm running for president of the united states. [cheers and applause]

>> the house approved a resolution urging president obama to send weapons to ukraine in its fight against russian-backed rebels. the vote was 348-248. here's the house floor debate before the vote took place. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, sir. as always, mr. royce, the chairman of our committee on foreign affairs appreciates the ranking member, eliot engel of new york's leadership in support of the people of ukraine. last week, march 18, mr. speaker, marked the one-year anniversary of russian president vladimir putin's invasion and occupation of crimea. during the past year, rush has strengthened its -- russia has strengthened its hold over the peninsula, and increased its oppression of the minority tatar

population and others who refuse to bend to their ockpigs. putin's success in ukraine emboldened him to expand into eastern ukraine. last weekend chairman royce led a delegation to ukraine and traveled to russia. the many ukrainians that ranking member engel and mr. royce met with wanted to be ukraine's and not separatists yet moscow move to supporting militant separatists in eastern ukraine. today the conflict in the east has resulted in over 6,000 deaths, at least 15,000 wounded, and more than one million displaced persons. this carnage is the work of the separatist forces controlled by moscow. which has supplied them with massive amounts of weapons and has even sent in russian

military forces in combat supporting roles. as assistant secretary victoria newland testified before the foreign affairs committee this month russia, quote, has thousands and thousands, end quote of soldiers orping in ukraine. as she summed up quote,s that manufactured conflict controlleded by the kremlin, fwiled russian tanks and heavy weapons, financed at russian taxpayers' expense, end quote. mr. speaker, the administration's response to this crisis has been tepid at best. six months ago, the president of the ukraine stood in this very chamber and while thanking the united states for our assistance so far asked for defensive weapons to enable ukraine to defend itself against superior forces. pointedly he told both houses of congress, quote, one cannot win a war with blankets, end

quote. which is what we are providing. earlier this month, members met with first deputy speaker of the ukrainian parliament who said that his country urgently needs anti-take weapons such as the javelin radar to pinpoint enemy fire, and communications equipment to overcome russian jamming. ukrainian forces cannot match the advanced equipment that russia is pouring into eastern ukraine. there is no shortage of the will to fight, only a shortage of testifiesive weapons. legal -- of defensive weapons. legal authority of such assistance was made crystal clear by the congress in december by passing the ukraine freedom support act and top administration officials, including secretary of defense carter and chairman dempsey of the joint chiefs of staff have indicated support. indeed this weekend nato's top

military commander asked, quote is inaction an appropriate action? end quote. we know his answer is no. unfortunately -- unfortunately for ukrainians and for international security, president obama has chosen inaction in the guise of endless deliberation. but there's far more at stake here than the state of ukraine mr. speaker. this unprovoked attack on a peaceful country. the forcible occupation of its territory. and an effort to unilaterally redraw its internationally recognized borders will undermine the foundation of the international order that was established and has been defended at great cost by the united states and our allies. the world is closely watching what we will do to help ukraine defend itself from outright assault. if it is too little too late,

those with designs on a neighboring country will feel all that more emboldened. the people of ukraine are not asking for us to fight for them. they are only asking for the weapons they need to defend themselves. i ask our colleagues to vote for this bipartisan resolution, urging the administration to provide this critical assistance to ukraine before it is, indeed, too late. and with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of this resolution and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. engel: first of all i want to again thank our chairman emeritus of the foreign affairs committee, my dear friend from florida, ileana ros-lehtinen, who is very eloquent. i want to stand by every word she uttered. i agree with her 100%.

i want to also thank our chairman ed royce who also has been steadfast in fighting for the freedom of the people of ukraine and it's been a pleasure to work with him on a bipartisan basis. this is a bipartisan issue. policy like this should not be partisan. and that's why we are rising today as democrats and republicans, really as americans, say enough is enough in ukraine. as i've been saying for month well, can't view the crisis in crew yain -- ukraine as some faraway crisis or somebody else's problem. this has left thousands o-- thousands dead, tens of thousands wounded and millions displace and has begun to threat then post cold war security of europe. mr. putin is knocking us back into the bad old days of the cold war. the battle is being rage -- waged in the haze of a campaign aimed at eroding confidence in

the west and democratic institutions. the same propaganda permeating allied countries on the russian frontier that we are treaty-bound to defend. under the corrupt rule of vladimir putin, russia has become a clear threat to a half century of american commitment to and investment in a europe that's whole, free and at peace. a europe where boarders are not changed by force. what putin is doing is changing borders by force since on the continent of europe for the first time since world war ii. this cannot stand. the united states cannot turn a blind eye to it. the united states cannot put its head in the sand and act like any other country and pretend that maybe this will go away. in 1938, another dictator named day dolph hitler invaded -- adolph hitler invaded czech czech. -- invade czechoslovak yasm

president putin said he was going to crimea for the same reason, to protect the people. hitler got away with it in 1938 and there were people who said you know if we give him this area, he'll be happy, he'll be content, he'll leave us alone, his aggression will stop. same people are saying -- some people today are saying the same thing. just give putin crimea. just give putin a little bit of the eastern part of ukraine. and he'll be happy, he'll go away he won't threaten anything else. you don't satiate a bully by giving him what he wants early on because it only whets his appetite for worse things to come and end at the point later on -- and at the point later on when you have to go at the bully, it will be much, mucharder -- harder to defeat him, to stop him, than it would be if you simply stood up to him and stopped him when he started his aggression. this is what is happening now in ukraine this war poses the greatest threat to european

security since world war ii. we shouldn't take it lightly, we shouldn't be idle, and we shouldn't let other countries tell us what to do last year ukrainian president por sean coe stood in -- poroshenko stood in this chamber and related to the challenges of the people of ukraine who desired to retain their dignity and rebuild their future. we asked that we help the men and women fighting a neighbor they once looked to as a friend. he told us they needed weapon, defensive weapons. he said blankets that we're sending do not win a war. last month, i saw president poroshenko again in europe and he again pled for military assistance, not to attack moscow or defeat the russian army, or even to push the russians out of the ukrainian territory. but simply to hold the line and give his government breathing room to focus on other threats such as keeping the ukrainian

economy afloat. we cannot allow europe's borderlands to once again become europe's bloodlands. fortunately there's still time for the united states to act in a moderate but decisive fashion to help ukraine defend itself. . and our friends in ukraine in particular, and to safeguard our interests and defend our values across this country region. across the country, some nato members, some of them not some of them part of the former souf yet union, some of them, some of them east block nations, some of them not all bordering on russia are worrying because they think that putin can get away with what he wants to get away with in ukraine will they be next. the united states is not being asked to send ground troops to ukraine. the united states is not being asked to get itself involved in another war. we are simply being asked to

give the ukrainians the methods to defend themselves. the weapons to defend themselves. i can't think of anything more reasonable. we've held hearings on ukraine. we've passed resolutions of support. we sent legislation to the president's desk. it was the last thing we passed in the last congress. the president signed it into law, authorizing an array of assistance including the defense of arms ukraine so desperately needs. and here we are again to renew this call, to remind the people of ukraine that they're not alone and to send an unambiguous message to the administration to the president and to our allies in europe the time has come to do more. we must meet this threat together because we all have a stake in how this ends. thank you, mr. speaker. i thank ms. ros-lehtinen and chairman royce and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from florida is

recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield the remainder of my time to chairman royce and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you sir. mr. royce: i thank the gentlelady for yielding, mr. speaker, and as my good friend eliot engel from new york explained last april we took a delegation to ukraine, not just to the western part of the country but most importantly we went to the east. we went as far east as we could go up against the border there and we had an opportunity to have a dialogue with the ukrainian people. and we reached out to civil society. we set up meetings with women's groups and lawyers groups and across the spectrum in eastern ukraine speaking to russian-speaking ukrainians, we got, i believe, a good idea of

what was on their mind. i think there were about eight members of our delegation. and they were sharing with us these words, what putin is doing, what the russians are doing right now is going out on the internet and recruiting every skinhead and malcontent in the russian-speaking region they can find and then they train these young men and then they send them over the border to create mayhem and what we're trying to do here -- this was the explanation from the ukrainians -- we are trying to catch them. they speak a different accent than we do, so we can catch them and we try to hold them until this -- until this war is over but increasingly we find that what is happening is the russians are sending their own troops over. they're sending their own armor. they're sending -- they're

sending over military equipment that we cannot defend against and what they said to us is we're not asking you for your assistance in this fight, all we're asking is that we might have the defensive weapons to check this assault so we can defend ourselves in this city. we need anti-tank weapons. and you and i know by the way, mr. speaker, that when those tanks done they are not going to be -- those are not going to be ukrainian -- ukrainian separatists driving those tanks. those are going to be russian tankers in those tanks. so what -- this is what they're asking us form, and they've asked for month after month after month in order to set up a strategy that would cause the russians to believe there was some kind of credible deterrence but you know instead

we now see that russia may try to secure a land bridge to crimea. in other words, this conflict might escalate because of additional russian aggression, or they might seize strategic ports along the black sea, additional ports. you have 6000 people so far that have lost their lives that i know of in the conflict from the reports i've read. you have a million ukrainians that have been made refugees, that have pulled west out of the area, and obviously to date the actions taken by the u.s. and our e.u. allies, including economic sanctions and aid and diplomatic isolation, all of the talk, none of that has checked russian aggression or i should say putin's aggression here. and over the past year he has clearly become bolder, even menacing nato countries as he

seeks to divide the alliance. now, the obama administration and our european allies have put hope in diplomatic and cease-fire arrangements, but frankly that is not working. so we come back to the request and this month we met with the first deputy speaker of the ukrainian parliament, as eliot engel shared here today on the floor who said that his country urgently needs anti-tank weapons such as the javelin and radar to pinpoint enemy artillery fire that is coming into their towns and communications equipment to overcome russian jamming. that's the request. ukrainian forces cannot match advanced equipment that russia is pouring into eastern ukraine, and there is no shortage of the will here on the part of the ukrainians. we saw many volunteers in their local militia there taking up their position, but what they have is a shortage of defensive

weapons. at this committee's hearing last month, secretary kerry said that the obama administration has still not made a decision on whether to send lethal military aid to ukraine. six months. this is six months after president poroshenko told us, as we sat here in this joint session of congress to hear his remarks that one cannot win the war with blankets. so we are at a turn point and one i agree with mr. engel on this. it's one of historic importance. if we allow aggression against ukraine to stand without us at least offering the ukrainians the ability to defend themselves, we will signal to the world that our willingness to defend the postworld war ii order is crumbling -- post-world war ii order is crumbling. it will be severely weakened.

the result could usher in an era of instability and conflict in many regions with consequences no one could predict. or we can allow the ukrainians to defend themselves and that's what we do with this lgs legislation. the ukrainian people are asking for our help to stop russia's efforts to sever their country. they are not asking us to do any of the fighting for them. they are only asking us for the defensive weapons that they need to defend themselves and by passing this bipartisan resolution overwhelmingly the house will send a strong message to the administration that it must act quickly and decisively if the u.s. is to help the ukrainian people save their country. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: thank you mr. speaker. it's now my pleasure to yield four minutes to my good friend from maryland democratic whip, steny hoyer.

mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of this resolution, supported strongly by the chairman of the committee and the former chair of the committee, ms. ros-lehtinen. this resolution is bipartisan and reflects the will of congress that the nation of ukraine deserves every opportunity to chart a future based on democracy territorial integrity and freedom from russian aggression. i'm the former chairman of the security of cooperation of europe signed in helsinki in august 1975. in that agreement the soviet union, the then-soviet union and 34 other nations signed a document which said that you could not change borders by

other than peaceful means. vladimir putin has broken that agreement but he's also broken the agreement that in 1994 we entered into with ukraine in consideration of their giving up their nuclear weapons. vladimir putin has sent russian troops into another nation. he's tried to mask it. he's tried the pretense this is simply separatists who are active, but very frarningly those troops in ukraine have admitted to the press that they're from russia. vladimir putin's support for violent separatists has destabilized a large region in eastern ukraine and led to the illegal -- illegal russian

occupation of crimea. and the world hasn't done much to discourage not only the actions of mr. putin but others who would learn the lessons of his actions. the sanctions that united states and allies have imposed against putin and his closest supporters as well as measures to isolate russian businesses that have been able -- are having serious effects but not the effect that we want. but i believe that our nation also has a responsibility to stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of ukraine and their democratically elected government by sending them the tools they need to defend themselves. this is not a new position for me. when the seshes -- when the

serbs affected a genocide in bosnia herzegovina we had an arms embargo on the people of bosnia. while arms were flowing in from other parts of the world to serbia. i thought that was wrong. i think today the unwillingness or inability to create a consensus for giving to the ability the ability -- to the people the ability to defend themselves is not good policy. if we continue to do so, there is no doubt in my mind that mr. putin will continue on his path of aggression and acquisition. mr. speaker we must continue to support ukraine on its march

towards greater democracy, stronger human rights and a brighter future for its people. i urge my colleagues to join in supporting this resolution and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey mr. frelinghuysen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman i thank the chairman for yielding, for his sponsorship of this resolution with mr. engel and ms. ros-lehtinen. mr. speaker, isil is on the march civil war appears imminent in yemen, libya has become a full-fledged terrorist training center iran moves closer to nuclear capacity every day so it's understandable the attention of the media and the american people seem to be focused

elsewhere other than on ukraine. but i just returned a week ago from leading a bipartisan delegation of the defense appropriations committee to ukraine, and i'm here to report that situation there is downright alarming. . vladimir pute season using ukraine as a test bed for a new type of warfare by using proxy insurgents and russia and special forces army troops to carry out his campaign to reclaim ukraine as part of the old russian empire. after annexing crimea a year ago, he's transforming that peninsula into a heavily armed russian camp. a platform indeed. mr. speaker, blankets, night vision goggles and meeting -- meals that are ready to eat are not enough. ukraine needs nonnate -- non-nato ally military support and it needs it now. ukraine's courageous president

appealed to us again to provide lethal weaponry anti-tank weapons, small arms and anti-aircraft systems to help defense their territory -- defend their territory from the russian onslaught. it's all about preserving and protecting ukraine's independence. that is what this is all about. the largest country in europe. he knows he cannot win the war against russia but he believes the lethal support will at least raise the price of aggression for russia and i think our committee tends to agree. our delegation left kiev believing that the future of ukraine is a matter of significant importance to national security of these united states. my colleagues, western and eastern europeans are watching intensely, with apprehension, how our president responds. they are looking closely. as are our adversaries. and the russian leadership.

what future steps will they take if we do not act now? i urge the house to show the leadership, our president, that -- and this administration that this resolution makes sense, they need to give ukraine this non-nato ally support and they need to do it now. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. it's now my pleasure to yield to mr. david scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: thank you very much. ladies and gentlemen, on the bleached bones of many past great nations are written those pathetic words, too late too late. we moved too late to save them.

history is cluttered with them. we are all -- almost at that point with ukraine. anyone who has followed the russian model under putin knows full well what his aim is, to reclaim that territory that empire of the old soviet union. now if ukraine goes, what happens to lithuania, estonia, latvia? and just today, in the news, we hear where russia has threatened a nuclear response i believe it's to denmark. now, now what is happening in the world? the world now is a very dark a very dangerous and a very evil place.

and when those three things get together, there must be that shining light on the hill that shows the way out of the darkness. and throughout history that light has been the united states of america. we must act here. let us hope that president obama will hear our plea as democrats and as republicans. we've got to help save ukraine. from russia. i serve on the nato parliamentary assembly. for 12 years i've served on nato. i've served as a chairman of the science and technology committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. scott: i'm here to tell you, ladies and gentlemen -- mr. engel: i yield another

minute. mr. scott: thank you. i'm here to tell you, ladies and gentlemen if we don't act here, there will be a devastation on the european continent the likes that we have not seen since world war ii. we don't need to repeat that. let us rise to this occasion. let us do the right thing. let us be that shining light on the hill that shows the way out of this darkness. there's sometimes in life you've just got to stand up to the bully. the united states must stand up to putin and let him know that there's a light in this world and the united states is going to show the way. and the best way to do that today is to pass this resolution and let's send ukraine the military help that

they need to protect themselves and the legacy of this fine country. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i'll reserve the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: thank you mr. speaker. i'll close now and let me say that by passing this resolution the house sends a clear message of support and solidarity to the people of ukraine. it's past time that our government does more to help these true friends of liberty defend their land and deter further aggression. and i know that if the united states shows leadership here, others will follow. i'm very pleased to be the primary sponsor of this important resolution. i thank chairman royce for working with me on this. the two of us have worked very, very closely together, particularly on ukraine, and we

both feel very, very strong. i agree with every comment that was uttered today by all the people speaking on this resolution. we are the united states of america, we're a beacon of freedom to the world and if we don't act now who will? again, let me reiterate the people of ukraine are not looking for american troops. they're not looking for american boots on the ground. there is no slippery slope here. they are just looking for the weapons to defend themselves. they don't have those weapons. we do. if we care about freedom and we care about fighting aggression, we need to give people of ukraine the right and the means to defend themselves. i urge my colleagues to support this very important resolution, i again thank chairman royce and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: yes mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i

may consume. and i would just go to the words that mr. davis scott reminded us, that echo down through history too late, too late. we have given the authority to the administration many months ago to transfer defensive weapons to ukraine that can be used to check further aggression. that has not happened. this bipartisan resolution will direct the administration to take that step so that ukraine yan -- ukrainians can defend themselves. and i ask my colleagues to vote for this bipartisan resolution urging the administration to provide this crucial assistance to ukraine before it is in fact too late for the ukrainians to defend

texas senator ted cruz announced today he is running for president. that is next on c-span. then hillary clinton takes part in a discussion on jobs, the economy, and urban development. chairman mac thornberry talked about making changes to the pentagon's acquisition system. on our next washington journal we will talk to michael burgess about a bill that tries to solve the annual medicare fix. congresswoman gwen moore will talk about the 2016 budget. jeff mower discusses oil and gas prices.

we will also take your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets. >> here are some featured programs for this weekend on c-span networks. on book tv, saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern peter wallison said government housing policies caused the 2008 financial crisis. sunday afternoon at 5:00, director of the earth institute, jeffrey sachs on a plan to counter environmental decay. saturday morning at 10:30 eastern on american history tv, a discussion on the last speeches of abraham lincoln and martin luther king jr. sunday afternoon at 4:00, the 1965 meet the press interview with martin luther king jr. find our complete schedule at c-span.org.

call us. e-mail us. or send us a tweet at c-span, #comments. follow us on twitter. >> texas senator ted cruz announced he will seek the 2016 republican presidential nomination. this is the first official presidential announcement for either party. he made the announcement at liberty university in lynchburg, virginia. [applause]

senator cruz: thank you so much, president falwell. god bless liberty university. [applause] i am thrilled to join you today at the largest christian university in the world. [applause] today i want to talk with you about the promise of america. imagine your parents when they were children, imagine a little girl growing up in wilmington, delaware. during world war ii, the daughter of irish and italian

catholic family working class, her uncle ran numbers in wilmington. she grew up with dozens of cousins because her mom was the second youngest of 17 kids. she had a difficult father. a man who drank far too much and frankly, didn't think that women should be educated. and yet this young girl, pretty and shy, was driven. was bright, was inquisitive, and she became the first person in her family ever to go to college. in 1956, my mom, eleanor graduated from rice university with a degree in math. and became a pioneering computer

programmer in the 1950's and 1960's. [applause] senator cruz: imagine a teenage boy, not much younger than many of us here today, growing up in cuba. jet black hair, skinny as a rail -- [laughter] senator cruz: -- involved in student council and yet cuba was not at a peaceful time. the dictator, batista, was corrupt. he was oppressive, an this teenage boy joins a revolution.

he joins a revolution against batista, he begins fighting with other teenagers. to free cuba from the dictator. this boy at age 17 finds himself thrown in prison. find himself tortured, beaten, and then at age 18 he flees cuba. he comes to america. imagine for a second the hope that was in his heart as he rode that ferryboat across to key west and got on a gray hound bus to head to austin, texas to begin working washing dishes making 50 cents an hour. coming to the one land on earth that has welcomed so many

millions. when my dad came to america in 1957, he could not have imagined what lay in store for him. imagine a young married couple living together in the 1970's, neither one of them has a personal relationship with jesus. they have a little boy and they are both drinking far too much. they are living a fast life. when i was 3 my father decided to leave my mother and me. we were living in calgary at the time. he got on a plane and flew back to texas. and he decided he didn't want to be married anymore, and he

didn't want to be a father to his 3-year-old son. and yet when he was in houston a friend, a colleague from the oil and gas business, invited him to a bible study. invited him to clay road baptist church. and there my father gave his life to jesus christ. [applause] senator cruz: and god transformed his heart and he drove to the airport, he bought a plane ticket, and he flew back to be with my mother and me. [applause] senator cruz: there are people who wonder if faith is real.

i can tell you in my family there's not a second of doubt because were it not for the transformative love of jesus christ i would have been saved and i would have been raised by a single mom without my father in the household. imagine another little girl living in africa, in kenya nigeria -- it's a diverse crowd. [laughter] playing with kids they spoke swahili, she spoke english. coming back to california where her parents who had been missionaries in africa raised her in the central coast.

she starts a small business when she's in grade school. baking bread. she calls it heidi's bakery. she and her brother compete baking bread. they bake thousands of loaves of bread and go to the local apple orchard where they sell the bread to people coming to pick apples. she goes on to a career in business, excelling and rising to the highest pinnacles, and then heidi became my wife and my very best friend in the world. [applause] senator cruz: heidi becomes an incredible mom to our two precious little girls, caroline

and katherine, the joys and loves of our life. [applause] senator cruz: imagine another teenage boy being raised in houston, hearing stories from his dad about prison and torture in cuba. hearing stories about how fragile liberty is. beginning to study the united states constitution. learning about the incredible protections we have in this country that protect the god-given liberty of every american. experiencing challenges at home, the mid 1980's, oil prices

crater. and his parents' business go bankrupt. heading off to school, over 1,000 miles away from home at place where he knew nobody where he was alone and scared, and his parents going through bankruptcy meant there was no financial support at home so at the age of 17 he went to get two jobs to help pay his way through school. he took over $100,000 in school loans. loans, i suspect a lot of you-all can relate to. loans that i'll point out i just paid off a few years ago. [applause] senator cruz: these are all of our stories.

these are who we are as americans. and yet for so many americans the promise of america seems more and more distant. what is the promise of america? the idea that the revolutionary idea that this country was founded upon, which is that our rights, they don't come from man. they come from god almighty. [applause] senator cruz: and that the purpose of the constitution, as thomas jefferson put it, is to serve as chains to bind the mischief of government. the incredible opportunity of the american dream.

what has enabled millions of people from all over the world to come to america with nothing and to achieve anything. and then the american exceptionalism that has made this nation a clarion voice for freedom in the world a shining city on a hill. that's the promise of america. that is what makes this nation an indispensable nation, a unique nation in the history of the world. and yet so many fear that that promise is today, unattainable. so many fear it is slipping away from our hands. i want to talk to you this morning about reigniting the promise of america.

240 years ago on this very day a 38-year-old lawyer named patrick henry stood up just 100 miles from here in richmond, virginia, and said, give me liberty or give me death. [applause] senator cruz: i want to ask each of you to imagine, imagine millions of courageous conservatives all across america rising up together to say in unison, we demand our liberty. [applause] senator cruz: today roughly half

of born again christians aren't voting. they are staying home. imagine instead millions of people of faith all across america coming out to the polls and voting our values. [applause] senator cruz: today millions of young people are scared, worried about the future, worried what the future will hold. imagine millions of young people coming together and standing together saying, we will stand for liberty. [applause] senator cruz: think just how different the world would be.

imagine instead of economic stagnation, booming economic growth. [applause] senator cruz: instead of small businesses going out of business in record numbers, imagine small businesses growing and prospering. imagine young people coming out of school with four, five, six job offers. [applause] senator cruz: imagine innovation thriving on the internet as government regulators and tax collectors are kept at bay and more and more opportunity is created. [applause] senator cruz: imagine america finally becoming energy self-sufficient as millions and millions of high-paying jobs are created.

five years ago today the president signed obamacare into law. within hours liberty university went to court filing a lawsuit to stop that failed law. [applause] senator cruz: instead of the joblessness, instead of the millions forced into part-time work, instead of the millions who have lost their health insurance, lost their doctors, have faced skyrocketing health insurance premiums, imagine in 2017 a new president, signing

legislation repealing every word of obamacare. [applause] senator cruz: imagine health care reform that keeps government out of the way between you and your doctor and that makes health insurance personal and portable and affordable. instead of a tax code that crushes innovation, that imposes burdens on families struggling to make ends meet, imagine a simple flat tax. [applause] senator cruz: that lets every

american fill out his or her taxes on a postcard. imagine abolishing the i.r.s. [applause] senator cruz: instead of the lawlessness and the president's unconstitutional executive amnesty, imagine a president that finally, finally, finally secures the borders. [applause] senator cruz: and imagine a legal immigration system that welcomes and celebrates those who come to achieve the american dream. [applause]

senator cruz: instead of a federal government that wages an assault on our religious liberty, that goes after hobby lobby, that goes after the little sisters of the poor, that goes after liberty university, imagine a federal government that stands for the first amendment rights of every american. [applause] senator cruz: instead of a federal government that works to undermine our values, imagine a federal government that works to defend the sanctity of human life. and to uphold the sacrament of marriage.

[applause] senator cruz: instead of a government that works to undermine our second amendment rights, that seeks to ban our ammunition, imagine a federal government that protects the right to keep and bear arms of all law-abiding americans. [applause] senator cruz: instead of a government that seizes your emails and your cell phones, imagine a federal government that protected the privacy rights of every american. [applause]

senator cruz: instead of a federal government that seeks to dictate school curriculum through common core, imagine repealing every word of common core. [applause] senator cruz: imagine embracing school choice as the civil rights issue of the next generation. that every single child, regardless of race, regardless of ethnicity, regardless of wealth or zip code, every child in america has a right to a quality education. [applause] senator cruz: and that's true from all of the above whether it

is a public schools, or charter schools, or private schools, or christian schools, or parochial schools, or home schools, every child. [applause] senator cruz: instead of a president who boycotts prime minister netanyahu, imagine a president who stands unapologetically with the nation of israel. [applause]

senator cruz: instead of a president who seeks to go to the united nations to end run congress and the american people, imagine a president who says i will honor the constitution and under no circumstances will iran be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. [applause] senator cruz: imagine a president who says we will stand up and defeat radical islamic terrorism. [applause] senator cruz: and we will call it by its name. we will defend the united states of america. [applause]

senator cruz: now, all of these seem difficult. indeed, to some they may seem unimaginable. yet if you look in the history of our country, imagine at 1775 and you and i were sitting there in richmond listening to patrick henry say, give me liberty or give me death, imagine it's 1776 and we were watching the 54 signers of the declaration of independence stand together and pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to igniting the promise of america. imagine it was 1777 and we were watching general washington as he lost battle after battle after battle in the freezing cold as the soldiers with no

shoes were dying, fighting for freedom against the most powerful army in the world. that, too, seemed unimaginable. imagine it's 1933 and we were listening to president franklin delano roosevelt tell america at a time of crushing depression, at a time of a gathering storm abroad, that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. imagine it's 1979 and you and i were listening to ronald reagan and he was telling us that we would cut the top marginal tax rate from 70% all the way down to 28%.

that we would go from crushing stagnation to booming economic growth, to millions being lifted out of poverty and into prosperity and abundance. that the very day he was sworn in our hostages who were languishing in iran would be released. and that within a decade we would win the cold war and tear the berlin wall to the ground. that would have seemed unimaginable, and yet with the grace of god that's exactly what happened. [applause] senator cruz: from the dawn of this country at every stage america has enjoyed god's providential blessing. over and over again when we

faced impossible odds the american people rose to the challenge. compared to that, repealing obamacare and abolishing the i.r.s. ain't all that tough. the power of the american people when we rise up and stand for liberty knows no bounds. [applause] senator cruz: if you're ready to join a grassroots army across this nation, coming together and standing for liberty, i'm going to ask you to break a rule here today and to take out your cell phones. and to text the word

constitution to the number 33733. you can also text imagine. once again text constitution to 33733. god's blessing has been on america from the very beginning of this nation and i believe god isn't done with america yet. [applause] senator cruz: i believe in you. i believe in the power of millions of courageous conservatives rising up to reignite the promise of america. and that is why today i am announcing that i'm running for president of the united states. [applause]

senator cruz: it is a time for truth. it is a time for liberty. it is a time to reclaim the constitution of the united states.

i am honored to stand with each and every one of you courageous conservatives as we come together to reclaim the promise of america, to reclaim the mandate, the hope, and opportunity for our children and our children's children, we stand together for liberty. [applause] senator cruz: this is our fight. the answer will not come from washington. it will come only from the men and women across this country, from men and women, people of faith, from lovers of liberty, from people who respect the constitution, it will only come as it has come at every other time of challenge in this

country, when the american people stand together and say we will get back to the principles that have made this country great. we will get back and restore that shining city on a hill that is the united states of america. thank you, and god bless you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪

the senate judiciary committee will take up the nomination of sally yates the next deputy attorney general. she was previously the u.s. attorney for the northern district of georgia. watch live coverage tomorrow morning at 10:00 eastern on c-span3. later, the senate aviation panel will look at innovation, safety, and vivus he can terms of drone aircraft. we will speak with officials from the faa and amazon.com. coverage starts at 2:30 eastern on c-span3.

>> here are some of our featured programs this weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span2 saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern, peter wallison said government housing policies caused the 2008 housing crisis and it could happen again. at 5:00, director jeffrey sachs on a plan to counter political corruption and environmental decay. saturday at 10:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3, a discussion on the middle -- last major species of abraham lincoln and martin luther king jr.. on real america the 1965 meet the press interview with martin luther king jr. find our complete sexual -- sensual at www.c-span.org. follow us. e-mail us.

or send us a tweet at c-span #comments. >> former secretary of state hillary clinton and house secretary julian castro take part in a discussion on jobs the economy, and urban development. we will hear from the mayor of compton, california at the event hosted by the center for american progress. >> good morning. welcome to the center for american progress. my name is neera tanden. i'm honored to have all of you join us for this very special round table focused on expanding opportunity in america's cities.

we are very proud to co-host this event with a union focus and improving our cities. we are also very fortunate to host such a wonderful group of participants with us today including former secretary of state hillary clinton. welcome. [applause] host: in a moment i'll introduce our other guests, first i'd like to say a few words about why we are here. america's cities are the engines of our economy. generating opportunity and prosperity not only for the people who live in them, but for suburban, rural, and tribal areas as well. our nation's top 100 metro areas alone account for at least 75% of the nation's gross domestic product. today more and more middle class families want to live in cities. and the more we make that possible the more our cities and our country will grow.

yet urban areas face ongoing challenges. the shortage of affordable housing, struggling schools, and concentrated poverty. that's why we are here today, to bring together leaders from across sectors to address these challenges with new ideas so today's cities are places families can grow and prosper. now it's my great pleasure to introduce today's round table participants. secretary hillary clinton served as the 67 secretary of state. before that she was also the senator from the great state of new york representing our country's largest city. lee saunders is president of afscme which represents more than 1.6 million public sector workers across the country. we are also very honored to have secretary castro from the department of housing and urban development. he's also the former mayor of san antonio. asia brown has spearheaded a number of creative initiatives

as the youngest person ever elected to mayor in compton, california. glenn hutchins is co-founder of silver lake, a technology investment firm. bruce is the vice president of the brookings institution. janet murkier is president and c.e.o. of the national council of la raza, the largest national hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the united states. and the executive director of the policy institute which serves more than 100,000 youth and young adults at 125 programs in los angeles. randi weingarten is president of the american federation of teachers, which represents 1.6 million educational professionals. and finally, seth williams is c.e.o. of rockford technology company, a company with mission to give back to its urban community by creating jobs and

manufacturing earth friendly products. so, we have a great group of people here today. i'd like to start out the discussion with lee saunders. lee, why should we actually care about our urban areas? mr. saunders: first, let me thank you for coordinating this and sponsoring it. we believe that this is a discussion that's long overdue. in fact, there is a tragedy going on within our urban centers across this country. the lack of jobs, good-paying jobs, and we have to talk about it not only on the labor side, but business, academics, elected officials, all of us have to think outside the box to talk about the problems that exist in the urban areas right now. you know about the detroits of the world. you have heard about atlantic city. you have heard that some these

cities are actually having a comeback, but if you look at those specific comebacks, you will see that in effect it's just in small areas of that particular city. and that, in fact, when you go outside of that area you see a lot of poverty. you see a lot of joblessness problems with public education with the infrastructure, so we believe we have to have a dialogue. we have to have a discussion collectively thinking outside the box and saying that our urban areas are the engines of our states for job growth and job creation. to pay particular attention to resolving this problem and rebuilding our urban centers across the country. we view this discussion as the beginning not the end. we believe this should be a priority not only of the federal government, but it should be a priority and we should coordinate our activities between the federal, state, and local level. to resolve the problems, provide quality jobs