for debate including ones dealing with state and local taxes for internet sales. also including the commodity futures trading commission and setting spending for transportation and housing. live coverage of the house here on c-span when members gavel back in. and this morning on c-span3, a hearing with firsthand and government watchdog accounts of problems at the t.s.a. with the department of homeland security inspector general and a former t.s.a. officer who's written what goes behind the doors at the t.s.a. calling "dear america, we saw you naked: confessions of a former t.s.a. agent." that hearing starts at 10:30 eastern time. and then the senate foreign relations committee would authorize state department operations for fiscal year 2006. they are looking to a report that a committee would report

to congress on war powers in iraq and syria. that gets under way on c-span3. >> book tv will cover book festivals from around the country. near the end of june watch for the annual roosevelt reading festival from the franklin d. roosevelt presidential library. in the middle of july we're live at the harlem book fair, the nation's flagship african-american book fair event. and at the beginning of september we're live from the nation's capital for the national book festival celebrating its 15th year. and that's a few of the events this summer on c-span2's "book tv." >> and a look at a tweet from the hill. former house speaker dennis hastert, he'll be in court today on charges he tried to pay $3.5 million to keep a story about past misconduct quiet. he's being arraigned in federal court in chicago. it will be his first appearance in public since the indictment was released on may 28.

and yesterday the supreme court striking down a law requiring the state department to list israel on u.s. passports as the birthplace for americans who were born in jerusalem. the court deciding that 6-3. that congress had overstepped its boundaries when it approved the law in 2002 and that the president has exclusive power to recognize foreign nations. here's the oral argument in the case that was heard by the court in november. it's about an hour. >> we'll hear argument first in case 13628, zivotofsky v. kerry. ms. lewin: mr. chief jr. and may it please the court. how an american is identified in his or her passport or u.s. consular birth abroad, including the place of birth designation does not amount to formal recognition by the united states of that

designated location's sovereign status. this is a principal reason why congress' law authorizing jerusalem-born citizens to carry passports that say they were born in israel is a legitimate congressional exercise of congress' power to regulate foreign commerce -- >> suppose that -- suppose that the president and the secretary of state put on the passport the place of birth -- and i've written it out -- the place of birth on this jerusalem-born's passport has been listed as israel at the holder's request. this designation is neither an acknowledgment nor a declaration by the department of state or the president of the united states that jerusalem is within the borders of the state of israel. could the president under existing statute -- and the secretary of state, under existing statute put that statement on the passport? >> yes, your honor, they could put that statement on the passport.

>> if congress then passed a law saying that that statement had to come off the passport, could congress do that? >> yes, justice kagan. there's no restriction on the initial granting of recognition by the president, but by the same token, the congress has the ability afterwards upon deliberation to decide if they disagree with that recognition. but in the case that justice kennedy -- >> has had a ever happened? -- has had that ever happened? >> yes -- >> in the history of the united states where congress after the president has declared that it was not recognized and someone -- has congress ever recognized? >> yes, justice sotomayor. in 1898 congress passed the joint resolution for the recognition of the people of the independence of cuba over

the initial opposition of president mckinley. and that ended up recognizing the independence of cuba. >> you were careful to say at the outset this is not recognition. the court of appeals decision -- i think it was in the judge taylor concurrence, said that both parties urge upon us that they -- the power of recognition is involved here and congress has done it and then of course the attorney general takes the opposite position that, a, this is recognition and b, that's why it's void. did you change your position here or am i just misinterpreting the way that court of appeals discussed it? >> we provided the court alternative options for resolving this issue. our primary position, as i said at the outset, what is written in this statute does not amount to a formal recognition of sovereignty because the language of the statute itself is very narrow. it begins by saying that for the purposes of

-- the narrow purposes of recording a place of birth on a passport or a consular birth abroad, that is what this statute provides for. it also does not state that in all circumstances you have to list israel as a place of birth. it is an individual choice. >> the provision is part of the section, section 214. i think they're trying to read as it is disassociated from the purpose that's expressed throughout 214, that is the capital of israel. congress said that and you are trying to deal with a piece of one section without regard to the thrust of the whole provision that congress has said we think jerusalem is the capital of israel. >> justice ginsburg, the -- that is correct. this section of the statute

should be reviewed and the constitutionality of it be determined on its own, but the court should look not at what congress may have intended by the entire section but rather what this section actually did. and this section, as i said, gives the individuals a choice and does not confer formal recognition. there are benefits that -- >> you say that. you say -- i think that's certainly a reasonable position. you could read this and say it doesn't really say anything about recognizing anything. but the solicitor general of the united states, after conferring with the state department, says since israel's founding every president has adhered to the position that the status of jerusalem should not be unilaterally be determined by a party and he adds, by requiring the president to contradict his recognition position regarding jerusalem in official

communications with foreign sovereigns, the section unconstitutionally encroaches on the president's core recognition authority. so he has a different view. he thinks it is our policy not to recognize jerusalem as the capital, which you apparently agree with, and he thinks that this does have some tendency at least, to suggest the contrary. now, i'm a judge. i'm not a foreign affairs expert. and when he tells me that, and they are foreign affairs experts in the state department, how can i say that i'm right even if i agree with you and they, who are in charge of foreign affairs, are wrong when they make those two statements which certainly sound plausible? >> two points, justice breyer. the first is that, what goes on

a passport is a place of birth is not tantamount to recognizing foreign sovereignty. taiwan is a perfect example. >> i must interject at this point because you emphasize the taiwan example. it seems to me most distinguishable. taiwan and china maintained from the beginning there is only one china. and so taiwan is a place name it's a region. it's in no way recognizing no question of recognition in the taiwanese act. >> that's correct, justice ginsburg. so what you put on the passport does not -- >> you go back to my question which i'd like an answer to. i don't think that taiwan is a counterexample since the policy of the state department in that being f.a.m., foreign affairs man, says pretty clearly that

if there's a dispute about the larger power, i.e., china, you can always put in your passport the smaller place of birth, like a city, or i would think here taiwan. so i don't hear the department who i guess i'm saying the experts, saying that taiwan example conflicted with their policy. >> china objected to that. >> i want an answer to this question. not whether china objected or didn't object or so forth. i'm not interested in that. i'm interested in what we as judges do when the state department and those charged say those other things were not contrary to our recognition policy, that's what they think. and this is. >> so one last point on taiwan -- >> i'd like the first point -- what am i supposed to do?

>> the first point is what goes on a passport is not for the benefit of formal recognition of sovereignty. this does not entitle the government, the foreign government to bring cases in our court to the protection of sovereign immunity or to the act of state doctrine. what goes on a passport does not amount to sovereign -- >> ms. lewin, i thought your position was, you couldn't care less if the state department thinks this is going to interfere with our relations with the palestinians, that congress is entitled to do what it is authorized to do under the constitution even when that contradicts -- let's assume they can't recognize a country but they can declare war on a country, can't they? the state department has decided to recognize and be friendly with, congress can do that? >> that is correct, congress can do that and the test --

>> and you say they can do the same here. and the fact that state -- that the state department doesn't like the fact that it makes the palestinians angry is irrelevant? >> absolutely, justice scalia. that is correct. >> if you take that position which explains it, then what do you think of justice storry who writes in 1833, the exercise of the prerogative of acknowledging new nations and ministers -- and he makes clear that that involves whether a city or region is part of a country, etc. -- he says it's an executive function. some argue, as we -- i think we just heard -- that congress could make that decision, too, but that hasn't been decided. and he concludes that a power so extensive in its reach of foreign relations could not properly be conferred other

than the executive department will admit of little doubt. he's saying, of course you have to have one person deciding such a thing and that has to be the executive. that's 1833. pretty knowledgeable about the founders' intent. >> that is a rather extreme position, number one, to suggest that executive branch would have not only the authority to recognize a foreign government but also if the state department says so, that automatically would end the question or any review by any other branch and the state department merely says that the -- >> there is review of power of the purse and there's always review with not pointing an ambassador. there is review in a variety of alternative ways by congress. it just may not be the way that you prefer if they could pass a resolution contradicting that

that would have any legal force. >> there -- well, there is review. even both to respond to you, justice sotomayor and justice breyer, they both recognized the authority of congress to review. just as storey also said, if such recognition is made, it's conclusive upon the nation unless indeed it can be reversed by an act of congress repudiating it. and if the president refuses to recognize, then he said congress may not withstanding soundly acknowledge the sovereignty of the nation or party. >> i guess you could say hamilton in 1787, or whatever, trumps story in 1830, right? he said opposite. that the recognition of provision was trivial formality. >> hamilton also switched his position before he was in the administration and after in the administration. what that would seem to show mr. chief justice, it's not clear the history --

>> in any case, that's not your main point, is it? you're being -- either forced into or willingly yield yourself to arguing that against the proposition that if this is recognition, it is invalid, but your main position is this is not recognition. it just has an effect on the state department's desire to make nice with the palestinians. your position is congress has no compulsion to follow that. assuming it can't recognize. >> that is correct. >> you don't claim this is recognition? >> we do not claim this is recognition. in fact, there's a -- >> one factual matter i'd like. i see in the record that your application for the passport asks for jerusalem, israel. that was changed. was it changed in litigation? was there an actual official

request to change it in your application? >> the request was made purely because of a misunderstanding what the law initially of -- >> answer my question. did you apply formally to have it changed or did you just take that position in litigation? >> the position was then subsequently taken in litigation. in subsequent renewals of the passport, too, it's the request of israel be put on the passport and it has come back with jerusalem. >> may i ask you another factual question? when manachem zivotofsky was born, was he issued a birth certificate by the israeli authorities? >> yes. >> and the united states recognizes that as a lawful exercise of israeli authority to issue a birth certificate for a child born in jerusalem? >> i believe they do, your honor. >> this is a question i would ask the solicitor general. i don't completely understand

what the position of the united states is regarding israeli sovereignty over jerusalem. i understand it's the position that israel does not exercise full sovereignty over jerusalem but in that -- in this instance, the issuance of a birth certificate and others i can think of, i suspect the united states recognizes that israel is lawfully exercising attributes of sovereignty over the territory of jerusalem, is that correct? so if someone -- let's say an american citizen committed a crime in jerusalem, would the united states take the position that the israeli government has no lawful authority to prosecute the person of the crime? >> i do not believe so, your honor. i do believe they would feel that the israeli government has the authority to prosecute that crime. >> ms. lewin, if i could ask you. if your primary position is that this is not a recognition statute, can we talk a little bit about what it is?

i mean, why -- what is the design, what is the effect of this statute other than something that goes to recognition? >> this statute is a statute that was created to give individuals the right to self-identify as they choose that they were born in israel -- >> the united states government does not usually give people the right to self-identify in this way. in other words -- i think this was the chief justice's question in the first argument. if you're an american citizen born in northern ireland, you can't get the right to say ireland. for that matter, if you're an american citizen born in jerusalem today, you can't get the right to say palestine. this is a very selective vanity plate law, if we might call it that, and it's selective because congress -- it appears to me and consistent with the rest of the statute, as justice ginsburg said -- a real view that this was the

self-identification it wanted. in other words, the ability of american citizens to say, yes, i was born in jerusalem and that means i was born in israel. that and only that self-identification is allowed. >> this statute was rectifying a misguided policy of the state department which enabled individuals born in israel proper, whether in tel aviv or in kifea, who were opposed politically to the state of israel to remove that sovereign, to remove reference of israel from their passport, but it did not allow those who are born in jerusalem and who live under the sovereign government of israel who wish to put israel on their passport to put israel on their passport. >> what about palestinians who were born in jerusalem and wanted to have palestine as their place of birth.

that existed until 1948, that option. >> correct, justice ginsburg. because at that point it was before 1948 a palestine. so the law was not going to -- >> people could -- palestinians could not -- american-born palestinians cannot do that and that suggests that congress had a view and the view was that jerusalem was properly part of israel. >> that is because this statute is dealing with an existing sovereign, that you either remove from the passport or put on the passport. they weren't complicating the situation by not putting together nonsovereigns -- it's either you put it on or take it off. we'll give you the choice. >> born in barcelona, spain, is that citizen allowed by the state department to put barcelona as place of birth? >> if they wish to remove the country of birth and list the small entity, yes.

>> is that a vanity plate for people who believe in catalan independence? >> it is enabling an individual to exercise their choice to self-identify as they choose. >> again, your argument and you're consistent on this -- your first argument is that this is not recognition. now, suppose the state department -- this is recognition if we deferred to the state department's judgment to the government's executive judgment on that point and the government said this is recognition, and you say it isn't recognition, why doesn't the government trump? if the government -- if the congress really wants to test its power, it can pass a law saying you must recognize israel as being the legitimate government of palestine, but it has not done that and since it has not done that, it seems to me the government's argument trumps. >> justice kennedy, you are correct. the way the balance of powers

works is that the executive branch has the right to recognize the sovereign. however, if congress deliberates, passes legislation and that legislation is signed into law, then congress' position trumps. >> but you say that this isn't recognition. so the ultimate conflict is not before us and therefore the government's policy, which says that this is recognition, should be given deference and it trumps. >> well, your honor, if it doesn't amount to recognition, then congress had the authority to -- >> i guess there are competing cannons here. one is, i suppose we listen to the state department on matters of foreign affairs. but i suppose another one is we do not hold an act of congress to be unconstitutional and thereby ineffective. that seems to me a draw, doesn't it? >> yes. >> so the state department says

this amounts to recognition and congress says, whether it does or not, we want -- we want this person to be able to list israel. >> that is correct. and since this was signed into law by the president, the law right now trumps whatever the executive branch may say. >> and hypothetical, ms. lewin. suppose congress passed a law and this law said that secretary of state had sent an official letter to all foreign ministers whenever a u.s. citizen was born in jerusalem and that official letter from the secretary of state said -- says it announces that a new american has been born in israel. would that be constitutional? >> excuse me, this would be a law passed -- >> this is a law passed by congress and it says every time a u.s. citizen is born in jerusalem, the secretary of state has to send an official letter to every other foreign minister saying that a new american has been born in israel.

>> yes, that would be constitutional. >> that would be constitutional. even though the congress is basically telling the secretary of state to engage in a certain kind of diplomatic communication with other foreign countries. >> the description of the law that you provide seems to be very similar to what a passport does. a passport recognizes an individual as an american citizen for purposes of communicating that information to the foreign government. >> yes, that's exactly right. that was going to be my point that it was -- but it was extremely similar to what a passport does. both are forms of diplomatic communication and what we usually say about diplomatic communication is that whatever congress' other foreign affairs powers are, the power of diplomatic communication belongs to the president and the president alone. that in that realm, we only speak with one voice.

and so i guess i have to sort of say that that answer that you gave me, that this could -- that congress could say to the secretary of state, here's the diplomatic communication that you have to send to other foreign ministers seems, well, a little bit shocking. >> but recognizing an individual as an american citizen facilitates the transfer and the movement of american citizens across borders. this passport, if it were to list israel pursuant to this law, would be indistinguishable from all the other passports of individuals born in tel aviv or haifa or any other place in israel, it wouldn't show to make any kind of political statement. it would merely be identifying the individual by their name, date of birth, place of birth. as all american passports of individuals identify. >> so you would say that -- and i think justice kagan's hypothetical, maybe the letter required to be sent to every

foreign head of state would be unconstitutional. but that doesn't mean that the passport is. because the passport is used primarily for purposes of identification. it's only the letter that makes it something else. >> correct. >> you want us to write -- justice kennedy, do you want us to say in our opinion that this is not a political declaration? >> this is not a political declaration, that is correct, justice kennedy. >> well, i'm not sure why congress passed it then. >> congress passed it to give these individuals the right to self-identify as they choose because individuals in general have that ability on their passport to choose an -- >> i thought it was a federal crime to say you were born in the united states when you weren't on an official document. so why is it that it's ok for congress to say something that hasn't happened? meaning, to say someone born in

just aluminum is actually born in israel? it's different than somebody who was born in taiwan saying i was born in america? they can self-identify all they want, but can they do that? >> yes. since 1848 israel has acted as the sovereign over western jerusalem where our client was born. since 1967, over the entire area of jerusalem. >> i know what it's done. has the u.s. recognized? has any president since 1948 recognized israel's sovereignty over that area? >> in a formal sense, no. but allowing individuals to recognize it, that would not be a false statement. >> ms. lewin, if i might just go back to the thought that the chief justice gave you that you agreed with. here's the way a passport begins. it begins the secretary of

state of the united states of america hereby requests all who it may concern to permit the citizen blah, blah, blah. that's the, you know, the secretary of state requests all of these who will be looking at this passport. and then in hague v. a.j., we described a passport as a letter of introduction which the issuing sovereign vouches for the bearer and requests other sovereigns to aid the bearer. this is, this passport it seems, both in what it says itself and what we said about it, is like a letter from the secretary of state. it's a communication. >> it is a communication meaning to facilitate this transfer of individuals as american citizens, not to make public statements about where they were born or where they are from or what countries the united states recognizes. i'll reserve the rest of my time. >> thank you, counsel.

general? >> mr. chief justice, may it please the court. let me get to the heart of the problem with section 214-b. even if section 214-d does not officially change or formally change the recognition position of the united states, it tries to deny the president the power to give effect to our official recognition position by forcing executive branch officials to issue official diplomatic communications that contradict that position. >> what if there were a law that said, precisely, pretty much what you just said, the law says, ok, mr. president, you can recognize whoever you want, but if you recognize this country, this government, we are going to treat it as if you hadn't recognized this government. for purposes of domestic law, we are going to pretend -- we are going to operate under the assumption you have recognized this country. >> i think there would be limits to congress' ability to do that. we think that the recognition power that the president possesses necessarily includes the power to give effect or recognition.

>> so that law would be unconstitutional? >> to the extent and all purposes yes -- >> isn't that what the taiwan relations act says? >> what it says is the absence of diplomatic recognition shall not affect the application of the laws of the united states with respect to taiwan. >> no, mr. chief justice that's different. the taiwan relations act was an act an exercise of the necessary and proper power to implement the president's foreign relations judgment about how taiwan -- >> let's say the president did not want to recognize taiwan and congress passes a law that says for every purpose under american law we'll treat taiwan as if it had been recognized. >> that might raise a serious constitution question. that isn't the situation -- it wasn't the case when it was enacted. it's not the case now. it's different from the current situation. the fundamental problem with section 214-d is that it purports to try to force the executive branch to issue official diplomatic

communications that contradict the position of the united states. >> is that really true? can congress pass a law saying that every passport, every passport issued to an american that lists place of birth, including country, and that for this purpose the country is the nation that issued the birth certificate to that individual. could congress do that? >> i think that that -- in a situation like that, the court ought to defer to the executive branch's judgment that the place of birth listing can have significant diplomatic consequences. we have had policies in place for decades in this country that align place of birth designations with our official recognition policy. the reason we do that is because foreign sovereigns look to these communications as indicative of where we stand -- >> if it is within congress'

power, what difference does it make whether it antagonizes foreign countries? >> there are certain things that are within congress' power that would antagonize foreign countries that wouldn't affect separation of powers. like a trade embargo or -- >> this may be one of them. the mere fact it upsets foreign relations doesn't prove a thing. >> the critical point, your honor, is that what this statute does that those other statutes don't do is it requires the executive branch, the president himself, and the executive branch itself, to communicate a message that contradicts the official recognition position of the united states, undermining the president's credibility, and preventing the president from being able to speak with one voice -- >> why couldn't you have a disclaimer of the kind that i have explained to the petitioner's counsel? that would be perfectly allowable for you to say this is not an indication that

israel has jurisdiction over jerusalem. >> your honor -- >> wouldn't that solve the problem? >> it doesn't solve the problem because the issuance of the disclaimer is the credibility hit. it undermines the credibility of the president because think about what it's actually saying. what it's saying in this context is, yes, we are issuing thousands of passports that identify persons born in jerusalem as being born in israel. yes, the congress of the united states requires that. but pay no attention to it, really. doesn't have any bearing -- >> if it were such a big deal, why did the chief executive at the time sign it? >> the chief executive issued a signing statement which really was in effect a disclaimer in 2002. president bush's statement said, in 2002, this does not change our official recognition policy. and we are going to treat it as advisory. that did not have the effect of -- >> so we should give no weight to the fact that the chief executive signed a law that he is now saying -- successor, but i gather the position is the same, is now saying has such

deleterious effects on american foreign policy? >> as a general matter, does that have any consequence at all? >> i think this court held in myers the fact that one president signed a law into -- signed a law that violated separation of powers doesn't have any effect. >> no. i'm not suggesting it does, although that's a separate question. it does go to the credibility of the assertion that this has such dramatic effects on american foreign policy. >> i think the credibility of the assertion is proven by history, with all due respect, mr. chief justice. even though president bush issued that statement which said this didn't change the policy of the united states and that we weren't going to enforce it because he was treating it as advisory. the consequences that ensued in the middle east in october of 2002 were that there were mass demonstrations in jerusalem, thousands of people in the streets, some turning violent. the palestinian parliament met and voted for the first time to declare jerusalem the capital of the palestinian state, no longer forbearing on that issue. and if you look at --

>> that's partly because the executive branch made such a big deal out of it. they issue a statement this is unconstitutional and all that. it could easily have said this is no big deal. they are letting whoever is born there pick the name they want to put on. nothing to see here, move on. we are approving that by going ahead and signing it. and over the intervening course, the executive has litigated this as a self-fulfilling prophecy it's going to be such a huge deal. >> mr. chief justice, with all due respect, i think on this question you are asking me this is a place where the court should accord deference to the judgments of the executive branch and state department in particular. if the state department had thought, if the executive had thought it could solve the diplomatic problem by minimizing the effect of this provision, pretending as though it doesn't going to happen they would have followed that course. >> not necessarily.

>> you're asking you to -- they are asking the government to lie. >> i think that -- >> that's exactly what you're saying the government should -- the executive department should not do. >> i do think the problem here is that the -- that the executive made a considered judgment in 2002 that this couldn't sensibly be handled that way. >> how are we -- >> what if it just says disputed? parentheses. after disputed. then i gather they wouldn't be lying, they would be telling the truth. >> well, i don't know. first, your honor, that would have the effect of identifying the passport issued to people born in jerusalem. that would be the reason of putting it on. beyond that, it isn't disputed as a matter of the official position of the united states. the position -- >> it's disputed as a matter of the government of the united states. part of the government says this. well actually no. the congress is not saying under my hypothetical this is israel. it's saying there is a dispute about it. which i would think is about as

true a statement as you can make. >> well, there's a dispute certainly among the parties of the region. i think the whole premise of the petitioner's argument here is within the government of the united states there isn't a dispute over the recognition issue. >> can you help me with the same question? how should we approach it generally? that is to say, i can think of instances where similar statute is serving other than administrative matters, the passport should be red or something. i can think of instances where it causes a lot of trouble. and i can think of instances like this one, and you could easily replicate this controversy with israel in our imaginations similar controversy with the ukraine where we make some agreement with russia and something similar comes up. or with iran and pretend that -- remember russia once invaded part of northern iran.

and all over the world there can be similar kinds of problems where it's debatable what the words of the passport actually mean, or how they will be taken by others. and what others will think they mean. how do we, who know little about it, determine when it gets into the realm that we should stay out of it and let the president and his constitution gives him that power, or should as some think, we should always intervene perhaps some never, what in your mind is the right standard? how do we decide? >> i do think this court, the last time the case was here, ultimately it was up to the court, the judge, constitutionality of the statute we accept that. but in doing so, we believe it is quite important that the executive branch get deference on judgments of precisely the kind that your honor has identified. this statute is a very rare passport statute. there isn't any other passport statute like this one that purports to interject an issue of recognition policy into the content of passports.

>> general verrilli, if we agree with the petitioner, we do not have to confront the constitutional question. whether the president has exclusive power over recognition. if we agree with you, we are going to have to grapple with that constitutional question. maybe you want to talk about it. >> let me -- i'm delighted to talk about it. before i do, let me actually address that. i don't think you necessarily have to address the question of exclusive power to rule for us. here's why. i think that given the petitioner's position that 214-d does not change recognition, the official recognition position of the united states, and the senate amicus brief saying it doesn't change the position of the united states, that's a given. the official recognition position of the united states is -- we are not recognizing any nation's sovereignty over jerusalem at this point until the parties work it out. with that as a given, the separation of powers problem with section 214-d is that it

forces the executive branch to engage in diplomatic communications that contradict our official recognition position and undermine the president's credibility and that -- >> if it does, then their argument is going to be it does amount to -- if it does contradict it, then congress is making its own judgment about recognition. >> i'm happy to address t i will address it now. i do think you can decide the question on the ground i decided without ultimately resolving -- >> couldn't you say at a minimum the petitioner has conceded that it is not clear that this is recognition. >> that's certainly the case. we take it as gave the president's position on recognition, which is the same every president going back to truman, is the official position of the united states and the executive is being forced to issue diplomatic communications that contradict it.

>> is the requirement of place of birth on the passport, that doesn't come from the congress, that comes from the executive, right? >> that's correct. there's a long-standing policy there. >> i thought that the purpose of the place identified by the government by the executive is to identify the person, and it's not something that the president or executive requires out of a foreign policy concern. the purpose of it was to identify the individual. is that right? >> yes. that is its primary purpose. even though that's its primary function within the passport it has the effect of raising diplomatic foreign policy issues about our recognition position. that is why we have had in place official policies in the foreign affairs manual going back to the early 1960's that align decisions of place of

birth with our recognition policy. and in fact before they were formalizing the manual, they stretch all the way back to world war ii. it's inevitable that foreign sovereigns are going to react to that, the way in which we -- the information that we put -- >> this is a pretty rough way to identify someone. there are hundreds of john smiths in the united states. >> that's true. and this question about whether a place of birth designations are necessary on passports is actually one that congress asked the comptroller general to study back several decades ago when there were series of studies made. the conclusion of those studies which you can find in the current version of the manual, -- foreign affairs manual, the one on the state department's website, you have to have them for two reasons. the first is very often foreign nations require place of birth information to let you travel to that nation. it's going to be highly inconvenient, if it's not in the passport. second, law enforcement and counterterrorism officials were

quite concerned that passports were going to become less effective in their efforts if you remove the place of birth designation. >> a question i asked ms. lewin, what exactly is the position of the executive regarding israel's exercise of sovereign powers in jerusalem? is it the case that it is the position of the executive that israel cannot lawfully exercise any sovereign powers within jerusalem? >> the position of the executive is that we recognize as a practical matter the authority of israel over west jerusalem. with respect to the rest of jerusalem, the issue is far more complicated. it might well be as a practical matter, i confess i don't specifically know the answer to the question. you asked miss lewin about the status of the birth certificate issued there, might be as a practical matter we would accept it as evidence of birth. >> it must have been accepted or the passport wouldn't have been issued.

>> we do have the consular -- >> i thought you had to provide a birth certificate to get that. >> as a practical matter i don't think anyone can infer anything about our position from that. i do think for example, your honor, if we were to start issuing passports to people born in crimea tomorrow, that identified russia as the country of birth, that would carry obvious implications for our foreign policy position. it would contradict the foreign policy position in a way that could be quite deleterious. >> let's say the passports are printed in country a, not the united states, there is a printing plant there, and congress passes a law saying, no, you must have the passports presented in country b. we don't think you should

recognize country a. does that interfere with the president's recognition powers? >> i'm trying to give you precise answer to that. if the statute said passports may not be printed in country a because the united states does in the recognize country a -- >> because congress wished the president would not recognize country a. >> in response to that, we are directing that passports that are now printed in country a be printed in country b. that would be a harder case than this one, i think, because it doesn't as clearly implicate the president's effect to recognition power. one reason it doesn't, that doesn't affect the content of the diplomatic communication. the way section 214-d does. >> i thought your position was the president has the exclusive right to decide what interferes with his recognition power. >> i think that the president has the right to give effect to his recognition power. congress cannot try to command the executive branch to act in a manner itself that contradicts the president's recognition decision because that prevents the president from giving effect to that decision. and we do think, going back to your honor's question, it is an exclusive power with the president. it is, after all, recognition is not lawmaking. it is an executive

function. and one would therefore expect it would be a sign to the executive by the constitution and not to the congress. and when -- >> we are making an executive function, too. >> with respect to the executive functions around recognition, when congress wanted -- when the framers wanted the congress to play a role, and the constitution envisions a role for the framers and those executive functions, it's prescribed of the article 2 gives the senator a role in confirming ambassador, it gives the senate a role in advice and consent for treaties. there isn't anything in article 2 as a structural matter that gives the senate a role with respect to -- to recognition decisions. >> congress generally -- congress has the authority

under the constitution to require identification information in passports, and to specify the identification information that's included, if i believe that, then the effect of your argument, i guess, is that something that congress can do is unconstitutional if it affects the recognition power -- president's recognition authority in some way. is that -- >> our position is narrower. all you need to decide to decide this case in the government's favor here is that -- what congress can't do is use the authority it has to regulate passports. we acknowledge as we did in our brief that congress has the authority to regulate passports. it didn't use that authority to command the executive branch to issue diplomatic communication that contradicts the government's official position on recognition. >> i don't like to -- just keep going back to the same thing. it seems to me that you could draft a statement that actually furthers your this passport

-- further your position. it does not indicate the government of the united states and secretary of state recognize that israel has sovereign jurisdiction over israel. you're actually making your case. >> i appreciate the appeal of that idea, justice kennedy, but the problem with it is that the need to make that statement doesn't further the diplomatic interests -- >> ms. lewin asked -- >> why doesn't it further it? >> because the very need to make the statement calls the credibility of the president's representation of our recognition position into question. like the signing statement. >> just like the signing statement. which said precisely what justice kennedy suggested that the executive could do at this point. >> right. it did not have -- i think that's the point. the signing statement was in the nature of a disclaimer. it did not prevent the damage to the credibility of the united states.

>> i think the answer to the question ms. lewin gave was she said, yes, the executive could put that on the passport. but she also said congress could then pass the law saying this is antithetical to our view and that doesn't have to be put on the passport. on the passport is just birthplace, israel, period. congress could pass that law and counter whatever the president does. >> i do think that's the necessary implication of the petitioner's argument here. not only that congress could forbid a disclaimer, but congress could require -- >> that law isn't in front of us. >> but were the court to uphold the constitutionality of the law that is in front of you, it seems to me the necessary implication of that would be that congress could prevent a disclaimer, could require not just that israel be listed, but jerusalem, comma, be listed on a country of birth.

it seems to me those are very serious interferences -- >> general, if i'm understanding your narrow holding, just so that we can underscore it, what you're saying is that congress can't compel speech by the president with respect to foreign relations. >> i would put it more narrowly, your honor. congress cannot compel the executive issue diplomatic communications that contradict the official position of the united states on a matter of recognition. i think that's all -- that's the question before the court in this case. >> i pick up this passport and it says place of birth israel. do i know whether this person was born in jerusalem or in haifa? >> no, you don't. >> how does it advertise for the world that the president is contradicting himself?

all you know is that the person was born in israel. could have been anywhere in israel. >> the world knows that we will issue thousands of passports to people born in jerusalem identifying them as born in israel. and the world knows that we will be doing that because the congress of the united states required it. and those actions -- >> it is not a communication contained in the passport itself, is it? you're just saying that this piece of legislation advertises to the world what the situation will be. but you're not compelling the president to say that this individual was born in jerusalem and we are going to say he was born in israel. because you can't tell that. >> you are requiring the president to make statements thousands of times, that contradict the official recognition position of the united states. now, it is true that a country where a person is traveling won't know whether this particular passport is one of

them. i suppose unless they ask for place of birth information. city of birth information. but unless they ask that, they won't know with the particular passport. what everyone will know, what foreign sovereigns will know what the parties in this region will know is that thousands of times the executive branch is issuing passports that contradict our official recognition position. >> general, when i travel abroad, and come back to the united states, or when i go to a foreign country, and they are stamping my passport, do they have forms that require you to identify the city? >> i am not aware they do, your honor. i don't know the answer to that. i'm not aware they do. >> i know that some of them do. i know that some do. >> they may well. i do think the essential problem here with it what 214 does is that it tells the executive to communicate a message that the executive believes contradicts our

position and undermines the president's credibility as our soul spokesman in matters of diplomacy. there is not an issue on which the president's credibility could be more important than the question of the status of jerusalem. the question of the status of jerusalem is the most vexing and vowel tile and -- volatile and difficult diplomatic issue that this nation has faced for decades. it goes all the way back to president truman. and the fact of the matter is that the parties in the region the nations in the region, and frankly people around the world and governments around the world scrutinize every word that comes out of the united states' government and every action that the united states government takes in order to see whether we can continue to be trusted as an honest broker who could stand apart from this conflict and help bring it to resolution. and there is no doubt that section 214-d when it was enacted had a serious adverse effect calling our credibility into question. you can just look at the statements from foreign parties

that are in the joint appendix in the state department commune kay -- communique at pages 231-233. you can look at press accounts from that time. it seems to me without -- if we were required to implement this we would do everything we could to try to mitigate the problem but it seems to me that the -- it is quite important for this court to understand there is a very serious risk that that harm to our credibility as an honest broker on this very serious vexing issue could be called into serious question. >> why would that be so? no matter how this court decides, everyone will know what the position of the president is. everyone will know what congress thought when it passed this legislation. whatever we do, that's not going to be changed. and our decision isn't going to be based on any view that we may have about whether jerusalem should be regarded as part of israel or the capital of israel. why will there be any effect on

foreign policy, except by people who will misunderstand the situation, either because they really don't understand it or they will it got voided in some way. >> two points to make about that if i could. first, it's not a misperception. it's an accurate perception. one looks at 214 as a whole, not just 214-d, but 214 tries to force the executive branch to take a series of steps that no nation would take if it did not recognize the sovereignty of israel over jerusalem. and nations would only take if they did recognize. >> congress did that. nothing we do is going to change that or change what congress thought. >> with all due respect too easy an assumption, your honor. the difference between this it arose to very serious problems we had to get under control. the difference between then and now are two very important differences and it leads to a

very important conclusion. the first is it won't be one branch of the united states government saying that this should happen, it will be two branches of the united states government saying it should happen. it won't be that we will -- that the statute will have been enacted. but it won't be enforced. it will be enforced and the consequence of those two things together is that the credibility of the executive the credibility of the president on the fundamental question of where the united states stands on the status of jerusalem until the parties work it out will inevitably and seriously be called into question and into doubt. foreign governments, foreign peoples will not be able to have complete confidence that the position the president announces on behalf of the united states is the position of the united states. that is exactly why section 214 violates the separation of powers. even if you conclude that congress might have some residual power, which we obviously strongly disagree with. the official position of the

united states is that jerusalem -- we don't recognize any nation's sovereignty over jerusalem until all parties have worked that issue out on their own. and what this statute does is -- if it is enforced, would undermine the credibility of the president's ability to maintain that critically important diplomatic position as we move forward. thank you. >> thank you, general. ms. lewin, you have four minutes remaining. >> thank you, your honor. just a couple of points. justice sotomayor, this is not requesting that the government lie on a passport. as the solicitor general said, it isn't just recognizing a practical reality that israel -- >> it's the place of birth. if you say israel, you believe that you're saying that you believe that person was born in israel. >> yes. well, seven years prior to the passage of this legislation, congress passed the jerusalem embassy act and the senate

referred the amicus brief in section 10 which requires the embassy be moved to jerusalem and -- >> and there was a waiver provided and every president has exercised the waiver. >> this would be the recognizing as we said before there is a disagreement -- >> tell me it's not a lie. you the united states are being asked to put on the passport that you believe the place of birth of this individual is israel. and the government -- executive has said, no. we don't think it was israel. we think it was jerusalem. >> the speech is the speech of the individual who -- >> the individual -- the one issuing the passport, the government. the document says this is a diplomatic exchange between sovereigns. >> but we are permitting that speech when it comes to west bank, gaza strip, a host of others. we are recognizing and allowing that speech. >> i think, ms. lewin when you say the west bank, i take you think congress could pass the identical statute with

respect to a child born in hebron, say? that that, too, is israel? >> correct. >> we are providing two alternative arguments, one saying this is not -- this does not amount to recognition, or if the court decides to reach the separation of powers question and views this as somehow implicating the recognition clause, that at this point the law passed by congress would trump the president. allowing the state department's say so because it's an expert in foreign relations would be advocating an independent function and turn the president into an autocrat whose world controls. we suggest this is a narrative recognition powers is analogous to the president's authority to enter into executive agreements to resolve foreign claims. that is not an explicit authorization provided to the president. it's also not exclusive. and the agreements entered into by the president cannot contradict or run counter to the express will of congress. with regard to the

international response to this the consequences first of all, described by the solicitor general are grossly exaggerated. but the world knows could be the -- first of all the united states state department could be clear in their statements as they did with taiwan that this does not change the united states' policy with regard to the sovereignty over jerusalem. . because the passports would be indistinguishable from those born elsewhere there is no continuing statement. while this may initially have some impact, over time, i propose a short time particularly if the united states makes that statements, this will become a nonissue. >> this is a particularly unfortunate leak to be making this kind of oh, it's no big deal argument? history suggests that everything is a big deal with respect to the status of jerusalem. justice kagen: jerusalem is a tinderbox because of issues

about the status of an ack -- and access to a particularly holy site there. everything matters doesn't it? ms. lewin: it is a sensitive issue, but to suggest that what will go on a passport as a place of birth is going to implicate or make it worse, there is no evidence of that. >> thank you, counsel. case is submitted. >> the court's decision in the case announced yesterday 6-3, striking down the law that required the state department to list israel on u.s. passports as the birthplace for americans who were born in jerusalem. the court decided congress overstepped its bounds when it approved the law in 2002, and that only the president has the power to recognize foreign nations. also in the news former house speaker dennis hastert he'll be in court today on charges that he tried to pay $3.5 million to keep a story about past

misconduct quiet. we'll keep you post here on the c-span networks. a look at capitol hill, the u.s. house today returning after a long weekend. meeting for general speeches at noon and legislative work at 2:00 eastern time with a number of bills scheduled for debate, including ones dealing with state and local taxes for internominate sales. also continuing the cod mitt futures -- cod it -- commodity futures trading commission. this morning on c-span3 a. hearing with first hand and government watchdog accounts of problems with the t.s.a. and the t.s.a. failing to identify more than 70 of its workers had some kind of links to terrorism. also 2:30 this afternoon, the senate foreign relations committee considering a bill that would authorize state department operations for fiscal year 2016. they'll consider a bill that would require the secretary of state to report to congress on war crimes in syria, and that

hearing gets under way at 2:30 eastern time. again on c-span3. also live today on c-span3, 5:00 eastern time, a look at defense spending and agriculture labeling. that's what the house rules -- that's with the house rules committee. >> the new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114th congress. with color photos of every senator and house member. plus bio and contact information and twitter handles. also district maps. a fold out map of capitol hill. and a look at congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies, and state governors. order your copy today. it's $13.9 a plus shipping and handling through the c-span online store at c-span.org. >> at the recent g-7 summit,

angela merkel, german chancellor, hosted leaders at the summit in bavaria, germany. at the close of the meeting she met with reporters and answered questions about greece's future in the eurozone, as well as questions about climate change and trade agreement with the u.s. and combating isis. we'll begin with her comments on ukraine and russia. chancellor merkel: we all agreed that listing sanctions will be tied to the implementation of minsk and we are also willing, if this is necessary, but it's not what we want, but if need be we could toughen the sanctions if the situation requires us to do so. but we all believe that we should do everything we can in order to make progress with mins -- mings -- minsk. we support ukraine in its difficult economic lee form cross sess to fight corruption and we also said the g-7 ambassadors in kiev should be a

supporting group which will help ukraine implement its economic reforms and in its battle against corruption. we also focused on the middle east north africa, and the near east and we also talked about combating terrorism there. we talked with the presidents of nigeria and tunisia and with the prime minister of iraq. and we talked about counterterrorism in a separate meeting. these countries are faced with an extreme amount of terrorism. they have in part, at least, poor infrastructure so it is our common job for us to support tunisia, to better monitor and control its border with libya. there have been some efforts already, but these have to be pooled more than they have been so far. we have also said that

counterterrorism has two aspects. often it's a lack of structures which allow terrorist groups to have access to the population, on the other hand, these are hate-filled groups. you can see this boko haram as well as with isis. and we have said that the possibilities we have to be successful in combating terrorism is an inclusive and a consistent process in order to include all of the different minorities. this was discussed in nigeria. the nigerian president expressed himself very clearly in this respect. he wants to be inkwlusive, as did the prime minister of iraq. when he talked about the shiites and sunnis as well as the kurds. he made it very clear that his claim is to work together in his country and only in this way will they be a possibility for success. we had a lengthy discussion on

libya and in this respect we can see that the negotiators of the united nations will be given all the support we can. we have to come up with a national government in libya. and europeans consider this extremely important because the refugees coming through the mediterranean are related to the situation in libya. a conventional topic for g-7 clib budget reconciliations is the global economy. we have seen there is recovery in the world economy, all g-p countries based on i.w.f. forecast will grow this year. we held an intense discussion on new challenges and also on the fact that the emerging countries take on a growing rule. in g-20 this is something that will be continued in turkey in the fall. we also talked about trade and we are committed to the goals of the w.t.o. we want to conclude the doma

round and our outreach session also included the head of the w.t.o. and he asked us to support this process and at the same time we had intense discussions on bilateral free trade agreements. we want to conclude cita and also want to have the free trade agreement with the united states or to make progress there and make good progress there so we can come to an agreement and we see that the pacific, transpacific agreement falls to a conclusion when it comes to the united states and pacific area and we also believe that negotiations by europeans and the e.u. jeas free trade agreement should also be negotiated. and the g-7 if we talk about internal trade accounts for 50%

of world trade. so that means that we have a major responsibility also with regard to supply chains, in other words we have to make sure that we have good working conditions not only in our own area, but we have to make sure that good working conditions prevail in the manufacturing countries. remember those terrible pictures from bangladesh and we are pleased that together with the i.l.o., international labor organization we are able to commit the 30 million to be made available. these were promised for the victims and the survivors following the terrible event. this has now been achieved. we are also committed to have a vision zero fund. in other words, a general fund so that insurance and improved conditions at work can be insured because we believe that

better working conditions in asia and many countries in africa are still not satisfactory. and that is why this is an issue that will be on our agenda in the years to come. we also discussed financial market regulations and together with the global economy i'd like to remind you that we still need to talk about the regulation of the shadow banks. we'll come back to that with the g-20 meeting, and the timetables here that have been agreed on need to be adhered to. we also need to fight corruption. this is another topic. the japanese presidency will also deal with combating corruption at the next g-7 meeting. another important point and a question that was asked, what will the g-7 say when it comes to climate protection and climate change and the requirement to come up with an agreement? we made a clear commitment here. we said we want binding regulations in the agreement.

we don't have any binding regulations right now and that's why that has to be the objective in paris. we want to ensure that all countries are in a position to have development paths so that the average temperature is less than 2 degrees centigrade. in other words, a clear commitment to the two degree objective. know that we will -- this will mean major reductions in greenhouse gases worldwide. and we have committed to the fact that in the course of this century, we want to see a -- we need a decarbonization of the world economy. we also agreed that in order to achieve this climate objective, we will need major reductions in climate gases. greenhouse gas emissions. in other words, we also commit ourselves to the recommendations made by the ipcc which is 40% to 70% reduction in climate gases between now and -- from 2010 to

2050. and we are now at the upper end of these recommendations. so 40% is clearly not enough. the upper end would be 40% to 70%. we also need to make our own contributions and the g-7 countries will be entering into such commitments for these reductions. we also committed to climate funding. we want to ensure that we can't do that on our own, but we are committed to the objective. as of 2020 we want to have $1700 billion -- $100 billion every year made available, either public or private funds, it's very important for us, and this is before the climate conference in paris. we need to present this objective because many developing countries many island states, will have an objective for coming up with an agreement in paris.

and this is something we have to commit ourselves to. financial objectives. we also have two initiatives. the first one is that the number of insured when it comes to climate related damages have been increased fourfold, and by 2020 there will be 400 million people. our second objective together with the african countries, this came from the african union, was an initiative for renewable energies where we will be working on a plan and with a view to paris, we want to have african countries access to clean, renewable energies. this needs to be improved. another topic which played a very important role and vest very important to me and that is health care. we all saw that we did not react well to the challenges resulting from the ebola crisis. and today this noon we had an

intense discussion on this. what needs to be done. of course the health care systems in many countries need to be improved. the united states has proposed an initiative for 60 countries so they can have a sustainable health care system. we have committed to this. we also need international mechanisms. these need to be more coordinated. that's why we decided as a g-7 that we want to have a financial facility in the world bank, and this would deal with combating pandemics. the president of the world bank presented this to us today. it showed us how the international community will have to react. and united nations will also set up a panel for ghana norway, and this is suggested by ghana, norway, and germany, so they will be presenting proposals as to what needs to be done. and the w.h.o. and world bank we'll then work on such

mechanisms so we can react better internationally to pandemics. this is something that can save many, many lives. health care issues also included two other topics. these could be found in the communique. that is to say the resistant antibiotics, and another that's important to all of us, you think these are antibiotics you think they are there for all the disease, but if they develop resistance, then it's very difficult today to come up with new antibiotics. that's why the national academies of the g-7 countries have helped us to develop measures and actions which we can use to better develop antibiotics. and also to administer them appropriately. the g-7 countries have committed to this one health approach. what does that mean? that means people and animals should be kept in mind here when

it comes to prescribing antibiotics. they need to be prescription drugs. this is important if they are to be administered properly. the development targets have to be passed this year. this is the sustainable development goal. and these pick up on the millennium development goals which are valid until 2015. we also dealt with this as well. and one of the main ideas here was that we are committed to the objective that as of 2030 hunger should have been errrd kated and the g-7 countries have committed another 500 million people should no longer be in a situation where they suffer from acute famine. so that is why we are committing to making a substantive contribution to the fight against hunger in the world. this should be completed by 2030. the final point is women's empowerment. again and again whether we are talking about food security,

corruption, good working conditions, again and again women are the focus here. the oecd made it very clear to us that it's not only in the developing countries where a lot of work still needs to be done, but even in industrialized countries. structural differences between men and women exist. for example when it comes to independence. and this again was also an issue and i will be inviting -- i will be convening a conference on women in september and we will be working on this issue again. it's a very of better vocational training for women from developing countries and we, the g-7, have committed to seeing to it that 1/3 more women receive a vocational education by 2030 compared to what the situation is today. that's a very specific objective. we now have a process in place

and there is some independent institutions that monitor what we do and what we agree on at the g-7 meetings and we have a -- an achievement rate from 80% that's from the university of toronto. germany is at 87%. we are doing very well there. and next year when we go to -- when japan has the presidency, we'll see where we stand and how much has been completed based on what we committed to. and a lot of this was agreed own here and -- on here and these are things that we will be working very hard in the next few months. i do believe that we have achieved more than just taking responsibility for prosperity in our own countries. so that's why we had the outreach meeting today with guests from abroad and that is why that is very important to us as well. thank you very much for your attention.

reporter: madam chancellor, president putin wasn't here. you and your g-7 partners talked about russia quite a lot. given the conditions that the g-7 has stimulated for russia to combat the g-7 you can imagine that's not going to happen, what are the chances of success in the process of talks in solving the syria crisis as a result of that? or are you thinking of a putin era here? given the amount of time we -- chancellor merkel: given the amount of time we spent with each other we didn't talk a great deal about russia in terms of proportions. we talked about other points as

well. much more intensive being at great lengths. for example the situation in counterterrorism. we have various formats. russia is involved. the communication of the g-7 report to us in that respect. the p-5 plus one. iran nuclear program. russia has been there. other international -- can be dealt with with russia. [inaudible] iran is also a very important player when it comes to the civil war in syria and the fight

against isis. so we are hoping for the cooperation in international matters with russia. but give you some idea what the atmosphere and content is of our talks involved this was a discussion among the seven it's true. reporter: your noneuropean partners asked what you have in mind with regard to greece and the eurozone. i would like to know what your answer was and perhaps we were told that the americans or references made to lehman brothers back in 2008, what's going to happen, is that something that you can say is comparable? is that a similar solution for the greek problem? chancellor merkel: i think these are two very different issues. but we did discuss greece.

i would also say we didn't spend too much time on it. but with regard to the international economy and the economic situation in the euroarea, there are those who are not part of the e.u. they also wanted to know how negotiations were going and the head of the international monetary fund was there as well today. this is one of many topics we touched on. all i can say now is we said that we want greece to remain part of the eurozone, but we also made it very clear we said solidarity in european countries. and with greece means that greece will have to implement measures. there is a common position for the three institutions that is a great amount of progress. and that's what these discussions are now based on. i must say, there isn't much

time left. that is why we really have to work very, very hard on this. the day after tomorrow we will be able to discuss this with the greek prime minister in bruss sell with the e.u. latin america summit. i don't know how far we'll come, but every day counts. -- counts in order to complete the necessary job.

so we have to make progress in our negotiations. we discussed this at length. and we said that by the end of the year we want to come to a successful agreement by the end of the year. mr. shuler in the first row. reporter: wait for the microphone. reporter: corruption, anti- corruption did the fifa come up at all? the scandal? the messenger: when david cameron said it wasn't just fifa

the corruption had been mentioned but other issues in the world and corruption is one of the causes for the credibility of state structures in the eyes of the population. it matters the reason why perhaps radical and terrorist groups -- therefore it's very deep-seated and broad problem that's why it needs to be looked at. reporter: yesterday we heard an announcement that there would be changes at the deutsch bank, was this a decision that surprised you? and how do you judge the -- the messenger: well, that's a decision taken by a --

chancellor merkel: that was a decision taken by a company. it was not really a surprise. i don't really want to comment on that. i any i want the deutsch bank to be successful and they make their own decisions as any other company in germany. reporter: chancellor, you said that you are committed to reduce the number of people suffering by 500 million. how is this going to work? how are you going to bring that about, and i would like to know in the case of the climate issue, as well, what about all these targets that you set today? what does this mean for the domestic german discussion about the climate levy?

chancellor merkel: with regard to us wanting to tackle and eradicate poverty, it remains clear that we in germany will increase our development commitment by 8.3 billion, and if we make other pledges associated with food security -- of course, we haven't got the finances, but we made various estimates. we talked about these targets and whether we could achieve them. i think this goal can be achieved and will be achieved, but only if we keep it up there on the agenda. we must finance our state budgets by 2030, but through stages, we will have some idea of how we can achieve this.

reporter: the german internal discussion about the climate target is something which chancellor merkel: the german internal discussion about the climate target is something which -- we have targets around 40% production cuts, and we are doing pretty well in regard to the european protocol. germany has emphasized it wants to meet its european target, as well as its german target. we will in the next few days be discussing how to achieve that. the economic ministry is still in talks, as you know. last week, there were many talks. there will be talks this week. i'm sure we will be able to achieve a good solution. on questions associated with energy -- for example, the capacity markets, and other issues.

reporter: i can pick up on that question. you are calling for the decarbonization. will you also have a transformation of the energy supply, and will you manage to avoid reducing coal? chancellor merkel: we will only achieve our goals if we undertake efforts everywhere. there are a number of weak points in germany. first of all, it's hard for me to understand that despite all of the red-green state government, we haven't been able to have state subsidies for building improvements. we have to make a contribution. we have to distinguish when we talk about meeting the targets for 2020, and when it comes to de-carbonization, we are talking about over the course of the century. so a number of things need to be distinguished here.

right now in europe, our instrument, which we discussed as well, is what we have in mind for the world, the complete world. that would be emission trading. this could also not give us the price message that we would like. germany will have to make an effort here, because in the european electricity market, we have a lot of cool-fired exports, not for our own use but where the electricity is generated. that's where the omissions are calculated. we hope to come to a uniform european energy market, so that national objectives will be of a different value. an integrated european market can only have one goal, and this is something that will not be until after 2020. that is when that will be taken into account.

reporter: good afternoon, dr. merkel. my question is, please, allow me to speak in english -- my question is on the issue of terrorism and boko haram. because i am a nigerian, and i have lived here 16 years with my family. in 2012, there was a meeting in your office with berlin with goodluck jonathan, the former president of nigeria. i was therei was raising my hand more than five times. you even told me to ask a question, but the press secretary to good luck stopped me. i had this dvd in my hand.

i went to an assembly in 2011. a young man came to my room in the hotel room where i was staying. he told me -- that was before boko haram was formed -- he told me that president goodluck should not run for presidency. i asked him, did goodluck jonathan tell you you should not participate? >> sir, can you ask a question?

everyone else is asking questions and you should, too. reporter: my question is, if somebody provides information of something that can help you or help the government of nigeria to track terrorists or to fight it, would your people be willing to collaborate? chancellor merkel: well, we will always try and check the information that we receive. it's not easy, of course, because one needs to look at the sources, but whenever we can do something, we do. there are sovereign states that you can't interfere with. intervening from outside is very difficult. you would have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. >> in the first row. reporter: during your

discussions, did you discuss military aid in the form of training for the ukraine military? someone is stepping down at the osce. maybe you know the reasons for this? chancellor merkel: he has done excellent work, but it's only normal. this is very difficult, far away from home. you can't do that forever. we are doing everything we can to make sure that we find a good successor who will be just as good and will work with just as much energy with this contact group, and that this working group can continue to do its job. this is very important to implement the minsk agreement. as far as military training is concerned, these are bilateral initiatives. there were no conclusions drawn at the g7.

reporter: thank you very much. i would just like to come back to greece. how big is the understanding among international partners that this crisis has been ongoing for five years, and are they concerned about a default? chancellor merkel: everybody who was around the table wanted greece to stay in the eurozone. as i say, there were two institutions, and we have rules. we pointed out in the discussions there were rules about the eurozone. for example, ireland has been through a very tough program and it is now the country that has the highest growth rate of our member states. if we look at spain and portugal, new jobs are being created, although unemployment is still quite high.

we can see the measures, or the measures which were proposed by the troika, have led to success elsewhere. if you look at interviews with the cypriot politicians lately you will remember not necessarily tough talks, but they are saying cyprus is once again on the right road. you have the imf program for ukraine. ukraine has terrible structural reforms ahead, which are going to ask a great deal of people, and therefore, there is no doubt we always say, there needs to be effort and solidarity on the part of other countries, and these have to be two sides of the same coin. >> the gentleman in the back. reporter: let's come back to sanctions. was there a discussion as to how

you could toughen the sanctions against russians, embargoes for spare parts and civil aircraft and was there a discussion on the frequent provocations in the airspace in the sovereign area of many democratic european countries? chancellor merkel: the second one was something we did not discuss, and we did not talk about toughening or making the sanctions even tougher. at the european council in march, we came up with a political decision, and we said that the sanctions will be extended for the period of time for the implementation of the minsk agreement. we committed to that once again. we had an agreement between the united states, japan, and the members of the european union,

and we said that this process is something we intend to maintain. that's why we came to the common conclusions there. reporter: the connection with fossil energy and using less fossil energy over this century -- has there been a discussion about using nuclear energy, and is there any movement in connection with japan? to the degree do you think they are going to use less nuclear energy? chancellor merkel: we did discuss this, continuing to use nuclear energy. the u.k., france, for example. among the g7 countries, there are a series of countries who do have recourse to nuclear energy,

and we didn't make any stipulations that anyone should renounce nuclear energy. that was a german decision that was respected. the g7 countries have different approaches. >> the lady in the front row. reporter: i know that the global climate change has been the good, important issue of the summit, and it involves the participation of every country. under this framework, have the g7 countries discussed the contributions china can make? since china is also promoting a greener economy, how do you see business opportunities for german companies? chancellor merkel: we did

discuss the fact that the g7 countries alone, even if they didn't have any co2 emissions themselves -- let me start again. can you hear me now? can you hear me now? i will begin from the beginning. i saw that you were having trouble. can you hear me now? can you hear the interpretation? you can hear me now? great. we know that the g7 countries alone, even if they had no co2 emissions as of tomorrow, that still wouldn't solve the climate problem. we couldn't meet the two-degree objective. emerging countries such as china would have to make a contribution. this was taken into account in our discussions. we are pleased to see china has undertaken a number of efforts

in order to focus more on renewable energies. china has had a major increase in wind parks, solar energy, and also hydroelectric power. we know that and this also shows the change that chimed in -- china is going through. china made it very clear when it comes to the climate conference in paris that for the first time they will be dealing with the question of the co2 emissions, that after a phase of increase they will be going down again, and this is an important commitment. we know we have a common responsibility here, different responsibilities depending on how are -- how developed we are, but china has said, there will have to be a day we will change our economy so there will be fewer co2 emissions. this is a very important step, and i do believe germany has

possibilities there in order to help when it comes to technologies, but china also has excellent skills in developing their own technologies. this will be a win-win situation, and we will cooperate very closely. >> time for two more questions. i will take you next. reporter: madame chancellor, can i come back to the question which i care about, which is health. you talked about pandemics, and on the agenda, you mentioned research into diseases related to poverty, malaria, tuberculosis, for example. many people affected every year. can you say how nationally altogether as a g7 you will be promoting research on this in the future?

we surely should be learning from it. there should have been research at an early stage on the vexing, and that would've solve a lot of problems. chancellor merkel: right. as you mentioned, malaria and tuberculosis, we are very attached to this global fund, which produces some of the funding for this. when it comes to the tropical diseases, neglected and poverty-related diseases, often you have the medicines but you can't distribute them properly to the countries. that is why we've talked about building national health systems, and logistics is mentioned in the communiqué. we need to coordinate above all. we need to inform each other of what we are researching. where and where the gaps are. all of this will run better. >> the final question. reporter: thank you.

a couple years ago, you said spying on friends is impossible. does this apply here, as well? when you talk about an area 50 kilometers from here, or are you just going to talk -- take a break afterwards? chancellor merkel: no, i have other obligations, and that is why i won't be at the meeting, but i wish the conference every success, and i certainly hope that the discussions will serve as a basis for information so that they will know everything you need to know about the attitude of the participants at the g7 summit. thank you very much for your attention, and for the entire summit. thank you all very much. [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] >> president obama was also at the g-7, he held a news conference yesterday before leaving germany where he talked about dealing with sighcies. here's a look at the question that he got and his response. >> you mentioned the u.s. and its allies reached a consensus on extending sanctions to russia. is there consensus on what the nks step should be if russia continues to violate the minsk agreement? and also can you deter russian aggression and other parts of eastern europe without a permanent u.s. presence. i want to ask you about the possibility about the court battle over your actions to immigration could extend late into your term. do you think there's anything more you can do for the people who would have benefited from that program and are now in limbo? how do you view the possibility of your term ending without accomplishing your goals on immigration?

president obama: on ue rain and -- ukraine and russia and minsk there is strong consensus that we need to keep pushing russia to a -- abide by the terms of the minsk agreement. we need to continue to support and encourage ukraine to meet its obligations under minsk. until that's completed, sanctions remain in place. there was discussion about additional steps that we might need to take if russia working through separatists double downed on aggression inside of ukraine. those discussions are taking place a technical level. not yet at a political level because the first goal here going into a european council

meeting that's coming up is just rolling over the existing sanctions. but i think in a technical level we want to be prepared. our hope is that we don't have to take additional steps because the minsk agreement is met. and i want to give enormous credit to chinas lore merkel along with president who have shown extraordinary stick twoiveness and patience to get that done. ultimately this is going to be an issue for mr. putin. he's got to make a decision does he continue to wreck his country's economy and continue russia's isolation in pursuit of a wrong-headed desire to recreate the glories of the

soviet empire, or does he recognize that russia's greatness does not depend on violating the territorial integrity and sovereignty of other countries? and as i mentioned earlier the costs that the russian people are bearing are severe. that's being felt. it may not always be understood why they are suffering because of state media inside of russia and propaganda coming out of state media in russia and to russian speakers. but the truth of the matter is is that the russian people would greatly benefit and ironically one of the rationals in that mr. putin provided for is incouragence into ukraine was to protect russian speakers there. the russian speakers inside ukraine are precisely the ones

who are bearing the brunt of the fighting. their economy's clpsed, their lives are disordered, many are displaced, their homes may have been destroyed. they are suffering. and the best way for them to stop suffering is if the minsk agreement is fully implemented. immigration. with respect to immigration obviously i'm frustrated by a district court ruling that now is winning its way through the appeals process. we are being as aggressive as we can legally to first and foremost appeal that ruling and then to implement those elements of immigration, executive actions that were not challenged in court. but obviously the centerpiece, one of the key provisions for me

was being able to get folks who are undocumented to go through a background check, criminal background check, pay back taxes. and have a legal status. and that requires an entire administrative apparatus and us getting them to apply and come clean. i made a decision, which i think is the right one, that we should not accept applications until the legal status of this is clarified. i am absolutely convinced this is well within my legal authority, department of homeland security's legal authority if you look at the precedent, if you look at the traditional discretion that the executive branch possesses when it comes to applying immigration laws. i am convinced that what we are doing is lawful and our lawyers

are convinced that what we are doing is lawful. >> on capitol hill today the u.s. house of representatives returning after a long weekend. meeting for general speeches at noon just a few minutesway. legislative work at 2:00 eastern time. with a number of bills scheduled for debate including ones dealing with state and local taxes for internet sales. also continuing the commodity futures trading commission and setting spending for transportation and housing. we'll have live coverage here on c-span in about four minutes. first we'll take a look at a recent ruling from the supreme court. -- washington, d.c.. joining us now on the phone is "reuters" supreme court correspondent talking about the loan decision yesterday. explain the passport issue that was decided yesterday. guest: the court struck down a law that congress had enacted which allowed u.s. citizens born

in jerusalem to say that they were born in israel. the law never went into effect, but there was a legal challenge. the people who wanted to enforce the law made a legal challenge and they lost yesterday. host: what are the implications here for american mideast policy and the separation of powers here in washington, d.c.? caller: -- guest: the ruling was a win for the obama administration. it upheld the role of the white house and having a primary role in recognizing foreign governments. that has been established for some time, but this put a seal on that. in a way it avoided any major problems in the middle east. the u.s. has long remained

neutral. this is a way to avoid getting into that. host: the biggest cases being watched for in this term our decisions on that gay marriage issue and king v. burwell that to do with the affordable care act. what day are those decisions expected to come down? guest: the court is in the final days of issuing its big rulings. they will come out within the next three weeks or so. we don't know yet exactly when, but most likely the big cases will come toward the end of the month. host: the supreme court already looking ahead to its future cases. some being picked up and rejected yesterday. can you talk about the san francisco gun regulation case that was rejected yesterday? guest: the court declined to take up the challenge to a san

francisco gun regulation, which at least two of the justices said they would have liked to have taken. they said in a dissenting statement, it is quite possible that regulation is not in compliance with the supreme court's previous rulings on gun rights. host: what did the supreme court take up yesterday in that decision for cases down the road? guest: one of them is a business case. they took up a case involving tyson suits about worker pay at a processing facility in iowa. that is a big class-action lawsuit, that is something the business community is keen on. host: the group of hard-working reporters covering the sup

>> the u.s. capitol, the house mr. to gavel in starting their day with short speeches on any topic. legislative work is scheduled to start at 2:00 eastern with debate on bills to permanently ban state or local taxes on internet purchases. also today legislation to continue the commodities future trading commission for the next four years. 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., june 9, 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable blake farenthold 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 the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes but in no event shall debate continue beyond 1:50 p.m. the chair will now recognize the gentleman from north carolina mr. jones, for five minutes. . mr. jones thank you very much. i'm on the house floor today to express my thanks to senator rand paul for his 11-hour filibuster of the patriot act re-authorization on may 31. i voted against the u.s.a. freedom act which would have re-authorized the practs because of n.s.a. spying program alous for the federal government to gather private data on law-abiding american citizens a clear violation of the fourth amendment. i also commend start paul for his courageous statement a couple weeks ago. and i quote isil exists and

grew stronger because of the hull, in our party who gave arms indiscriminately and most of those armed arms were snatched by isil. the hulings in our party created these people. unfortunately louisiana governor bobby jindal criticized my friend, senator paul, by saying he is unsuited to be commander in chief. it is obvious governor jindal does not know about the manipulation of intelligence that led us into the iraq war. in 2006 article in the "time" magazine, lieutenant general greg whom i met with shortly after he wrote the article, and i quote, from 2002 until 2002 -- 2000 until 2002, i was a marine corps general and director of joint operations, until 9/11 i was a witness and therefore a party to the acts that led us to the invasion of iraq an unnecessary war.

the invasion of iraq, an unnecessary war. inside the military family i made no secret of my view that zealots' rationale for war made no sense. later in the article, lieutenant states i quote, the distortion of intelligence in the build up to the war led us to the unnecessary war in iraq. the distortion of intelligence, mr. speaker is what led us to that war in iraq. last month when governor jeb bush justified his brother's war in iraq, my friend colonel lawrence wilkerson, chief of staff to former secretary of state colin powell appeared on msnbc where he said, i quote him, the intelligence was fixed. everyone should know that by now. it was a failure of the intelligence agencies, but it was also a failure of the political people who manipulated the intelligence failure to their own benefit.

they die asteroid the balance of power in the gulf and produced what we have today. the chaos we have today. al qaeda in iraq. never there until we invaded. the yemen, everything happening in the middle east today can be attributed to our own having destroyed the balance of pow they're we had carefully maintained for half a century with the invasion in 2003. it was a disaster. thank you lawrence wilkerson, for telling the truth. like he said, everyone knows the intelligence was manipulated to trick the american people and the congress into thinking the iraq war was necessary. in fact it was not and created the vacuum of power that exists today and that isil takes advantage of. also i would like to say mr. speaker, as i have a poster here of the air force removing an american hero from the plane in a flag draped coffin.

because of that unnecessary war in iraq, we lost over 4000 americans. because of that war in iraq unnecessary war in iraq, we had over 30,000 wounded. so in closing, mr. speaker, i would first like to thank our men and women in uniform and their families. the families who gave a child dying for freedom in afghanistan and iraq. and i also would like to say thank you, senator paul, for standing up for the truth. the truth is what can save america. thank you, senator paul. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will now recognizes the gentleman from west virginia, mr. jenkins, for five minutes. mr. jenkins: mr. speaker, on may 23 2015, the world lost one of the brightest mathematicians of the 20th century. john nash jr. and his wife were

tragically killed in a car accident and i offer my sincerest condolences to their family. john nash jr. was born in bluefield, west virginia. on june 13, 1928. and at a young age displayed immense intelligence and affinity for mathematics. many may know dr. nash's story from the movie "a beautiful mind." where he was portrayed by actor russell crowe, but many are unaware of the groundbreaking impacts he had in the field of mathematics and economics. in 1994, dr. nash shared a nobel prize in economics for his work on game theory. dr. nash's work developed the concept of an equilibrium in noncooperative games that has come to be known as the nash

equally bring yum. -- equilibrium. today economic students across the world are familiar with dr. nash's contributions to the field of economics. studying the nash exwall lib bring yum and game theory exclusively. he revolutionized economics and his work will have lasting impacts in business, sports, politics and is even applicable to nuclear deterrence theories. dr. nash's work in pure mathematics is just as important and revolutionary as his work on game theory. dr. john nash was not only a genius he was also an advocate for those suffering from mental health issues. as many who have seen the film know, dr. nash suffered from mental illness. he used his struggles as a way

to help others with mental health problems. becoming a staunch supporter for awareness and outreach for those with mental health issues. dr. nash's advocacy work and brilliance will be missed by so many. this saturday would have been john nash's 87th birthday. dr. nash was clearly taken from us too soon. but his work and his advocacy will live on. the best way we can honor his legacy is to continue his fight for treatment, for education, and for dignity for those facing mental health issues and their families. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will now recognize the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, for five minutes. mr. rohrabacher: permission to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rohrabacher: revise and extend.

thank you very much. today i'd like to alert my colleagues, democrats and republicans, i'd like to alert the american people that there is a monstrous piece of legislation that will do great damage to our country and to the welfare of the american people making its way through the judiciary committee. in fact, the judiciary committee will have a mark up on this thursday of what is called, the american innovation act h.r. 9. this in reality is the anti-innovation act. it is one of the most egregious examples of crony capitalism that i have witnessed in this body as i have been here for the last 26 years. this legislation uses a legitimate problem, which is frivolous lawsuits, and then portends to solve that problem by dramatically restricting the

right of all americans to sue in order to address those who have violated their rights. in the name of stripping those who have been called patent trolls, a patent troll is someone who has purchased the right for a patent from an inventor and now has that property right himself. in the name of restricting those patent trolls from enforcing the right that they bought from the inventor, that they are dramatically restricting those people both the inventors and anyone else who owns these intellectual property rights known as patents. early provisions of this bill and almost every provision of this bill makes it more difficult for the inventor to protect himself against the theft of huge corporations. and there you go. huge multinational corporations are seeking to destroy america's

patents system. i have been fighting this for 25 years. they have been fighting it because they want to take the property of american inventors and they don't want to pay for it. surprise surprise. so they pass legislation in the name of stopping frivolous lawsuits that prevents people with legitimate lawsuits from actually obtaining the justice they deserve. this will undercut american innovation. it will destroy the individual inventors. the american -- almost every american university now has come out opposed to this because they have found that the result of this bill by restricting the people's right to actually defend their own intellectual property rights will undermine the value dramatically decrease the value of pat ents, which will mean people won't invest in patents, which means the universities now have less resources. and who will benefit? large corporations, multinational corporations, with no loyalty to the united states.

will we then have the power to take from our inventors their inventions. this is a game changer for american innovation. it is the anti-innovation act. i ask my colleagues to please pay attention to h.r. 9. don't let them push this over. don't let this crony capitalism being done with using a decoy being that patent trolls to get away from the fact that they are actually trying to destroy the system for legitimate inventors. as i say, i have been fighting this for 25 years. we have seen this in many forms. the last time the decoy was submarine patenters. this time patent trolls. but the fact is none of this is an excuse to dramatically decrease the ability of our inventors to own what the constitution gives them, a 15 to 17-year period where they own what they invented, thus they

can make a profit from it. this would have destroyed all of the young inventors that made such a difference in the american way of life. we will not be prosperous. we will not be secure. unless the american people have the right to own their intellectual property. unless the inventors that are the basis of many of our new industries know that they will control their patent and that some big corporation won't just come along and steal it. this goes so far as to limit to say if a person, for example, one of the provisions of the bill if an inventor is -- sues, a major company, that has stolen his or her patent well not only now does the -- will the inventor be libal for the costs of the litigation, but anybody who has invested in his

investment -- in his patent will then be libal for those court costs. who the heck will ever invest in an inventor when he's up against a megacorporation? no we should not be permitting the theft of the intellectual property rights of our inventors. i ask my colleagues to pay attention to h.r. 9. i ask the american people, get a hold of your congressman and make sure he understands how heinous this bill is that is already, as i say, been opposed by every major university in this country. and of course every group of inventors in this country. if it was the innovation act, as would suggestion, why would the inventors be against it? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. rohrabacher: thank you very much. i ask my colleagues to join me in opposing h.r. 9 as it is marked up in the judiciary committee this coming thursday. the speaker pro tempore: the

chair now recognizes the gentleman from louisiana, mr. graves, for five minutes. without objection, so ordered. mr. graves: thank you, i've come here to talk about free trade. i think the american work force is so productive, i think that american businesses, our industries are so productive and so innovative that we can compete on a global -- in the global markets. i'm confident that our innovation and that our work force can compete and we can win when given an opportunity, again, to compete in global markets. at home the u.s. chamber of commerce has determined that the state of louisiana is the top export state in the united states. in fact, one out of every five jobs in our state is tied back to our waterways. we're home to five of the top 15 ports in the united states. we have an awful lot to export at home. we have a huge petro chemical industry, one of the largest

ones in the united states. a large agriculture. in fact over half the grains from the midwest, from american farms come down through our port systems and are then exported around the country, around the world. we're home to six all six class 1 raillines, only one of two places in the united states that actually has all six class 1 real raillines in the united states. free trade can be good for america. it can be good for our country, good for our businesses, good for our families. if it's fair trade and that's where my concerns come in is our ability to compete fairly. you know, the president said high standard trade helps level the playing field for american workers. high standard trade helps level the playing field. the problem is is that when you compare the cost of compliance in the united states with environmental policies, with tax policies and with labor regulations, it's not a level

playing field in the united states. in fact it's extraordinarily out of balance. the national association of manufacturers estimates that in 2012 alone that the american work force wasted 4.2 billion hours just complying with regulations. 4.2 billion. the competitive enterprise institute estimates that $1.88 trillion in lost economic productivity and higher prices were experienced by the american work force and by american families across the country. again, $1.88 trillion in 2014. c.i.o. also did a study that estimated for every small business in the united states, for each employee that small business has that they pay over $11,000 a year just complying with federal regulations.

if the total cost, the aggregate cost of federal regulations were at gross domestic product were a gross domestic product, it would rank behind russia's economy and just ahead of india's economy. there's extraordinary costs and in fact it's a back door way to tax our families. 88% of the manufacturers in the united states, according to a survey done by nam, 88% identified federal regulations being their top concern for their ability to compete on a level playing field. if you take for example, tax compliance alone tax policies are going to cost $1.7 trillion over the 10 years as proposed by the current administration. $1.7 trillion on top of all of these other extraordinary costs that i've covered to date.

one of the costs we have in the environmental world is the ozone standard. there's been a proposal to change the ozone standard. some have said that ozone standard being proposed yellowstone national park couldn't comply with. yet, they want the state of louisiana, where i represent, to comply with this new ozone standard and when we had the top -- one of the top petro chemical industries in the united states, that standard is estimated to cost perhaps -- it's estimated to be the most expensive federal regulation in history. it could cost over $2 trillion to comply with the regulation. over $140 billion per year it could cost to comply with the regulation. and in our home state of louisiana alone, nearly 34,000 jobs are estimated to be lost on an annual basis. mr. speaker, i'm a proponent of the environment. i spent years and years of my life, of my career working to restore the environment, working to restore the

ecological function of south louisiana of our coastal area, of our fisheries, of our wetlands. i'm a big proponent of the environment, but, mr. speaker, i'm concerned that as we move forward with free trade under the policies being put forth by this administration, american workers are going to have their hands tied behind their backs and the cost of complying with environmental regulation, the cost of complying with the taxes in the united states and the cost of extraordinary labor regulations. in closing mr. speaker, i'm a proponent of free trade but it must be fair trade. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chai handling.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: alan weil's position and chief of "health affairs"." as the clock kicks down -- ticks down on the king v. burwell decision, subsidies under the health care law, about how many people could be impacted who use these federal subsidies if the case comes down and decided not

to be that way? guest: the direct effects are the americans who receive subsidies, direct coverage on the federal health exchange. they are getting that in a state exchange and are not at risk in this case. the ripple effects are potentially much larger and we may get into that. if you eliminate the subsidies, it destabilizes insurance market for millions more. host: remind us how one qualifies for these subsidies. guest: if your income is between 100 and 400% of the federal poverty levels for working families, your eligible for federal tax credit based on your income. it is a higher subsidy if you are close to 100%. you can only take that subsidy to an insurance exchange and we thought most states would set up

their own but it turns out 34 states decided to let the federal government do the job. it is the subsidy for those federal exchanges that are at risk. host: the tax rate comes out to $272 for -- according to the stats come tired but -- compiled by the family foundation or we can talk about what is happening. individual states, if you want to join this conversation. give us a call. host: president obama was asked about the king v. burwell case yesterday and he does that -- he expressed confidence that the administration would win the case. here is a bit from the press conference. president obama: it is not

something that should be based on a twisted interpretation of four words and as we are reminded repeatedly, a couple thousand page piece of legislation. what is more, the thing is working. part of what is his are about the whole thing is we have not had a lot of conversation about the horrors of obama care because none of them have come to pass. 16 million people have gotten health insurance. the overwhelming majority of them are satisfied with it. it has not had an adverse effect on people who have had health insurance. they will not be prevented from getting health insurance if they have a pre-existing condition and they have protections with the health insurance they do have. the costs have come in substantially lower than even our estimates of how much it will cost. health care inflation overall

has continued to be at some of the lowest levels in 50 years. none of the predictions of how this wouldn't work have come to pass. so i am optimistic the supreme court will play it straight when it comes to the interpretation. and i should mention that if it didn't, congress could fix this whole thing with a one sentence provision. host: the president expressing his optimism there. for the test for those who use the subsidies in the federal marketplaces, what is the white house doing to prepare if the case goes the wrong way? guest: the white house has been quiet about the preparation.

i do not think they want to play into any sense that it would be ok if it went diverse. we have a decent blog posts some terrific work by david jones and bagley and others who interviewed people at the state level asking them how they are preparing. similarly, they are tightlipped. politics, as everyone knows, are complex. it is hard to talk about what to do. it is better to plan and hope for the best and that is what we are seeing from both sides. host: we are taking your questions about federal subsidies. allen with health affairs is here to break those down and explain how they work and how the states are preparing if those challengers do win. that is the supreme court case. republicans -- --

host: we will be talking about this for the next half hour or so here on washington journal. give me an example of one of the states and how they are preparing. guest: i cannot go too deep into any individual state. the blog refers to five different states. north carolina michigan, are a couple of ones. they're designed not to represent the whole country but look at the different politics around the country. utah is another. the copper kidding factor here is that no one really wants to be held politically accountable for people losing health insurance. they also do not want to be seen as taking steps to shore up a law that they oppose. remember the states that relied on the federal state tend to be the ones that were less enthusiastic about the law. you are sort of in a bind. you do not want to harm people but you do want to fix the law

that you know is fundamentally flawed. host: the website where you can check out the work of alan weil editor in chief of "health affairs"." tell us a little bit about "health affairs"." guest: we put peer-reviewed articles on a broad range of topics and we have an active blog or the issues of the day. host: up first, lafayette indiana, grace, line for democrats. good morning. caller: i think it is a terrible shame that mostly men and enjoy the very best of health care. our taxpayer dime's. but they do not want anyone to have health care if they think it comes out of their pocket. i think this is a terrible shame. it is america. what are we doing here? thank you. guest: i think it is important

to note that although this lawsuit is about language in the federal law there is quite a dynamic between what the federal government is deciding here since the caller referred to washington, and also what is happening at the state level. there are easy fixes if it were not for the politics of the issue. congress, as president obama said in the clip, could simply change the four words. similarly, although it is much more complicated, they could move their decision about an insurance exchange operating their own, where there is no question the subsidies would flow paired i do not think this is just a washington issue here it is about different opinions about what the health care system should look like and who should receive subsidies. host: the challenge, it is a pretty simple case as well.

michael, who argued before the supreme court on behalf of david king, the main plaintiff in that case before the senate judiciary committee last week, about what his view on the case is. >> the real issue is the rule of law. pursuant to constitutional prerogatives, or will it be governed by the policy preferences of unelected bureaucrats. i think that is exactly what happened in this case. this is an extraordinarily simple case. i think the iressa has not interpreted the law, but very dramatically revised the law. that is because the law simply says you receive subsidies established by the state under section 1311. the irs transformed that into something where we receive subsidies under hhs under 1321. anyone who speaks english knows

that is not a reasonable interpretation of the language. proponents of the irs rule have argued they cannot dispute the plain language command the opposite of what the rule says so they try to change the subject and say, you have rick that light which out of context. none underline crevice of the statute. but in reality neither is true. the context in which the words reside confirms in every way that the plain language means exactly what it says. following that plain language is really the only way to implement the broader purposes of the affordable care act. host: we are talking about the subsidies at the heart of the challenge at the supreme court. alan weil "health affairs" of "health affairs" --alan weil of "health affairs" here to take

your questions. good morning. caller: i'm just calling to say no one ever mentioned it was joe lieberman who was -- he voted negative. even though the democrats had 60 senators, they could not count because he had the gall to vote no. because he was sucking up to the insurance companies and what president obama wanted was the public auction, which would have been the wisest choice for america. so he had to go with what everybody voted on. host: alan weil your reading of that interpretation of what happened? guest: i will not get into the votes of what each individual member of congress voted.

the process by which this bill became law was not what anyone expected. with the death of senator kennedy lost to the margin to go back and do revisions. much of what the case is about and the clip you just showed is that there is not one person sitting down, logically constructing a law. there are pieces floating around, many people involved in drafting and there is an expectation that any ambiguities will be fixed either later in congress or afterwards with what are known as technical corrections. neither of those could happen because of the changing composition of the senate. so we are left with a law that is the law of the land. there was no question but not drafted and did not go through some of the editing and revision that would have been typical for a piece of legislation this complex. that leads to the kinds of challenges we are seeing. host: martinsville, virginia is

up next. steve is on our line for democrats. caller: i am just chime to figure out the law. the states to do something, especially financially. do this and we will not give the funny. if they interpret the health care subsidies provisions the way the republicans would like it, it seems to me, that would mean the law says make your own exchange or we will not give you the money. that is straight up coercion. how can they take it away for states that do not have an exchange and then leave it. it puts you in a legal kanji where, if they change it to what the republicans interpreted as, they are making coercion. guest: it is a long-standing

understanding and the law that the government can encourage states to act in certain ways by offering the money if they do something and withholding the money if they do not. they cannot force them to do it but financial incentives have long played a role in how the federal government gets states to act. the limits were tested in the prior supreme court case about the affordable care act and the case where the medicaid expansion was challenged as being coercive. i think it is important to remember there is a big difference between the medicaid provisions and what is at issue in king. king, the subsidies low to individuals who apply for coverage, it is a tax credit to the individual, the state is simply making a choice about whether or not to run the exchange and that herman's whether or not the individual gets the money. the medicaid program is a matching program where the money flows to the state.

there is no coworker and of the state, even an argument of coercion of the state. a lot of other things might happen if the case goes certain ways but the federal government is not forcing states to do anything. it is simply saying we will withhold benefits to the citizens of your stay if you do not set up an exchange. host: let's head to bloomington, illinois, a state that has some 230 2000 people making use of federal tax credit, some $49 million per month is the monthly tax credit federal dollars. that could be at risk in this king v. burwell case if it goes against the administration. george is waiting on that line for republicans in bloomington. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. mr. weil's organization is a

policy organization as i understand his comment. it really promise my question which relates to the comments by president obama yesterday implying clearly that if the administration does not prevail pending a u.s. supreme court case that it would be a twisted interpretation. of the law. of the four words that are key in the decision, the imminent decision. an attorney, whose comments on a senate judiciary committee last week or just played a few minutes ago, clearly indicated that any other interpretation than the one the president is not -- or is contending, pardon

me, any interpretation that uh, the kind the president is contending for is not with the english light was good knows english language understands that. i think that is clearly the case. the, so my question really boils down to whether or not the congress or the president should be making a health policy for the country because the constitution provides that congress makes the laws and the president executes them. we have had enormous rewriting of the law unilaterally by the president, and in many cases they have gone unchallenged. host: thanks to the call.

guest: without getting too deep into the legalities here, there are two different ways of thinking about the question of what the administration has done. one is when a statute is unclear, we give thee administrating agency discretion to interpret it. part of what the attorney's argument was was that this is too big a stretch. the law is clear and the interpretation is wrong. the other issue is whether the words, the four words, are as clear as the challengers suggest they are. it really depends on whether you are looking at the four words or the statute, and it depends on how you read things. host: what are the four words? guest: "established by the state ." the issue is it only flows to those have coverage in an exchange established by the stated you can clearly see the word state there. you can see the look at the structure of the law and see a number of reference to exchanges that have different takes on

whether they include the federal fallback or not. this is a question of whether you look at the words in isolation or you look at them in context it if you look in context, how broadly do you look at the contest. we will not resolve that here. that is what courts are for. i would just say with respect to the caller's comments, not just the legality, but it is commonplace that congress and ask laws that have a lot of ambiguity and administrations execute laws and are bound to it here to the law, but also have to solve ambiguities. congress also passes laws that cannot be implemented exactly the way they were written due to timelines that are impossible, or other impediments. the executive branch has the responsibility of doing the best it can with the statute. we can argue about whether or not the administration did the best it could or whether the various interpretations are

right or wrong, but the notion that congress passes things that are so clear that it is obvious when administration is diverting from the exact words of the language, i do not think that really fits with reality particularly when -- when we are dealing with something as complicated. host: we're talking with alan weil. you are twitter the national academy -- a nonprofit organization helping states achieve excellence in health care policy and also previously director of the colorado department of health care policy as well. you are our guest for the next my five minutes or so here on "washington journal." don is next on the line for democrats, massachusetts. caller: good morning. i am calling about the health care law whether the republicans try to take away the subsidies of millions of people that signed up for health care

and i am not voting republican in 2016. i will put the democrats back in the majority of the house in the senate representatives, and vote for hillary clinton for president in 2016. and i am going to get rid of all those republicans and all those tea partiers because the republicans are no good to help the people at all. they just lied to the people to get their vote and i am not voting for any republican. host: have you ever voted for a republican? caller: back in 1970, i did, but it did not turn out the way i wanted it. it had been changed and i am now

registered as a democrat. i was registered as independent. that had also been changed, so i vote democratic and i am registered as a loyal democrat. host: arkansas, line for republicans, elizabeth, good morning. caller: what i am calling about, my son is going to lose his insurance and they have given me until the end of the year per we called and asked for help and all they can say is, you will have to buy a more expensive one. i say, he cannot even afford this one. if he is working, he cannot get subsidies. the question is, i'm hearing those who have gotten subsidies for the last year or so, they are not even checking if the status has changed, so they keep

getting it and they have to volunteer to say, my status has changed. i'm making more money now, but they keep getting subsidies. it is the taxpayer who is paying this. someone has got to pay. this is a redistribution of the money from working people to those who sit around and when illegals get it, it makes me upset because american people are paying for everything for other people. and this needs to stop. it is the worst insurance idea i've ever seen ever. guest: there are a few things the caller said that i think need to be corrected. there are no subsidies available to people who are undocumented. none at all. actually, the subsidies are designed to target people who are working. the lowest income you can have

at the poverty level. if you truly do not have any earnings you may be eligible for medicaid. that is another important part of the affordable care act. but the exchange covers, the marketplace coverage issue squarely targeted at people who are working. it is true that when you apply for coverage, you present what your earnings are and there is a lot of data matching behind the scenes to try to figure out what you're earning. that is the basis of your subsidy. if you do not tell anyone it is changed, he will continue to get that. but when you file your taxes you have to true up. the irs knows how much you make. that is how it works in this country. when we just went through the recent tax season, we saw millions of americans who had to refund a portion of the credits they had gotten because they had underreported their income maybe not intentionally. people's income can be variable, but they had to make payments to

true up. with respect to the caller's's son, if his income is within the right range it is not whether you got it before. you can go in at open enrollment any year and obtain coverage. in a state where if the king cases decided against the government, there will be issues about how the subsidies flow. host: about 48,000 people use the federal subsidies in the federal marketplace in arkansas. the average tax credit for an rowley 284,000 dollars in arkansas. douglas waiting in gold hill oregon, line for republicans. you are up next. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. i have a comment and a question and one correction. you stated illegals cannot get obamacare. they are getting health care. they just go to the emergency room and everyone pays for it. my comment is, this is probably

our last chance for a do over on obamacare if the court rules the right way. there has not been one republican vote to my knowledge for this monstrosity. a way to make this work and the way it is set up now, if the court rules the right way i'm betting with my republican congressman to my question is, isn't it true, the employer mandate in effect, the independent payment advisory board is in effect so the worst things about obama care still have not even started. guest: well, there are elements that have not been put into effect. the payment advisory board the caller mentioned is a provision designed to provide some decisions about how to contain medicare costs. if there are not any members, a cannot meet. there have been delays in the employer mandate and there is

currently discussion of changing some of the rules about which employers can participate in the insurance marketplaces. it is certainly the case there are still elements of the law that have not been put into place. i think it is fair to say the major elements are really there. remember, the employer mandate is an important provision, but once you get to firms of 100 or more, the vast majority already offer coverage to their employees. the practical effect host: as we talk about this subject of the impending king v. burwell decision coming up, we point to a story today in the " washington times" of what delaware and washington are doing. many are letting the deadline for subsea protection pass.

if you want to read that, that is in this morning's "washington times." we have about half an hour left with alan wieil. marshall, you are next. you have to turn to tv and go ahead. caller: yes. i have voted both ways. as the affordable health care act as a good thing. of course, it can be tweaked. i think there are some little things you can do to it, but i do not see anybody with a better program coming forward. i do think that everybody needs insurance, and everybody should be a little bit for those who can't afford it, we have subsidies. even that can between spirit the bottom line is that it is better than what we had before. if we ought to correct something, we can correctly the overcharges that are being made

by the medical and insurance professionals. i happen to know this. i have used $1 million to try to cure headaches, and i have no results. it has been 15 years and 51 different kinds of medication, just a waste of time. it is not just the people. if we are to have insurance for cars, we should do away with that. if we are going to do away with the medical insurance too. all of this goes together. either you're going to work together and try to do the right thing, and try to improve schools -- i am an ex schoolteacher bureau that would be a way to prevent building more prisons. but, back to insurance inc. is a good thing, and there are ways that we can treat. guest: let me bring those last

two points together and then talk about the cost side. if the court dismantles the subsidies -- the prior caller talked about the last opportunity for a do over. this country has tried for the last decade or two for many decades to help provide insurance to everyone, something that every other industrialized country does in the world. there is no easy way, and certainly no cheap way, to do it. as no obvious alternative -- there is no obvious alternative. it does not need the one we have in place now is the only option by any means. fighting political -- find a political consensus is the fight that we happen up against ferris injury. just a quick comment on the cost.

we spend far more on health care in this country than any other country in the world. there is a need, and the discussion about coverage tends to be separate. there is a tremendous need on improving the affordability of care. that would actually make, not only finding agreement on how to provide coverage easier, but it would free up money for things that education, which because talked about. host: tahoma, wisconsin is next. michelle is waiting on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i'm calling because i think the affordable cap is a good thing for everybody. everybody in this country needs to have insurance otherwise your premiums skyrocket and the cost for emergency

room's will keep going up. i don't understand why republicans just can't work with the affordable care act to tweaking it so that it works for everybody, rather than repeating it -- repeal it, and not have anything in its place. i also have a separate question. here in wisconsin, i have been on badger care plus. my husband got a raise so we ended up making eight dollars $.43 too much, so we kicked me off the insurance. i had to go into the marketplace and find out what was available. do i go to the healthcare.gov to do this? how do i go about getting this, since i am a stay-at-home mom? i think care of our son who is

severe autistic. everything is so screwed up in wisconsin. i'm just not sure how to do this. if i could have input on that, that would be great. guest: first of all, part of the provisions that the law is set up -- you can start at healthcare.gov. it should value appropriately when you put your zip code in. wisconsin has a unique history in expanding coverage. wisconsin's approach to coverage under the affordable care act is probably too complex to talk about in the segment. at the outset, we talked about how many people subsidies are at risk with the decision. i think it is worth spending and the moment to describe the disruption that happens in health care, not just for the potential sick people. in the affordable care act, we have a provision that is not being challenged in the lawsuit

saying that there are no pre-existing condition conclu provisions. people with modest income and healthy are unlikely to buy coverage. people who buy coverage are those who are say, because they know they need it. there is still losing -- and-a destabilizing affect. it is a very complicated provision. i do want people to understand. host: in wisconsin, with the caller is from, about 166,000 individuals are receiving subsidies, the average about $350. the numbers that we have been citing throughout this segment are from the kaiser family foundation. a report that i have been on the

subsidies around this country. dan is in indianapolis, indiana line for independent spirit good morning. caller: good morning. i'm curious as to what the provision might be from your guest on how the supreme court might rule. i am a supporter of aca, but really more of a supporter of medicare for all. i want to let his thoughts may be on medicare for all. abb cheaper, and you have younger, healthier people who are on medicare, and it would give doctors a larger reimbursement. this must've been interesting for the europeans sitting in the audience yesterday, when the president was speaking. they are probably incredulous as to what is going on here. the president try to enact a law , that was a republican idea

and heritage foundation idea, but hates. the disdain for this presidency could probably find a cure for cancer himself, and the republicans would still be against it. guest: to the first question, i have learned to not predict what the supreme court will do. almost everyone, including myself, who was watching the prior case that challenge the overall structure of the law were surprised by the decision, particularly the medicaid component. not a line of thought that i could have predicted. i will take my lesson from my own poor track record, and just leave it there for this go around. as for medicare for all, i think what is fair to say and we at

health care at the journal have published many papers over the world, and people have proposed a broad range of proposals. there are many ways, if you look around the world, with a blend of public and private. the medicare for all approach is heavily public, though the british system is even more public because there, the doctors work for the government. the hospitals are owned by the government. then, you move into continental europe, and other emerging economies where there is private insurance, but a superstructure of a budget that constrains what is spent. there are so many models around the world that we can learn from. i'm not really here to pick a favorite, but to say that we should not be daunted by the incensed that this is impossible because other

countries around the world have done so. technically, this is not particularly difficult thing. host: we will try to get in as many calls as we can in our last few minutes. sandy is in north charleston, south carolina. caller: in south carolina, my daughter had a job -- she just got out of high school -- and she only made $600. we were paying out-of-pocket for health care. unfortunately, she had a pre-existing condition that was not covered. we were so happy for obamacare, then we found out that our governor refused to take the subsidy for the poor. she was just left out completely. you know, had to get her own insurance. i would like to know if the supreme court makes a decision,

not for obamacare, really go back to pre-existing conditions to? guest: that is not an issue. the caller refers to another major issue at the state level which goes back to the prior quirkiness, which is that as design, the affordable care act expects that all states will expand medicaid coverage for those below 33% of poverty. the court said that is up to the states, they get to choose and as the caller states, their states that have said we will not provide coverage. here we are with the supreme court case on coverage over poverty, but there are many below poverty that do not have

coverage. host: dan is waiting in hastings, michigan, line for democrats. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. all the people that colin complaining about obama health care, none of them look at the good things that are in it compared to the old system that we had to the previous caller mentioned the pre-existing conditions. that would go away if we got rid of obamacare. another big thing that i like about the law is that preventative health care is not part of your policy. it is covered. you do not have to pay a deductible, anything like that. that gives americans incentives to be healthy. you want to stay healthy? if you can manage to stay healthy, there is an incentive you don't have to pay the high

deductibles. before, you wanted to go to the doctor, you were paying every b it. and about the employer mandate under the plan, as soon as the costs got high, the employer would push off the cost to you. host: i will give you the last one minute or so. guest: i could not find a question in the last comment. it is always good to look at these laws with both the pluses and minuses. what i think i would do with the last moment is to say that if the decision is adverse to the government, the politics will dominate. as i said at the outset, no one wants to take coverage away from people, but a lot of people don't want to support and bolster a law that they think is fundamentally flawed. i would encourage reviewers to

take a look at the information that we published. we have, as i mentioned, an active blog. i assure you, when the court can you -- court opinion comes down we will summarize it. host: i will point to one story on that blog. the ongoing series that you have on what states are doing to prepare for king king v. burwell.

directed to avoid the area until further notice. we'll keep you posted here on the c-span networks. we'll take you live to the white house briefing. we are supposed to start about five minutes ago, 1:00 eastern time. the president today saying ahead of a supreme court ruling on the health care law that the law is a reality in the u.s. no matter what the court decides. that's one of the topics that might come up during the briefing today.

we also could hear about isis and some of the president's comments on the g-7 summit. we'll bring you back here for the white house briefing as soon as it gets under way. in the meantime, a look at the congressional agenda for the week from fast track promotion aauthority to appropriations legislation in the house. "washington journal" continues. host: a busy legislative week on capitol hill this week, kicked off last night with the defense authorization act. here to break it down is bloomberg's derek wallbank. we saw some of the grueling debates over the ndaa last month in the house. similar tough debates in the senate this week? guest:

it's not as quite time sensitive as some other things according to democrats. harry reid is questioning why we are on the bill and not dealing with the export-import bank due to expire at the end of the month or highway funding or something like that which he considers to be a more pressing need. you would imagine that if somebody questioned the need to do the defense authorization bill, then republicans would come up and say, things to the order of why do you think that it's not important to give a pay raise to our troops? sure enough, if you're a press member on capitol hill your inbox has been plooded to statements to that effect. before we got on this bill it got controversial. once we are on to this bill now we are talking about a whole raft of things that come up from procurement spending to planes

the pentagon says it doesn't need to the question of, frankly, what are we doing in iraq and syria and the president's remarks yesterday about the strategy or lack thereof. this is going to be a barnburner of a bill. host: to explain this bill for those who don't track the legislation closely as you do. this is the authorization bill for the military. talking about $523 billion in the federal budget in the coming year for defense spending. guest: for people watching. break this down cleanly, we have two sorts of big bills you'll see. it's confusing because we have it in the house and senate on the same week, right. the authorization basically tells somebody how to spend the money and the appropriation gives them the money to actually spend. so think of it like if you're making your household budget, if you're making the budget that's the authorization. if you're cutting the check,

that's the appropriation. host: talk about sequestration and how it's playing out in this debate over the ndaa. guest: this is one of the big top line questions right. we have locked in a budget deal from a long time back that basically says that if spending can't be kept under a certain level, it's going to be automatic spending reductions that's known as sequestration. the problem that you have here is that people don't really want to cut defense spending. you can see it in this bill because one of the things that we find is that on -- folks just don't have a way to write this bill to the number they are supposed to. what you get instead is folks using this pocket of money called o.c.o. and really simply it's war funding. overseas contingency operations. basically war funding. and you take that money and you throw it over and you patch it.

you increase the amount of money that's available to be spent. and that prevents you from having to make some of the cuts you might have to make otherwise. host: we should tell callers if you joined in on the discussion we are talking about a busy week on capitol hill with defense authorization and defense appropriations in the two houses on capitol hill. 202-748-8001 if you're a republican. 202-748-8,000 if you're a democrat. 20748-8002 if you are an independent. staying on the overseas contingency fund using that as a work around, where does the white house come down on this? is there a chance that this ndaa could be blocked by democrats or the white house? guest: the white house is not a fan of using this money. the white house would really like if they had their druthers for congress to come back and

say, let's draft another budget deal that replaces this. the white house has blankedly -- blanketly threateneded every veet to veto every spending bill that scomply comply was these old sequestration levels. so you're starting off with everybody on exactly opposite foot. republicans face a slight math problem in the senate. in that they have the majority but don't have 60 votes. somehow you have to get democrats over that line. and it will be interesting to see if they can do it, but the first thing they have to do is figure out how they are going to get through this bill, what amendments they are going to take, what that debate looks like. that's all very much in the air. host: some of the debate will be around the president's actions against the islamic state and the president's efforts to help iraq in those -- in that effort. the president making some

comments yesterday at the g-7 summit that have gotten a lot of attention about u.s. efforts to work with the iraqis to fight isis. show our viewers a bit of those comments and come back and how it's playing out in this debate. president obama: one of the areas we have to improve is the speed which we are training iraqi forces. where we have trained iraqi forces directly and equipped them and we have a train and assist posture they operate effectively. where we haven't morale, lack of equipment, etc. may undermine the effectiveness of iraqi security forces. we want to get more iraqi security forces trained, fresh, well equipped, and focused. and the president wants the same thing. we are reviewing a range of plans for how we might do that, essentially accelerating the number of iraqi forces that are properly trained and equipped

and have a focused strategy and good leadership. and when a finalized plan is presented to me by the pentagon, then i will share it with the american people. we don't yet have a complete strategy because it requires commitments on the part of the iraqis as well about how recruitment takes place, how that training takes place. and so the details of that are not yet worked out. host: we don't yet have a complete strategy with the key quote that's been pulled from that for all the newspapers this morning. how is that going to be playing in this debate on capitol hill over defense this week? guest: like a lead balloon, pretty much. the reaction was somewhat bewilderment i want to say on capitol hill. i talked to one lawmaker yesterday whose response to it was, really?

this couldn't -- they couldn't believe, essentially, after however many months that that was the thing that came out. obama's -- obama in context is more nuanced there where he said it really is -- it's got to be a partnership. you have to have iraqis on the ground doing things. there's questions when you're talking about training that's been going on about whether or not iraq is providing sufficient recruit to actually be trained in this fight. there has been open questions about the morale of troops. their resolve to fight. made at the very highest levels over here. the point that i think the president would have liked to have gotten across, which i don't think was picked up so much, was was that this has got to be a partnership because he does not want at all u.s. boots on the ground in a massive way. he doesn't want the phrase they would use, they don't want a

reinvasion of iraq. but that's not the quote that appears in the headlines, is it? we are -- host: we are talking about this week's legislative agenda on capitol hill. defense authorization, defense appropriation sons tap. we'll get to those issues. want to bring in viewers. tom in fort wayne, indiana. line for independents. you're on with derek of bloomberg. caller: everybody complains about the -- how much we spend. as far as i'm concerned that has to do with the way we spend the money. you need to stop spending money on these job programs basically. we don't need these jets, these tanks. there's plenty of jobs that could be done around the united states like rebuilding the

infrastructure that actually need to be done. host: thanks. i thought you were done. caller: i just -- it's a waste of money and it doesn't do anything. sometimes i wonder -- i used to wonder why people in other countries when we weren't at war hated us. then i find out that it's because an unexploded weapon lands there and says u.s.a. on it because we sold it to somebody else who wanted to kill somebody else with our weapon. host: that's tom in fort wayne, indiana. derek, pick up on some of the programs that could be on the chopping block. the caller there concerned about planes and tank programs that he sees as more job programs than anything else. guest: thanks for your call. i think this is one of the -- this is one of the key debates

here when you're talking about congress wanting to plus up programs that are beyond the pentagon's levels, you really are to the members talking about jobs in their districts. you will get some people who very much want to cut spending in the great state of ohio who don't want to get rid of the abrams tank because you have production in lima. if you're talking about the a-10 wart hog there's military reasons for that and i will not risk the wrath of martha mcsally, who used to fly them, congresswoman from arizona, who says that they are very much necessary. they are also very much -- there are facilities in arizona as well. there are jobs there. john mccain highlighted this just the other day about the jobs necessities. you have bases that support some of these programs. and if you take a look at the map, some of these localized programs, you think it's just this one little spot on the map

but it is production facilities. it's maintenance, base that is support this. in several states. and each one of these states have a parochial interest and literally have face that is they can put to this who would be in the unemployment lines on monday morning if they were cut today. host: a profile piece in today's "new york times" focusing on john mccain, his efforts in this pentagon authorization debate. noting that mr. mccain has long been a critic of what he views as military acquisition systems that take too long and cost too much. in his bill he targets things like the f-35 joint strike fighter. the combat ship. and pet issue of the future ver significance of the jerald r. ford f-class carrier which suffered a $2.4 billion cost overrun. that's in the times if you want to read that. we are with derek of bloomberg first word. harry next in indiana. line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning, united

states. what i want to say about the budget, the drug war should be end the we spend tense of billions of dollars every year on the drug war and it does no good. we just keep filling the prisons up, building new prisons. and the prohibition of alcohol. before they passed that there there were murderous capitol gangs. before they pass the drug laws there were no murderous drug gangs. they broke up all the alcohol gangs and murder and crime rate went up 70% goes back down 70%. they pass the drug laws, murder rate doubled, went up 100%. host: the drug debate something that's happening in any of these bills moving through the floor this week? guest: not this week. i tell you what, it came up just recently. i wrote a story about this. there was -- there were two sort of little noticed amendments in the commerce justice, science

bill -- spending bill in the house. one was to tell the justice department to not go after people in states where it's legal on medical marijuana, another is on recreational marijuana. something we reported on bloomberg that was interesting about this, if you look at the medical marijuana vote it's about two dozen more votes this year than it did last year. and about 3/4 of that was from republicans easing on their opposition. still didn't support it as a majority, but the opposition eased. 3/4 of the support. you're seeing, i think, to his point, sort of evaluation of whether the u.s. needs to be on drugs. you also have people, cory booker, rand paul who happens to be running for president in part on this who would like to see the spending in this area diverted to somewhere else. this creates more problems than it solves. host: a busy week on capitol

hill. we are taking your questions about it. paul's up next of the morgantown, north carolina. line for democrats. paul good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to speak about what the last person brought up in regard to armorments and so forth being sold and the economy built around that. throughout this nation there's all these different companies that manufacture all these weapons of rocket propelled grenades. all sorts of exploding devices and all that. and they stockpile them and they have hundreds of people working in factories. if they don't have a place to sell or to drop these bombs on somebody they have to send their workers home and then they cut some money off so they don't have the money for their third home or golf course membership. an economy that's very silent and very hidden and is controlled by the elite. you see this same sort of thing to do with drug rehab centers

and everything elsewhere these elites have created an industry and feed off the taxpayers to make a product or to sell a service and they are multimillionaires and multibillionaires. and they kind of exist in the shadows. host: that's paul in morgantown, north carolina. the debate over sort of the military industrial complex here. guest: very big debate. every year we put out a list of the top federal contractors top five of those you won't be surprise the at all. they are all defense contractors. the top five last year to this year all stayed the same. host: where can viewers go if they want to check out that list? guest: bgov.com. you can look at 200 of them as well as breakdowns of them. it's an interesting thing

because you get back to this debate about jobs and actual people who will have actual harm versus federal spending. there is, as i think most people would acknowledge fairly, it is very very difficult to cut spending on federal level in any meaningful way if you don't take a look at the military in some way. you have military. it is more than half of discretionary spending. you have entitlements. which are on the mandatory side. and those two things are places that people who really want to cut budgets say, we really have to look at this. and they are really hard to cut. host: the numbers out there for 20916 fiscal year congress is currently authorized to spend $1.016 trillion. $523 billion for defense programs. $493 billion for nondefense

programs. we are talking with derek of bloomberg first word. you want to call in. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8,000. independents 202-74 -8002. we haven't even gotten to t.p.p. yet, the fast track authority for the president's trade bill. what's happening in the house this week there? guest: the thing i talked to one of the chief deputy whips yesterday about this. they are still trying to find out where the votes are. nancy pelosi who is not a republican member of the whip team, let me say, very helpfully suggested to john boehner the other day that he needs to come up with 200 votes. whip team is being very guarded about what their target is as well as where they are. the one thing they will tell you is they are not there yet. for whatever that number is. we are seeing somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 to 25, i

think the number was 23 the last i checked, but that was yesterday so it could have moved a little. in terms of democrats who are coming out and saying they are going to vote for this fast track authority. host: explain the strange bedfellows and why that's happening. guest: sure. a lot of people merge these two things. fast track authority is a congressional process that would allow congress to consider these trade deals without amendments and in a streamline fashion to get it through. and that's what they are looking at right now. the t.p.p., the transpacific partnership, a possible future trade deal with europe, those would come later and they would be subject to this sort of framework that we are laying out right now. right now in the house side you're sitting there looking at a lack of votes. and it's really simple if you don't have the votes it doesn't move.

there's a real question about whether it can. you have a lot of democrats particularly in the industrial midwest, who feel like they were burned with previous trade deals negotiated by a previous democratic president. you get the nastas, things like that -- naftas things like that, people feel burned lie that process and doesn't want to get scorched again. the president is relying in many ways on a trust me argument. i have learned, we have learned this is going to be better. but this trade deal, if you're a member of congress you can go see what's in the t.p.p. if you're me, and i asked, they will not let you. and so i think for a lot of people out there they are wondering what's in it. they get ideas of what's in it. to them it seems like every lobbyist knows it, but they don't know how it will affect their jobs and people are worried about it. and if they are worried about

it they are not going to support it. host: as we mentioned the secretary of state and secretary of defense combining for an op-ed in the "usa today." they end, as congress debates t.p.p. it should look beyond this administration economically and strategyically, the takes of u.s. leadership will reverberate not only across borders but decades. the path towards a world, more peaceful process begins with passing this trade authority. putting a lot into this vote in the house. guest: let me say, that language is really key. you're seeing people on the democratic side make the case this is a very covert way of making that case, that if you don't trust president obama, it's ok because this goes beyond him. this is why you're seeing people talk about for the next decade. this is why you see people stressing that this is a six-year authorization. and part of that is to try and win over those last couple of republicans who might be needed for this deal because they are

not there yet and they don't necessarily trust the obama white house on much of anything. host: harold is waiting line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm glad i got on this morning. i'm so weary about being a taxpayer and where our money is going. every day i wake up and hear something new. the budget's overrun on the carrier. everything is overrun. billions. we got tanks in the desert. over thousands of them sitting there in the desert, never used airplanes never used in the desert. if we unemploy these people they are going to get unemployment. it's better to unemploy them and pay unemployment than have billions of dollars going to these companies lockheed and others boeing, with these overruns and us taxpayers. i guess about 40 people working for me, working hard every day,

and i see them sweating for it and people spending the money, government spending our money so wisely -- unwisely. host: what kind of business are you in? caller: plastic. another thing, yesterday i seen something that absolutely blew me away. brand new city, 20 miles in baghdad. 20 miles in baghdad, 8,000 workers, building a brand new city for hundreds of thousands of people. $17 billion. we are paying for it. our own cities are deteriorating. it's absolutely criminal. and obama wants to put $40 billion as a signing bonus to iran. we have to pay for this. host: harold in michigan. robert puts it this way in less than 144 quarke terse f. a private company was run like the u.s. government, everyone would be fired.

line for republicans, good morning. caller: good morning. we have been talking about the cents a little more foreign policy i want to talk about is the u.s. stance on israel. we hear a lot that israel is supposedly our greatest ally, but i kind of disagree. you really just have to look at the history of the u.s.-israeli relationship to see why. we can go back to 1954 where the israeli military intelligence service recruited several egyptian jews to bomb u.s. and u.k.-owned assets in egypt. they were eventually found out, but nothing came of this situation. supposedly it was a lit to u.s. and israeli relationship, but we don't hear much about that these days. host: eric is u.s.-israeli

relationship issue something that's going to be debated in the next week or month? guest: there is an issue that's going to be coming up fairly shortly. i think you-all addressed it with the previous guest, reaction from the supreme court case yesterday about people who born in jerusalem and whether or not they can list israel on their passports instead of jerusalem. the supreme court said no. this is going to be one of those things. that legislation passed with lots of bipartisan support. you would have a hard time getting something that wasn't seen as flatly pro-israel through the congress right now. benjamin netanyahu when he came and spoke to the congress was received with thunderous applause. the likes of which you rarely hear. and so there is going to be a big reaction there. also consider that the caller brought up iran. consider that a lot of the frame for how we are discussing these

-- this nuclear deal in the works with iran is how it will affect israel. and so israel is very much the framework by which a lot of these foreign policy decisions are going to be taken p host: line for democrats ted, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. my mind has gone everywhere because the person you just spoke of that went on twitter saying that the -- if the government is ran by a private company. well, the government is run by a private company. do your research. i didn't call about that. i called about the open spending of the pentagon that the department of defense over $1 trillion. we are not at war. i don't understand it. this is ridiculous. take the taxpayer money and just throw it out like it's candy. i don't believe it. it's unbelievable. we should be ashamed of

ourselves. we need to do a whole lot of infrastructure throughout this country. host: ted in florida. are those comments happening in the debate that is taking place this week? guest: absolutely. especially from spending hawks. you will have some folks who will make the case, look, the spending has gotten obscene. and that they will say that afghanistan has wound down. we are -- we do not have a large conventional army in iraq. and they'll say where's the dividend from this? where's the spending really? instead, you're looking -- josh: good afternoon, everybody. i don't have any announcements at the top. i'll get started with questions. reporter: the president attract add little attention during his press conference yesterday for

saying that he did not yet have a complete strategy. i know he was referring very specifically to a strategy for training iraqi forces not the broader fight against isil. nonetheless, republicans have been piling on. i wanted to give you an opportunity to do a little bit of clean up if you would like. josh: josh, i think the president was very direct about something that we have actually talked about in here for several weeks now. which is the president has been very clear with his team. that we need to be carefully examining the strategy. and refining and optimizing it where we can capitalize on lessons learned, apply some best practices, and make sure that we are doing everything we can to make progress against isil and make progress in the effort to degrade and ultimately destroy them. that is the ultimate goal. the training, eequipping, and

offering some advice and assistance to iraqi security forces is merely one element of that strategy. this is one area where we can talk with some specificity about how iraqi security forces that have benefited from this support of our coalition military partners, have performed well in the battlefield. what we know is that in at least one recent area where we ex-- experience a setback in ramadi those are force that is have not benefited from being trained by the u.s.-led coalition. so, again, this is an example of the president saying, well, let's take sure that we are taking the lessons learned. we know that troops in the iraqi security forces that have the support of the coalition perform well on the battlefield. let's try to ramp up the numbers and capacity of those individuals in anbar province.

that's the strategy that we are pursuing. now, how exactly to implement that is something that we are still working through. and what we also know we need for that -- for us to maximize that opportunity, is for the iraqi government to do a better job of sending recruits to that program. and that includes both iraqi security force units, essentially units of the iraqi military. to get enhanced training from our coalition trainers. it also means the iraqi central government doing a better job of recruiting more sunni tribal fighters. ultimately we do know that the only sustainable solution are local security forces in anbar province that are willing to take on isil. that they can do so knowing they have the full support of our military coalition, can be backed by military air strikes. but also know that after they have succeeded in driving isil out of anbar province that they

can then working with the iraqi central government actually govern that region of the country. reporter: admiral kirby at the state department this morning stated that could be a proposition that takes three to five years. that would put us well into the next white house. does the president agree with that assessment? josh: i wouldn't put a number on it, but the president has indicated exactly what mr. kirby indicated which is that this is something that's going to require a significant and long-term commitment from the international community. this is not a short-term proposition. and we are in the phase now where we are very focused on degrading isil and their capacity to operate inside of iraq. but that over the long term we are going to need to build up the capacity of the local governments and local security forces. and to enhance their capabilities when it comes to

working with the central government. and frankly a bill that they are confident in the central government. not just to function effectively but look after their interests. we have been blunt about our assessment that one of the things that created the kind of weakness that isil capitalized on last year was the failure of the maliki central government in baghdad to demonstrate to the diverse population in iraq he had their best interest at heart. that did cause that country to fracture. particularly along sectarian minds and did create an opening that isil has capitalized on. what we want to do is make sure we can address this 3450ed threat from isil. allow -- immediate threat from isil. allow iraqi forces to take the fight on the ground to isil. once they are driven out, we want to make sure there is a local governing capacity there and there is confidence in the iraqi central government to leave that country. reporter: the three to five year timetable the state department

put out that's not something -- josh: this is not going to be a short-term proposition. again i think that's entirely consistent with what mr. kirby's assessment as well. reporter: there is an interesting moment yesterday in germany where prime minister abaddy appeared to sidle up to the president for interaction and some interpret it perhaps the president didn't see the prime minister was there, but they didn't end up speaking at that time. can you clarify for us what was going on? josh: i think those who concluded were a snub were probably tell graphing insecurities dating back to junior high. the fact is the president just completed a long working lunch that included the prime minister. and the president was engaged in conversations with the i.m.f. director and others. after that photograph, the president did have the opportunity to meet with mr.

abadi in a bilateral private meeting. and actually represented the second time in two months the two leaders have met. that's an indication has all the communication he needs with him. reporter: i wanted to ask you about protests that we have seen in texas after a white police officer pulled a gun on a couple of black teenagers on a at a party and took one girl down to the ground. has the president seen a video of that incident and does he feel race may have been a motivating factor? josh: i don't know the president has seen the video. he's aware of the news coverage of that incident. i think what is clear is that early indications are that local authorities have taken what appear to be appropriate steps. they have placed that officer on leave. and again without knowing any of the details here, but that seems like a prudent thing for them to do.

but ultimately what steps they need to take and what the investigation yields about what exactly happened there is still something that is going to take a few more days at least to determine. but again i think this goes back to something that the president's been talking about quite a bit over the last several months. which is that there is a strong benefit working effectively to build the trust and confidence of the communities that they are sworn to serve and protect. and i think understandably the graphic incidents like the one we saw depicted on that video do have a detrimental impact on the relationship between local law enforcement and the local community. and i think that's evident from. so news coverage and public statements of people who live in that community.

again, based on very early evidence here, it appears that local authorities understand the need to protect that trust and are trying to take steps consistent with that priority. i will say that this is a topic that the president's 21st -- the president's task force on 21st century policing looked at carefully. they put forward a long list of public recommendations of best practices that local law enforcement agencies can implement to enhance the trust with local communities. so that obviously is something that we believe doesn't just enhance the safety and security of the american public and communities across the country, it actually makes it safer for members of local law enforcement to do their very important work. i'll come right back to you. reporter: i want to ask a question. i know you talked a little bit

about this last week. since then yesterday two industry groups sent a letter to the white house saying they oppose policy actions that would undermine encryption and specifically said they impose building a work around for government law enforcement to get in through encrypted systems. i'm wondering if you have any reaction to what they said. if you can explain the process where things are at in the white house consideration of this issue? josh: i have not seen the letter i don't know if that's something they said today. maybe it's still in the mail. the thing that i -- don't have a new position to share with you at this point. reporter: can you explain where things are at in the president's consideration of encryption and allowing law enforcement ways to get into -- josh: i don't have an update for you in terms of that policy process. the president has spoken about this publicly on a couple occasions both in the news

conference he convened with prime minister cameron earlier this year, as well as cybersecurity summit that the president convened out in stanford university back in february. his position on this is clear. i don't have an update for you. reporter: there is no recommendation he's looking at? josh: i don't have an update. reporter: on turkey, i was wondering whether the white house has any reaction to the election there and any concerns about what it might mean for the stability of the country or fight against islamic state or is there any indication for u.s. initiatives that are happening? josh: the united states looks forward to working with the newly elected plarlment and the future government and to continue -- parliament and the future government and to continue our close cooperation. as you know turkey is a nato ally of the united states and we are committed to continuing our close political economic, and security cooperation. one area where the united states is coordinating closely with

turkey is in our efforts to try to shut down the flow of foreign fighters that ben forfeit ever fit -- benefit isil. this is really important -- this is a difficult task. turkey has a long border with syria. we know that is a commonly used route for individuals who are looking to travel to syria to enter the country and to take up arms alongside isil. we know that turkey has taken important steps to try to shut down the flow of those individuals. but there is nor that we would like them to do. the president was pretty direct in his conversations -- comments at the news conference yesterday about what more we would like to see turkey do to shut down the flow of foreign fighters in way that would benefit the security of not just countries throughout the region but also benefit the security of the people of

turkey. reporter: election have any bearing on that? josh: the united states -- again, they are a nato ally. we have a strong relationship with them, particularly when it comes to matters related to nurt. and again, we are pleased with the work that turkey has done so far to progress this issue. we also believe there is more important work that they should be doing. and we have made those -- we have communicated those views directly to them in private. i think the president was pretty blunts in talking about it publicly as well. reporter: the president's words yesterday on what was working and not working in the fight against isis. i think what really stands out is this lack of recruit in certain areas where the capacity to train is there. at this point iraq is trying to defend its own contry. these are people of iraq whose cities are being overrun.

the fact that those recruits aren't there now doesn't that bode poorly for the future of this? in so many ways the u.s. is picking up every slack. josh: i think you are making an observation that we have discussed for some time about politics being critically important to the longer term success of iraq. and that is to say the iraqi central government needs to inspire the confidence of the people of iraq. that they need to build political support for their ongoing efforts to lead that country and unify that country to face down the isil threat. this is, as i mentioned in response to one of josh's questions, this is what we had diagnosed as the principal weakness of the previous prime minister. the prime minister maliki had governed that country in a way that did not demonstrate a

commitment to inclusiveness. and frankly made that country vulnerable to the kind of offensive operations from isil that we saw last summer. we are pleased that the prime minister has followed through on his early political commitments to trying to govern that country in a multisectarian fashion and democrat stray -- demonstrate clearly to every citizen of iraq he has their best interest at heart and that the country's resources will be used to benefit every citizen in the country. and that's a difficult challenge. you can understand the skepticism among some members of the shiia population who for a long time did not feel that the iraqi central government had their best interest at heart. and you can imagine that they are carefully evaluating the policy decision being made by the new iraqi government, and i

think their hesitation is understandable. what's also clear, though, is that the failure of the iraqi people to unite behind this goal of facing down the isil threat, put at risk the very existence of their country. and so the stakes here are high. and that's why again, our approach to this challenge has always been to insist that prime minister abadi follow through on his commitments to build a multisecretarytarian security force, -- multisectarian security force, to govern the country in an inclusive way. so far he's done it to his credit. it will take time for him to build and strengthen the trust of the population, the population that's not shiia like he is. reporter: now is the time to defend their own country from falling apart completely. building this inclusive

government network is going to take a lot of time. this seems to be pointing to a lack of a will to fight overall -- josh: i think that's overly broad generalization. reporter: areas, yes. josh: there have been areas where we have seen the security forces when backed with the support of the military coalition, not just a will to fight but effectiveless. and that has succeeded in driving isil out of areas like tikrit. even some areas in anbar. that is an indication that there is a strategy, there is a template for success here. we want to make sure that we essentially work closely with the iraqi central government to build on that opportunity. that means a variety of things t means putting more iraqi security forces through our training programs. but it also means recruiting

more sunni local tribal fighters who will benefit from the advice and assistance and training of coalition forces. that last element is important becauses you point out these sunni fight letters take the fight to isil not just within their own country but own neighborhood. and it means that these sunni tribal fighters will be fightling for their communities. what's important is that they carry out those efforts under the command and control of the iraqi central government. and again it reflects prime minister abadi's commitment to governing the country in a multisectarian way and protecting the country. reporter: what do you think about this bipartisan aumf that's being introduced in the senate? josh: as you know several months ago the administration put forward language urging congress

to pass an isil specific authorization to use military force. we have put forth that language at the specific request of congress so they can follow through on something the president challenged them to do whichle is to pass a specific authorization to use military force that applied in this case. you have seen the administration send up the secretary of state and secretary of defense to go and urge -- testify before congressional committees and urge congress to take action. in the last several months we have seen very little congressional action. you have heard some pretty sharp criticism from me because of their failure to act object this -- to act on this. but i do think that the language that was put forward by senator kaine and senator flake is an indication at least some members of congress are willing to step up and fulfill their constitutional responsibility to be heard on this matter. i think that senator kaine and

senator flake deserve credit for that. the language they put forward does include some tweaks to the language that we originally submitted. but we are also candid about the fact that from day one that our legislation, legislative language was intended to be a starting point for negotiations. it appears they have acted consistent with the spirit of that legislative proposal and we are hopeful that other members of congress will follow through in a similar way. reporter: the o.p.m. act, we learned four million current and former government employees had their personal information was vulnerable from these hackers. does that universe of people include cabinet secretaries? josh: there is an ongoing investigation to the specific matter. that investigation includes the scope of this particular intrusion.

if there is more information we have to share about who precisely was affected, that's information that would come from the f.b.i. who is leading this investigation. reporter: vullferble personnel files, do they include the secret service? josh: again, part of this investigation is to determine the precise scope of the intrusion and get a better sense of exactly what information was put at risk and what information was potentially exfiltrated. that work is ongoing. reporter: we were told this is a universe of up to four million. you must know what that universe is? does that include cabinet secretaries, people employed by the secret service fib anybody and the like? josh: again, the scope of this particular intrusion is something that continues to be investigated by the f.b.i. reporter: what did you mean when we were told it was up to four million? josh: that was a number that was

based on our assessment at that time of precisely the number of records that were affect bide this particular intrusion. this is an ongoing investigation. reporter: you must have information -- that number didn't come out of the blue. four million who? what? josh: we described them as either former or current federal employees. reporter: is there any suggestion that this information was taken or feared to have been taken could be used to either blackmail individuals or to steal the identity of individuals that have sensitivity security issues? josh: the investigation doesn't just include the scope of this particular intrusion but also includes an effort to try to determine the motive of the individuals who may have been acting in this case. as a precautionary measure, those individuals that are determined to be at risk here will be offered by the office of

personnel management some identity theft protection and advice about steps they can take. reporter: you are offering that to somebody. is that being offered to cabinet secretaries, members ofs is s. f.b.i.? josh: it's being offered to individuals who may have been affected. reporter: do those individuals include -- josh: i'm not going to talk about the individuals who -- reporter: you're not ruling out the people i just mentioned were included in this group? josh: you should check with the f.b.i. if they have more information with you they'll share. reporter: how concerned are you about this? you what is the nature of the concern? is the concern people might be ripped off because their identities have been stole general -- stolen or a greater concern, security concern? josh: i think the concern the president has is that this highlights the clear vulnerabilities that exist in many elements of the federal government's computer architecture. and this administration four

years now has been working diligently to try to upgrade our defenses and to put in place measures that would mitigate against those intrusions and respond to them when necessary. reporter: gross failure here? suppose these people had access to personnel records for months without being detected? josh: the president is concerned about the vulnerabilities highlighted. the president indicated in talking about this yesterday is that the reason this intrusion was detected is that o.p.m. was actually in the process of implementing better defenses of their computer network when this particular intrusion was detected. that's an indication that they are making progress, but there is clearly more important work that needs to be done not just at o.p.m. but at other government agencies. but again this is not different than the kind of threat that we see in the private sector as well. and all of you represent news organizations, many of which

have been subjected to intrusions like this. and your security professionals are doing the same thing ours are doing which is making sure we are adapting to the adversary that's out there. the specific individuals or entities who carried out this particular intrusion is something that's still being investigated by the f.b.i. reporter: reason to believe it was a foreign government? josh: what the f.b.i. is doing is trying to determine who those individuals are and if they were acting on behalf of a criminal enterprise or a nation state. they are going to do their best to work to determine that. as is consistent with the strategy use an investigation previous cyberintrusions. i can't promise you we'll be in a position at any point in the future to make a grand pronouncement about who may have been responsible for this particular intrusion, but it's something that we are working

hard to try to determine and if the response is necessary then the president, because of steps that he announced a couple months ago, has more tools at his disposal to respond to this particular incidents. i'm referring to the executive order the president signed that authorized the secretary of the treasury to impose financial sanctions against those who are deemed to be responsible or benefit from a cyberattack. reporter: with the meeting yesterday which leader suggested -- who suggested to whom that the united states should speed up or do more training of iraqi forces? the president in the news conference made a strong statement saying that when iraqi forces have been trained they have done much better. who came up with the idea of speeding this process up or however you want to put it? josh: that is the conclusion

that the president's national security team has reached based on fair assessment of conditions on the ground. and you have u.s. military personnel that are operating in joint operation centers in iraq where they are essentially embedded with iraqi security forces. you have some u.s. military personnel and coalition military personnel that are on the ground at -- stationed at bases in iraq where they are working directly with iraqi security forces to train them. so we have -- we are in a position based on our knowledge of what's happening on the ground to evaluate the effectiveness of our iraqi security forces. what is becoming clear is that -- >> we'll break away from this live white house briefing. take you over to capitol hill. the house about to come in. capitol police have cleared earlier warnings about suspicious packages on capitol hill. one turned out to be an

unattended lurn cooler in the courtyard of the russell office senate building and an all clear from an earlier warning ter dirksen building. associated press reporting former speak dennis hastert was ushered into court today for the first time since an indictment two weeks ago. that ahe agreed to pay $3 million from his days of a high school teach not to reveal a secret about past misconduct. we'll take you live to the floor of house in just a moment. the house plans to work today on the commodity futures trading commission bill. that bill would make changes to how the cftc regulates derivatives and swaps. they also plan to finish work today on nearly $109 billion million for the transportation department. live to the floor of the house. they need to engage one another as colleagues of the 114th congress entrusted by america's

citizens to forge solutions to the major issues facing our time, be they agriculture, transportation or areas of national security. grant to each an extra measure of wisdom that all might work together for a better future for our great nation. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1, rule 1 the journal stands approved. >> pursuant to clause 1 rule 1 i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker pro tempore: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition. mr. wilson: i object to the vote

that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from michigan mr. kildee. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, recent cyberattacks targeting the personal data of americans make it clear, cyber is a new domain of warfare that threatens personal information, the national security, and fiscal safety of our citizens. last week millions more were

affected when the office of personnel management's network was compromised. this complicated nature of cyberdefense means we need a clear standard of measurement for assessing the damage of attacks on our citizens and to affected computer systems and devices. it is for this reason that i have introduced the cyberattack standard study act today to instruct the director of national intelligence in consultation with the secretary of homeland security, the director of the f.b.i. and the secretary of defense to define a method of quantifying cyberincidents for the purpose of determining a response. recent cyberattacks are a sobering reminder that congress all government agencies and private companies, and citizens need to work together to better protect our public and private networks now. i appreciate the research of legislative director taylor andre and military fellow major jacob barton for their service

in providing the ability to establish this legislation. in conclusion god bless our troops and may the president by his actions never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. kildee: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. speaker. once again the republican leadership in congress is bringing us to the brink. this time endangering hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs by threatening the export-import bank. the export-import bank gives american manufacturers the tools that they need to sell u.s. goods overseas. that's direct and real support for american businesses and real jobs for american workers. it's all at no cost to the taxpayers. for ideological reasons, this bank could close by june 30 if

congress does not act. it's more of the same of the sort of reckless brinksmanship, irresponsible behavior we have seen from the republican leadership in congress. so one might ask, why would you threaten hundreds of thousands of american jobs just to make an ideological point? you want to make a point, send a letter. don't threaten the american worker to pursue an extreme ideological agenda. mr. speaker, enough is enough. let's end the political games. let's get back to the work we were sent here to do and support the export-import bank and our small business and the hardworking americans that depend upon that. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. rerned my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to honor a fellow hoosier, the retiring president of vincennes university. few have exemplified the

university's timeless motto, learn in order to serve, more clearly than dr. hilton. under his dynamic leadership, this 214--year-old institution founded by our ninth president william henry harrison, has become a cutting edge center for career and technical education that offers students tangible and employable skills and opportunity for lifelong growth. throughout his career, he has maintained a commitment to public education that has positively impacted the lives of countless students. our state has benefited greatly from his vision and will forever be indebted for his service. best wishes to dick and city hilton in the future ahead. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute.

mr. hinojosa: thank you, mr. speaker. as of today we have only 11 more legislative days to act in order to re-authorization the export-import bank. re-authorizing the bank is common sense. sadly, however, the opponents of the bank are operating out of ideological fervor not on facts. we should be here dealing with and solving real problems not endangering american jobs with fantastical ideology. the truth of the matter is that the bank is a vital free market economic engine for our manufacturers. for exporters. and job creators. last year alone the bank financialed -- financed $4 billion of exports in my home state of texas supporting thousands of hardworking

americans. we cannot and should not let the bank expire. let's put an end to this nonsense. mr. speaker, i want a vote in our house of representatives on this issue. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from florida is recognized for one minute. mr. bilirakis: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to talk about one of my heroic constituents world war ii veteran sergeant harrison doyle. sergeant doyle was assigned to task the task of recreating maps as the carring tographer based on the remains of destroyed nazi maps and aerial photography. sergeant doyle served in three theaters, including the battle of the bulk -- bulk. his contributions were crucial in recreating the top pog graph -- to poggraphy and creating

maps used to win the battle of the bulk. dedicated caseworkers were able to help him to recover lost personnel records. they worked tirelessly to get his personnel records and medals, including the european, african, middle east campaign with bronze star attachment to give him the recognition he deserves. i'm honored to represent sergeant doyle. helping heroes like him and any constituents being stonewalled by federal agency makes this job more meaningful. i yield back. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule one, the chair declares the househandling from c-span.org.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: a busy legislative week on

capitol hill this week, kicked off last night with the defense authorization act. here to break it down is bloomberg's derek wallbank. we saw some of the grueling debates over the ndaa last month in the house. similar tough debates in the senate this week? guest: i think there are tough debates coming up in the first is an issue of time. defense authorization is one of these bills that gets done every year. it is a major landmark bill. it covers an authorization for more than half a federal discretionary spending on the defense side, but it is not quite as time sensitive as other things, according to democrats harry reid is questioning why we are even on this at all. such as the import export do at the end of the month or highway funding, which he considers a

more pressing need. you would imagine that if somebody question the need to do the defense authorization bill, that republicans would come up and say things to the order of, why do you think it is not important to give up a race to our troops -- pay raise to our troops and sure enough, if you are on capitol hill your inbox has been flooded with that. now you're talking about a raft of things that come up from procurement spending, to planes the pentagon says it does not need to the question of what are we doing in iraq and syria the president's remarks yesterday about that strategy or lack thereof, this will be a barn burner. host: explain this bill for those who do not track the legislation as closely as you

do this is the authorization bill for the military talking about $523 billion in the federal budget for defense spending. guest: four people watching at home we have two things you will see. we have it in the house and the senate on the same week. the authorization basically tells somebody how to spend the money and the appropriation gives them the money to spend. so if you're making your household budget, if you are making the budget, that is the authorization. if you're cutting the check that is the appropriation. host: talk about sequestration in this debate of the ndaqaa. guest: we have locked in a budget deal from a long time back that says is spending cannot be kept under a certain level, there will be automatic

spending reduction known as sequestration. the problem here is people do not want to cut defense spending. you can see it in this bill. one of the things that we find is the folks just don't have a way to write this bill to the number they are supposed to. what you get instead is folks using this pocket of money called oko and it is war funding. overseas contingency operations. you take that money and you throw it over and you patch it. you increase the amount of money that is available to be spent. that prevents you from having to make some of the cuts you might have to make otherwise. if you were to join in we are talking about a busy week. and appropriations in the two

houses on capital hill. if you are a republican it is (202) 748-8000 if you're a democrat it is (202) 748-8002 if you are an independent -- where does the white house come down on this? is her a chance that the ndaa could be blocked by democrats or the white house? guest: the white house is not really a fan of using this amount of money. the white house would like for congress to come back and say let's craft another budget deal that replaces this. the white house has lank italy threaten -- blanketly threatened to veto any bill that comes across the desk that complies with these sequestration levels. your starting off with everybody on opposite footing.

republicans face a slight math problem in the senate. they have the majority but do not have 60 votes. somehow you have to get democrats over that line. it will be interesting to see if they can do it. the first thing they have to do is figure out how they will get through this bill. host: some of the debate also will be around the residence actions -- president's actions to help the is comic state -- the islamic state. comments about the u.s. efforts to work with the iraqis to fight isis. want to look at some of those comments and see how it is playing out. [video clip] president obama: one of the areas will have to improve is the speed that we are training iraqi forces. when we have trained them directly and equipped them, and

have a train and assist posture they operate effectively. where we haven't, morale, lack of equipment etc., may undermine the effectiveness. we want to get more iraqi security forces trained fresh well-equipped and focused. president a body -- abaadi once the same thing. we are reviewing a range of plans for how we might do that, essentially accelerating the forces that are properly trained and equipped have a focused strategy and good leadership. when a finalized plan is presented to me, i will share it with the american people. we do not yet have a complete strategy because it requires commitments on the part of the iraqis as well. about how recruitment takes

place and training takes place. the details are not worked out. host: derek wallbank of bloomberg is our guest. we do not have a key strategy, the quote that has been pulled in all the newspapers. how will this play in the debate on capitol hill? guest: like a lead balloon. the reaction was somewhat bewilderment. i talked to one lawmaker yesterday whose response was really? could not believe that after how many months that that was the thing that came out. obama in context is more nuanced. he is saying, it has to be a partnership. you have to have iraqis on the ground doing things. there is questions when you talk about training about whether or not iraq is providing sufficient

recruits to actually be trained. there have been open questions about the morale of troops. their result to fight. the point that i think the president would have liked to have got across, which i don't think was picked up, was that this has to be a partnership. he does not want at all u.s. boots on the ground in a massive way. the phrase they would use, they don't want a re-invasion of iraq. but that is not the quote that appears in the headlines. host: we are talking about this week's legislative agenda on capitol hill. defense appropriation is on tap. trade is a key issue. tom is in fort wayne indiana on the line for independents.

you are on with derek wallbank of bloomberg. caller: everybody complains about how much we spend, as far as i'm concerned, that has to do with the way we spend the money. you need to stop spending money on job programs. we don't need these jets, tanks. there are plenty of jobs that can be done around the united states. like rebuilding infrastructure. they actually need to be done. it's a waste of money. it doesn't do anything. sometimes i wonder, i used to wonder why people in other countries when we were not at war, hated us.

then i find out that it is because an unexploded weapon lands there and says your say on it because we sold it to someone else who wanted to kill someone else with our weapons. host: pick up on some of the chopping programs. the caller complained about the programs. guest: this is one of the key debates. when you're talking about congress wanting to plus up programs you really are talking about some people who very much want to cut spending in the great state of ohio who do not want to get rid of -- because you have got production in lila.

if you're talking about the warthog, there are military reasons for that and i will not risk the wrath of martha miceli who used to fly them who says they are very much necessary and they are also very much, there are facilities as well. john mccain highlighted this the other day about jobs necessities. you have bases that support some of the programs. if you look at the map, some of the localized programs, you will think it is one spot on the map. production facilities support this in several states. each one of these states have an interest. unemployment lines monday morning if they were cut today. host: a profile piece in the new york times focusing on john mccain, his efforts in the

pentagon authorization debate. noting mr. mccain has long been a critic of what he views as military acquisition systems that take too long and cost too much. his bill targets things like the f 35 strike fighter, combat ship, and his pet issue the future version of the ford aircraft carrier which suffers a $2.4 billion run. we are with derek wallbank of bloomberg "first word." good morning. caller: good morning, united states care to let a want to say about the budget, the drug war should be ended. we spend tens of billions of dollars every year on the drug war and it does no good. we just keep building the presence up, building new prisons, and the probation of alcohol. before it that, there were no

murders alcohol gangs. before the drug war, there were no murderous jug gangs. the murdering crime rate went back down 70%. they passed a drug laws the murder rate doubled and went up 100%. host: the drug debate, is that something happening this week? guest: i wrote a story about this. there were two little noticed amendments in the signs bill -- hill, in the spend and's -- science b and in the spending billi,ll recreational marijuana p thing we reported on bloomberg that was really interesting about this, if you look at the medical marijuana vote, there are about two dozen more this year than last year.

about three quarters of that was from republicans easing on their opposition. three quarters of the support. you are seeing -- seeing, to this point, and evaluation of the u.s. war on drugs. you have also got people, cory booker, rand paul, who would like to see spending in the area diverted somewhere else. host: we're taking your questions. paul, north carolina, democrats. caller: good morning. i wanted to speak about what the last person brought up in regard to being sold and the economy built around that. throughout this nation, there are always different countries

that manufacture different weapons grenades, all sorts of exploding desires -- devices, and they have got hundreds of people working in factories. if they do not have places to japanese bonds, they have to send these workers home and then it cuts their money and then they do not have money for the third home and the golf course membership. the economy is very silent and hidden and controlled by the elite. you see the same sort of thing to do with drug rehab and everything else, where these elites have created an industry and feed off the taxpayers to make a product or sell a service and they are multimillionaires and multibillionaire's and they exist in the shadows. host: that was paul in

morgantown, north carolina. the debate over the military-industrial complex. guest: a big debate. every year, we put out a list of the top federal contractors, the top five of those, you will not be surprised at all, they are all defense contractors. last year to this year, they all stayed the same. there is a list online you can look at all 200 of them as well as some breakdowns of them there. you know, it is an interesting thing. you get back to a debate about jobs and actual people who will have actual harm, versus federal spending. there is, as i think most people would acknowledge it is very difficult to cut spending on a federal level in any meaning away if you do not take a look

at the military in some way. you have the military more than half of discretionary spending, you have entitlements, which are on the mandatory side. those two things are places that, people who really want to cut budgets, a say, we really have to look at this. they are hard to cut. host: the numbers out there for the 2016 fiscal year, congress authorized to spend five hundred $23 million for defense program, $493 billion for nondefense programs. if you want to call in republicans, democrats independents -- we have not even gotten to tpp yet, the fast track authority in the president buses bill.

what is happening there? guest: i talked to one of the chief deputies yesterday and they're trying to find out where the votes are. nancy pelosi, not a republican member, very helpfully suggested to john boehner the other day that he needs to come up with 200 votes. the team is being very guarded about where they are, but the one thing they will tell you is that they are not quite there yet. whatever that number is. we're seeing somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 to 25. i think the number was 23 last time i checked. that was yesterday so i could have moved a little. in terms of democrats coming out and saying, they will vote for the test track authority. host: explain the strange bedfellows and why that is happening. guest: a lot of people merge these two things. fast-track authority is a

congressional process that would allow congress to consider these trade deals without amendments and in a streamlined fashion to get it through. that is what they are looking at right now. the tpp, transpacific partnership, a possible future trade deal with europe, those would come later and be subject to this framework right now. in the house side, you're sitting there and looking at a lack of vote. you know, it is really simple. if you do not have the votes, it does not move. there is a question about whether it can hear you have a lot of democrats particularly in the industrial midwest, who feel they were earned with previous trade deals negotiated by a previous democratic president. people feel burned by the process and they do not want to go out and get scorched again. the president is in many ways

relying on an argument. we have learned it is going to be better. but this trade deal, if you are a member of congress, you can go see the tpp. i asked and they will not let you if you are me. for a lot of people out there they are wondering what is in it . it seems like every lobbying knows their session. people are worried about it. host: the secretary of state and secretary of and fence and the peace and look beyond this administration economically and strategically. the only across borders, but across decades to pass toward a more peaceful and -- this trade

authority putting a lot into the vote in the house. guest: that language is really key. you are seeing people on the democratic side make the case, and this is a covert way that if you do not trust president obama, it is ok because this goes beyond him. this is why you see people talk about for the next decades, this is why you see people stressing this is a six-year authorization very part of it is to try to win over the last couple of republicans who might be needed for the deal, because they're not there yet and do not necessarily trust the obama white house on much of any and. host: wisconsin, of next. good morning. caller: i'm glad i got on this money could i'm weary of being a taxpayer and where our money is going. every day, i hear something new.

this is overrun on a carrier appeared everything is overrun. billions. tanks in the desert, over thousands of them, never used airplanes are never used. the desert. if we go and unemployed these people, they will get unemployment. if you pay for employment, then you have a billion dollars going to these companies boeing, and us taxpayers. i have got about 40 people working for me, working hard every day. the government spending our money wisely. host: what kind of business are you in? caller: plastic. another thing, yesterday something that blew me away, a

brand-new city, 20 miles from baghdad, 20 miles it thousand workers, builds a brand-new city for hundreds of thousands of people. $17 billion. we are paying for it. absolutely criminal. obama wants to put $40 billion as a signing bonus to iran. i mean, we have to pay for this. host: that is harold in michigan. robert puts it this way -- dan, good morning. caller: we have been talking about defense a little bit. something that has to do with defense but a little more foreign policy the u.s. stance on israel. we hear a lot that israel is supposedly our greatest ally. i kind of disagree.

you really just have to look at the history of the u.s.-israeli relationship to see why. we could go back to 1954 to the affair where the israeli military intelligence service recruited several egyptian juice to bomb u.s. and u.k. owned assets in egypt. they were eventually found out but nothing really came of the situation. supposedly it was a hit to the u.s.-israeli relationship, but we do not hear much about it these days. host: derek wallbank, is that relationship issue going to be in debate in the coming months? guest: there will be an issue shortly and i think you're dressed it the supreme court case yesterday, about people in -- born in jewelers loan -- jerusalem and whether they can put israel on a passports

instead of jerusalem. the supreme court said no. that legislation passed with a lot of bipartisan support to you would have a hard time getting something that was not seen as flabby pro-israel through the congress right now. benjamin netanyahu, when he came and spoke to congress, was received with thunderous applause the likes of which you rarely hear. there will be a big reaction. consider the caller brought up iran, consider that a lot of the frame for how we are discussing this nuclear deal in the works with iran is how it will affect israel. israel is very much the framework by which a lot of these foreign-policy decisions will be taken. host: florida up next, ted is waning -- waiting on the line for democrats. caller: thanks for taking my call.

my mind is going everywhere because the person on twitter saying the government is run by a private company -- the government is run by a private company. i did not call about that. i called about the overspending of the pentagon, the department of defense come over $1 trillion. we are not at work here at i do not understand it or this is ridiculous. take the test their money and a lid out like it is candy. i do not believe it. it is unbelievable. we should be a chance ourselves and we need to do a whole lot of infrastructure throughout the country. host: are those comments happening in the debates this week? guest: yes, especially the spending hawks. you have some folks who make the case that the spending has gone up seen and they will say that

afghanistan has wound down, we do not have a large, conventional army in iraq anymore and they will say where is the dividend from this, where is the spending relief. instead, you're looking at taking were -- the war funding and tossing up defense so you do not really get the cuts people thought were coming. to the caller's point of view, you hear this a lot in the conversation here. why don't we spend more -- consider the inverse happening in congress. you have a defense authorization bill passing and one chamber a defense of appropriations bill poised to pass and another. you have a highway fund and nobody has any idea how the world to pass. if your thought is the u.s. congress should spend more on infrastructure and less on

defense, that is the inverse of what the u.s. congress is prepared to do now. i would make this point. to the callers who have been saying the u.s. needs to make -- spend more on infrastructure, we have not seen a plan for how to replace, how to plus up the trust fund funded through the gas tax. nobody appears to squat -- to want to spend more on the gas tax. there is not really a great idea on what to do their. the house will take up the transportation spending bill. it could have a final passage vote as early as tonight. we have seen people on the republican side, the more conservative side, heritage action came out and said they would t-boned against the bill because it assumes another highway authorization that will

project to spend more than it takes in. host: on the highway issue, joni says -- you can follow along with those who follow us every day on "washington journal" and we appreciate that. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. we spend more on our military than all the other world militaries put together. if you think -- he just said all these republicans do not want to pass the highway bill. the president has been trying to pass a highway bill for infrastructure during his own ministration and they are always saying, how do we pay for and yet when george bush went to work, and spent all this money building highways overseas, i

might say, and spending all of this money, they said nothing. it was nothing, nothing in there. they passed it where congress did not even have to approve it. republicans now, and the democrats -- that is why i am not a democrat anymore. they are like they are brain dead. not all of them but most of them. they do not hold these guys foots to the fire. they are the cause of this big-budget. they created the homeland security department. it is one third the size of the military budget. that was created after 9/11. i hate to think it, but when you start looking at things, man, 9/11 opened a door for a lot of this spending. guest: you did see an increase in spending after september 11. you also saw an increase in spending after the economic recession as a way to stimulate

the way out of it. to the caller's points about infrastructure, you keep seeing this,. one thing i found striking about this debate is people are much more aligned with the policy. you are starting to see in a lot of states a difficulty in getting some of this through. it is not just the federal government level. it is sort of, you want a big fat tire so you can get off -- get all the craters in the middle of the road. i love the state of michigan. i met my wife there and got married there. but the roads are atrocious. they could not figure out what to do. so they kicked it to the voters and the voters kicked it back to them and said, no, chai again. it is astounding because really

when you get to some much of congress and so much of lawmaking, the fundamental point, the difficulty is how to pay for it. you see the struggle on the state level and in the federal level. host: the appropriations debate. the house is expected to consider urban development appropriations bill. a busy week. derek wall bank of first word is here. good morning. i would like to pressby bill clinton.

no it is not. it was created by danny bush. he and reagan. derek was probably at michigan. guest: the reason i say that and thank you for your call, this is a deal when it went through and that is what we're talking about. i appreciate your call and i appreciate your point. it is one of those things where you see these things from president to president. we have a lot of policies you see a lot of the initial rescues were under bush but obama takes

a lot of the responsibility and claims a lot of responsibility frankly. host: the bill goat -- 22 effect in 1994. i should get my facts straight. tina on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: i have a question. it seems that a lot of money went to epa regulations. it was there but as far as the $18 trillion that we have that is there no >> evacuated the briefing room. shortly after 2:00 about half an hour ago. the officers would not say what

prompted the evacuation and the white house had no immediate information about the incident. reporters were escorted to a driveway that separates the west wing from the neighboring office building. first are departing the west wing through a side door. that is what the a.p. reports. evacuations at the white house are rare but not unprecedented. we are told they are going to get under way. we got you live. house back in 15 minutes and have that live for you right here on c-span. mr. earnest: good afternoon everybody. just to give you an update on what transpired. as some may have heard, a

telephonic bomb threat concerning the room that we are now all in was called in to the metropolitan police department. the local police department contacted secret service and determined that for the safety of all of us they needed to evacuate the room and sweep it. fortunately here at the white house, the secret service maintains the resources that are necessary to quickly make the room safe and make sure it's safe for all of us and did that quickly. and now we're ready to restart. before i get to your questions, i used our brief respite to get some more information in terms of answering your previous question about encryption. and i can tell you that officials at the white house have received a letter, we are aware of it and we appreciate the input of these organizations. the administration firmly supports the development and robust adoption of strong

encryption. the president has acknowledged there could be a strong tool to safeguard and promote it. we are concerned about the use of encryption of terrorists to conceal crimes and other malicious activity. but the fact is that even though some misuse this encryption. there is a private communication and worth supporting. the cameras were pointed down. these are cameras that are owned by news organization. we were all escorted out. and nobody with our news organization but somebody cut off our ability to see what was going on in this room. who did that and why? mr. earnest: i was evacuated

along with you. >> these cameras are owned by news organizations. and somebody has gone to every single one of them, even the ones outside were tampered with. mr. earnest: this is the only room in the white house complex that was evacuated. reporter: you were evacuated as well. how far outside of this room did the evacuation go into effect? mr. earnest: i left the room. reporter: was it safe to be in the room. mr. earnest: i went back into my office. let's do this one at a time. reporter: was the lower press room evacuated? mr. earnest: considered part of the press area. the staff that works there came into my office.

reporter: any senior evacuated? it mr. earnest: is my understanding . reporter: call came into at 1:53 and the evacuation took place 2:14. more than 20 minutes passed. mr. earnest: this is a decision that is made by secret service based on information they received. i don't know how long it took for the information to be transmitted to the secret service. but again the evacuation was conducted to keep us safe. reporter: what was he doing? mr. earnest: he was here at the white house. reporter: was he in the oval office? mr. earnest: he was here. reporter: a bomb threat, right? mr. earnest: my understanding. reporter: why would the president not be moved out of

the white house? mr. earnest: i can't -- these are decisions that are made by the secret service and did that in the interest of keeping us safe. i suspect part of the reason moving you to the auditorium was a place where you could be inside and be in the air conditioning. but that's what they are trying to do is make sure they could quickly clear the room and allow us to come back here and go back to our business. reporter: we weren't in any danger? mr. earnest: no. reporter: is there any indication that it was connected to the security incident connected with the capitol hill? mr. earnest: i don't know. reporter: you went to your office? mr. earnest: i was evacuated to my office. it's not far away. reporter: a bomb threat that would necessitate evacuating this room.

not a very large complex. mr. earnest: i can't account for it. reporter: tell us how it is that the rest of the west wing could have stayed in their offices while we had to leave? is there some bomb sniffing -- between here and there. mr. earnest: i don't know the security measures that are in the white house. for a question like that, i refer you to the secret service. my understanding is they swept the room which involves the inspection of the room by some experts and i know that they had canine units. i defer you to secret service.

reporter: go back to the question i was asking before we were evacuated. reporter: could you find out if the president was moved? mr. earnest: i know he wasn't moved and see if we can get additional information. reporter: you were told toll shelter in place in your office? mr. earnest: i left the room. reporter: were you told to shelter in place? mr. earnest: no. reporter: was anyone else told in the residence to be moved or over here shelter in place while this was going on? they have gone walking through and no one was told to shelter in place. mr. earnest: i'm sure -- sharing

all the information that i have right now. based on a threat that the secret service received about the press area at the white house. it was evacuated for the safety of all of us and the secret service was able to quickly search this location and conclude that it was safe. as soon as they did, we were able to all come back in the room and pick up where we left off. reporter: you say it was to keep us cool. we were out there and you were in your office. and then they moved us further down into the next building on the campus and moved us even further back. it wasn't for food but because of a fear. with the proximity to everyone and everything here and you were not moved but we were pushed all the way back. is there something not jiving? mr. earnest: the questions that you have about decisions that are made by the secret service,

i encourage you to contact the secret service. reporter: they had to think about it coming in because i watched them, and talked about stopping the briefing. it doesn't sound right. reporter: did you talk to the president? mr. earnest: no, i did not. he was here at the white house, but i don't know what room he was in. ready to go back to our regularly scheduled programming? reporter: anymore about the nature of the threat? as it relates to law enforcement that would necessitate a limited evacuation here? mr. earnest: i'm not. i don't know what information was transmitted in the specific bomb threat other than the briefing room was identified as the location of that -- this

purported bomb. secret service had the threat. reporter: if the bomb was in the building, that you were so close to it essentially and as a concern that if the bomb was culled in and somebody in the press corps might have had on their person that the press corps was kept together in a small area away from the white house. do these raise questions in your mind? mr. earnest: i have complete confidence for them to make judgments to keep all of us safe. questions about why the decisions were made and how they were made, you can direct them to the secret service. ready to move on to another topic. reporter: you said the president was not moved today. have there been occasions in the past during his presidency?

mr. earnest: i refer you to the secret service. off the top of my head, no. i encourage you to check with the secret service. reporter: there was no bomb, just a threat? mr. earnest: that's correct. reporter: members of the obama family here at the white house, the girls and the first lady? earn i don't know -- mr. earnest: i don't know. we'll check on that. reporter: talking about a cabinet meeting. i wanted to clarify, was that before or after he had been made that you became aware of this breach? mr. earnest: i don't know of the precise sequence of those events but i will tell you it is not unusual for the president to spend time at a cabinet meeting talking to the leaders

of his government about the importance of cybersecurity, but i know as recently as the most recent cabinet meeting which occurred two, three weeks ago this was mr. allen: item and the president made clear to members of his cabinet how seriously he takes cyber security and how important it is for the leaders of those organizations to prioritize the effort to upgrade our cyberdefenses put in place software that can mitigate the threat from cyberintrusions and we have the tools that are necessary to adapt to the ever evolving threat. reporter: the health care ruling that is expected to come out of the court and upcoming trade vote. when the president and his top aids look at what is happening

in the next few weeks, how do they view these key issues? mr. earnest: going to be a busy summer and it is an indication of just how dominant the president's priorities have become in the political discussion in washington. and that's an indication that you have a president here who is doing everything that he can to drive his agenda. and at least one or two of the topics you cited are pretty good examples where members of congress failing to thwart the president's agenda through the legislative process and turn their attention to the courts. i think that's an indication of again of how much progress the president has made to advance his agenda and advance his priorities and hopefully, if we will be able to continue to implement them.

and when it comes to -- the president spoke at length about the upcoming or the recent arguments for the supreme court related to the affordable care act. and the president expressed some confidence that the administration would be able to continue to move forward with the implementation of the affordable care act in the way that benefits millions of americans, not the 16 million americans that got health care coverage because of the affordable care act but becaof americans that benefit from the consumer protections that are written into the law. when it comes to the ongoing iran negotiations, the president believes this is the best way to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and there are some in congress trying to undermine those negotiations. but the president remains determined as ever to see that

effort through because he believes it's in the interest of the united states and clearly in the best interests of our closest ally in the middle east and the best way to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. reporter: health care and trade. mr. earnest: the president has expressed some confidence that we would succeed in building a bipartisan majority in the house for trade promotion authority. reporter: should those events not transpire the way you laid them out, the trade bill isn't passed and the court rules against you, how much do you think that affects the ultimate impact of the president? mr. earnest: earn these are priorities that the president has identified and we are going to put -- we have expended political capital on each of those things to try to move them forward and we made important

progress in each of those areas and the president's determined to see them through because they are consistent with the kinds of values and priorities that he promised the american people he would seek to advance as president. >> we are going to break away from this white house news conference. take you live now to the floor of the house. up to six bills under consideration. live coverage right now here on c-span. te for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. conaway: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2088. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2088 a bill to amend the united states grain standards act to improve inspection services performed at export elevators at export port locations, to reauthorize certain authorities of the secretary of agriculture under such act, and for other purposes.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule -- does the gentleman mean to call up the bill as amended? mr. conaway: yes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas mr. conaway, and the gentleman from minnesota, mr. walz, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. conaway: thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conaway: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. conaway: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 2088 the united states grain standards act re-authorization act of 2015, and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conaway: mr. speaker, for nearly 100 years, the united states grain standards act has been the cornerstone of the vibrant grain trade both domestically and internationally. this law's relied upon not only by exporters and domestic shippers but the entire u.s. agriculture sector. the law establishes official marketing standards and procedures for the inspection

and weighing of grains and oil seeds that i would like to underscore the importance this law has played in establishing value and price discovery in the grain and oil seed marketplace. many of the provisions in this law are set to expire september 30 of this year. a lapse in authorization would disrupt export weighing and graining services imposing heavy berds on traders, inspectors and ultimately consumers. we should not delay in passing this re-authorization. i cannot emphasize enough. it is imperative that these inspections and weighing services are provided in a reliable uninterrupted, consistent and cost-effective manner. to ensure we fulfill this obligation we must provide a safeguard to ensure we avoid disruptions in service like the one that took place last year in washington state. the washington state department of agriculture currently provides inspection and weighing services for grain intended for export at the port of vancouver. the usda's federal grain inspection service has delegated this responsibility

to the western state department of ag in the event that washington state department of ag cannot provide services for any reason, then the federal government through fgis inspectors are staff torle required to step in -- statutorily required to step in. and that's not what happened last summer. an ongoing labor dispute, they discovered services and statements issued at the time, wsda acknowledged they withheld inspection services because of their belief that, quote, the continued provision of inspection services appears to be unhelpful leading to a foreseeable resolution unquote, of the labor dispute. instead of fulfilling their statutory obligation, the leadership of the usda politicized this situation when the agency also declined to fulfill its statutorily responsibility to resume inspection in grain and weighing services. services were eventually restored but not before significant costs accrued to all parties involved.

we worked hard to gain access to oversees markets. we are shooting ourselves in the foot when we cannot ship our products to these markets because state and federal agencies are unable or unwilling to comply with their obligations. the unability to ship our grain because there are in inspectors at a facility harms our economy. to address this situation, we could have been punitive. in fact, there were some who would have preferred we do just that but that's not what we've done and had no interest in doing. we simply want a safeguard merckmism to avoid this from repeating. with that we worked with the washington state of agriculture, labor unions, grain trade industry and usda. what we developed was a bipartisan consensus on a workable safeguard provision. i am pleased with this work product and i appreciate the help and support of ranking member peterson, subcommittee chairman crawford and subcommittee ranking member walz as well as representatives from washington state, both on and off the committee for their advice and counsel as we developed this legislation.

h.r. 2088 provides certainty to american agriculture, and i would urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bill. with that, mr. speaker i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. walz: thank you, mr. speaker. and i do rise in support of the u.s. grain standards re-authorization act, h.r. 2088. i'd like first of all thank the chairman of the full committee and of the subcommittee both of whom provided great leadership provided the necessary space to get all parties together and then provided for a final product that meets all of the necessary requirements that you heard the chairman talk about. i think it's well-known that u.s. grain producers produce the highest quality of grain in the world. it's the inspections of them, the gold standard of ensuring that quality backed by the federal government that allows us to continue this trade, and i think no one here wants to see any interruption to that service. no one here wants to see any lowering of the quality that we had, and so this piece of legislation i think in the best tradition of the ag committee

in this house was a true bipartisan compromise. it was working to find working solutions that made those things happen, and i would urge my colleagues to support this piece of legislation. this is how we're supposed to do business. it makes sure that business and capital flows correctly and makes sure there are standards in place to ensure that our buyers of u.s. grain known they're getting the highest quality product. with that i reserve the balance of my time and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. conaway: thank you mr. speaker. i recognize the gentleman from arkansas, mr. crawford, the subcommittee chairman, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. crawford: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the chairman for his leadership on this and certainly want to thank the ranking member of the full committee as well and to my friend, the gentleman from minnesota serves as the ranking member on our subcommittee. this is a great piece of bipartisan legislation. as been -- has been noted here, this is about 100 years since this has been signed into law and the grain trade has thrived over that century and g.s.a. has supported the evolution by

providing a backbone of stability relied upon by shippers, consumers and of course consumers. with the farm economy and so many of our constituents relying on grain and oil seeds get to market it's critical we act to provide stability to the grain trade like we're doing here today. this legislation accomplishes that goal in the following two ways -- many of the provisions in current law are set to expire on september 30 of this year. a lapse in that authorization would disrupt the current grain inspections process. therefore, congress should not delay in passing its re-authorization. the house is getting its job done well ahead of schedule by considering this bill today and i hope my colleagues in the senate will act soon as well. secondly, this legislation provides stability by ensuring we can avoid disruptions like that which took place last year in washington state, which was alluded to earlier, by the chairman. last summer the washington state department of agriculture disrupted this. since labor disputes do happen from time to time this was anticipated by predecessors which is why current law

provides a mechanism for usda to step in and provide inspection services in the event of a disruption. however the dispute deinvolved into a political situation in which the secretary of agriculture declined to use his discretionary authority to maintain inspections. while inspection services were eventually restored, it's critical we avoid a repeat of that unfortunate decision. unfortunately, the ag committee arrived at a bipartisan done census and found a way to -- conken suss and found a way of giving the industry more control of its own destiny. i urge support from my colleagues for this vital legislation. i thank the committee for all of its hard work to move this bill forward and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from texas reserves his time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. walz: thank you, mr. speaker. we don't have further speakers on our side. i can't stress enough for working this out. it was at sometimes somewhat a delicate situation but leadership for my friends on the republican side bringing in folks engaged brought this

compromise. i urge my colleagues in the senate to move this forward, give certainty to those producers who food, clothe and empower the world. i encourage my colleagues let's pass this thing and get further work done. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. conaway: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself the remainder of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conaway: mr. speaker, i appreciate my colleagues' comments, both the ranking member as well as the chairman of the subcommittee. we did work in a bipartisan manner. we worked out the differences of the bill. came up with a good work product. it is worthy of the system. i'd like to again emphasize as my colleague from arkansas did, getting this done ahead of time. these rules aren't out of date yet. and so would encourage my colleagues in the senate to lead -- follow our example and get it done quickly so we can get this to the president's desk. i urge support of the bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2088 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,

2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. conaway: mr. speaker, i move the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2051. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 95. h.r. 2051, a bill to amend the agricultural marketing act of 1946 to extend the livestock mandatory price reporting requirements and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman wish to call the bill up as amendd? mr. conaway: i certainly do, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway and the gentleman from minnesota, mr. walz, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. conaway: thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conaway: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. conaway: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 205 1,

the mandatory price reporting act of 2015. i want to begin by thanking my colleagues on the agriculture committee, ranking member peterson, congressman rouzer for joining me in introducing this legislation. i'm especially appreciative of mr. rouzer in holding a hearing to foster discussions that led to this important legislation. mr. speaker, h.r. 2051 is a bill to re-authorize the livestock mandatory reporting act of 1999. this bill, like the underlying act, and each subsequent re-authorization, has been the result of dialogue and consensus between livestock producers and other industry participants. i'd like to extend my gratitude to our nation's livestock producers cape the -- the national pork producer council, for their hard work and dedication on this effort. we fully understand that government mandates like price reporting can be onerous. and not only -- and that not all industry participants may fully embrace this program. that said, it's apparent over

the preceding 16 years mandatory reporting has become an essential tool that allows for greater transparency and price discovery within the livestock industry. especially as the industry continues to evolve. this re-authorization contains a number of industry-specific modifications propose bid the pork producers and sheep producers. we likewise include a provision that responds generally to industry concern regarding usda's arbitrary decision to shut this mandatory program down for several days during the lapse of appropriations that occurred in 2013 while other mandatory programs were deemed essential. following recollection tension of -- expensive negotiation cattlemen supported a simple re-authorization without any mandatory modifications. i look forward to work with them on future improvements they continue to pursue. mr. speaker, this is a simple bipartisan re-authorization that represents consensus among industry participants. i urge members to support this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. walz: thank you, mr. speaker.

i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walz: thank you. i do rise in support of the mandatory price reporting act of 2015. i thank the gentleman again mr. speaker i hope you see is a pattern developing here, smart barpg legislation passed in a timely fashion to make sure this country's business goes on uninterrupted. you heard it from the chairman, these programs are important for producers who rely on transparent, accurate and timely industry information. this makes an essential government program. as you also heard, the 2013 government shutdown disrupted price reporting. this designation will ensure if we ever find ourselves in that situation again, price reporting will continue on. this is the very least we can do for the hardworking folks who are out there. it gives our producers that certainty that will be there. it's the right thing to do. again, it's smart, it's bipartisan, it's timely and i would urge my colleagues not only support this but to make this a habit in much of what we do and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the

balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. . rouse rouse thank you -- >> thank you mr. speaker and thank the chairman for his good and hard work. as chairman of the livestock subcommittee which the act originated, i want to thank the stakeholders for their hard work to come together on the provisions of this bill. the mandatory price reporting was developed in response to changing markets with an increasing number of animals being sold with little information being accessible. as these structural changes continued livestock producers requested that price reporting be made mandatory. livestock markets are continuing to evolve and inat the present time to bring all parties together to strike a balance that promotes stability and transparency in the market. no one knows how to make it work

better than those directly involved and i appreciate the willingness to work together with the committee to craft this legislation. and i also look forward to working with our senate colleagues to continue the tradition of healthy dialogue between both chambers of congress, producers and packers on this re-authorization so we can make sure the modifications are executed as smoothly as possible. in closing, i would like to thank the chairman and ranking member and the committee staff for their tremendous help and guidance and mr. speaker, i commend this legislation to my colleagues. and i appreciate their support. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. conaway: i want to thank my colleagues across the aisle as well as colleagues on the committee with me, but remiss not thanking the staff on working on the standards bill

and those who worked on this one as well. our country is blessed to have our committee staff and they work together trying to avoid the kind of partisanship that permeates this body. i rise in support of this re-authorization and remind my colleagues that this does not expire until september 30 and we are ahead of the curve and i ask my colleagues to support the bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2394. the clerk: union calendar number 98 h.r. 23 the 4 a bill to re-authorizeize the national foundations act and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. thompson: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and stepped their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: i rise in support of h.r. 2394, the national forest foundation re-authorization act of 2015 and yield myself such time as i may consume. the national forest foundation has a simple mission, bring

people together to restore and enhance our national forests and grasslands. through the foundation, we're able to leverage private and federal dollars to support our nation's great forests in a variety of ways including planting trees, restoring and maintaining trails and the list goes on. in recent years the foundation has leveraged funds at four to one ratio and plans to continue on the success to raise at least $125 million for forest restoration activities. since the charter in 199 , the charter has been essential in helping to meet the challenges the national forest foundation faces. it includes 14,000 miles of trails are maintained. nearly 4.4 million trees planted. acres of fuel reduction completed or planned. over 120000 people volunteered more than 1.5 million hours with

an estimated value of $34 million. 36,000 youth are engaged. 80000 acres of weeds treated. wildlife habitat was restored or maintained and more than 3,000 miles of streams surveyed or restored. the foundation has taken upon itself to educate and engage the american public in the importance of our national forests and the natural resources found within them. it is part of keeping our national forests and -- viable and thriving for years to come. the national forest foundation works and this is a commonsense re-authorization. i urge my colleagues to vote yes. and i reserve. ms. lujan grisham: i would like to thank my colleague from pennsylvania for his work on this legislation and also for his work and dedication on the forestry and -- subcommittee

which we lead together. i rise in support of this legislation, the national forest foundation re-authorization act will allow the public-private partnership responsible for the stewardship and management of our national forests and grasslands to continue. this legislation would re-authorize the matching fund program. this program brings non-fd stakeholders together to keep us less prone to fire. this has generated more than $4 for our forests for every federal dollar invested. i have seen the benefits of this program in my own district. since 2010 the new mexico wilderness alliance has received grants from the national forest foundation to assist the forest service in conducting surveys and data collection on the wilderness areas within the new mexico national forests. this data has combated invasive species and improve forest

health. our national forests are in dire need of this type of management and restoration in order to maintain valuable ecosystems and prevent devastating and costly wildfires. new mexico, like many other states in the southwest, has been experiencing severe drought. and as a result we have had record-breaking fires that have burned hundreds of thousands of acres and have caused millions of dollars in damages. while we have seen some recent improvements, long-term projections indicate that drought conditions will worsen and spread to more states across the country. we must ensure this program which prevents costly and oftentimes irreparable damages to communities personal property and wildlife habitat receive continued support. i urge my colleagues to support the bill. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania.

mr. thompson: i thank the ranking member for her leadership and support on this bill and everything we do as a part of our subcommittee in agriculture. mr. speaker, i have no additional speakers. and so i would urge all my members -- all members to join me in support of this bill. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2394 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. conaway: i ask unanimous consent that members have five legislative days to include extraneous bill on the bill h.r. 2289. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. resolution 288 and rule 18, the chair declares on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 2289. the chair apoints the gentleman from idaho, mr. simpson, to preside over the committee of

the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 2289, which the clerk will report. the clerk: a bill to authorize the commodity futures commission to provide end users with market certainty to make basic reforms to ensure transparency and accountability at the commission, to help farmers, ranchers and end users manage risks, to help keep consumer costs low and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule the bill is considered read the first time. the gentleman from texas mr. conaway and mr. peterson each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. conaway: i rise in support of h.r. 2289 and yield myself

such time as i may consume. i want to start thanking the commodities exchange subcommittee. they have done a tremendous job working on these issues. held three hearings on re-authorization listening to testimony from the commissioners themselves. without their work, we would not have been able to move this bill today. h.r. 2289 does exactly what the name suggests, it provides relief from unnecessary red tape on businesses that make things in our country. end users are providing food, clollingting transportation electricity, heat and much more. companies that consume and transport the commodities use futures and swaps markets to reduce the uncertainties that businesses face. farmers plant their crops in the spring. they can charge customers at a steady rate. manufacturers hedge the cost of

steel, energy and other inputs to lock in prices as they work to fill their orders of the the fact is no end user played any part in the financial crisis of 2008 and no end user poses a risk to u.s. derivatives markets. as the agriculture committee heard, it is now more difficult and more expensive for farmers, ranchers, processors, manufacturers and merchandisers to manage their risks than it was five years ago. to address their concerns, h.r. 2289 makes reforms that fall into three broad categories, consumer protection commission reforms and end-user relief. title i protects margins that they deposit by codifying critical changes made in the wake of the collapse and bankruptcy of n.f. global. title 2 makes meaningful reforms to improve the agency's process

and doing so and requires the commission to conduct morrow bus cost benefit analysis to get it right the first time and avoid the endless cycle of delaying of unworkable rules. title 3 fixes problems faced directly by end users who rely on derivative markets. and narrowing the hedge definition, cftc rules discouraged the risk management activities that congress intended to protect in the dodd-frank bill. these burdens present challenges to american businesses and will cost them significant capital unless congress acts to provide the relief. title 7 of dodd frank sought to require that most swaps be cuted in electronic exchange two be subject to initial and variation margin in the central clearing

to the lifetime of the transaction to ensure obligation for counterparties and be reported to a central repository to ensure that they have the accurate picture of the marketplace. h.r. 2289 does not roll back a single core tenat of title 7. in fact not a single witness who appeared before the house committee on agriculture ever asked us to upend these principles but what they did ask for were fixes to the statute that didn't work as intend to provide for more flex built when complying with the rules and to bring more certainty to the commission and how it operates. and that's exactly what h.r. 2289 provides. . the commodity end-user relief act makes narrowly targeted changes to the commodity

exchange act. this bill offers meaningful improvement to market participants without undermining the basic tenants of title 7. i'm glad the committee put together a bipartisan bill because it provides the right relief to the right people. with that, mr. chairman, i urge support for the commodity end-user relief act and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: i thank the gentleman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. peterson: mr. chairman -- is that it? i oppose this legislation because it will roll back important financial regulations and interfere with the cftc's ability to do its work. i'm very concerned that h.r. 2289 will open the door to the types of things that created the financial mess that we're just beginning to get ourselves out of. so let me be clear. i don't have an issue with many

of the provisions that are relevant to end user protections. in fact, the dodd-frank bill that i helped write states very clearly that end users were not the problem and the cftc has been very receptive to that fact and taken that into consideration as they have aadopted rules. one of my biggest concerns in this bill is the new cost-benefit analysis. this is, in my opinion, all cost and not a lot of benefit unless you're one of the nine big banks who, as far as i'm concerned, have not learned a thing from the financial crisis. this not only adds an unneeded layer of government bureaucracy, it opens the doors to lawsuits from major banks seeking to delay or completely derail cftc rule makings. i also have serious concerns with the trouble that will be caused by section 314 the cross-border section of this

bill. chairman massey has been negotiating with our european counterparts to harmonize their rules with ours. i talked with the chairman a number of times about this and he's ensured me and it has been independently verified, they are 85% of the way getting a deal in this area. this provision in my opinion, will cut the negotiators off at the knees. and i'm worried that this provision will take us back to where we were and what was happening prior to the financial crash. the big banks at that time that have offices both in london and new york were playing us against each other getting the united states to water down rules by threatening to move their business elsewhere and vice versa. that was verified on committee trips that we took over to europe in discussion with their regulators. the cost benefit requirement, as i said, along with the cross-border rule, will cost

$45 billion over five years according to the c.b.o. and again, this is a cost that i believe doesn't have a whole lot of benefit. h.r. 2289 has a whole host of other problems. the bill unravels the transparency provided by dodd-frank, slows down cftc staff ability to respond to industry concerns, mucks up the commission's ability to issue guidance and rules if rules need updating or clarification and relit gaits a disagreement between -- relitigates a disagreement. this is a bad bill that can't be fixed. it should be defeated by the house and i urge my colleagues to oppose h.r. 2289 and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. conaway: mr. chairman, if i could i have a statement from the administration where they have indicated their displeasure with this bill.

mr. peterson: the fact that they'll recommend vetoing it i want it in the record. the chair: it will be covered under general leave. the gentleman from texas. mr. conaway: mr. speaker, this cost-benefit analysis provision in this bill is remarkably similar to the bill last year in which it garnered overwhelming support, including support out of the ag committee itself. cost-benefit analysis is an important tool for any regulatory agency to have at its disposal to be able to do. this agency did not use the cost-benefit analysis rule that was in place because it was so weak and toothless they basically gave lip service to it according to their own i.g. the cost-benefit analysis mirrors, in most instances, president obama's executive order from january 2011, that required all nonindependent agencies to conduct cost-benefit analysis in a transparent manner to enable to get to better rules in that

regard. with that, mr. chairman, i'd yield two minutes to the gentleman from north carolina -- excuse me -- california, mr. lamalfa. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. lamalfa: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank chairman conaway for recognizing me today. i want to rise in support of commodity end-user relief act. independentened users such as our ranchers, farmers manufacturers and public utilities, face risks that they have no control over on a daily basis. for years now they have used tools available to manage risks like the changing interest rates, such as a farmer who uses futures contracts to establish a guaranteed price to offset the risk of a decrease in crop value before harvest or a grain company uses -- using derivatives to hedge commercial risks associated with buying wheat from a farmer. this is part of their day-to-day operationes that allow them to do their jobs and provide products in an affordable and accessible manner. however, the implementation of

dodd-frank placed a number of costly burdens on our end users that limit their ability to use these tools. it is important that we do all we can to erase this unintended excessive red tape. one measure included in this bill today will do just that which is my public power risk management act which passed with the full support of the house last year and again is included in the bill today. there are over 2000 publicly owned utilities across the united states including one in my district in the city of reding, who have used swaps -- redding, who have used swaps. dodd-frank put them at a major disadvantage to private utilities by limiting their ability to deal with swap dealers. this bill will ensure that 47 million americans who rely on public power for electricity will not see their rates increase due to unnecessary regulatory policies. our farmers, ranchers and small businesses who pose no systemic risk to our financial system

and certainly did not cause the financial crisis should not have to face costly bureaucratic overreach from policies originally intended to protect them in the first place. i want to thank again chairman conaway for his leadership on this bill. let's help our agriculture community remain strong and doing business by passing this commonsense piece of legislation. mr. chairman i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: mr. chairman, i now yield five minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. scott: thank you very much, mr. chairman. as the ranking member of the subcommittee of jurisdiction for this bill, i'd like to address right quickly, if i could, the three major areas of contention here. we put a lot of time, a lot of work in this over the years. first, we want to deal with, as mr. peterson, brought up, some of his concerns and share how we're responding to that. i'm a sponsor of this bill. we worked on it. it's a similar bill to what we had before. first area i want to deal with is cross-border.

then we'll go to cost-benefit analysis and then end users. now what is important for the house to understand is that -- and the people of this nation -- is that we operate in a global market and our united states financial system is best served with deep financial liquidity. but if global regulations are not well harmonized are not well coordinated or we have good cross-border access then these global markets will fragment into separate regulatory jurisdictions and become far less liquid to the detriment of the united states financial system. we know now that the derivatives and swaps market at about $815 trillion piece of the economy and we must not and i'm sure we will not put our financial system of the united states at a disadvantage on the world stage.

by passing this bill, we will not do that. if we delay it again, we will be putting our financial system at a disadvantage on the stage. let me deal with the first concern that's been brought up. the claim that our legislation subverts the cftc's authority to regulate foreign derivatives this is flat out false, because at no point is an entity of the united states person able to escape u.s. rules and that the cftc itself has deemed equivalent. let me read section 314 that's been referred to. section b-28 of 314, it clearly states only the cftc can make sure that foreign entities regulations are comparable to the united states. at no point do we yield the power of the cftc to any foreign entity unless the cftc

makes sure that that foreign entity has equivalent rules to our nation. now, let me go to the claim that we're making to harder to challenge the cross-border and 1314. we're doing no such thing -- and 314. we are doing no such. it is important that if there is a country or a person in the world who wants a challenging of the cftc, it is in our best interest nike sure that they go through a petition process, and the petition process is there to give the cftc ample time, 180 days to review the challenge, be able to respond appropriately and after the commission makes its decision we request them to report to the congress for that report. now how is that making it harder? as a matter of fact it's making it easier and more transparent. now, the concern about the bill that attempts to rein in the cftc's capacity to impose certain rules on wall street

trades. this concern refers to what we refer to as u.s. persons and location tests. at no time mr. speaker, at no point does our bill state that u.s. persons are not subject to u.s. rules. individuals and transactions are still allowed to be carved in definition and thus subject to the same rules, the same tests and regulation. and our own commissioner who is a democrat served as cftc commissioner, she said this, risk should be about risk and not about location. tests should be about where the risk is instead of where someone wrote something on a piece of paper. now, let me concern about this business of the eight foreign jurisdictions with the largest swap markets which automatically, as they say, are comprensive -- have swap rules that are comparable to the united states.

yes, they are correct. but that presumption comes only after the cftc makes sure that those eight foreign markets have comparable rules to us. here's what it says in section 1. i quote the commission shall determine by rule or by order whether the swaps' regulatory requirements of foreign jurisdictions are comparable to and as comprehensive as the united states' requirement. i rest my case. now, mr. speaker, i want to talk about this business with the european union. the european union is discriminating against the united states. could i have -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. scott: mr. chairman -- the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for two minutes. mr. scott: well, i wanted to say this european issue is this mr. speaker. you got europe the european union they're over there denying our country status in terms of equivalency of rules. historically we've always had that, but mr. speaker, what is very interesting is they have already given this standing to jurisdictions that have the same regime as ours. now, why is that? something very strange is going on in the european union. they are discriminating against our financial system straight and bare. when they will go ahead and approve other regimes that are equal to ours but not ours. why is this a terrible thing? because mr. speaker, you can't -- our clearing-houses can't do business in europe if we're not qualified if we don't have

that equivalency. by taking that equivalency away, they're keeping our clearing-houses and businesses from being able to be used there because the other market participants would go elsewhere rather than come and do business with us. there's millions of dollars at stake here so we got to certainly deal with that. . i want to say something about this cost benefit analysis, because this is not all truth being told here. this cost benefit analysis is being put on because it has the way of making us being more efficient. mr. peterson brought up about litigation. we accepted and approved an amendment by democratic representatives and some

republicans to make sure the back door is protected. the court must uphold the decision of the cftc unless there has been an abuse of discretion. and in a court of law, abuse is a high threshold -- could you give me a few more minutes? the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: i've got my name on this bill and put the work and time into this bill, and it's important that i give the reasons why i'm supporting this bill. now this amendment says, as i said before that the court must uphold the decision of the cftc unless there has been an abuse of discretion. and in a court of law, abuse is a high threshold to attain. if a firm wants to challenge

cftc they know they better have compelling facts. the abuse of power is a discretion. and we are letting anyone know who would dare to pursue litigation against the cftc they better think twice. now about the funding, perhaps this cost analysis can help us build a case to take to the appropriations committee to get more money. the president has appropriately asked for more money for the cftc. year after year after year i have been asking for more money. but i do believe that if -- we put the cost benefit analysis in there again and we have a section in there where this cost benefit analysis would be succinct if it is done with an economist. cost benefits is an economic issue and economists should be doing that, not a lawyer.

so i believe, mr. speaker, that if we pass this bill, we will be taking a great step forward to be able to put our cftc on the world stage to be able to negotiate and rules and regulations for the united states of america from a position of strength not weakness. this is a very delicate time for us. and we are losing respect. look at the e.u. and other nations are treating us. could it be that we are losing this respect? why? because in a way of continuing year after year -- this is the third year of not re-authorizing cftc, by us doing that, we're not respecting ourselves, mr. speaker. now finally, mr. speaker, i do

want to say this one thing about the end users. this is a very important piece of this bill. they can't wait another three years. they need this relief right away. and we need to do and be able to get them out of an identification of being a financial institution. let me tell you why that is. end users businesses are end users, single entity that allows them to centralize credit or risk, however when the banking laws come in on finance, they put them in that category. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. scott: maybe i will have a chance to come back. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. conaway: thank you mr. chairman, i would like unanimous consent to introduce into the record a statement from the chamber of commerce and read a

couple of paragraphs. this bill takes a practical approach to address areas of regulatory implementation in the global derivatives markets. end users operate internationally and struggling to meet the demands of multiple conflicting and sometimes duplicative regulatory regimes. it would require the cftc to move quickly to make decisions that reduce needless complexities without reducing market transparency. the chamber promotes transparency and accountability including a requirement to conduct cost benefit analysis for new rules and support such analysis. cost benefit analysis has been a tool for effective governance for more than three decades and would protect from the unintended consequences of regulatory schemes. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois mr.

davis. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: i rise in support of h.r. 2289, commodity end-user relief act. it's an important tool that manufacturers and farmers to hedge the risks with doing business. because of the risk of price movements and commodities such as corn and soy beans, they use derivatives to ensure aren't negatively impacted by sudden changes in practices. the cftc look over this. the passage of dodd-frank in 2010 many of these responsible hedgers including farmers in my district have been impacted by these new regulations that often treat them as speculators. mr. chairman, farmers aren't speculators. farmers didn't cause the global

financial crisis and farmers shouldn't be treated like they did. this bill includes language that i authored to address regulations that could directly increase transportation prices for consumers back home. additionally, the final bill includes an amendment i offered at committee to remove unnecessary regulations created by the cftc that requires certain registered investment companies such as mutual funds to be regulated by both the s.e.c. and cftc. this language was adopted unanimously in the committee removes this burden that would not undermine this protection because the companies would still be regulated by the s.e.c. this bill is an important and necessary opportunity for congress to use the re-authorization process as a means to improve the regulatory environment and the impact it has on responsible market participants as well as exchanges, like the c.m.e. group which is head quartered in my

state of illinois. i want to express my appreciation for the work of chairman conaway and what he has done to get us here as well as chairman austin scott and ranking member david scott. this is an important bill. i urge my colleagues to vote yes. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: i thank the chairman. two minutes, i yield to the gentlelady from connecticut, ms. delauro. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. delauro: i rise in opposition to this bill yet again this deliberately sets out to weaken one of our most important financial regulators, the commodities futures trading commission. it fails to fix the biggest challenge. it prioritizes wall street's special interests over the

economic security of our nation 's families. this is a bill for another financial disaster like the one that led to the great recession and cost nearly 9 million american jobs. americans are tired of banking speculation and want big banks and oil speculators held accountable. they want to increase the transportation of our markets for market failures. that is cftc's job. this bill takes us in the wrong direction. instead of helping the cftc fulfill its mandate in an increasingly complex global structure cftc is one of two tin shal regulators reliant upon the general fund. the securities and exchange commission, the fd deposit insurance corporation federal housing agency and a host of others all collect user fees.

so should the cftc. this is not a partisan proposition. the first presidential to propose funding for the cftc was ronald reagan. every president since then republican or democrat has done the same. user fees would reduce the deficit while securing cftc funding for the long-term. the agency's responsibilities have been expanded in response to the bad behavior that created the financial crisis. i submitted an amendment that would have dealt with this problem, but the majority refused to allow it to be heard. we must avoid at all costs a return to the conditions that allowed the great recession to happen. and i urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas.

mr. conaway: i would like to remind or acknowledge to the committee that cftc's funding is up 49% since 2010r when the dodd-frank bill was presented. 49% increase in funding. with that, mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the former chairman of the house ag turlt committee the gentleman from virginia, bob goodlatte. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i thank chairman conaway for yielding and his leadership on this important legislation. i rise today to support h.r. 2289, the commodity end-user relief act a bill to re-authorize the commission. the cftc's mission is to foster a transparent balanced and functional marketplace. however uncertainty and delays this the marketplace mean higher prices for families and small

businesses across america. as the committee charged with ensuring the oversight of our commodity markets, it is our duty to make sure they are functioning properly. for the last several years, the committee, through the strong leadership of former chairman frank lucas and current chairman have done an excellent job of educating congress and the american public about the importance of our commodity markets and the need for our -- for a strong re-authorization. i worked closely with the subcommittee on commodity exchanges chairman, austin scott, on this legislation. he and his staff have been open and leading a transparent process that involved all stakeholder groups and took input from across the country. in an effort, i worked with the committee and the cftc to craft an amendment which was adopted in committee to address the issue of manufacturers being able to take timely deliver of aluminum at a fair price. these manufacturers support a

broad set of industries from common drink cans to airplane parts. the persistence of long disrupted cues for the delivery of aluminum licensed overseas, has attracted considerable concern for end users and the consumers of products which many americans out liz -- utilize on a daily basis. it could cost end user companies higher prices due to supply and demand implications from improper exchanges design and result in higher commod commodity prices. review the foreign board applications of metal exchanges and the status of its negotiations with foreign regulators. such status reports shall inform the cftc in determining foreign boards of trade for metal

exchange applications and such determinations shall be made no later than september 30, 2016. i would like to applaud chairman conaway and chairman scott for getting this bill to the floor today. this improves consumer protections for farmers and ranchers and implementing reforms to ensure a more balanced regulatory approach to help our markets thrive. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: i yield myself such time as i may consume. with all due respect to my colleagues that have been claiming that -- the bill does this and does that, there are a lot of groups that have a different view. over 200 some groups that disagree with how the impacts of these bills are going to affect the markets, including the chairman of the commodity

futures trading commission -- they are the people that have to administer this law. and we have a letter from the chairman that has a completely different point of view than mr. scott has and others in terms of how this will impact the situation. according to the chairman, he is opposed to this. he says i believe that many of the provisions in this bill before the committee are either unnecessary or impose reretire requirements on the commission. and market events and participants. make it more difficult for us to make adjustments to rule and achieve greater harmonization of swaps rules and with respect to the provisions to commercial end users' concerns, the agency has sufficient authority to address the goals outlined in the legislation and most cases has already done so. he also states that i have

concerns that title 2 of the bill includes language that would complicate the agency's long standing statutory requirmingtse to consider cost and benefits. imposing additional unworkable standards and creating confusion that is likely to lead to more lawsuits instead of data-driven analysis. it would have been harder for the agency to positive si respond over the past 10 months to market participant concerns. title 2 imposes procedural re wirements on the agency that are not followed by any other agency. these changes would make it difficult to ensure accountability and would weaken the condition for administrations to come. . so there is a disagreement of opinion of how this bill will

impact the marketplace and how it will actually work. and, you know if, as was claimed it wasn't going to have any effect i would be here supporting it but in my opinion this is going to have significant impacts on the way the commission does its work and would do more harm than good and i'd reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. conaway: thank you, mr. chairman. may i inquire as to how much time is left on both sides? the chair: the gentleman from texas has 13 minutes remaining. the gentleman from minnesota has 15 minutes remaining. mr. conaway: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: mr. speaker, i have a speaker coming but she's not here yet so -- the chair: who yields time? mr. peterson: we could wrap up, i guess. mr. conaway: you close. mr. peterson: well, i think i may clear my position. i was hoping we could work out

a bill here that could have the support across the board, but i just think there's areas we've gone in this bill that will cause more harm than good. i think it's not a good bill. it's not the kind of bill we need to give the commission the re-authorization they need to do their job. so i ask my colleagues to oppose the bill and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. conaway: thank you, mr. speaker -- mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. it should come to no surprise that those who are being regulated have a different opinion than those proposing regulations. in this instance, the roles are actually reversed. tim is a good guy, friend of mine. an individual i look forward to working with. doesn't like to change what he's got. if you look at the testimony that's been delivered, most of the folks on the regulated side, the end users, the banks, the brokers, the staffs,

everybody else, they didn't like what the cftc was doing to them. and so the cftc was able to power through that objection and i'd like for to us do the same thing. what we've asked the cftc to do is rational, straightforward stuff with respect to the changes at the operations of the committee itself. over the past four years the committee on agriculture has heard dozens of witnesses testify about the uphifle end users have been facing while trying to use derivatives markets in the wake of the reforms. while this congress tried to protect end users from harm, today it's clear there is still more work to be done. we can hope that cftc will take care of the concerns for us. one, sometimes they cannot. there are numerous oversights in the statute that have huge implications for end users that we correct in this legislation. 9 c.e.a. prevents many end users -- they have -- they

hedge risk throughout the enterprise. the c.e.a. requires foreign regulators to cftc even though it's a legal concept that does not exist in many foreign legal jurisdictions. the committee can't fix it. the d.e.a. defines some stripping their status as end users. the commission can't fix that. the core principles were lifted almost word for word from the core principles for futures exchanges even though c.e.f.'s and futures exchanges operate completely different as c.f.e.'s cannot perform many of the functions of the futures exchange. the commission can't fix this. certainly the commission can and has issued staff letters explaining how it would deal with the incongruities of the law. we know the problems and we should fix them. sometimes the problem isn't the statute. there are a number of end users we heard testimony about which -- issues we heard about that

the cftc will not fix because the commission simply disagrees with congress about how to apply the law. we know these problems too. the commission has promulgated a rule that reduces the transaction threshold which triggers the requirement to register as a swap dealer from $8 billion to $3 billion 60% decline, while there's still a -- while they're still studying the matter. we require the cftc complete the study and have a public vote on the matter before that automatic decrease occurs. the commission has proposed a new and significantly narrower method of granting bonified hedge exemptions. this proposal also dramatically -- also more labor intensive for the commission to implement. we should insist that hedging practices be protected. they have expanded the record keeping requirements, requiring businesses to trade only for themselves to have -- have no few dishary obligations to customers to retain any record

that would lead to a trade. this requirement demands that end users retain emails, text, phone messages and other records which a potential trade or hedge was simply contemplated or discussed. we should clearly spell out the end users need only retain written records for transactions. the challenges facing business who is hedge their risks in derivative markets are real that we have an opportunity today to fix some of those problems. every dollar that a business can save by better managing risks is a dollar available to grow their business, pay higher wages, protect visitors while lowering the cost to consumers. over the past week over four organizations have voiced their support for the important reforms of the commodity end-user relief act. businesses from agriculture producers to major manufacturers to public utilities need every tool available to manage their business and reduce the uncertainties they face each and every day. i urge my colleagues to support the commodity end-user relief act, to protect these companies and to ensure that they have the tools they need to compete at a global -- in a global

economy. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 2289, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate has been yielded back. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on agriculture, printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the rules committee print 114-18, that amendment in a nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment shall be -- no amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in house report 114- 136, each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to an amendment and shall not be subject to a

demand for a division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 114-136. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. conaway: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 114-136 aurd by mr. conaway of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 138, the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. conaway: this -- section, subsection, paragraphs and pleurals. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. any member claim time in opposition? hearing none, the gentleman from texas. mr. conaway: i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 114-136.

the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment aurm -- number 3 printed in house report -- it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 113-124. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wisconsin seek recognition? the clerk will designate the colt. the clerk: amendment number four, offered by ms. moore of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 88, the gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. moore and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from wisconsin. ms. moore: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment is simple. it seeks to harr monoize the regulatory regime for both the security and commodity base swaps. i'm so pleased to be joined on a bipartisan basis with representatives rick crawford, bill huizenga, and sean patrick

maloney in offering this amendment. as we all know, mr. chairman, the regulation of the swaps market is under the jurisdiction of both the securities and exchange commission and the commodities future trading commission. as such, legislation that amends the swap regulation must be addressed in both the securities law and the commodities exchange act. mr. chairman, i've worked with chairman hensarling, ranking member waters and the financial services committee and we have offered the same language to amend the securities law section of a bill. this amendment in committee mr. chairman, was adopted by voice vote. this amendment makes the same minor change to the communities exchange act section so that the regulatory regime is the same for both security and commodity-based swaps. this section of h.r. 2289

mirrors legislation, h.r. 1847 sponsored by representative crawford and has enjoyed a broad bipartisan support and passed both the financial services and ag committees without controversy and with the support and blessing of the s.e.c. why the amendment? foreign regulators in some industry -- and some industry participants reached out to the s.e. cremplet seeking too tighten the language, to narrow the requirement to share data to clarify the swap deposit data repositories are only required to share data related to the swap trade. the amendment will in no way weak b swap regulation or inhibit thing a gation of swap data. rather it will make a narrow modification to protect market participant information. and this change is supported by both the industry and the s.e.c. this bill has global impact on swap participants and regulators so i think it is important to

get it right. i applaud the s.e.c. for working with the industry to refine the bill and i want to thank the chairman and ranking members of both the financial services committee and the ag committee for working with me on this amendment and to the sponsor and co-sponsor of this legislation for also working with me for their support on this amendment. i do have some concerns about the underlying bill, the cost benefit analysis i think will hamper the regulatory ability of the cftc, but i do urge the adoption of this amendment. i'm wondering if it's -- i'd like to reserve my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. who claims time in opposition. >> mr. chairman, i do not oppose the amendment but i would like to claim time. the chair: without objection the gentlewoman -- the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i would like to thank the

gentlelady from wisconsin for introducing this amendment and the co-sponsor ms. moore, mr. huizenga, mr. maloney, while i may not agree with every position in dodd-frank law, i think today we're working toward the goal of giving regulators the tools they need to improve systemic risk. i think everybody everyone agrees that the lack of transparency escalated the crisis of 2008. in order to provide transparency, it requires post-trade reporting to swap data repositories or s.d.r.'s so regulate yrs or participants have access to data to help it system of far we've made great strides in reaching this goal. unfortunately a provision in the law threatens to undermine our progress. currently dodd-frank requires a provision to indemnify a u.s.-based s.d.r. for any

litigation relating to a request for market data. though well intentioned it's been -- the effect has been a relalktans to comply which threatens global data on swap markets and making it harder to see a pleat picture of the marketplace. without effective coordination monitoring and mitigating global systemic risk is severely limited. h.r. 2 9 includes a bipartisan provision that removes the indemnification provisions in dodd-frank this received broad bipartisan support when it came to the floor as a stand-alone last year, passing the house by a vote of 420-2. additionally both the cftc and s.e.c. support the fix this amendment makes a small technical change to make clear that only swap data can be shared with foreign regulators. it will ensure that regulators will have act stose a global set of market data which is essential to maintaining transparency.

again i thank the gentlelady for introducing the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from wisconsin. ms. moore: how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentlelady has two minutes remaining. ms. moore: i would like to yield to the gentlelady from minnesota the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. >> i thank the gentlelady and rise in support of her amendment. mrs. walorski: i join ranking member peterson in his -- in not supporting the bill before us. the changes proposed in -- ms. mccollum: this would stifle the committee's capacities to respond to rapidly changing markets and would add unneeded layers of bureaucracy. the underlying bill h.r. 2289

threatens the financial stability of hardworking americans by encouraging the same kind of risky behavior that led to the recession just seven years ago. i join my colleagues to join me in supporting the moore amendment however i urge my colleagues to use great cushion in voting against the underlying bill. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from arkansas. mr. crawford -- mr. crawford: i recognize the distinguished gentleman of the full committee, mr. conway, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conway: i don't oppose the -- mr. conaway: i don't oppose the amendment. we expect support on the amendment and on the underlying bill. we've had good support on why this is the right answer bringing the right relief to the right people at the right time and does not do the things spoken of in terms of rolling back dodd-frank. it's a light touch on cod dodd-frank and improves a bill oklahoma anybody would argue is

perfect but maybe they do argue that dodd-frank is perfect. i don't think it's perfect. it does need light touches. with that, i yield back. the chair: i thank the chairman and urge adoption of the amendment as well as support of the underlying bill and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 114-136. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from indiana seek recognition? mrs. walorski: i have an amendment made in order by the rule. the chair: the clerk will reminority rule. the clerk: amendment number five printed in house report 114-136 offered by mrs. walorski of indiana. the chair: the gentlewoman from indiana and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mrs. walorski: i'd like to thank congressman goodlatte and

chairman kohn na way for their continued support of my amendment. my amendment would encourage the cftc to keep both u.s. producers of aluminum as they proceed in their work. we might take it for grant bud aluminum is part of our everyday life used in everything from commercial packages homes and transportation. aluminum is home to 10,000 industry jobs in indiana that account for billions in economic activity every year. about 1,800 of those workers are employed at a plant that boasts the largest smelter in the united states, one of eight still in use in the country. my amendment provides an update on the status of consultation with producers and consumers of aluminum. to better protect the workers in my district and across the country, we must ensure the cftc operates in a transparent manner where the rules are designed to

help fair and open price discovery. it's imperative that everyone have confidence in the system and my amendment will ensure the protection of our workers, businesses and consumers. i ask my colleagues to join me in support of my amendment, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. who claims time in opposition. the question is -- the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. without objection. does any member claim time in opposition. if not the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. walorski: i'd like to yield to congressman goodlatte as much time as he needs. can i inquire about my time? the chair: the gentlelady has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. mrs. walorski: two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. goodlatte: as someone who worked hard to ensure that this

re-authorization process is transparent for commodity purchasers, users and the markets that facilitate these transactions i was pleased to work with mrs. walorski on her amendment to bring further transparency and openness to the issue of aluminum warehousing. her amendment would clarify that the bill's required report on the status of any application of metal exchange to register as a foreign board of trade should also include the status of consultations with all u.s. market participants including major producers and consumers. i applaud her for offering this targeted amendment to improve the underlying legislation and helpern in the alum numb market have the best information possible to strengthen aluminum supplies and bring the best cost for consumers, helping to create jobs and grow our economy. i support her amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from indiana. mrs. walorski: i yield back. the chair: the question occurred on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from indiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. the gentleman from texas.

>> mr. chairman i move that the committee rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes it. -- the ayes have it. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, having had under consideration h.r. 2289, directs me to report it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2289 and has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentlelady from the virgin islands seek recognition?

ms. plaskett: i ask unanimous consent that amendments number two and three printed in house report 113-146 may be considered out of sequence. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. plaskett: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 288 , the chair declares the house in the commel -- committee of the whole noelle -- committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2289. will the gentleman from idaho, mr. simpson, kindly resume the chair.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 2289 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to re-authorize the commodity futures trading commission, to better protect futures customers, to provide end-users with market certainty, to make basic reforms to ensure transparency and accountability at the commission, to help farmers, ranchers, and end users manage risks to help keep consumer costs low and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, amendment number 5 printed in house report 114-136 offered by the gentlewoman from

indiana, mrs. walorski, had been disposed of. pursuant to the order of the house of today it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 114-136. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from the virgin islands seek recognition? ms. plaskett: thank you, i rise to offer an amendment as the designee of the gentleman from arizona, mr. gallego. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 114-136 offered by ms. plaskett of the virgin islands. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 288, the gentlewoman from the virgin islands, ms. plaskett, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the virgin islands. ms. plaskett: thank you, mr. speaker. this amendment is very straightforward. it simply urges the cftc office of the chief economist to encourage applicants for employment by members of minority groups, women disabled persons and veterans. this is a basic standard that i

believe every corps at federal agency in america should and is willing to strive to meet. this is especially true when it comes to our financial regulatory agencies. in the years preceding the financial crash, cftc and s.e.c. fell down on the job. their failures helped set the stage for the crushing recession that followed and economic downturn affected communities of color. dodd-frank had offices of minority and women inclusion to promote dist diversity at the financial regulators and to ensure the interest of women and minorities would be protected by these agencies. i was pleased when earlier this month six regulatory bodies came together to announce the creation of joint standards for assessing the diversity practices of the financial institutions they oversee.

the long overdue -- though long overdue, this is a critical step forward that will help promote a more inclusive financial industry. while cftc did not participate in crafting these standards, i hope that by passing this amendment today we can send a clear message that congress expects the agency to demonstrate a strong commitment to diversity and inclusion moving forward. mr. speaker, this amendment is narrowly crafted but it promotes a far-reaching goal, advancing the fundamentally american principles of equal opportunity for all. i urge all members to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. who claims time in opposition? mr. conaway: i am not opposed to the amendment but i claim time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. conaway: the cftc in fact does have an office of diversity and inclusion, as has three people employed there and does work -- to work at this very important issue.

i'd like to put in the record a statement from chairman massad. chairman massad said our greatest resources are our employees. each of us plays a role in ensuring we recognize the benefits of the diversity we bring to our environment. the protections afforded by the equal opportunity act extend to everything we do at the agency. be it recruitment hiring, appraisal systems, training, or any other actions. all persons should be afforded equal employment opportunities at the agency in the environment which they can do the very best. i urge support of the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the virgin islands. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. pursuant to the order of the house -- pursuant to the order of the house of today it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 114-136.

for what purpose does the gentleman from hawaii seek recognition? mr. takai: mr. speaker i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 114-136 offered by mr. takai of hawaii. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 288 the gentleman from hawaii, mr. takai, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. mr. takai: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. takai: thank you mr. speaker. my amendment would help address cybervulnerabilities for stored government information at the commodity futures trading commission. as the bill is currently written, section 206 would require the commodity futures trading commission to come up with a five-year plan on technology acquisition. my amendment would add reporting requirements to congress on plans of actions and milestones for any known information security vulnerability. my amendment would include a detailed timeline with specific deadlines for addressing the known threats to make sure we

get any threat dealt with and solved in a reasonable amount of time. mr. speaker, we have seen recently that cybersecurity is a serious threat to our security. where just last week the personal information of over four million federal employees was compromised. this was one of the largest known cyberattacks on the federal network in our history. and only further underscores the necessity of this amendment. as we know, the threat is very real. networks are being attacked constantly by a variety of different actors and for different reasons. for example, there is evidence that our financial institutions have been targeted and other actors out to steal one of the best drivers that we have of our economic growth, our intellectual properties. cybersecurity is a problem that the entire government needs to address. the cftc will be storing very sensitive information and they should have a plan to place privacy safeguards on this

information when storing government data. if we are going to discuss budgeting for technology acquisition we should also be discussing looking at information securities vulnerability, a plan to address them and have reporting requirements along the way. this amendment is common sense and i urge my colleagues to support its adoption. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. who claims time in opposition? the gentleman from hawaii. mr. takai: thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from hawaii. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

the chair: the question is on the amendment in a nature of a substitute, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly under the rule the committee rises. mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 2289 and pursuant to house resolution 288 i report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings -- the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2289 and pursuant to house resolution 288 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on

any amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not the question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. those in favor will say aye. those opposed will say no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed will say no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to re-authorize the commodity futures trading commission, to better protect futures customers, to provide end-users with market certainty, to make basic reforms to ensure transparency and accountability at the commission, to help farmers, ranchers and end users manage risks, to help keep consumer costs low and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor will say aye. those opposed will say no. the ayes have it.

mr. peterson: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman requests the yeas and nays. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i above that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 235 the permanent enter net tax freedom act. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 235 a bill to permanently extend the internet tax freedom act. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, and the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and

include extraneous materials on h.r. 235 currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: the clock is ticking down on a key law that protects internet freedom. on october 1, 2015, a temporary moratorium on state taxation of internet access will expire. in 1998, congress temporarily banned state and local governments from newly taxing internet access or placing multiple or discriminatory taxes on internet commerce. with minor modifications, this ban was extended five times with enormous bipartisan support. the most recent extension passed in 2014. if the moratorium is not renewed the potential tax burden on consumers will be substantial. the average tax rate on communication services in 2007 was 13.5% more than twice the average rate on all other goods

and services. the f.c.c.'s recent reclassification of the internet as a telecom service embolden states to apply these telecom taxes to internet access immediately should it lapses. to make matters worse, this tax is regressive. low-income households pay 10 times as much in communications taxes as high-income households as a share of income. the permanent internet tax freedom act converts are the moratorium on a permanent ban as investors and consumers can permanently rely by striking the 2015 end date. this legislation prevents a surprise tax hike on americans' critical services this fall. it also maintains unfettered access to one of the most unique gateways to knowledge and engines of self-improvement in all of human history. this is not an exaggeration. during the 2007 renewal of the

moratorium, the judiciary committee heard testimony that more than 75% of the remarkable productivity growth that increased jobs and income between 1995 and 2007 was due to investment in telecommunications network technology and the information transported across them. everyone in silicon valley knows max's story. he came to america from the soviet union at age 16. he had $300 in his pocket and he learned english by watching an old tv set he hauled out of a dumpster and repaired. 10 years later he sold paypal, a well-known payments platform he co-founded for $1.5 billion. . that is the greatness of the internet tasms liberating technology that is a vast meritocracy. it doesn't care how you look or where you come from, it's available to anyone willing to

invest time and effort. that's precisely why congress has worked assiduously to keep internet access tax free. now we must act again once and for all. the permanent internet tax freedom act has 188 co-sponsors identical legislation passed last year on suspension by a voice vote. nevertheless, small pocket of resistance remain. they argue the internet is no longer a fledgling technology in plead of protection but it is precisely the ubiquity of the internet that counsels for a permanent extension. it's become an indispensable gateway to scientific, educational and economic opportunity. tos the platform that turned max levchkin from an immigrant to a billionaire. the need for this technology is stronger today thanst ever been. it's important to note that this

doesn't address the issue of state toongs remote sales made over the internet. it merely prevents access taxes and unfair taxes on ecommerce whether inside the taxing state or without. that said, the committee is eager to proceed with legislation that levels the playing field between traditional and online without letting states regulate beyond their borders. discussions continue. i would like to thank ms. eshoo mr. chabot, subcommittee chairman marino and subcommittee ranking member cohen for their support of and work on this legislation this boish legislation is about giving every american unfettered access to the internet which is the modern gateway to the american dream. i urge all my colleagues to support it and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from texas is recognized.

ms. jackson lee: i yield myself such time as i might consume. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. jackson lee: we have often worked in the judiciary committee as mr. goodlatte noted, in a bipartisan way as it deals with this new phenomena, or continually changing phenomena thork internet and the entire world of social media and the new technologies that we face today in communication. so i am always eager to find common ground and would have liked to have done so as we workled together on this very important bill, h.r. 235. as a senior member of the house judiciary committee, as ranking member on the subcommittee, coming from houston, i rise with great concern on the h.r. 235, permanent internet tax freedom act. originally enacted in 1998 it

established a temporary moratorium on multiple discriminatory taxes on the internet. this is due to expire on october 1 of this year. since 199 congress has extended the moratorium on a temporary basis. the bill before us, h r. 235, will make the moratorium permanent. unfortunately in doing so h.r. 235 also ends the act's grandfather protections for states that pose such access. there -- such taxes. there lies the crux of the problem for intruse into individual state's authority dealing with taxation and providing them with a bridge of revenue. h.r. 235 is problematic for several reasons. first, congress instead of supporting this seriously flaud legislation should be focused on meaningful ways to help state and local governments, taxpayers and local retailers. the house can do that by addressing the sales tax issue. in addition to extending the

moratorium on a temporary basis, we should give states the authority to collect sales tax from remeet sellers this would incentivize remote sellers to collect and remit such taxes as well as require states to simplify several proceed wrurs to benefit retailers. such legislation would enable states and local governments to collect more than $23 billion in estimated uncollected sales taxes each year. the measure would also help level the playing field for local retailers who must collect sales taxes when they compete with out of state businesses that do not collect these taxes. retail competitors should be able to compete fairly with their internet counterparts at least with respect to sales tax policy. i do know that a lot of our businesses are taking to the internet and i applaud that. but before i came here today i spoke before at least 100-plus small businesses. i can tell you that they are worth considering. for many of them are in bricks and hor -- mar tore and they are small businesses trying to increase revenue and trying to employ a number of employees.

we should thank them for the energy they provide to the economy. i believe the house should do its part and address the remote sales tax disparity before the end of the congress. second this legislation will seilerly impact the revenues for the grandfather protected states and all states progressively in the long-term. the c.b.o. estimates that bill will cost certain states several hundred million dollars annually in lost revenues. indeed the federation of tax administrators announced it will cause the grandfather protected states to lose $500 million in -- billion in lost revenue. for texas, this will result in a revenue loss of $358 billion and texas won't be alone in those losses annually. with that i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: it's my pleasure to yield to the chairman of the

scommall business committee, mr. chabot. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. chabot: thank you mr. speaker. i want to thank the chame they have judiciary committee, mr. good lat, not only for yielding this time but also for his leadership on promoting and pushing for this bill. the internet is an essential component of our economy. it drives innovation, job creation, and has resulted in a higher standard of living for virtually every american. the bill before us today provides certainty to americans by making the current law of the land permanent and protecting access to the internet against new taxes. mr. speaker, there is common ground in this chamber today. we all agree that the internet is an essential part of our lives and an incredibly powerful tool for communication, education, and job creation. let's not make accessing the internet more costly and more difficult. the permanent internet tax freedom act h.r. 235 makes the

current law of the land permanent and protects access to the internet from new taxes. that's why i would urge my colleagues to support the bill. the internet, it's essential to our everyday lives. americans use it to run small businesses, to do research, to apply for jobs, to listen to music, to communicate with friends and family check the weather and the traffic and for so many other things. since 199 , congress has made sure that access to the internet remains tax free. unfortunately this protection expires in october at which point taxes could go up on every american who wants to get online. now is the time to make sure that this policy remains permanent. now is the time to protect access to the internet. i want to again thank the chairman of the judiciary committee, mr. goodlatte, for his leadership on this issue.

let's make sure that access to the internet stays tax-free. that's the way it is under the existing law, what we're trying to do is make that permanent. i would urge my colleagues to do that and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: it gives me great pleasure to yield to the long-standing author of this legislation, the gentlelady from california anna eshoo for four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for four minutes. ms. eshoo: i thank the gentlewoman from texas, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of h.r. 235, the permanent internet tax freedom act. now whether it's communication, commerce, business education research, access to the internet is today an integral part of the everyday life of millions of americans and people around the world.

and we take great pride in this because this is an american invention. just this month, the g.a.o. released a new report which found that broadband affordability continues to be the most frequently identified barrier to adoption. now, this whole issue of taxation for access to the internet, is not the collection of taxes -- this is not the collection of taxes across state lines, that's another issue. now there are over 10,000 taxing agencies in the united states today. imagine if we, you, your constituents everyone in the country that uses the internet, has to pay for access to the internet. every time they go to use it. that they'd be taxed on that. and so the temporary or

moratorium bill we have, now this one, makes it pemple innocent. this is a bipartisan effort -- makes it permanent. this is a bipartisan effort, over 200 co-sponsors in the congress are on it. we want to encourage expanded broadband adoption. if you tax it, you're going to shrink it. i think in the communities that are of lower economic means this is going to hurt them even more. we need to do everything we can do ensure that internet access is universally affordable. this bill is an important component of that effort. by permanently eliminating the taxation of internet access, the current moratorium as my colleagues have said expires october 1 and we want to be ahead of that. to keep the door open but no taxation to access.

i want to salute the chairman, chairman goodlatte, we're good friends, we've worked on other efforts. this bill has nearly 200 bipartisan co-sponsors and strong support of the communications, internet and e-commerce industries. so i would urge all of my colleagues to support this and understand that from the ground up, we want to expand the use of broadband in our country. for every community. whether they're poor, whether they're rural, whether they're in a city whether they are middle class individuals, we don't want to weigh the internet down with taxation by average people in this country. it would really be unfair and i think it would smother the internet as we know it. with that i yield back the

balance of my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i have only one speaker remaining. i believe we have the right to close. so if the gentlewoman has additional speakers -- i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i'm delighted to yield a minute and a half to the distinguished gentleman from tennessee who is a subcommittee ranking member on the judiciary committee, and commercial antitrust subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlelady for for providing the time. i want to thank the chairman of the committee for bringing this bipartisan bill which is bipartisan. i signed about this bill, i guess with representative eshoo, and maybe representative goodlatte back in 2007. because it's my belief that the internet is a necessity and it's a necessity in minority communities who need that outreach to information, whether it's educational or commercial,

reach out and be part of the society. with -- without the internet you can't be that. now, the gentlelady from texas and my state tennessee, neither have an income tax. therefore, our governments rely on taxes that tend to be regressive. i think tennessee is the most regressive state in the country on its taxes very high sales tax. local governments will tax anything they can tax to make up for the fact that our state doesn't have a progressive tax base. i want to protect my constituents against taxes at all levels and protect them against taxes that would limit their potentiality of getting to the worldwide web and information they need. i thank mr. chabot, we worked on so many other bills together, and mr. good rat -- mr. goodlatte, i thank them for