much, mr. speaker. after september 30, when the authorization for the land and water conservation fund expires, that date is a looming date for the republican leadership of this house. with it comes the talk and the potential of a government shutdown. other critical programs that face re-authorization are also ending on september 30. part of the issue of leadership is to allow the house to work its will. and until this house has the opportunity to deal with this issue of the land and water conservation fund, we will continue to not know its status and watch the agonizing, slow and painful dismantling and end of this program. the re-authorization has in its history been bipartisan, bicameral. and this legislation enjoys

bipartisan and bicameral support, both republican colleagues and democratic colleagues are part of the 165 sponsors in the house of the legislation and the compromise in that committee was between the ranking member and the chair of they committee in the senate. -- of that committee in the senate. i think it behooves us to look at this fund. every day past the 30th of september, $2.5 million will be lost to that fund, money we cannot afford to lose. and to wait for the ashes of the land and water conservation fund after the 30th, and then to develop without bipartisan input, without the democrats playing any role at all, legislation that redefines the fund, that includes purposes for which the fund was never established, and redirects its funds into areas in -- which are far from the mission of the fund when it was established 50 years ago is effectively to kill -- is

effectively killing the fund. the cuts in land agencies in our federal land agencies and land management agencies that have been endured by the last four or five budgets point to the fact that the land and water conservation fund has become an essential supplemental support to many of our public lands and the projects and the outdoor activity theansd wildlife protections that the american people expect. i suggest to the house that this re-authorization should be devoid of controversy, should be devoid of partisan bickering and political grandstanding. this is a routine item that requires action by the house and before the time runs out, fully funding and fully authorizing the land and water conservation fund in a permanent -- on a permanent basis is what the public is asking for, it is what

165 members of this house are asking for, and i believe that the republican leadership of allow use has to act and the house of representatives, the elected representatives of the people of this nation, to work its will and take that vote. my colleagues have mentioned the economic benefit and priorities of the land and water conservation fund. let me just add that bipartisan poll found that 8 % of the voters support continuing to set aside offshore oil and gas drilling fees and that should go into the land and water conservation fund. and 85% of americans want the fund to be fully funded. it is -- for every dollar that is spent of land and water conservation funds that are invested, it results in a return of $4 many economic value from the natural resources, goods, and services alone. and i think it's worth noting

that $900 million come from those oil and gas offshore -- offshore oil and gas resources. $900 million. t of $17 billion that is collected from those fees and resources that are collected from offshore drilling and gas and gas and oil development goes for other purposes elsewhere in the government. so we're talking essentially about a very small sum of money that many of us felt should have been raised a long time ago. and we are jeopardizing this sum of money and in jeopardizing this sum of money further dismantling and further hurting the public's use of our public lands and more importantly, the protections and conservation and cultural resource activities that occur as a result of the

fund. it's a simple matter, bring it to a hearing, bring it to a vote. i would urge the leadership of this house that it is way pastime and to agonizingly wait for september 30 is not a function of government. it is cynical, it's wrong, and when you have a bill before you that enjoys the bipartisan support that 1814 enjoys, it's time to bring it to the floor and allow this congress to vote and allow this bill to be re-authorized on a permanent level. on a permanent basis. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the remainder of our time and thank the house for its indulgence. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker.

actually, mr. speaker, there's some people that it's more of a pleasure to work in this house with than others and mr. peaker, you're one of those. congressman buck. you're one of those that it's a real honor and privilege to work with you. now hopefully you won't gavel me down too soon but thank you. mr. speaker. i'm back here on the floor about one of the most important issues, maybe the most important issue of this congress, recent congresses, maybe future congresses, but because it has to do with whether or not the republican majority in the to just appear

,o oppose the iranian agreement or they're going to stop it. the corker-cardin bill was done, no reason to doubt with the best of intentions. i didn't vote for it. i could see what was coming, what i was afraid was coming, and it's what has come. but those that voted for it had a legitimate basis for doing so. because the president of the barack obama, had said, look, this is basically an executive agreement, he doesn't need to -- he doesn't need the senate's vote, and that's true if it's not a treaty. we had the secretary of the state say that he was, and he said it, negotiated a nonbinding

agreement. those are the kind of statements on which the corker-cardin bill was based. and so that bill gave the house and the senate each a vote on something that was considered to be nonbinding, executive greement, with iran. however, after the u.n. security council voted on it, finally, congress got to see this o-called nonbinding agreement. after the u.n. voted on it, then we could get messages about, gee, you cannot stop this because to stop it would put us in breach of the agreement. how could we be in breach of a nonbinding agreement?

well the truth came out once we had the chance to read this so-called iranian deal, iranian agreement. it is a treaty. there is no question it's a treaty. i don't care whose law you go under, you cannot amend a treaty with anything that falls short of being a treaty itself. just like here in the house, you can't amend legislation unless you amend it with other legislation, although we have bureaucracies like the e.p.a. and others who have just decided to go off on their own and start legislating against the clear and expressed -- expressed intent of congress. but it's not lawful. they're acting unlawfully. they're acting outside the bounds of the constitution. and the president's usurped

power that's not his and done so in setting out an amnesty. he spoke it, as any good monarch would, and then the secretary of homeland security put it into memos and they effectively changed law from what it was on naturalization and imgration, passed by congress, signed by the president. they just changed it with the president speaking it and then jay johnson, secretary of homeland security, doing memos. will -- well, that's one thing. it does damage to this country. but when we're talking about an agreement which under most every -- most everybody's description, it will allow iran to get nuclear weapons, there's disagreement on whether they ill be later or sooner, but it

seems to be almost unanimous that yeah, it's going to allow them to get nukes. but it will be later. others of us know. they cheated on every agreement they've entered since 1979 when they came into existence as mullahs running a country. yes, president carter welcomed the ayatollah khomeini as a man f peace, piece of destruction. but they've broken every international agreement in which they've participated since 1989. they've never been made to account, or held accountable, employees our embassy hostage for other a year. for heaven's sake, it's bad enough that the administration negotiated a man that's being charged with desertion in return

for giving radical islamists, back to terrorists, continue to create havoc and kill americans and others. but now, we're going to give them the ability to have an agreement, i guess if you're naive enough -- well, they've broken every agreement they've entered for 36 years, but this one we think we -- we and the obama administration are so special this time they're not going to breach this agreement despite the fact that the ayatollah himself and other top leaders still say death to america, they still say they're plotting the destruction or overthrow of israel, they still say they're plotting the destruction of the united states, and all the time they're doing that, we have people who

didn't learn enough from the disastrous agreement with north korea, that gave the north koreans nuclear weapons, now they're trying to -- now they're trying to same strategy if we're nice enough and let them have the wherewithal to produce nuclear weapons, then maybe they really won't do that and if they do, it will be years down the road, but, you don't even know in congress what the side deals are between the iaea and iran, where it says that this will hold iran at bay for eight years in this provision, or until the iaea states the broader conclusion that iran's nuclear material is being used for peaceful purposes, whichever is sooner, we don't even know what the deal between the iaea and iran is. i heard recently the iaea has

been quoted as saying that as far as they know, their nuclear materials being used for peaceful purposes, but they haven't been allowed into the military facilities for years. so they could turn around as soon as this administration were to decide the agreement is finalized and ratified and the iaea turn right around and say, huh, as far as we know it's peaceful material but we haven't been allowed into the military facilities where they're doing the real nuclear weapons work, and you know, they're going to give us samples and the samples they gave us showed they're using it for peaceful purposes, so surely they wouldn't lie even though they've lied about every international agreement they've entered since 1979. but for some reason these people think they wouldn't lie now. i'm telling you, this iranian agreement has to be stopped and

he united states voters gave the united states senate over to a majority of republicans in the last elections and as our great president has said, you know, elections have consequences. now he acts like the elections where we got a majority, republicans got a majority in the house, that that was not meaningful and he acts like the voters giving the majority to republicans in the senate, that didn't count, but it does count. . the only way it's going to count and have consequences is if the senate stands up, and i would encourage them, their leaders, mr. speaker, i don't think i'm asking too much to ask that the

republican leadership have the same or close to the same amount of backbone that harry reid did when he suspended cloture on confirmations. i hope that's not too much to ask. just have harry reid -- just -- almost as much as harry reid has stood up for things he believes in, we're asking the senate to -- the republicans in the senate, please stand up almost as much as harry reid did when he set aside cloture on confirmations. now, a number of us sent a letter to senate majority leader mcconnell down the hall imploring him to treat the iranian agreement as the treaty it is. because if they just go along ith the fiction that the iranian agreement does fall under the corker bill and

therefore it takes 2/3 to disapprove in the senate, 2/3 to disapprove in the house, here in the house we've said, the corker bill at least doesn't apply at this time for sure. i'd submit it doesn't apply at all. but, all we have to do is rely on our founding document, the constitution, ratified, made effective 1789, written 17 7 -- 1787. and this article 2, section 2, second paragraph, beginning of the paragraph, says, the president shall have power by and with the advice and consent of the senate to make treaties provided 2/3 of the senators present concur. so, last thing the president wants is for us to follow the constitution here. because the iranian agreement is a treaty, it modifies other treaties like the nonproliferation treaty.

it also, as was specifically not contemplated in the corker bill, is deals with allowing them to have weapons, purchase weapons, armaments, that was not supposed to be in the iranian agreement. it also addresses the sanctions, allowing them to have over $100 billion to $150 billion so they can use it for terrorist activity, so that more americans and israelis, jews, christians can be terrorized and killed, and, i shouldn't fail to mention, moderate muslims. they're at every bit as much risk or more as christians and jews because the first people they go after are muslims that disagree with them. so, it's clearly a treaty. so all the senate has to do is

take the example that harry reid gave, when he set aside cloture with 51 democratic votes, so they could get through a whole bunch of judges , confirmed, must have been in hopes that they could have judges get to the bench that might have been stopped otherwise, judges like justice ginsburg and justice kagen who violated the law by not disqualifying themselves on the same-sex marriage ruling. they performed same-sex marriages, the law requires them to therefore disqualify themselves, because by their actions and words they made clear they thought it was constitutional, their impartiality was beyond being reasonably questioned. they didn't have any impartiality.

so i guess when leader reid at to ime got 51 democrats remove cloture as a problem for their confirmations, he probably did get some more judges confirmed. this is so much more serious, even than that. as serious as that is. because if the senate does not treat the iranian agreement as , then the t is president's already saying he's going to treat it as being approved/ratified, what's that means -- that's what that means, and when our u.s. administration treats the , nian agreement as ratified

then when our dear friend in the middle east, israel, defends itself, then the united states, under commander in chief barack obama, will have to be at war with israel for defending themselves against iran continuing to move toward nuclear weapons. now, it's possible, i don't think it will happen, but it's in ble that squeemish israel could win the day by saying, when we said never again all those years, we meant never again except we're going to let iran have nukes and let them nuke us once they have nuclear weapons, but other than the millions that -- jews that may be killed with nuclear weapons, iran -- other than that we mean never again. but i don't think that's what a

majority of israelis are going to accept. and i have such complete respect for prime minister netanyahu, disdry agree with him on issues, -- disagree with him on issues, that's what friends often do. i don't believe when prime minister netanyahu has said never again, he meant never again after the iranians nuke israeli cities. so they're going to have to do something. and if the senate, with the republican majority, does not stand up and have a ratification vote on this treaty, the iranian treaty, and in that vote fail to get the 2/3 to concur, as our constitution requires, then the president is going to go forward as if it were ratified. and the consequences in the

middle east and to the united states will be absolutely devastating. as bad as the leadership is in north korea, they're not radical islamists. do leaders in north korea not advocate or least haven't been advocating suicide bombers . they haven't been advocating that if you die blowing up lots of innocent people in israel or he united states you go to paradise, they don't advocate that in north korea, so this is 10 times -- many, many, many times worse than north korea aving nukes. this is something that would be written about in history books

years from now, if the republican majority in the senate don't stand up it. will be written -- up. it will be written that when iran got nuclear weapons, because the republicans that were given the majority in the senate, were given the majority in the house, but they refused to use their majority to vote on ratification of what was clearly a treaty. as a result the president was able to move forward as if it had been ratified. iran got nuclear weapons. and millions of people died. and it changed -- changed the course of western civilization forever. if they had to have their way, we're headed for a dark ages ith nukes leading the way.

and that will be on our heads. the blood from all those lost lives, all of the murders, all of the bombings, all of those hat occur with the tens of billions of dollars that the obama administration gives to iran, all of those will not just be on president obama's head, they will be on all of our heads because america gave us the majority in the house and the senate and we didn't have the nerve to stop this orrendous, disastrous treaty with iran. . . speaker, i made an offer

if the house, i asked that the house just pass my resolution, which laid out this path for stopping this iranian treaty, but it ended with the senate calling a vote on ratification. as a treaty, the iranian agreement is, they fail to get 2/3, it can't be enforced in any united states court or any court anywhere around the world because our constitution requires ratification, the senate took the vote and they did not ratify it. i said, if the senate follows up the house and does that, i won't run again. i know that will make a lot of people happy. especially those that i'm making very angry tonight with what i've got to say. and i know that there's a debate on. so probably most republicans that are politically plugged in

are watching the debate. but i skiped some of the debate -- skipped some of the debate. i cannot avoid taking the opportunity at least one more republicans in the senate to stop this disaster to western civilization. so this chapter never has to be written about the demise of western civilization, going back to when the senate refused use their power to stop a horrendous treaty it gave to the biggest supporter of terrorism, all in the instrumentality, all the money they needed to set western civilization back 100 years. so here i am, mr. speaker.

i promised you i wasn't going to take 30 minutes. ut i had to take time to beg the senate. use your majority, 51 votes is all it takes. and, yes, i know, i know, the president normally sends things over that get on the executive calendar and that's when you vote on things from the president. i get that. the president sent over this agreement. he didn't call it a treaty but you should recognize it's a treaty. there are one of two ways to bring it to the floor. one is, you can say it's part of the executive calendar, he sent it over to us and under our own procedure, we set that for a vote, but it's a treaty, so we're treating it as a treaty and it's made through the executive calendar. i get that. you can do that. in the senate, mr. speaker. they could. or the other way is just to say, look, the constitution does not require that the

president send us a treaty and say, here's a treaty, now ratify it, for us to take a vote on a treaty on whether or not to ratify. that's not in the constitution. it's in the senate rules. and what does it take to suspend the senate rules? 51 votes. and the senate has that many votes. that know how bad this deal is. so take the 51 -- either call it on the executive calendar, because the president submitted . or suspend both the calendar rule and the cloture rule with 51 votes and then bring it to the floor of the senate for a vote and you won't get the 2/3 needed to ratify it and we can all proclaim this iranian treaty is dead. and then we don't risk defending iran against our

friend israel, in the beginning of a war that should never have to start. the alternative to this horrendous treaty is not war. as michael oren once said, the day iran believes the united states is a credible threat to attack its nuclear facilities is the day they stop enriching uranium. and he's exactly right. . i hope he doesn't mind my saying that, but he was exactly right. war is not inevitable. it doesn't need to be. we don't need it. but if this iranian treaty is not stopped by the senate, it's going to be a war that we don't see coming, at least our leaders don't. and millions die. doesn't have to happen. i hope and pray it won't. i urge the senate to do the right thing have a vote on

ratification. stop the iranian treaty and then we can get a better deal. mr. speaker, with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12a of rule 1, the house will stand >> this week the house is expected to take a vote on legislation that would remove federal funding from planned parenthood. upcoming visit to the u.s., c-span has live coverage from washington, the first stop on the pope's to her. -- two or.

he will start with a welcoming ceremony, and then meet with president obama. on thursday, september 24, the pope makes history becoming the first pontiff to address the house and the senate during a joint meeting. live coveragethe of the historic visit to washington. watch live on television or online on c-span.org. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> in a meeting with business leaders, president obama called to avoid government shutdown by passing a budget before the deadline. the president also discussed how he will address computer security in a meeting with china's president next week. this is one our intimate -- and 10 minutes. [applause] obama: thank you so

much everyone, please have a seat. thank you randall, and everyone here at the business roundtable. i will say a few words, and hopefully spend a lot of time taking your questions. seven years ago today was one of the worst days in the history of error economy -- our economy. streetread the wall journal you saw that the shots from aig and lehman shot worldwide. in the months after, businesses would go bankrupt, millions of americans would lose their jobs and homes, and the economy would reach the brink of collapse. that was where we were when i became chief executive. here is where we are today. businesses like yours have created more than 13 million new jobs over the past six months -- 66 months. that is the longest streak of job growth and record.

the unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in seven years. there are more job openings now than any time in the history. housing has backed back -- bounced back. we have made enormous strides in traditional energy sources and clean energy sources while andcing carbon emissions, our education system is actually making significant process -- progress with significant gains in reducing the dropout rate, reading and math scores increasing. and by the way more than 16 million have health insurance the did not have before -- have it before. this progress is a testament to american business and innovation. it is a testament to the workers you employ. i will take credit as well. it is a testament to some good

policy decision. -- decisions. soon after we took off as we rescued the auto industry, worked to rebuild the economy on a stronger foundation for growth. other countries in some cases embraced austerity as an ideology without looking at the data and facts, the results become himself -- speak for themselves. has come back faster than almost every advanced nation honor. at a time of volatility, we remain the world's safest, smartest investment. i will not be satisfied, and we as a country should not be set of items health or working families are feeling the recovery in their lives. the fact is that what i've called middle class economics has been good for business. corporate profits have hit an all-time high.

slowing health care prices, and plummeting costs have hit the bottom line. -- bottom line. the stock market has more than doubled 2009 -- since 2000 and. technological entrepreneurs have continued to make incredible products that are changing our lives rapidly. you would not know any of this listening to were the folks seeking this office that i occupy. [laughter] in the echoes chamber -- echoed that is presidential politics, everything is dark and torible, they do not seem offer many solutions for the

disasters they perceive, they are >> to tell you to blame -- quick to tell you who to blame. i am here to say there is nothing particularly patriotic about talking on america, especially when we stand as an economic strength in the world. right now we have a chance to build on progress that we have made. we have a chance to grow the economy faster, create jobs faster, which people's incomes and prospects faster. we have to make some sensible choices. i am going to focus on one next fiscalmerica's year is almost upon us. congress has about two weeks to pass a. -- budget. if they do not, they will shut down the government for the second time in him was two years. democrats are ready to sit down

and negotiate with republicans today. it should be over legitimate questions of spending and revenue, not unrelated ideological issues. you will recall two years ago republicans shut down the government because they did not like obamacare. today some are suggesting the government should be shut down because they do not like planned parenthood. that is not good sense, and it is not good business. the notion that we play chicken with an $18 billion economy and global markets that are already skittish all because an issue around a woman's health provider that received less than $.20 out of every thousand dollars in the federal budget is not good policy. the last time republicans shut down the government it costs the economy billions of dollars, consumer confidence plummeted. i do not think anyone here things that will be good for business.

i have always believed what our first republic and president, a guy from my home state named ibrahim lincoln believed -- abraham lincoln believed, that through government we should do together those things we cannot do as well by ourselves. funding infrastructure projects. workfare --e best work force in the world. funding research and development of businesses can take that research and create new services. setting basic rules for the market place that encourage the nation and fair competition that help a market-based economy thrive. creating safety nets that not only help the most honorable and the society, but also freeze all and protecte risks against life's uncertainties.

and welcoming instead of disparaging immigrants. is that congress aims higher than just not shutting the government down. that is a good start, we would like them to achieve that, but i think we can do better. we can actually do some things to help the economy grow. after the last shut down, both parties can together and unwound some of the irrational cuts to the economy and the military readiness that is known as sequester. that agreement expires in two weeks as well. for those of you who are not up-to-date with federal budget terminology, sequester are basically automatic, topline cuts that do not discriminate, do not think through what are good investments, and what our , if we do notstes

reverse the cut currently in place, a lot of the things your companies depend on, research, job training, education for the workforce, they will be reduced effectively at a time when other countries around the world are racing to get ahead. on the other hand if congress does reverse cuts, our own budget office estimates it would add about .5 million jobs to the economy next euro loan -- next year alone. keep in mind that we can afford it. all of the things i said in also of recovery, we have reduced the deficit by two thirds. it is about 2.8% of gdp. we have reduced the deficit faster than some of those countries that pursued strict

austerity policies that were not thinking about how to grow the economy. we are well positioned without adding to the deficit. i want to repeat, since i took office, we have cut the deficit by more than two thirds, the good news is we may be moving beyond some of the stale debate we have had about spending and revenue over the past few years is what economists and people who are knowledgeable about the budget listens to as opposed to this being given by short-term politics. people in both parties, including some of the leading republican candidates are -- for president have been putting up proposals, some i agree with, some i do not. i will give you an example, you have two leading candidates in the republican side who has said we should all make the carried interest loophole. there is disagreement in the three about that.

-- in this room about that. i will tell you that keeping this tax loophole that leads to folks who are doing well paying over rates than their secretaries -- low where rates than their secretary is not a responsible way to improve the economy. if we close the loophole, we could double the number of workers in america's job-training programs. we could help 4 million students afford college. that are sensible choices if you were running your business and took a look at it, you would make the decision. america should as well. this is an example of how we can maintain fiscal responsibility while at the same time making the investments we need to grow. the bottom line is -- seven years ago if we had listened to some politicians who said we could only cut the way to

prosperity, the fact is we would be worse off today. if he listened to them now, we would be worse off tomorrow. i hope that you will talk to your friends in congress, democrats and republicans alike as congress flirts with another shutdown, remind them what is it -- at stake. we will have disagreements sometimes, i do not act to get from-- expect to get 100% what i want in any conversation, including with my wife. i do expect us to stay focused on why we are here. which is to help the american people, and businesses like yours and your workers do better. that is our job, we are not supposed to impede progress, we are supposed to accelerate progress. put commoners can sense over ideology and the good of the country over the good of the party, then we will do just fine.

perennial doom and gloom that is inevitably part of a campaign, america's winning right now. america is great right now. we can do even better. so confidentam about the future is not because of the government or the size of our gdp or military, but because everybody in this country that i theirregardless of station in life, race, religion, the region they live, they do believe in a common creed, if people work hard in this country, they should be able to get ahead. i know that is what you believe. those are the values you try to instill in your companies as well. that decency and

hard work, common sense will be reflected in washington. with that, let me take questions. , sincestart with randall he volunteered for what i am sure is the thankless job of being here. randall: [laughter] i will get it going here. leader mcconnell was here earlier, he gave us all a cause to exhale talking about the budget. he seemed confident we would get to a place for we have a budget. in the context of that, he spoke about house government can actually provide opportunities for getting big things done that might be hard otherwise. he gave you a strong complement -- president obama: my head is snapping. what did i do? randall: you worked

aggressively. everyone is couple metairie of the work -- complementary about the work. talk to us a little bit about your view of the opportunity to get the transpacific deal done. president obama: i am confident we can get it done this year. should beministers meeting again sometime in the next several weeks. they have the opportunity to close the deal. most chapters have been completed at this point. i am confident that it will in fact, which are central goal, which is to make sure we have a level playing field for american businesses and workers in the fastest-growing region the world. there are going to be protections for labor and environmental standards, but also for i.t.

protection. whenfor making sure that any company here makes an investment they are not being just a damaged -- disadvantaged, but are instead being treated like domestic companies for commercial purposes. the notion here is that we have --nations who were present represent the fastest-growing, most populous part of the world, buying into a high standards ande deal that allows us your companies on a consistent basis to compete. , with a lot ofs tough negotiating and pushing and pulling, occasionally i get , i think that we will

get this done. the key then, once we close the negotiations and we have ttp throughs to get congress. we got it through, i will return ,he couple met -- koppelman mitch mcconnell worked very hard to get it done. we should not assume know that because the authority was done that we automatically are going to be getting it done. i will be honest, the reason is that the politics around trader tough -- trade are tough. i have said this in the region -- run up to getting tpa authority, a lot of americans when they think of trade and got plants in their

hometown shutting down and moving to mexico or china, and american manufacturing and good paying jobs being lost. the argument that i have made consistently to democrats has been that there may have been some mistakes made in past trade agreements, and not for example having enforceable labor and environmental provisions that with american companies doing the right thing at a disadvantage. that there were not enough safeguards for intellectual , and the abuses of state owned enterprises and subsidies that companies may have been involved with. that is the status quo now.

if you want to correct that, we have to raise the bar. i did not fully persuade on my democratic -- all of my democratic colleagues. case tolling to take my be democratic caucus and talk to my friends in organized labor and say that we cannot look backwards, we have to look forward. we will have to compete in these areas. the concern politically is that within their public and party -- republican party, some of the same impulses that are anti-immigration reform, some of -- same impulses that are that see the entire world is a threat and we have to wall ourselves off, some of those same impulses start creeping into the trade debate. wasrty that traditionally pro-free trade, now has a

substantial element that is -- mayfield of family -- mayfield of family. , i think theyt are on the right program, they will need help potentially with membership. the closer we get to political season, the tighter the gloves get. i am confident that if i am presenting an agreement to congress, it will meet the commitment that i made that this will be the highest standard, most progressive trade deal in american history. it will be good for american business and americans. all right. hello mr. president, thank you for being with us. i wanted to asking about -- i wanted to ask about iver

security -- cyber security. we are very supportive of the legislation that has passed the house and is in progress in the senate. i wanted to get your thoughts on how you are thinking about this, and also with the upcoming visit of the president of china about cyber security and our relationship with china. president obama: this is an issue that is not going away. , andll be more important it will be challenging. it is challenging in part itself, theinternet architecture of it was not intended to carry jillions of dollars -- trillions of dollars of transactions and everyone's personal information.

it was designed for professors to trade academic papers. the kind of security that we are looking for was not embedded into the dna of internet. the vulnerabilities are significant. they are being exploited by not actors, but also nonstate actors, little it gangs -- criminal gangs at accelerating paces. from a something business perspective that we will concentrate on. one of the issues that you mentioned that we are focused on is this encryption issue. legitimate tension around this issue. , the strongerd the encryption, the better we

can protect data. there is an argument that says we want to turbocharge our encryption so no one can crack it. havee other hand, if you encryption that does not have any way get in there, we are now , childing iso--- isil for not her first, others to essentially operate within a black box in ways that we have never expands before. about thealking countries around nsa come i am talking about the traditional thethe i going to -- traditional fbi going to a judge and getting a warrant, but still cannot get in.

we have created a process around which to see if we can square the circle here and reconcile the need for greater and greater legitimate and the needs of national security and law enforcement. i will not say that we have cracked the code yet, but we have some of these artists folks , not just in government, but weo in the private sector -- have some of the smartest folks, not just in government, but also in the private sector. people are on different sides of this. china, this will probably be one of the biggest discuss,discussed, -- we have repeatedly said to the chinese government that we understand that traditional intelligence gathering functions

that allstate engage in -- in, we will doe everything we can to stop you into transcriptions i have had, but we understand he will try to do that. -- you will try to do that. ,hat is fundamentally different engaging in espionage and stealing trade secrets, proprietary affirmation from companies -- information from companies, that we consider and act of aggression that we can stop. we are preparing a number of measures that will indicate to the chinese that this is not just a matter of us being mildly upset, but is something that strains ongnificant

a bilateral relationship. actionprepared to take in order to get their attention. my hope is it gets resolved shorter than that. ultimately big all should be to ultimately the goal should be to have some international rework that will not be perfect because there will still be a lot of nonstate actors and hackers who are very good. we will still have to have good defense. have to find fingerprints of those and apprehend them, and stop networks engaged in cybercrime. amongst states there has to be a --mework that is annapolis analysis to what we have done to nuclear power.

the chinese and russians are close, we are still the best. if we want to go on offense, a whole bunch of countries that have significant problems. we do not want to see the internet weaponize in that way -- weaponize in that way. if we and the chinese are able process foraround a negotiations, i think we can bring a lot of other countries along. >> we will work with you on that. >> thank you for being here. remindedo good to be occasionally of some of the progress we have made. thank you for that. health care, the iran deal,

things that are important for where we are getting too now is i think almost being backed in a corner. since you can't get a grand deal, we are starting to talk about some deals. destructive inre the business roundtable's view to the grand deal, which is comprehensive tax reform. can you help us think about how we should negotiate this duality that we are in right now, and where do you think we are going to end up? pres. obama: we put forward a proposal early on, that i'm confident i could sell to this group. not everybody would be thrilled, but i think i could argue that over time would be good for business. essentially, what we proposed was the traditional framework for x