people are crying for a jaff lynn because russian tanks are in eastern ukraine. we won't give them that or intelligence, it's heartbreaking. i used to get rangry but now heart broken with so many killed. they are fighting bravely with 20th century weapons against 21st century weapons. sfards the kurds and baghdad is concerned, it's obviously a vacuum that's been created but a sharing now ce between iraq, russia, syria, and iran, that's an interesting scenario. one that, frankly, i never would have anticipated a fairly short time ago. now there's talk about, and i hope it's only talk -- talk,

about russian air power being brought in to iraq against isis. might be nice to see them doing something against isis from one standpoint, instead of moderate opposition which is the object of almost all of their attacks. thing is clear. the people who are really the best fighters right now for a variety of reasons are the kurds. they're the ones that liberated coe because nee. they're the ones -- cobani. they're the ones doing a lot of work in part offings syria. as you pointed out, mike, this is a dangerous game. there's a turkish aspect, there's the k.k.k., none of this is simple. i think it's clear if we gave the kurds the weapons they needed they could be much more effective in achieving at least

some of our short-term goalser that -- that we are not achieving right now. mike: that's my final question, which has to do with the big picture and again to remind those of you, i think everybody in this room is following it to some extent but the basic idea is the president has said, he's happy with a higher level of defense spend bug disagrees with using the overseas operations account to do it, an account that they have available that other groups don't have available. he wants to demand some kind of bill like the ryan-murray compromise that would increase funding on both the defense and nondefense side. the congress has said, we're not going to do that. but we do have a safety valve in the defense route. isn't that better than nothing to address defense needs and save the domestic debate for a different day and maybe next year's campaign. perhaps i'm oversimplifying. that's how i see the debate

boiling down. which leads to my question, and you can say whatever you want and challenge my rendition of where we stand but in terms of if there is a veto, wouldn't a natural compromise be for the domestic accounts to get half as much of a plus up as defense? in other words a ryan murray bill that tilted more in favor of defense because that would be a compromise between where the president is and where the congressional leadership is. one imagines preserving the funding levels you've got in your bill but maybe increasing the domestic accounts roughly half as much for this year and next year. if you don't like that proposal, obviously i'd love to hear anything else you think may be viable looking forward so we can someday get a defense bill even if the president veto this is in the short-term. chairman mccain, would you like to start? mr. mccain: we authorized to the level the president requested. that's an important fundamental fact. $681, i believe it

was, mac, but the exact level the president requested. second of all, it's an authorizing bill. it is not a money bill. the money is in the appropriations committee. so the has a problem with the level of appropriations, then it seems to me that fight should be with the appropriators and that aspect of funding. we authorize. we've just been through a small number, this is a big deal. of all the reforms, all the benefits and pay all the things that we're doing, the reforms and so, it seems to me he's picked the wrong target. second of all, second or third of all, he has accepted other bills with this in it. it's not as if this is a brand new problem. and oco, we don't like oco. we don't like it mac and i really dislike it. we'd like to see a multiyear level of authorization that we

can plan on rather than lurching from one year to the next to see whether the budget budget committee is going to approve oco or not. i don't like it. and we'd rather in a perfect world see that level of budgeting that we can plan on and that more importantly, that the military can plan on. they're lurching from year to year, my friends. they don't -- how can you, over in the pentagon how can you plan ahead on almost anything if you don't know what the following year's spending level is going to be? so it's a broken system. the president decides to veto this, then it seems to me that he is placing a higher priority over his concern and opposition to the funding budgetary mechanism than he is over the defense of the country. because if he cared most about

the defense of the nation, then he would focus his attention on the appropriations bills? veto the appropriations bills, mr. president. because you don't like the way the money -- where the money is coming from. it really is -- it's hard for me to understand, why the president of the united states should focus on the defense of the nation. finally, again, sequestration, my friends. it is a disaster. it's a disaster in so many ways. look at the world in 2011 when we enacted it. the budget control act. and look at the world today. yet we continue to cut defense spending. i wouldn't mind increases in some spending, particularly where intelligence and other aspects are concerned, the c.i.a., many other agencies of government. but this is really an unnecessary fight and i really

wish that the president would reserve that fight if he feels that strongly about the overseas contingency operations to the ppropriations process. mr. thornberry: the president submitted a budget for defense that the chairman of the joint chiefs said is the lower ragged edge of what is necessary for the defending the country. he asked for more base than was allowed in the budget control act and he asked for $50 billion in oco funding. $50 billion. when the house and senate come up with a budget resolution, we have to follow the law, we believe, on the budget control act so we have a lower base but make up the difference in oco so it's an extra $38 billion in oco but the total is exactly the same. the only question is, which category the funding is put in.

all of that extra oco, by the way, or i think essentially all of it, is operation and maintenance accounts and every dollar of it is authorized just like the base is. so there's no different between being allocated to specific programs by being in oco versus being in base. in addition, section 1501 of the ndaa says if there is a change in the sequestration numbers or the caps or anything, then that oco is automatically adjusted to the base. we have this automatic flexibility mechanism to reflect whatever budget agreement comes up. but here to me is the bigger point. if you are a counterterrorism soldier in afghanistan today, or if you are training the iraqi army today, or if you are at a navy air force or marine or army base in the united states supporting those efforts, do you really care whether your

operation and maintenance funds are classified as oco or whether they're classified as base? don't you just want the money? don't you just want the support to know that it's there? and so in some ways i think this is sort of an inside washington political game that loses sight of what we are asking men and women to do for us all around the country. and in that way, i think it is tragic, i think it is, as the "washington post" has written, if he vetoes it, it will be historic but not in a good way because there is nothing we could do in this bill that would fix the problem he's complaining about. i mean, i'd be find with -- fine with your solution to put more money in domestic programs and i suspect at the end of the day, as john says, there will be appropriations, you know, something has to be worked out before december 11. so i'm for whatever can be done. but i'm not willing to put at

risk all of the reforms that we were talking about and just -- last point. the world as we've been talking is growing more dangerous and more complex. i think if there's ever a time the world, not to mention our troops, need to see institutions of the american government operating for national defense, it's now. and so i don't pretend that signing a defense authorization bill solves all this other problem. we still have other problems to deal with. but good heavens, wouldn't -- with such strong bipartisan support of the bill, wouldn't it be a good thing for the country and the world to see if we can do something together instead of playing political games? mr. mccain: i'll also point out one additional factoid. this bill is $11 billion in waste and spending. as an example we require a 7.5%

cut per year for four years in the size of staffs in headquarters. and so we are saving $11 billion in this legislation that is much needed and frankly, we're taking out the easy targets in this bill and it's easy system of we're now going to dispense with his veto of $11 billion in savings. mike: let's go to you, please. get my attention, wait for the microphone and if you could just ask one question and we'll try to make room for everyone that would like to get into this. start over here, please. >> good morning. my name is erica mccann with the i.c. alliance for public sector and we want to say on behalf to have the tech industry, we appreciate the commercial item and regulatory review provisions

in bill but you boast emphasized the word beginning in this bill. where do you see the f.y. 2017 bill going? mr. thornberry: i think one of the big challenges we face is inventing technology as we are purchasing it. so i think focusing on that issue is something for the future. thinning out more of the regulations and simplification to do. as john was talking about, the challenge of silicon valley doing business, and it's not just silicon valley, there's all sorts of key industries that are saying, i don't really think it's worth doing business with those people. they're so bureaucratic so difficult. i have to have so many lawyers and regulators and accountants to deal with them. that's a huge problem because a key strength for us has always been innovation that comes from the private sector that we plug into defense. there's so much more to do and

we'll never fix it all the way, by the way. it is taking steps each year to make it better. mr. mccain: i would only add that there is a perception in many areas of industry that the pentagon only does business with certain favored industry that they've done business with for years and years and years. whether that is accurate or not, i can't say. but that's the perception when i talk to people who don't paradecisionally do business with the pentagon and i think that's -- and the other aspect is, we're going to have to look at the entitlements. we're going to have to look at tricare. we're going to have to look at a number of those aspects of defense spending that need reform. and don't think that's going to be easy. that may be one of our most ifficult challenges.

mike: quick vignette, we had an event here with secretary kendall and of course be bill lyn, i asked secretary kendall how would you rate our acquisition system? he said, we have a lot of problems. i've been doing this better buying power stuff, but we also have the best equipment in the world and i'm sure you two would agree with that. mr. mccain: not always as a reasonable cost. mike: not always at a reasonable cost or schedule. so he said overall i'd give us a b plus. then i asked bill lyn the same thing. he said maybe a b plus for some of the things we're traditionally good at but for anything more than that, maybe a c-minus. we went into whether we're at the beginning or mid range or closer to where we need to be. we'll stay here in the front row. >> good morning.

i would like first of all to thank you for this beautiful time and thank senator mccain for his support for global security. which is right now we are seeing it to be at stake, specifically like there was an article in "wall street journal" yesterday that talked about the fact that obama is somehow taking the military hostage and you've retweeted this just yesterday. i would like to say that the yilingts is not taking the military hostage but it's taking the global situation hostage. why? because of the issue that we are facing in ukraine, in syria, in iraq, in so many different areas around the world without crucial actions that we're taking place. but at the same time, i represent -- at the same time representative mac said something beautiful, political gain, which we are seing from this administration at the moment. so what is your point of view regarding the future of the

united states when it comes to global security? will they still follow the same path that president obama has assigned, which is the military new doctrine? mr. mccain: well, i'll try to be as brief as possible. long-term, i am incredibly optimistic about america and its role in the world, whether you're talking about technology, whether you're talking about the fact that we are now energy independent, whether you're talking about all of the new devices, the new ways of conveying information and knowledge in the united states. manufacturing capabilities include long-term, i am very bullish on america. in the short-term, i agree with henry kissinger, the world has not seen more crises than we're in today since the end of world war ii. we see if there's any benefit,

we now see a reliance or relationship between israel and some of the sunni nations we have never seen before. that's really big to tell you the truth. but i see an absence of american leadership. i see frankly some of the countries in the region kind of hedging their bets and accommodating. saudi arabia just made a $9 billion arms deal with russia. i don't believe that russia can provide them with superior weapons. i think it's because saudi arabia has been looking at their relationships and i still think that a big moment was the day saudi arabia had planes on a runway ready to strike syria and found out on cnn that crossing the red line was basically meaningless on chemical weapons. so i think in the short-term, we are in the most serious challenge, and you didn't even mention the south china sea, by

the way. that's another area. but finally, we're seeing what iran is seeking and russia is helping them and this is an arc of shia influence in the region. as we see the latest activities, military activities in syria and the continued slaughter of young men who we are training and equiping and sending into syria, we're watching the russians bomb major l them while our priorities -- priority is decon flix, that is a new word for appeasement. we don't want to run into any russian airplanes. certainly we wouldn't want to run into russian airplanes while they're bombing the hell out of the people that we train and equip and send into syria. don't think that lesson is lost on other young people who we

might ask to go in and fight against isis. and against a brutal regime which has killed 240,000 of its own people and driven millions into refugee status. mike: care to comment? mr. thornberry: the point was made in the introduction, the united states is a unique force for good in the world. police dysfunction and political gamesmanship here has consequences far beyond our shores. it's even more the reason where if we can do something together, we ought to do that. mip here in the third row. >> good morning, sydney freeberg, breaking defense. to get back to the agonizing political games, for a moment, your favorite thing, i know, if there is a veto, is there some way to start disaggregating the

n.d.a.a.? it's never been done in 53 years, never had to, are there ways to split off pieces, put placeholders in, say we offer for certain things so you can preserve, for example, the acquisition reform the compensation reforms, while deferring perhaps parts of the from hat authorize us sources which is a matter of contention. mr. thornberry: the president's basic complaint is he wants to spend more on domestic programs. e.p.a., i.r.s., whatever. we can't do that in a defense authorization bill. we can take it apart and put it together, put the pieces back a different way, but we cannot fix his basic problem in any defense authorization bill because his basic problem is he wants to spend more on other stuff. i might agree on some of those other things we ought to spend more money on, but we can't fix

it in this bill which is why the western post says vetoing it not for anything that's in it but for the broader budget disagreement, using it as a hostage, would be historic. mike: we'll stay in the second row and work our way back in a moment. >> my question is for both of you. you talked about the differences with the white house over oco versus base budget funding. but are there any substantive policy disagreements and if so would you will -- would you be willing to negotiate on any of those to preserve acquisition reform the white house is willing to approve an authorization act and fight over the money later in appropriations bills? mr. mccain: there's one major issue i know of and that is of course guantanamo. and we have pretty strict provisions in the bill and by

the way, i would remind you, when the president released five prisoners in exchange for bergdahl, he broke the law which no one seems to be too concerned about, but what we have asked for is a plan. we have asked the president to submit to us, i've been waiting 6 1/2 years for a plan as to how they want to close guantanamo and how they want to move those prisoners and where to. i don't think that's a lot to ask for us to authorize such a thing to get a plan. and as short a time ago as four months ago, the president assured me he would send us a plan and lisa monocoe and ash carter same over and sat in my office three months ago and said, we'll give you a plan. so far, there is no plan. but that is an issue that is of continuing disagreement between he president and us.

mr. thornberry: and just as a reminder, the language the president primarily complains about on guantanamo is exactly the same language he signed into 2011, 2012, 2013, and in 2014. so he doesn't really like it but until there's a plan that can get the support of the american people and their representatives, i suspect most members of congress are going to say, don't bring them here and don't modify facilities here. which is basically the provisions. of course there are other differences between what the president asked for and what's in our bill. the president proposed to retire the a-10 aircraft. it turns out they are sending a-10's into the middle east today and relying on them and our judgment was, probably it's not a good idea to retire that. so of course there are

differences of opinion. we don't -- no congress rubber stamps a president's request. but if you look at the constitution, it says that congress has the responsibility to build and provide and maintain armies, navies and other military forces. so of course there are differences. but our colleagues in congress and the president really focused n the oco issue. mike: in the very back, the woman in the white coat. >> victoria, with green cross international. the 2016 ndaa conference report states that there's congressional intent to reject the budget request to authorize another brac round in 2017. i was wondering why is that, since in the long-term there seems to be improvement in the recovery in most local communities?

mr. thornberry: because the 2005 brac has not yet broken even. in other words 10 years later, it is still cost -- it has still cost the taxpayers more money than it has saved. i think there were a lot of members who were here for 2005 and say, we're not going to have a repeat of that. now there is another provision in the bill that says the department has to come to congress with more specific data about where you think you have excess infrastructure. because what we've heard for the past several years is all based on a study they did in 2004 and we're saying, ok, let's not just trot out old information over and over again. if you think you have too much infrastructure, give us more specifics about it and we'll look at it and there may well be another brac in the future. but for this year, and remember this is a one-year authorize ation bill, whether we're talking gitmo or brac, for this

year, there will not be another brac. mr. mccain: i'd just quickly add, a couple of decisions that i think looking back we never should have takeen that was a result of brac. one was closing the naval air station in cecil field, leaving only with oceana which is having enormous encroachment problems. the other was the consolidation of bethesda and walter reed. i don't know anybody when you look at the money that's going to be spent on transportation and all that, that was another bad decision. so to think somehow that bracs are nirvana is not an accurate depiction. and we all know, too, what bracs are. an abrodationgation, an act of cowardice on the part of congress because they can't close a single base on their own. i would never repeat that. mike: here in the third row.

>> good morning. i'm with the government accountability office. our organization, along with our sister organization c.b.o. and cbrs have a whole body of work on defense business operations that has come out basically that the department of defense is on an unsustainable path. can you speak to that? mr. mccain: those studies have been very important to us. they have been very helpful to us in developing the legislation that we have. and we will continue to use them. i think all of us, particularly where mac and i sit, appreciate the g.a.o. and the work they do. they really are the watchdogs and they have become more and more important over the years as their knowledge and background on many of these issues. we had a very interesting hearing on the carrier as you know and the g.a.o. represented their witness was very important

in providing balance in that hearing. mr. thornberry: we have used g.a.o. on the acquisition reform steps we have taken so far. i just emphasize that a lot of things you focused on, the business sorts of things with the department have a huge effect on acquisition and buying goods and services. so that's part of the reason that we're committed to take many more steps in order to improve the way in a taxpayer dollars are used for those things. and we'll need y'all's help to do it. mike: here in the fifth row, please. >> jeff phillips with the reserve officers association. with the linkage of the national oco and other accounts to what will help to our reserve components, a million men and

women strong? mr. thornberry: it depends on what happens with these bills. obviously. you cannot buy things if there's not some sort of agreement on the authorizing the purchases and appropriating the dollars to do so. and that's part of the reason you've seen huge, a large number of house members say that just operating for the rest of the fiscal year on a continuing resolution is unacceptable. because we're doing some things we don't need to keep doing and we need to do more of some things we're not doing now. and c.r.'s do not allow you that flexibility. so there are needs in all sorts of areas, needs to be filled that will not be filled if this bill is vetoed and if there's not some sort of budget agreement. mr. mccain: i can't emphasize

enough. a continuing resolution for the rest of this year is incredibly damaging to our ability to defend this nation. general odeer noah, we have the greatest respect for, you know him very well, mike, has painted a very stark picture of what happens if we don't stop sequestration. we don't stop sequestration and have a continuing resolution, i'll tell you, it is going to be more damaging than any time i've ever seen. mike: clarifying question from me you mentioned chairman thornberry that a lot of the extra $38 billion is in operations and maintenance, i assume you allow yourself more play in the base budget for procurement. in other words if we don't get a resolution and go back to a c.r., in addition to having to continue policies of last year, which may be inappropriate, we'll be at a lower level of

defense acquisition is that a fair question? mr. thornberry: essentially if sequestration kicks in and you have across the board cuts that's the same level as a c.r. it is, as john says, it would be devastating to any semblance of what it takes to defend the country. mr. mccain: please don't underestimate the effect this has on the men and women who are serving. a lot of the really good ones d others are saying i've had enough. they don't -- they can't operate they can't maintain they can't do the exercises they don't know when their next operation or exercise is. talk so some of these young captains and majors an senior enlisted, they are hurting very badly and over time, this is going to hurt retention of the really outstanding people we ave.

mike: bob hale who i see in the audience, as oint -- has pointed out that we're hurting families and others because they've been furloughed and lost pay and gotten the message they're not valued as much as they should be. time for one last question in the back row. >> hi, i'm with the voice of america, the persian service. my question is directed to senator mccain. you mentioned, you talked yesterday about the possibility of recommendation for a no-fly zone on syria. i was wondering whether, because of the russian campaign there, what would that do for the coigscoligs? and my second question, with the government in iraq have you recommended them to restrict activities of general suleimani there and whether they've come back to you with any response to that? thank you. mr. mccain: i've had several

conversations with the prime minister of iraq but frankly, i have not recently and it doesn't have to be me to carry the message of what we think of suleimani. in a hearing before the armed services committee, senator cotton asked general dunford how many marines and soldiers that we believeled were killed by the copper tipped i.e.d.'s i referred to earlier that the iran crans shipped in to iraq and -- iranians shipped in to iraq and general dunford said he thought 500 were killed. i think it's a little less than that actually. so now we're seing mr. su lembings -- suleimani flip-flopping, hopping around different places, including a visit to moscow, orchestrating activities in iraq itself. we've come a long way. i didn't get -- i couldn't hear

the first question. mike: i think it was about syriaened the no-fly zone? mr. mccain: even former secretary clinton, as well as general petraeus and others have all recommended a no-fly zone, buffer zone for -- where refugees could locate. stop the barrel bombing. an area where we could train and equip moderates. as far as i can tell, almost everybody that i know and respect approves of some form of that except for susan rice and valerie jarrett and barack obama. mike: we've been very privileged to have these gentlemen here today. please join me in a round of applause. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> in the presidential nominating race today, teddy davis tweeted a quote from jim webb's communications director that the former virginia senator and presidential candidate ended

his bid for the democratic nod and will now weigh an independent run. the communications director saying he expects a decision by the holidays. here's part of the candidate's announcement from washington, .c. earlier. mr. webb: i accept that my views are not consistent with the power structure and nominating base of the democratic party. that party is filled with millions of dedicated americans but its hierarchy is not comfortable with the policies i have laid forth and i'm not comfortable with many of theirs. for this reason, i'm withdrawing from any consideration of being the democratic party's nominee for the presidency. this does not reduce in any way my concerns for the challenges facing our country, my belief that i can provide the best leadership in order to meet these challenges, or my intentions to remain fully

engaged in the debates that are facing us. how i remain as a voice will depend on what kind of support i'm shown in the coming weeks as i meet with people from all sides of america's political landscape. and i intend to do that. i hold strong views about where our country needs to go. i will never change those views in order to adopt to some party platform as a way of getting nominated. i feel strongly that if i were nominated, that we would win it and that if i were president, i could assemble an administration filled with great minds, good leaders, and capable people from all sectors of our society. who share my vision and who could bring this country back toits revered position as a acon of fairness at home and of principled common sense in

our policies abroad. though i'm not going away, i'm thinking about all my options, 240 years ago, the declaration of independence from our status as a colony of great britain was announced. it's time for a new declaration of infence, not from an outside power but from a system that no longer serves the interests of the vast majority of the american people. the presidency has gained too much power. the congress has grown weak and often irrelevant. the president-day democratic and republican parties are not providing the answers and the guarantees we can rely on. the financial sector represented by the wall street bankers is caring less and less about the conditions of the average american worker for the simple reason that their wealth depends more on the global economy than

it does on the american economy. our political process is jammed up. it needs an honest broker. >> on thursday, testimony by democratic presidential frontrunner and former secretary of state hillary clinton before the house select committee on benghazi investigating the attacks on the consulate in libya three years ago. we'll have lye coverage on c-span3, thursday starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern. and shortly, the u.s. house debating six bills with votes postponed until after 6:30 p.m. eastern time. tonight, house republicans are meeting in private to talk about electing new leadership and their house agenda later this weekend, the house work -- late this week, the house work on federal debt ceiling. we'll take a look at bipartisan shitch from a former house candidate from this morning's "washington journal." also the fh from 2005 to 2009.

guest: thanks. great to be with you. host: how do you describe no labels to people who ask you about it? guest: it is a movement that is reshaping the culture of politics around problem-solving as opposed to the nastiness, the finger-pointing, the acrimony, the division that marks politics today. the american people deserve so much more, in this country is capable of so much more if we can only get our political act together. it is not to say we are some third party alternative movement. we recognize we live in a two-party system. it is about getting them to do what we have always been able to do in the past. that is to set goals, american goals, and then move through our respective political channels in getting there. we have done it before and we believe we can do it again. in the meantime, we are missing a lot of low hanging opportunities to make this country the very best it can be. host: given example of one in

political history we have done it before and why is it not taking place today. guest: i would argue back to ronald reagan working with tip o'neill. they set a goal of fixing entitlements. they worked on it and made progress. tax reform is another example. the end of the cold war could not have happened without those both sides working together. we had a balanced budget under bill clinton's term in the 1990's. newt gingrich have the same goal. they set that goal. it was a transcendent overarching objective for the government. they got there and proved you can make government work when both sides set goals that are american goals as opposed to partisan goals. we just got out of that practice. meanwhile, we have numbers that are out of balance.we are missing a lot of opportunities in a hypercompetitive 21st century to be the best we can be. we have other countries nipping at our heels who want to take

away market share, who want to innovate faster and better than we do. they want great research abilities. they want political systems that work. host: you had a recent event taking a look here at the presidential candidates in new hampshire. that prompted a response by the editors of the new hampshire waiver. guest: that's right. host: how would you respond? guest: you do not have to shed your political responsibility to do that but we have a compromise to make the system work. copper mines has become a dirty work, synonymous with treason -- compromise has become a dirty word synonymous with treason in some corners.

you do not have to compromise at the end of the day in some places. you have to sit down with people, figure out the issues and a goal you are working toward an uncompromised to get there. it is the way the system has always worked. every other aspect of life operates that way with the exception of politics in washington. host: you talked about the budget numbers. why do you think compromise is not achievable in that context? guest: you have special interest politics putting ultimatums on the table and making it impossible to break away from the presuppositions. --break away from the preset positions. that raises problems. host: you meet outside groups? guest: all of the above. you go down the street and you see special interest politics that raises money, a lot more money than they used to. they put out ultimatums, pledges. now they expect candidates to sign. if you do not sign, you do not

play ball. you are not a member of the team. if you do sign, you are expected to be in a dug in position. that is not good for the situation long-term. aboutwhat do you think the influence and how politics? guest: it is hard to govern by gangs. that is what is going on in congress. we have gains here and there as opposed the two overarching leadership pursuing transcendent goals. if you were to sit down with a member of congress and say what is the goal as a nation? what we try to achieve that is good for the american people in the 21st century? i am hard-pressed to think you would get consistent answers and there lies a big problem. if we have a president willing to sit down with our house and senate leadership, both parties involved, and say here are the goals we have to shoot for.

they are american goals because this is what the american people want us to do. let's see if we can make that happen. the labels has put forward a national strategic agenda. we spent a lot of time on it listening to the voices across america. big goals part of our national strategic agenda. not we think we have to do but with the american people like to see us do. it includes things like a balanced budget, a jobs agenda, energy self-sufficiency, and doing something about entitlements. these are american goals. republicans and democrats should want to do the same thing. this is what we are hearing from americans. i expect the house caucus will say that is their goal also. guest: let us hear about it. any other caucus will have to work to make it possible because this is what the american people want to see happen. there is no gang that can get their own way. i don't care whether it is in business or politics. you cannot survive as a gang. you can stir up trouble and run

from the law as a gang but you cannot achieve a big goal. to do that, you need a leadership and a focused set of political attention around goals. that is missing right now. host: jon huntsman is our guest, the former governor of utah, the current cochair of no labels. you want to ask them questions? you can call him on the line. if you want to tweet him, you can do that or post on facebook. what is the political makeup of no labels as far as membership is concerned? guest: i would say if you were to look at our problem solver caucus on capitol hill, we have an army of problem solvers with people. half republicans and

democrats. i cochair this movement with senator joe lieberman. we have vice chairs people like al, matt, who was president clinton's chief of aaff, charlie black, well-known political figure going back to ronald reagan's first run. it gives you a sense of balance we have at the top of no labels governance. it is both sides with a focus on setting goals and reaching those goals. host: would you say those legislators get a voice in the current political makeup of congress? guest: i think increasingly they will have a very powerful voice. you cannot take a group of 70 or 80 members of congress, even know they are fairly new to power in the house of representatives. you have to factor them into the decision-making. one of the reasons they have not been is we are not pursuing a big goals. we are engaged in trench warfare for the most part.

it is gang on gang warfare for the most part. as soon as you set the goals, in theblem solver caucus house of representatives and increasingly in the congress will be instrumental in moving us to what we are talking about. host: our first call for you is from arthur in new orleans, louisiana. go ahead, please. you are on. caller: good morning, gentlemen. host: are you there? i think he hung up. guest: sorry arthur. we will catch you again. host: one of the people that spoke about compromise was donald trump. he had his own definition of copper mines or what he thought it should be. i want you to listen to it and get your response. [video clip] >> the work of mice is not a bad word to me as a negotiator and having to read the article the deal and make deals all my life. i like the word copper mice. we need compromise.

it is always good to compromise and win, meeting let us compromise -- meaning let us compromise and win. guest: that is the mantra donald trump uses in his meetings. he is a negotiator and has put a lot of deals together. he has worked in complex metropolitan environment. we talked about it backstage before he went up to speak for the no labels group. he has had to optimize his entire career. he understands what a good negotiation is and how to get to the endpoint. that is what we are missing right now. how do you get to the goal? host: do you think it is wanting to compromise but as far as the people out there that elect these legislators, what do you think about their desire to come from ice? -- we in a highly g and

have taken element of competition out of politics when you make blue districts or rent district. -- red districts. what happens when competition disappears from anything?but atrophies -- it atrophies and dies. it is no surprise that you have town hall meetings that are all red or blue. we have to get redistricting efforts to bring a more 50-50 approach to congressional district making that refuses politics with competition. you want people in town hall meetings who represent the american ideal. as republicans and democrats and independents, they bring their background to the table and talk about how to get things done that matter to american lives in the 21st century. that we are not getting. we are getting a more partisan gathering that engage in critical rhetoric. you see members of congress that -- partor those lines.

parrot those lines. host: we have james on the line. caller: the problem is we are too enamored with the two-party system. if we had no parties, we would be much better off. people representing the district as opposed to a party idea. i think that is what has gotten off-base.ry on base -- guest: the point is well taken. in an environment where you are not working to a transcendent toional objective, we fall the moment and get pulled down. the rise of the tea party, which happened when i was in china as , we had anssador economic storm that passed through this country.

we are just now beginning to feel some recovery. not much, but some recovery. jobs are coming back a bit. wages are stagnant for the most part. people became angry when their bank accounts disappeared, retirement was diminished, home values sunk. they became angry and took it out on the political class for better decision-making. you had the rise of the tea party and occupy wall street. that is a symptom of what we find ourselves which is an environment that is not setting these and send in old that the american people can really see a representative of their interest. tags and labels. i do not think they mean a lot in the end. together as americans whether you are republican or democrat. we have to have our respective ideologies. we bring that to the table.

what we are failing to do is remember that we are all americans and are in pursuit of american objectives at the end of the day that would allow you to roll up your sleeves and get some things done. i think labels are probably less relevant in politics today, although we are organized around labels and people fund based on labels and that is holding us back to some extent. host: jon huntsman with us to talk about no labels. 202-748-8001 for republicans. democrats.0 for don in california on the independent line, go ahead. caller: i just wondered if there discussionent or

about someone being on the no labels conference. guest: we are open to everybody who wants to embrace this type of approach to problem-solving. is bringinglessing an issue he feels passionately about to the table which is campaign finance. andas an important issue one that i think is at the center of many of our problems and challenges on the campaign front. that is not necessarily the net amount of money in politics whether it is $7 billion or $8 billion in that is not bother me as much as the concentration of sources of the money and the control they have over the agenda. $7you can take the billion dollars and spread it around the grassroots, we like individuals more invested in the $10 and $15 level. that would strengthen democracy

as opposed to cause democracy to atrophy. it was the in 2014, worst turnout in this country since world war ii. to have to go back 75 years see a lower turnout and participation rate. in a day and age when we need people stepping up and expressing their desires and opinions and using their voice, we are not getting enough of it. that is a sign of democracy that is atrophying for all caps of reasons. young people feel disenfranchised for the most part. they are not turning out. this is what they have to be most evolved. , one of you say that the reasons is exposure that you can get a lot of exposure at the debate. what you think about his

decisions and independent third parties to get things done to work on specifics like campaign finance or work on other avenues that are important to people in politics? guest: i think that is inevitable. we may be one election cycle or two from an alternative or third-party movement of consequence we had them in the past. . theodore roosevelt ran as a bull moose. he ran his own party. you can imagine if theodore roosevelt got 20% or 25% of the vote and have the power of the internet. and more recently ross perot. when you match that aspect of an independent run or alternative run, we are now 42% unaffiliated as the voter class in america. 42% unaffiliated. people are basically signing up for none of the above. we have never seen numbers that i. high.t

i think we will see things that are consequential. if you are not delivering something that the american people are looking for, you will go out of business eventually and someone will tak move out ad take her place. we have a strong history of two-party politics in america. i am not sure we are built for three parties. there are a lot of structural barriers in the way. say that the two parties that currently exist are built to hang around forever? the marketplace does not lie. people will make that determination in time. host: frederick from brooklyn, new york. you are on. go ahead. caller: how are you doing? guest: how are you? great to hear from you. caller: i just wanted to say even though i am a democrat, i feel like you are the only republican that would have given

obama a run for his money. on the side those of your party got swallowed up in the process. i just wanted to let you know that. guest: i appreciate that. you made my day. we had a great run. we took third in new hampshire, which was not quite good enough. if we took second, we could have gone on to south carolina where we had the endorsement of a state newspaper and a terrific group on the ground. i had to make a decision as we were running. i had a track record of decisions and policy initiatives as governor. some of those things were not as popular in the post-lehman republican party as they were beforehand. you can either change or you are forget you have done certain things or you can embrace it and say this is who i am and i would rather stick to my authentic self and be true to what i tried to do for the people i have represented in the past and go

down in flames of i have to as opposed to being the shape shifting type of politician that is why i think you see some of these other candidates that are doing pretty well, they have a sense of authenticity. they will do it their way. we had to make that choice. our choice was the stick with who we are. we did not get a lot of lift. we did, ultimately in new hampshire, take third place. that, unfortunate was not good enough, but we love every minute of it. host: was it a difficult decision? guest: not at all. i respect the president. i want to work for his a administration as a republican because he asked. i was raised -- host: ambassador china? .uest: ambassador to china

i had been national cochairman inhis opponent, john mccain, 2008. i got a call to serve for china, which is an area that i have been involved in for decades. i have lived in asia for different times. i thought, ok, i have two sons in the military. they do not have the luxury when they are deployed to ask what party they're president is. they do not have a luxury. they salute and serve. i thought, when i was having conversations with the white house, i have a choice, i can do what my ancestors always did, which is salute the president, whether you disagree or agree 100%, and i did that. i did a beating for that, when i got ba postponefurther

proceedingses on motion to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or yeas and nays or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1418 the judicial redress act of 2015. the clerk: union calendar number 223, h.r. 1428, a bill to extend privacy act remedies to citizens of certified states and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, and the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: 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. 1428 currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. goodlatte gat i yield myself

such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i would like to thank mr. sensenbrenner and ranking member conyers for introducing this important bipartisan legislation to extend privacy protections and help ensure that the flow of law enforcement information between the european union and the united states continues unimpeded. in recent years, several broad and highly publicized leaks of classified u.s. intelligence information have eroded the global public's trust in united states government and our technology sector of the as a result, both the federal government and u.s. businesses that operate overseas are facing growing challenges from proposals to limit the international flow of data. our allies in europe, in particular, are concerned that the european public will no longer support law enforcement cooperation with u.s. authorities if we do not enact legislation to restore their public's trust in u.s. privacy protections.

moreover, american businesses across all sectors face negative commercial consequences abroad as a result of the climate that has been created by the unauthorized disclosure of classified data. h.r. 1428 the judicial redress act can go a long way toward restoring our allies' faith in u.s. data privacy protections and helping facilitate agreements such as the data protection and privacy agreements that enhance international cooperation. according to the department of justice, the judicial redress act is critical to re-establishing a trusting lationship between the european union and the united states to ensuring continued strong law enforcement cooperation between the united states and europe and preserving the ability of american companies to do business internationally. this grants citizens of designated foreign countries a

limited number of civil remedies against the federal government similar to those already provided u.s. citizens and lawful personal nenlt residents under the privacy act. this legislation is that it only applies with respect to information obtained through international law enforcement channels and that any lawsuit brought pursuant to this bill is subject to the same terms and restrictions that apply to u.s. citizens and lawful permanent residents under the privacy act. if this legislation is enacted, citizens of designated foreign governments will be able to sue the united states in federal district court with respect to intentional and willful public disclosures of law enforcement information by the federal government that ininjure those citizens. additionally, those not subject to exemption, covered foreign citizens will be able to seek redress to grant access to records or to amend incorrect

records. american citizens are already afforded these types of judicial redress rights in many foreign countries. although this may be limited civil remedies against the united states government, they will provide european citizens with the core benefits of the privacy act and in doing so will debately help to restore the public trust necessary for the law ued success of our enforcement cooperation with europe. the bill will also facilitate adoption of the data protection and privacy agreement and promote a healthy environment for u.s. companies that do business overseas. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. this legislation before us today is good for national security, good for privacy and good for business. and the right thing to do for our nation's closest allies. under current law, united states

citizens can request a correction to personal records. if the agency denies access or fails to make a requested change or violates the privacy rights, they may seek redecember. these rights are conveyed only to united states citizens and not to the citizens of our closest allies even though they offer our citizens similar rights overseas. like what the europeans give our folks monies when they record a song and play it over there, but we don't. so we should have that same fairness. h.r. 1428 will extend these core privacy protections to the citizens in certain foreign countries, those designated as trusted allies. this will afford immediate benefits. this will facilitate partnerships with law enforcement agencies coose the globe. we know from experience and open lines with our communication it

can yield intelligence and save lives. it will have an umbrellas agreement to share across the atlantic. this agreement which includes significant protections for individual privacy will not go into effect until these changes. trade associations and civil rights organizations wrote to the leadership of both parties to outline the costs of the eroding of public trust in the u.s. government. their fears are well founded. citing concerns about insufficient privacy safeguards in the united states, the european court of justice suspended the safe harbor agreement that allows them to move digital information across the atlantic. i hope that our allies will take this legislation as a sign of good faith and recognize the basic right to privacy steppeds beyond our borders and we will work to restore the public trust. the judicial redress act is supported by the white house,

department of justice and other federal law enforcement agencies and endorsed by the chamber, information technology council, facebook, google, microsoft, among others. this is a measure of basic fairness. our friends abroad should have some course of redress with respect to information they provided to the u.s. government. our partners in trade should seek recourse when it is not. , for mr. sensenbrenner his extreme knowledge of the world and sharing it with me on occasion and i thank mr. goodlatte for the same talents and achievements. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. goodlatte gat i yield five minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, the chairman of the subcommittee on crime,

terrorism, homeland security and investigations of the judiciary committee and the chief sponsor of this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for five minutes. mr. sensenbrenner: i thank the the gentleman from virginia for yielding me this time. strong international relationships abroad are critical to the safety and advancement of the united states. that's why i was pleased to introduce the judicial redress act of 2015 with ranking member conyers and speak in favor of it today. for many years the united states and european union has worked together to secure data protection for their citizens under agreements known as safe harbor. the european court of justice issued a landmark ruling invalidating the agreement because of privacy concerns. the european courts' ruling illustrates how fragile trust between nations can be. it is easily lost and hard to rebuild. this lack of trust has had huge

economic and security consequences for the united states. our businesses have struggled against public backlash and protectionist policies and our government has faced increasingly difficult negotiations to share law enforcement and intelligence data. the judicial redress act of 2015 is sent to our efforts to rebuild strained relationships with our allies and ensure security and privacy for european and american citizens. the sudden termination of the safe harbor strikes a blow by complicating commercial data flows. if we fail to pass the judicial redress act we face similar disruption to the share of law enforcement information. in many ways, the judicial redress act is a privacy bill. it is backed and supported about privacy country's top advocates.

make no mistake the bill is crucial to u.s. law enforcement. at the heart is the pressing need for the continued sharing of law enforcement data across the atlantic. in our complex digital world, privacy and security are not competing values. hey are waved together and today eye policy makers must craft legal frame works that support both. this bill provides allies with limited remedies relative to the data they share with the united states, similar to those america cap citizens enjoy under the privacy act. it is a way to support our foreign allies and to ensure the continued sharing of law enforcement data. specifically the bill will give citizens of covered countries the ability to correct flawed information in the record and access u.s. courts if the u.s. government unlawfully discloses their personal information. as united states' citizens, we

already enjoy similar protections in europe. granting these rights to our closest allies and their citizens will be a positive step forward in restoring our international reputation. our european colleagues have noted the redress act is critical to negotiating a new agreement. central to their willingness to continue sharing data with the united states and necessary to improving relations between nations. if we fail to pass this bill, we will undermine several important international agreements and further harm our businesses operating in europe and severely limit sharing of law enforcement information. the judicial redress act currently enjoys broad support and is endorsed by the department of justice as well as the chamber and numerous u.s. businesses. i would like to thank my colleagues, representatives john

con years, randy forbes and glen thompson for co-sponsoring this legislation as well as senators hatch and murphy for work on their companion legislation in the senate. the judicial redress act amounts to a small courtesy that will pay a huge diplomatic dwiffeds. i ask my colleagues to pass this important bill and my colleagues in the senate to take it up without delay. let's put the president's pen to good use by signing this legislation. i thank the gentleman and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. cohen: i will reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. collins: it is important to

come over and discuss h.r. 1428 the judicial redress act and echoing a lot what has been said. this is a great starting point for a greater conversation about privacy rights. i supported this bill when it passed the judiciary committee unanimously. the bill extends the same rights afforded to a.m. cans under the 19774 act to citizens of certain allied nations. as everyone here is aware revelations about u.s. surveillance operations create serious trust issues and have experienced a decline in the global trust. advances in technology have made it possible and necessary for law enforcement to exchange information but it should not be done at the expense of privacy rights nfment order to restore global trust and ensure competitive trust, we must work to restore consumer's faith in data and secure and their

privacy rights are protected. the united states tech industry employed an estimated 6.5 million people in 2014 and 7.1% of the u.s. g.d.p. the free flow of data is critical to the success of this industry that contributes in a major way to our economy. we have to show our allies they can be competent sharing data across the oceans. the judicial redress act is rebuilding trust and cooperation with our allies and u.s. businesses can continue to grow and thrive. h.r. 1428 is particularly important because of the u.s. and e.u. have negotiated the data protection and privacy agreement for the last two years. during the negotiations over the agreement, the e.u. parallelment and commission made clear that the agreement would not be finalized to enable citizens to sue the u.s. government for major privacy violations. the ruling on safe harbor

agreement is more important than ever that we create solutions that work for today's tech industry, from the small company to the household name. it is critical we work with our allies to create a standard for gomping privacy of personal information to ensure strong and cooperative exchanges between law enforcement. laws and agreements written before today are due for an update and this bill is important first step that i'm proud to support and thankful the chairman has brought forward before this body to put its stamp on it so it will be taken up and sent to the president so we can move forward in the protection of privacy rights for our citizens. yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. cohen: i appreciate your efforts and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee yields back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> this bill is a good bill.

mr. goodlatte: it's a very important bill that will help promote law enforcement cooperation around the globe and will help u.s. companies that do business overseas to be able to better obtain the respect and trust of foreign governments and foreign citizens. so i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1428. 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.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3493, the securing the cities act of 2015, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3493, a bill to amend the homeland security act of 2002 to establish the securing the cities program to enhance the ability of the united states to detect and prevent terrorist attacks and other high consequence events utilizing nuclear or other materials that pose a high risk to homeland security in high-risk urban areas, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new york, mr. donovan, and the gentleman from new york, mr. higgins, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. donovan. mr. donovan: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all

members may have five legislative days to revise and tend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. donovan: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. donovan: i rise today in support of h.r. 3493, the securing the cities act of 2015. in april, 2010, the president stated, the single biggest threat to u.s. security, both short term, mid term and long term, would be the possibility of terrorist organization obtaining a nuclear weapon. since that time, the threat to our cities from nuclear terrorism has not abated. the rise of isis and the resurgence of al qaeda have only increased the likelihood that radiological material will fall into the hands of those who wish to harm america. just last week, the associated press reported that the f.b.i. foiled an attempt by smugglers in eastern europe to sell

nuclear material to middle eastern extremist groups. that report stated that in the past five years the f.b.i. has disrupted four other attempts by smugglers from the former soviet union to sell nuclear material to criminal organizations. these events only reinforce the testimony delivered before the house committee on homeland security last month by commissioner william braton of the new york city police department. in that testimony, the commissioner described the current terrorist threat to manhattan as the highest it has ever been, and he specifically referenced the danger of illicit nuclear material entering the city. thankfully since the attacks of september 11, 2001, this congress, successive administrations and local law enforcement have the capability to guard against this risk. in particular, the department of homeland security initiated the securing the cities program within their domestic nuclear detection office.

the securing the cities program provided training, equipment and other resources to state, local law enforcement in high-risk urban areas to prevent a terrorist group from carrying out an attack using a radiological or nuclear device. the securing the cities program began in 2006 as a pilot program in the new york city region which included jersey city and newark. since 2007, the new york city region has purchased nearly 14,000 radiation detectors and has trained nearly 20,000 personnel. the pilot program has been so successful, it was expanded to the los angeles-long beach region in fiscal year 2012, the national capital region in fiscal year 2014 and just last week the cities of houston and chicago were announced as the fiscal year 2015 and 2016 recipients. h.r. 3493 would authorize the securing the cities program, which has proven its utility as

a pilot program. with continued authorization, we can ensure that the extraordinary capability built by this -- by local law enforcement in conjunction with d.h.s. does not become a hallow capability unable to effectively use at the critical moment. i'd like to thank my colleagues who have helped bring this authorization to the floor, especially chairman mccaul of the homeland security committee and my good friend pete king and also my friend from texas representative jackson lee. i urge all members to join me in supporting this bill, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves the balance of his time. the other gentleman from new york, mr. higgins, is recognized. mr. higgins: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 3493, the securing the cities act of 2015. and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. higgins: thank you, mr. speaker. the securing the cities program is a grant in technical assistance program administered by the department of homeland security's domestic nuclear detection office.

since its inception nearly a decade ago, the securing the cities program has provided thousands of first responders of the tools they need to detect radiological and nuclear threats. started as a pilot project in 2006 in the new york city, new jersey metropolitan area, it has grown to include los angeles and long beach and the washington, d.c. federal district in 2014. this year the program has identified houston and chicago as high priority areas for expanding the program. under the program, the initial grant award is generally used for planning and analysis at a regional level with subsequent grants going towards equipment, training and exercise. importantly, through the securing the cities program, the domestic nuclear detection office is able to channel subject matter, expertise, training, coordination and technical support to all the identified high-risk metropolitan areas. h.r. 3493, like the bill i introduced that will be next -- will be next to be considered,

is targeted at bolesering the security of our communities -- bolstering the security of our communities from the threat of nuclear attack. thus, mr. speaker, i urge support of h.r. 3493 and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. donovan: mr. speaker, i have no more speakers. if the gentleman from new york has no more speakers, i am prepared to close once the gentleman does. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. higgins: i have no more speakers as well. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from new york wish to close? mr. higgins: yes. mr. speaker, as i said, i have no more further speakers and am prepared to close if the gentleman from new york is prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. higgins: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. higgins: thank you. we have an opportunity today to take action to bolster our defense against rogue actors and terrorists who would seek to detonate a nuclear device on u.s. soil.

the disclosure in recent weeks of a thwarted plot in mull defensia, operatives to provide smuggled nuclear materials to terrorist organizations with ambitions to attack the united states has crystallized the need for action. today we can take such action by approving h.r. 3493 and authorizing the securing the cities program, we will be enhancing the nation's ability to detect and prevent radiological and nuclear attacks in cities facing the highest risk. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york, mr. higgins, yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york, mr. donovan, is recognized. mr. donovan: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. donovan: mr. speaker, i once again urge my colleagues to support h.r. 3493, the securing the cities act of 2015, and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 3493, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: those

in favor say aye. mr. donovan: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: those in favor say aye. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. donovan: i request the yeas and nays, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favoring of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule furs proceedings on this uestion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. donovan: mr. speaker, i ask that the house suspend the ules and pass h.r. 3350, the know the cbrn terrorism threats to the transportation act. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar bill 225, h.r. 2250, a to require a terrorism threat assessment regarding the transportation of chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological materials through united states land borders and

within the united states, and or other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new york, mr. donovan, and the gentleman from new york, mr. higgins, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. donovan. mr. donovan: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and tend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. donovan: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. donovan: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 3350, the know the cbrn terrorism threats to transportation act, introduced by the gentleman from new york, congressman higgins. this bill requires the department of homeland security through the office of intelligence and analysis, to conduct a terrorism threat assessment of the threat of

chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological materials across our land borders and within the united states. as a fellow new yorker, i share congressman higgins' security concerns related to transportation of spent nuclear fuel across the canadian-new york border. it is an appropriate response to have the department of homeland security conduct a risk assessment related to this initiative. d.h.s. is responsible for assessing potential terror threats against the homeland, threats related to cbrn materials are one of the most serious. terrorist groups have long had an interest in using cbrn materials. in addition to concerns that terror groups may try to create or purchase cbrn materials, there are concerns that terrorists could exploit such materials with legitimate commercial uses. including when such materials are transported from one location to another. it is this concern that the bill seeks to address. the bill also directs that the

results of the assessment be shared with relevant federal, state and local agencies, including the department of energy and the national network of fusion centers. coordination and information sharing within the department, as well as between the department and other agencies, is critical for securing the homeland efficiently. this is a commonsense bill, and i encourage my colleagues to support this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york, mr. donovan, reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york, mr. higgins, is recognized. mr. higgins: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 3350, the know the cbrn terrorism threats to transportation act, and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. higgins: i want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, mr. king, chairman mccaul and my ranking member, mr. thompson, for support of my bill. h.r. 3350, the know the cbrn terrorism threats to transportation act, would direct the department of homeland security's office of intelligence and analysis to

conduct a terrorism threat assessment of the risks associated with transportation of chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological materials. terrorists and militant groups have expressed an interest in using weapons of mass destruction, especially those utilized in chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological, known as cbrn. according to an investigation, the f.b.i. uncovered a plot by rogue operatives to sell nuclear material to foreign terrorist organizationes that have an interest in targeting the united states. next year, the department of energy plans to allow the transporting by truck of highly enriched uranium from canada to south carolina. as a cost saving measure, the planned shipment would be in liquid form. these trucks are scheduled to enter the united states via the peace bridge in buffalo, new york. an attack or accident crossing the peace bridge could have devastating consequences. the peace bridge is the busiest

passenger crossing on the northern border and the second busiest cargo border. closing the bridge for an extended period of time would cause economic harm to the region. further, an attack would -- could contaminate the great lakes, which contain 84% of north america's surface fresh water with highly radioactive material. despite these risks, the department of energy approved this route, relying on an analysis of this route that is 20 years old and did not anticipate carrying such high level waste. in other words, the federal overnment is is facing threats today. to ensure all federal agencies and the department of energy that agencies are informed by the terrorism threat picture.

my bill would direct to share its assessment with federal partners. i urge members to support h.r. 3350, a measure that will not only help ensure the department of energy has the information it needs with respect to transporting dangerous materials from high-risk areas throughout the united states but other federal agencies who are faced with similar questions are able to make better informed decisions. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. donovan: i have no more speakers. if the gentleman has no more speakers, i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. mr. higgins: i have no further speakers. the speaker pro tempore: mr. higgins is recognized to close. mr. higgins: i yield myself such time as i may consume. many of the routes used for the transport of crbrn materials

were approved 20 years ago and reflect a pre-9/11 threat. my bill will ensure the department of homeland security assesses and shares threat information with the department of energy and other federal agencies to ensure that they have the information needed to reach complicated decisions about transporting dangerous nuclear material throughout our communities. enactment of my legislation will send a message to citizens in buffalo and beyond that we are ensuring federal policy is informed by the best information we have on terrorism threats. with that, i ask my colleagues' support and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields back. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. donovan: i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, it is common sense to require d.h.s. to conduct threat assessments for

legitimate, storage, sale of materials. this bill complements the bill the house just considered the securing cities act of 2015. we need all appropriate measures to safeguard our citizens from nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction. the securing cities program creates a warning and detection system around new york city. h.r. 3350 supplements this concept by requiring a proactive approach in reviewing security concerns relating to the transportation of cbrn materials. i express appreciation to congressman higgins and to the subcommittee chairman, peter king, for moving h.r. 3350. i urge support for the underlying measure and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields

back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 3350. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the opinion of the chair, -- the gentleman from new york. mr. donovan: recorded vote of the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8, rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3572 as

amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3572, a bill to amend the homeland security act of 2002 to reform, streamline and make improvements to the department of homeland security and support the department's efforts to implement better policy, planning and management and performance and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul, and the gentleman from new york, mr. higgins, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. mccaul: i ask unanimous consent that members may have five legislative days to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. without objection. mr. mccaul: as chairman of the committee on homeland security, i rise today in strong support of h.r. 3572, the department of homeland security headquarters reform and improvement act of 2015 which i introduced with my colleague ranking member benny

thompson. this legislation reforms and streamlines d.h.s. headquarters so it can focus on its core mission of better protecting national security. at the same time, this bill saves millions in taxpayer dollars and reins in unnecessary bureaucracy. this plays an important role in providing direction and oversight to the department's 22 components. yet over the years department management has become bloated and unwielding. d.h.s. has established, reorganized and expanded offices and programs without the approval of congress creating new assistant secretary positions and spending billions of dollars on acquisitions that don't meet the needs of our men and women on the front line. this helps them get on track by mandating reviews to ensure taxpayer dollars are not wasted. but instead, directly linchinged to protecting the homeland.

and requires d.h.s. to increase transparency with congress, to hold acquisition programs accountable and to better communicate with industry when making major acquisition decisions. i wod like to take this opportunity to thank our oversit and management subcommittee chairman scott perry and the ranking member bonnie watson coleman in conducting the research that informed the bill, especially their work to through the acquisition process and i'm grateful for their tremendous efforts. this bill eliminates unnecessary assist ant secretary and director positions and abolishes offices or consolidates offices to streamline function atlanta and prohibits the secretary to appoint assist ant secretary without prior congressional

approval. this is a leaner, less bureaucratic and more efficient organization focused on the mission and getting the job done. while h.r. 3572 addresses waste, fraud and abuse, it is one part of a larger suite of legislation that this committee has passed this year dedicated to improving the department overall. we passed by voice vote more than 40 bills addressing shortcomings at t.s.a., fema, secret service, just to name a few. i'm proud of our success in passing specific targeted bills dedicated to bringing in bureaucracy, saving taxpayer dollars and providing much needed congressional guidance and protecting national security. i'm grateful to the members of this committee and staff on both sides of the aisle to keeping

america safe and helped to make all of this legislation possible. my committee aproved this bill unanimously last month. and so in conclusion, i urge all members of the house to join me in supporting this bipartisan bill that will help d.h.s. to operate more efficiently and effectively in protecting the american people. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tech as reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. higgins: i rise in support of h.r. 3572, the department of homeland security reform and improvement act of 2015 and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from is recognized. mr. higgins: the department of homeland security was established in 2003 where 22 agencies were folded together in which was the most substantial reorganization of an agency since the national security act

of 1947. since that time. it has faced evolving range of threats and taken on more missions and responsibilities. even as the department of national security has risen to the post 9/11 world, the integration and coordination of key activities such as policy development, acquisitions and human capital management have been a challenge. as a result, the comptroller general and department of homeland security inspector germ have found instances where decision making at the component level has resulted in performance failures that have wasted limited resources. h.r. 3572 is designed to drive improvements at all levels of the department and to codify key departmental management directives that were issued in recent years. specifically, h.r. 3572 would strengthen the under secretary for management, authorize and realign central offices under

the direct ate and bolster the office of policy including management of d.h.s. and address the department's employee morale issues. h.r. 3572 codifies policies, promoting management practices designed to deliver needed capabilities while actively managing risk. this bipartisan measure was introduced by chairman mccaul on september 18, ranking member thompson was his original co-sponsor. the degree to which this bill is a bipartisan product was further underscored by the acceptance of 13 amendments offered by mocratic members at a full committee mark mark kwlup on september 30th. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. mr. mccaul: i have no further speakers. if the gentleman has no further speakers, i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance

of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized the. mr. higgins: i have no further speakers. mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. .r. 3572 is in line with department of national security johnson's effort. it stream lines how the department conducts outreach including businesses and local government agencies and integrates that process within the department's decision policy making. additionally, in an effort to address chronic morale issues and build bridges between department of homeland security components, it directs the department to establish a rotational program for its work force. the bill elevates the assist ant secretary for policy to an under secretary level. i move that the d.h.s. leaders have south. the bill seeks not only to

improve policy making but advance the goals of the initiative. i urge passage of h.r. 3572 and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized to close. mr. mccaul: i yield myself such time as i may consume and i will be brief. i think it's an excellent bipartisan bill. and i want to thank mr. higgins from new york for his presentation today and support and i want to thank the other side of the aisle continuing to work with me in a bipartisan way to get good things done for the country. i think that's how most committees should work and one that involves protecting the american people, i think is paramount that we work together both republican and democrat. and with that, i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 3572. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 3572 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 on the table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1315. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1315, a bill to amend section 1105-a of title 31, united states code, to require that annual budget submissions of the president to congress provide an estimate of the cost per taxpayer of the eficit, and for other purposes

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from indiana, mr. messer, and the gentleman from kentucky, mr. yarmuth, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana. mr. messer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and tend their remarks and include any extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. messer: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. messer: thank you, mr. speaker. first, i apologize for my voice today. my son hudson and i attended the patriots-colts game on sunday night, and unfortunately the colts were not successful by a touchdown but i lost my voice in the process of rooting them on. i'd like to thank budget chairman tom price and ranking member van hollen for bringing h.r. 1315 to the floor. i rise today in support of this small but important measure. h.r. 1315 requires the president's annual budget submission to congress to

include the cost per taxpayer of any budget deficit in a given fiscal year. this bill is based on a simple principle, each hardworking american taxpayer deserves to know how much the deficit costs them each year. this requirement would be a powerful reminder to the president and the congress that our decisions here in washington have real-world consequences. since 2010, the national debt has increased by over $5 trillion. that's unsustainable and it's require responsible. rather than make some tough choices, we just spend more money we don't have and borrow some more. unfortunately, because of out-of-control spending, we will once again be hitting our debt ceiling soon. that means in two weeks we will borrow the maximum amount of money our country is allowed to borrow by law which now is $18.1 trillion. now, think about that for a second. debt. $18.1 trillion in

that's approximately $154,000 per taxpayer. and instead of asking ourselves, how can we stop the borrow-and-spend cycle, we're asking, should we borrow more money? mr. speaker, it's past time we get our fiscal house in order. i know this bill won't solve our nation's fiscal problems and won't prevent the government from spending more money it doesn't have. however, making this information available requires more easily -- and more easily accessible will help us and our constituents to understand the real-world impacts of budgets that don't balance. it's past time we get our fiscal house in order. i know this bill, again, won't -- our nation's problems

mr. speaker, i yield -- reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. yarmuth: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. yarmuth: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise too discuss h.r. 1315, legislation which requires the president's budget to include an estimate of the size of the deficit on a per taxpayer basis. i don't oppose this legislation. indeed, i voted for a previous version of it in the last congress, but i'm having a hard time understanding what, if anything, it will accomplish. requiring the president's budget to include a basic calculation will do nothing to produce better policies or outcomes that the american people are demanding. and when i say a basic calculation, i'm talking about a calculation that my 7-year-old nephew, lucas, could do probably without his smartphone. but i'll vote yes because i don't think this bill will do any harm. i do think it says something about the majority's priorities that this bill is even being considered. e are facing a series of

enormous budget issues, yet, the majority is devoting floor time to legislation that is essentially meaningless. our government is funding under a trugs that will expire -- continuing resolution that will expire december 11. and sequestration would dastically reduce funding for education, job training and nutrition programs for the children and the elderly. those programs aren't meaningless. millions of americans depend on them. on top of all that, unless congress acts we will default on the full faith and credit of the united states in less than a month. that would cost our economy billions of dollars. we need to be meeting the urgency of the situation with urgent action on the house floor to raise the debt ceiling and avert a disastrous default. additionally, we only have a few weeks left before the

federal highway program runs out of money again. yet, it is even scheduled for floor debate. we've yet to extend tax provisions that benefit millions of taxpayers, both individuals and small businesses. they deserve certainty, not meaningless legislation like this. these priorities, which are also the priorities of the american people, demand our attention. we should be working on reaching agreements to resolve these issues. instead, we are not just wasting our time, we're wasting america's time. let's face it, this bill has two purposes. first, to create the illusion for the american people that congress is actually being productive. and second, to suggest and possibly to scare millions of americans into thinking they will be responsible for a certain amount of debt. an absurd notion just the notion that every american bears an equal share of our tax burden. so mr. speaker, i will vote for this bill. again, i think this is a

pointless exercise, but that's kind of where congress is in this unfortunate era. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. messer: well, i appreciate the gentleman's comments. i certainly appreciate his support for the legislation. i would just suggest, i don't think this is meaningless at all. i think it's important that we let the american taxpayer understand the true cost of operating our government with constant deficits. when you throw around numbers in this town like billion and trillion it's very hard to put them into a scale that the average american can understand. when you look at a $400 billion deficit that we now have on the books and somehow brag to ourselves as if we're somehow serving the american people well and you divide that by 152 million taxpayers, it's over $3,000 we're still adding to the debt. when you look at the entire national debt of $18 trillion, it's $150,000 a person. it is unsustainable. there are, of course, costs to

the -- to the economy. no one is suggesting that a bill collector is going to come to an individual taxpayer's door knocking asking for $150,000. but it gives us a sense of the scale of debt that we are accumulating. five times the -- the individual taxpayer the average wage in this american society. it's unsustainable. it ought to be called out. that's why we have this bill. i think there can be honest disagreements about how we solve our fiscal challenges, but no disagreement about the fact we ought to be transparent about what we're doing with the american people. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. messer: reserves. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. yarmuth: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. yarmuth: i appreciate the remarks of my friend from across the ohio river.

i would say that if we want to do things like show what the per taxpayer impact of our decisions might be, we also might want to look at how much the federal deficit has been reduced in the last eight years . in 2009, when president obama came into office, the federal deficit was $1.4 trillion. it's now right about just over $400 billion. still a lot of money, but i did the calculation and that's almost a $7,000 reduction in the deficit per individual taxpayer over the last eight years. so it can be a positive thing as well. but if we want to add a mathematical calculation to a budget, we really ought to be looking at one the republican party approved in meamp. that budget, -- approved in march. that budget, the republican house budget doesn't add up. and when i say that it literally doesn't add up. it fully repeals affordable care act but still counts all

the revenue raised from the law. the house budget -- the house has approved more than $610 billion worth of tax cuts this year, yet none of that lost ref view is accounted for in the -- revenue is accounted for in the republican budget. there are tax cuts that is about to expire. so, yes, i will support this bill which requires that president's budget includes this one very basic calculation. i just wish my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would apply basic addition and subtraction to their own budget and more importantly deal with the truly important issues that confront this country in the weeks to come. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time or does the gentleman reserve? mr. yarmuth: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. messer: i thank my friend from kentucky for his remarks. i believe the most direct path towards a healthier economy is less spending, lower taxes,

balanced budget and a smaller debt. the first step, though, is more transparency, letting taxpayers know what is happening here. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1315, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1315. 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.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i move that the house suspend the rules and pass house resolution 348 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: resolution supporting the right of the people of ukraine to freely elect their government and determine their future. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the