tv U.S. Senate CSPAN January 14, 2015 10:00am-6:01pm EST
as well as representatives from the department of defense. so we're sharing information. we're vfry transparent with each other. the information ranges from top secret sensitive compartmented information to unclassified information. we're finding that these partnerships having everybody colocate and working together is helping strengthen not only our
situational awareness, but getting solutions to issues as they come in. we are working together to secure and make our infrastructure more resilient by leveraging the activities of the ncic. we have come a long way in the last couple of years. as we look to the future the legislation that's proposed and activities that have already occurred are making us -- >> the division i would like to see expand not just to 16 critical infrastructures but really to the private sector so sonys of the world could participate as well and i think that's the vision and personally i like the idea of the privacy groups came out so strongly in support of not only my legislation but also your efforts, sir, at the dhs because there is a robust privacy office at the department of homeland security. i want to just close, we had the sony attack and we had yesterday an attack by cyber jihadists
purporting to be on behalf of isis at centcom saying american soldiers, we are coming watch your back. isis. this is disturbing as vectors develop, china russia normal winnings iran becoming more sophisticated. with the jihadist groups we've seen attempting to get this technology and type of malware actually being successful hacking into your centcom military isis. this is severely disturbing to me. we don't know how to respond to these things. proportional response, what does that mean. active warfare, what does that mean? mr. chairman, i would like to work with you on a cyber agenda on this committee because it is outside the lanes of my
committee in terms of what do we do with other countries? do we have a nato alliance with cyber? one country is hit with the other. what is the appropriate response when a nation-state hits our infrastructures and in this case when a terrorist organization hits our military. general? >> thank you very much sir. to address to address the points, the first one, about the attack and attribution it got into the centcom networks first of all this was a commercial space a twitter account. there is no compromise and there is no evidence of any penetration into government and specifically the military computer systems. rather it was a commercially facing bulletin board as it were through the twitter account. certainly anytime there is compromise of any account it's serious business and talking with my partners in the
department of defense and the fbi last night, they are investigating it, with all due vigor. and i will be getting an update from them later today. >> so we close, i think, mr. chairman, we have the opportunity to work in this committee on legislation that could deal with the defining what is proportionate response, how other countries should respond with us. what is going to be the response of the united states of america when our companies are attacked when our departments are attacked, when our military is under fire? with that i yield back. >> thank you. by the way mr. mccaul i would be happy to work with you. i was working with mike rogers on a piece of legislation and maybe we can work together on cybersecurity and i appreciate you bringing it up and look forward to working with mr. engel as well on those concepts okay? we go to jerry connolly from
virginia. >> thank you, mr. mccaul and mr. chairman. if you're looking for democrat i will be glad to work with you as well. cybersecurity is big issue in my district. so i would be delighted to help in anyway. i thank the chairman and ranking member for holding this hearing and welcome to our panel. your last comment general, i think underscores something though, i mean, the distinction between the private sector and the public sector when it comes to cybersecurity really isn't a helpful distinction. 85% of the critical infrastructure in this country, for example, is controlled by the private sector. that doesn't mean we don't have a public sector interest in it. and the interface between social media, and other things, we may be doing in the public sector, is often almost seamless because they are so connected. so that's why it seems to me we've got to be concerned even with the kind of attack that occurred the other day in social media and pentagon and better
understand where the boundaries are or even if we want to ren there are boundaries. and i think, mr. mccaul was pointing out too we really need to be rethinking the codification of cybersecurity attacks and severity and what it means from our point of view, not only u.s. law but frankly what it should mean in international law. when, you know if you have a cyber pearl harbor is that an act of war? i mean at what point does the intensity and severity and magnitude constitute an aggressive act that has to be addressed? >> thank you sir, for that question. and the magnitude and severity of the rubric of crossing that line, when does it become an act of war is when it has been hotly and actively debated for many
years. currently the administration is working to put together, codified construct the priorities and the prioritization and taking a look at it from a risk management and consequence management standpoint. that is still a work in progress but ultimately through our congressional processes and our constitutional processes, rather you know, we'll be making those determinations. >> right. i fully appreciate that is going to be a work in progress. but i think one of the tasks our government faces and international community faces is looking afresh at the legal codification of this subject because we're really at a very early stage. and i think that's, we want to make the international law serve as a tool and an ally and in protecting. i'm going to try to do this real quickly. mr. ambassador, does my memory serve me well that a few years ago probably the north koreans helped shut down much of the
banking system in south korea for a day or two? >> at that there was a cyberattack on the south korean financial system. >> do we believe that was generated by the north? >> we believe some more importantly the south korean authorities have indicate that -- >> and that was, think about it. the virtually entire banking system went down. >> i don't recall the exact extent but it was a serious attack. >> the south korean, economy, for example ranks where in the world? >> 10th or 11th. >> yeah. so the 10th or 11th largest economy in the world had its banking system shut down by a cyberattack and i think that is real warning in terms of what the north's capability is and vulnerability of a whole sector not just south korea's economy but frankly our own as well. china, how, how helpful do we think -- you mentioned in your opening statement that china has
been more forthcoming and we want them to be even more forthcoming but the chinese themselves are enpaged in -- engaged in a cyber security attacks in a systemic way sponsored by the pla. that is state-sponsored cybersecurity attacks. so how reliable do we think the chinese are going to be in trying to rein in the north koreans in their cybersecurity malfeasance? >> i'll defer to the general for part of the question. >> to whom? >> to dhs colleagues for answer to your question. >> all right. >> more generally, i do believe that the chinese cooperation on the north korean issue, all dimensions of it, has improved in recent years. i would point to their cooperation in the u.n. security council for passing a resolution after the north korean nuclear teslas year as an example how cooperation has improved. i think it can improve much
further and we're going to continue to work on persuading the chinese when they think about their strategic interests, unconditionally defending north korean misbehavior -- >> yes, but my question, we're limited in time mr. ambassador. i understand all of that in general, but when it comes to this topic cybersecurity their hands are dirty. why would we why would we count on them to help us rein in north korean cybersecurity attacks when they're engaged in it with all for paws and snout? >> when they saw the saw sony pictures attack like this, in a destructive manner it should been a wake-up call to chinese that chinese are subject to irresponsible attacks from countries like north korea. >> i'm sorry, we're running out of time but thank you. general, did you want to comment? >> as we take a look at information sharing and the
common threats and vulnerabilities that are out there. when we have a common threat and as the ambassador had mentioned some of the things that were observed could just as easily threaten the chinese. so it is in everyone's best interests to address the issues and make sure that everyone is a responsible member of the world community. >> well, mr. chairman, just a final observation. that sound very noble and boycott-like, but the fact is the chinese have been stealing military secrets from us, including weapons designs and bypassing r&d stage, for quite some time in a very systemic way. the pentagon knows that because the pentagon has been one of the biggest victims. it seems to me, i wouldn't rely on the chinese in that respect on this subject, given their record. and, it is a problematic aspect of with we're talking about today. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we go to judge poe of texas.
>> thank you mr. chairman. thank y'all for being here. globally there seems to be among the many bad folks in the world three main countries. you have to the syria. you've got iran and you've got north korea. i call them the sik access. because they're in different parts of the world and they're a little sick. i understand the official definition of nuclear weapons from our government is, you have the bomb but you have also differently system. i want to divide that definition and talk about the weapon, the bomb itself. does north korea have a bomb of some magnitude? ambassador? it is just yes or no. >> i wish i could just give awe simple yes or no answer.
>> can you say yes or no? i just need a yes or no. either they have got it or they don't have it? >> we know they continue to work on nuclear capability. >> do they have a bomb, mr. ambassador. i need an answer. >> i'm not sure i can say that. >> mr. glazer, do i have an answer. >> i would defer to the state department. >> you don't know if they have a bomb or not. >> as ambassador kim stated well north korea conducted nuclear tests. >> they sent satellites into orbit. >> they have conducted nuclear tests so i think -- >> general, are you going to pick a horse and ride it. do they have a bomb or do they not have a bomb. >> sir, i do not know. >> you don't know, all right. now, i personally think they have the capability to make one paved on hearings -- based on hearings we've had in this committee. looking on the other end the delivery system the president of north korea said he wants to
develop intercontinental ballistic missiles and for some reason he says he wants to first intercontinental ballistic missile to go to austin, texas. i take that a little personal since i'm from texas. what is the status of the delivery system, if you know? general? >> sir i do not know. >> mr. glaser? do you know? >> really not a treasury department issue. >> i understand. how about you mr. ambassador back to you? >> i will be happy to provide awful briefing in a classified setting on their capabilities both on nuclear and missiles. >> we had some open hearings. they have the ability i understand, to develop and make it as they call it a scud in a bucket. are you familiar with that mr. ambassador, a missile that can go from north korea to south korea? do they have the capability to
do that? >> yes. >> all right. the united states used to have north korea on a state sponsor of terror list that was removed in 2008. based on what you know, you think it might be a good idea to put them back on the state sponsor of terror mr. ambassador? >> sir, there is, as you know there is very clear criteria -- >> do you think they should be back on the list? i'm asking another yes or no question. >> my personal opinion -- >> that is what i want to know, is your personal opinion. >> there is a criteria there is a process, sir and we're constantly evaluating all available intelligence and information to determine whether north korea -- >> how long is that evaluation going to take? after all they're hacking into our cybersecurity of the united states. do y'all have a time limit how long you are going to take? >> i understand your concern and frustration, but as a the mare of law the secretary of state must determine the government of that country repeatedly provided
support for acts of international terrorism and we're in an ongoing process to determine whether the north koreans meet that criteria. if they do if they do -- >> i'm reclaiming that my time. do you think hacking into our system is an act of terror or not? >> i believe that is beyond my -- >> so you don't have an opinion? general, you got an opinion? you're in the military. is that an act of terror or not? people are afraid to say it is, act of war. i'm wanting your opinion. >> i think sir as we take a look at this, this is something that should be part of the public debate and we should have a conversation not necessarily constrained to this particular incident but as we take a look to the future for any cyber incidents, we should have a public conversation as our next step. >> that is the diplomatic version i assume but seems to me that is an act of terror. we ought to strongly consider
putting north korea, these outlaws on state sponsor of terror list. i don't know why we are so timid doing that. seems like the right thing to do the logical thing to do. i hope the state department eventually makes up their mind before more of these attacks occur against the united states. i agree with mr. connolly when he said that the line is very thin between an attack upon the government of the united states and an attack on private industry in the united states. that seems to me to be an act, an attack. it is a terrorist attack. i yield back, mr. chairman. thank you. >> very good. we go to brian higgins of new york. mr. higgins. >> thank you mr. chairman. the nuclear and cyber threat of north korea is profound. now the question is how is the united states respond to north korea's cyberattack on
sony? an attack to punish sony for making a movie that humiliated the supreme leader. the united states options are very few. counterattack, to weaken north korea's political military and economic assets. highly ininefectual. number two, relisting north korea as a state sponsor of terrorism with new sanctions. and in that we don't have much of an economic relationship with north korea, that too would be highly ininefectual. the serious threat posed by north korea far. >> seeds cyber attacks. north korean cyber attacks i think are indicative of future intent. intent backed by considerable capability. there is only one geopolitical option equal to north korea's threat and that is to work with our allies both new and old to end north korea's existence as an independent entity and
reunifying the korean peninsula. north korea's nuclear threat. north korea has four to 10 nuclear devices and hundreds of short and i intermediate range missiles. they have an active uranium and plutonium program. and it is not inconceivable that north korea, in time will have a nuclear capability to reach the united states. north korea regime is a proliferation threat. a decade ago it was helping to build a nuclear reactor in syria. and it is a potential source of missiles and nuclear materials to rogue states including terrorists. north korea has a serious convention military which is a threat and existential threat to the region. as a population of 25 million people, and fourth largest army in the world. north korea's army is two times
that of south korea with its population which is half of south korea. there are 28,500 american troops in south korea. further aggression by north korea would bring the united states into a major costly and dangerous war. north korea is a threat to its own people. their crimes against humanity, crimes against their own people include extermination and murder enslavement and forced starvation. 100,000 political prisoners held under horrendous conditions. north korean sigher attacks against sunni or against, sony are not new. north korea regularly attacks south korean banks and businesses. also there is a changing view of north korea by its neighbors and only economic sponsor. china and south korea changed their views. the south korean president used to be lukewarm to talk about a
unified korea. today the south korean president speaks openly of reunification and of the enormous economic benefits of that unification. china is frustrated that north korea ignores its requests to freeze or dismantle its nuclear program. with a nuclear armed north korea, south korea and japan will want or need to develop a nuclear weapons program. china increasingly is viewing north korea as a strategic liability. not an asset. china views north korea as a growing threat to china's stability. and china's ties to south korea have flourished. china is south korea's leading economic partner and china's president, regular visits south korea and not north korea. so while the discussion here is centered on cyber attacks think
there is a larger discussion that needs to take place. your thoughts. >> thank you very much congressman. i think you're absolutely right about china's evolving improving relations with south korea and this is relevant to one of the points your colleague made earlier. what is china's strategic perspective. i don't think we can continue to assume unconditionally defending north korean misbehavior is in china's strategic interest. i think there is an ongoing serious debate going on in the beijing on future direction of the north korean policy. one of the reasons they see future relationship with south korea, major trading relationship huge flow of traffic, students, tourists business people and i think that is where the future is for china on the korean peninsula. this is one of the reasons why we're starting to get more forthcoming cooperation from the chinese with regards to dealing with north korean misbehavior.
>> gentleman's time has expired. mr. duncan of south carolina. >> thank you madam chairman. north korea has a history of cooperation with a wide range of other rogue regimes including syria, iran and cuba. although i don't guess it is political correct to say cuba is a rogue regime because i will keep them on the list because i don't believe a tiger changes its stripes that quickly. let's make some connections. north korea. north korean ship was seized by panama in july of 2013. it was found to be carrying cuban and soviet-era weapons from cuba. it actually sailed through the panama canal through cuba. turned its transponder off. went to havana and loaded with aircraft parts, mig 21s and other aircraft and military hardware covered with sugar. taken back to the panama canal.
seized by panama. found, discovered the weapons in the ship. 32 crewmembers were released. the other three are still being held i understand. so you've got the cuban-north korean connection there. let's talk about venezuela. venz ven is cuba's largest and best ally in the region especially in the post-soviet-era. venezuela, if i look back to i guess december of 2011, venezuela's top diplomat in miami was linked to an alleged cyberterrorism plot against the u.s. in collusion with iran. there is another rogue connection with iran and there have been flights from tehran to havana to venezuela i believe. so you've got venezuela involved in cyberterrorism possibly against the united states at least alleged. you have got a cuba connection with north korea. and we have got now, north korean cyberattack on an
american company. continues a lot of rogue nations involved in cyberterrorism and other things. so i've got to ask, ambassador how and what extent is north korea engaging with allies china russia, iran syria, cuba and possibly maybe just by association venezuela? and the connection to cyberterrorism there? >> generally speaking we're all deeply concerned about north korea's relations with the countries you mentioned. i don't have specific information with their cooperation with cyber attacks you but we do know north korea had relations with a number of the countries you mentioned and it is something we monitor very closely. the ship interdiction you mentioned is one important example of how international cooperation can yield results on the sanctions front. i think this is a very important point because the congressman
mentioned because of limited dealings with north korea directly we need international cooperation to make sure that sanctions, both international and unilateral sanctions actually can be effective. and that the situation you mentioned is a perfect example of that. >> treasury, are you tracking money? is there any evidence of money going from north korea to iran to cuba, to venezuela, any of these connections? are you aware of any of that? >> well yes, we spend a lot of time obviously working closely with the intelligence community that does the real tracking. to try to identify north korean financial networks. wherever they might be. whether it is with the regime such as iran or institutions in iran in asia potentially, in south america. to be honest with you i think when it comes to trying to apply financial pressure on north korea, we shouldn't take our eye off the ball and the ball is asia. that is where north korea gets its primary access to
international financial system. asia broadly. certainly china specifically. that is as we devise strategies to try to put pressure on north korea -- >> all right. well, thank you, very much for your patience. and for coming today. as you know, i'm ton a hoe president of the chamber. just a few minutes ago i annual look at the economy and business and what we might expect from others and what you could expect from us this year. if you missed it there is a copy of the speech they're giving you as is always the question but not the case but
not last year because he was in the hospital scared the hell out of us, is bruce johnson who is our executive vice president of all things we do with government and related matters. a number of our senior advisors are here that handle many of these subjects. so they're over there and they're over there. you can catch them all at the end of your questions and pursue some of your issues in more depth. and as i said in the peach -- speech, the chamber believes the state of american business is improving and the economy is gaining momentum. we expect growth to be in the 3 to 3 1/2% range at least through the middle of the year but when we look beyond that, when we look beyond the near term the outlook is less certain. business faces a host of challenges and uncertain at thises including economic weakness abroad which is very significant by the way.
an unprecedented regulatory onslaught here at home and new cybersecurity threats among many others. and while things are improving the current policies of tax, spend and regulate aren't cutting it. and in fact we have eroded our economy's long-term potential the rate of growth of the economy because of some of these factors. so instead of taking a victory lap the administration, the congress, and all of us have got to heed the lesson of the last election. work together to advance jobs and growth and raise america's take-home pay. divided government is not an excuse to dog. it is an opportunity to work together. it is to everyone's benefit. we know it won't be easy but with new people in congress with a president who hopefully will be tending to his long-term legacy, we think we can get some
important things done for working and morn and american people. we want to rally around a bipartisan cause, stronger and deeper economic growth in order to create jobs and expand opportunities for all americans. the chamber will be pursuing three very quickly i will say things to help achieve that. first we're going to aggressively advance our jobs growth and opportunity agenda that capitalizes on the extraordinary potential we have in trade, energy technology and infrastructure. second, we're going to build support for a government reform agenda. this is not an individual regulation or something. it is reforming the agenda. how we make regulations. that eases uncertainty and supports growth by improving
immigration, the regulatory process, the tax code entitlement programs, the legal system and very importantly, our public schools. and third, the chamber is going to vigorously defend a set of fundamental american values that define who we are as a people. and what made us the most free the most prosperous and most compassionate country on earth. i'm talking about the right to speak, the right to due process under the law the right to participate in a free enterprise system where you can take a risk, you can work hard and achieve your dreams. and we should all be concerned by the steady erosion of these rights and freedoms on a federal and state level. most of all we'll fight to preserve the spirit of enterprise in america. this is the real economic populism. we're all talking about economic
populism. well we have a set of economic populisms we really believe n it is reflected in more than 28 million businesses of all sizes in every community in this country. americans, america's enterprise system is not perfect, we want to say that right up front but it is built on the most successful economy in the history of the world and it is built, it has been been built from the bottom up. this is populism that really works. last two thoughts populism based on trickle down government with an ever growing power accruing to washington can not work because with it our economy can not grow. instead we need policies that support, expand and celebrate the entrepreneurial spirit and make sure that it thrives not just in business but in everything we do in this country and with that we'll take all your questions. wait a second. i have to tell you the rules of
engagement. you have to tell us who you are, and know if it's a really tough question i will let bruce answer it. okay. >> thanks so much for having me. i'm lydia wheeler with "the hill." now you mentioned in 2015 that the chamber will have this renewed push on regulatory reform. can you describe or talk about that strategy? >> well, as you know, in the last session of the congress, we passed a three-part, we didn't pass it, the congress passed it with our encouragement a three-part reform of the regulatory process and it, it dealt with questions of sue and settle. it dealt with questions of permits. it dealt with the fundamental issues of how the process of regulation was going to go forward and by the way, it was voted on a bipartisan basis and i think it will be growing
sentiment to move this forward and we've had a lot of indication in the senate of interest for this reform process. remember, i said in the speech that the last time we reformed our regulatory process harry truman was the president. i remember him but most of you don't and we think there is a sentiment for doing this. i'm not worried about the president's suggestion he is going to veto it. that is part of the negotiation process and you know, the white house, always comes up with the things they may veto of the let's see what's in it. let's see what discussions bring and see how many people vote for it. >> [inaudible]. >> all right. you pick them out. i will answer them. to ahead. >> tom, thanks. brian with "bloomberg news." this is kind of a three-part question. >> you always have three-part questions. >> yeah. you sort of tempered your language a little bit on the oil exports issue, on the energy exports issue whether there
should be reform. i wonder first if you're calling or outright end to limits on oil exports and if so should that be coupled with the keystone pipeline legislation? finally we have pretty much free oil exports with canada. i'm wondering if that should be granted to mexico as well? thanks. >> i will dot last part first. mexico is a long way from getting its energy industry, oil and gas, so on, organized the way canada has but they're moving in a very thoughtful way to do that. we think it is good for the nafta relationship, the three countries that are together on many trade and investment and security issues. so we would hope we would treat them the same way. second, the keystone pipeline i'm going to behave today right? i mean that is a political joke.
we have been through this thing in every possible way. everybody knows it creates jobs. the labor unions are vigorously for it. everybody knows, with all the studies it does not create an environmental problem in this country. and the thing that really bothers me, the country that has been our friend, our partner, our supporter and in every way for as long as any of us can remember, is canada. and we're treating them very badly on this issue. and i think that is a mistake. on the question of exporting oil and gas, you really have to look at it in two circumstances. you know, we had a circumstance what, 120 daysing ago, where the prices were higher. and there was good surplus here in the united states. now, it may go down some because of invests as the prices go
down. but there is plenty of opportunity us to export oil and gas, if they want reasonable regulation, that's fine. for the advantage to the american economy to create jobs, and, to help stability around the world. and you know you can just think about the issue in the ukraine. there are a lot of opportunities to look at the stability issues as well. thank you and that is the end of three-part questions. you picking them or am i? all right. >> hi. andrea gresham from "national journal." looking ahead to 2016 i have two questions for you. do you think the chamber will be as involved in gop primaries and do you have a ballpark what you think you guys will spend? >> primaries are created in two ways. one, people decide not to run or
people locally decide to challenge someone. and we've already, beginning to see folks that are looking at whether they think running is a good idea. so i think there will be more opportunities. now, it is a long way to then. so some people will temporarily assume those jobs or be appointed, or even elected but that creates an opportunity for primaries. and i think, i don't know we had a conversation one day about, we could even have primaries on democratic side that we would be interested in. we think, here's our fundamental, one-sentence deal. we believe candidates matter more than anything else. we're looking for people who want to govern. who want to come to washington, to join in the debate and the process and the responsibility of governing on behalf of their fellow citizens and we're going to support them.
how much we'll spend, i have no idea. it basically comes down to how much we do and how much we need. who's up? all right. >> hi, good morning i'm with the ap. many thanks for doing this. i would like to ask what are the chamber's goals this year for cuba that you haven't mentioned in your speech. you also said in the speech that immigration reform could be possible this year but we see today that the republican the house is about to vote on a bill that is blocking executive action by president obama. could you please elaborate a little bit, how you see the solution possible this year and what specific initiative that the chamber has on immigration. thank you. >> well the immigration thing what we're interested in is what i said in the speech. we need workers. we're a country with people without jobs and jobs without people. we're working very hard to find jobs for the people that don't
have them. and we're working very hard to find people for jobs that need specific skills. it is why our hiring heroes out of military program works so well. and we really believe that an immigration program that provide people at both ends of the spectrum, people going to our great universities and people that work in everything from hospitals and nursing homes and resorts and agriculture. we need a way that companies can know who they're hiring and there is a good process in place there that seems to be ready to be put in fuller use. we need to deal with the borders and it has got to be a reasonable thoughtful process. and, and we have to figure out what to do with people that are illegally here and give them some process to having legality and moving forward. and i believe the sentiment is growing across this country to do that. on the question oh, by the way,
on issue of what they're voting on today, has got not a lot to do with immigration. it has a lot to do with the constitutional prerogatives of the president and the congress. i think it is fine they go about that. but there is a very simple way that the members of the house and senate can solve this problem. go pass an immigration bill, send it to the president and let him sign it and that's the end of that problem. on cuba, we are, we've been involved in the cuban issue for a long time. we believe that the agreement and the decisions by the president on this are a good start. we are we only have three sentences to say about that right now today. number one, no matter what you're doing, if you're doing it for 50 plus years and it doesn't work, you ought to find something else. number two if you look at the tenure of the current government
and what their plans are, one of the major changes will be, if you look at all of the people from countries all over the world that are developing the economy over there, it is time for us to move and number three, after the last time i was there in the two weeks following, putin, and then xi, the president of china were there and i much rather we were deciding what we're going to do in cuba than them deciding what they're going to do. thank you very much. >> i write for tax notes. hi tom. i'm going to start with you since you gave the speech. it took you about half an hour to get to tax reform which i and you were it seemed like you were a little tepid when talking about it. you didn't seem to have a lot of confidence it would happen this year which is really unusual
because i think everybody else i talk to think it is definitely going to happen but i also want to ask yeah -- >> did you say the people you talk to think it is or not. >> i was joking. it is not going to happen. >> okay. >> i want to go to bruce on this too. what's your, what's your take on that? i mean it's a serious issue. there has been talk of compromise but, you seem to have very low expectations. how are you guys approaching that issue? >> i will answer that question. bruce will talk to you about the tax deal. if you look at sequence of things we talked about, they're not, they're importance is not in the order which they were done. you know i'm very passionate about the last things i talked about, and by the way, we are realists about taxes. we're realists and bruce will tell you what realism is. >> so i think what tom tried to do in his his speech highlight
the fores foremost opportunities for outcome. if you look at trade legislation and energy legislation and technology stuff and infrastructure which in part gets you to tax reform. i think first off we have two new chairman of the tax writing committees. neither will pick up where the last person left off. they're going to start aye knew. i think -- anew. in the house, chairman ryan would be hard at work what he describes process reforms that are needed and necessary to facilitate achieving tax reform. some of that deals with dynamic scoring. some of that deals with budget issues. chairman hatch is at least close to if not 700 pages of outlines of tax reform. i have been up and met with both of them and many others on this. i think tax reform is very hard to do. i, there has been a lot that suggests that the administration and tax writing committees in both chambers and both parties are roughly on the same page to
>> you said the president is going to have a fight with members, round up support in his own party to get tpa prove. i just wonder, what is your sense of how many democrats are needed in the house to make this a bipartisan effort? and are you concerned that there might be a large number of republicans who would be loath to vote for the bill because they don't want to give obama the authority? >> well, every president since jerry ford or something has had trade promotion authority. and our reading of this having been all over our teams all over the congress talking to just about everybody is that there's plenty of support their.
we further read that the president has begun to make it clear, first of all, of his own team that he wants a cabinet and others up there working on this. i'm hopeful that he will be very aggressive on it in the state of the union. he knows and he had some meetings just recently organizing the white house and others. he knows that they're going to have to have an effort to deal into areas. one with the necessary number of democrat's line and that means giving with the labor. and he knows that in fact he's got to spend some time assuring republicans of what it's going to lead to. but we believe that the are plenty plenty of votes to get this done. i believe we will get it done. and i'm very encouraged that this could be the first step in
a three or four step process that would strengthen the economy of the united states for a long time to come. >> quickly add to your question. if i remember correct, i think only about 25 house democrats voted for tpa the last time. i'm not sure all 25 members are still in the house this time. innocent if i remember correctly it was about 21 senate democrats who voted for it. i believe only six of them are there. point is you know there has been a lot of trade votes, not a lot of members of congress who understand tpa. and now we have to add, don't forget, taa as part of that journey to accomplish tpa. i agree with tom. this does get done, the president of is clearly could have some challenges on his side of the aisle in and outside of congress. he's going to have to work to
bring some democrats with them. but let's not overlook the republican leadership in both chambers is on the same page with the president wanting to deliver tpa to him. >> victoria cross "the wall street journal." i was hoping you could give us some more specifics about the legislative priorities you have regarding financial regulation, for instance you mentioned fsoc but do you think congressional action is needed beyond what fsoc itself is doing? and also on cyber what specific legislation do you think is needed? >> let's do the cyber first period as you know, over the years there's been efforts to seek out a piece of legislation that would help us deal with what was at the time a problem that people were sort of spending time looking at and we
never quite got there. and one of the reasons was that there was come in the government, a view that there should be a law that told everybody how they had to react to cyber difficulty. well, it would take about every 12 minutes, we would change how we respond to those things. so we challenged that. by the time they wrote the law and wrote the regulations would've changed 1000 times. but right now what we are saying, and there's a much, much more educated understanding of the subject than there was years ago, but what we need now so that companies and governments at home and abroad, let's say american companies and governments at home and abroad because we have companies overseas have to be able to exchange information with the
government, and in some instances, between and among companies that have similar problems, so that we, we the american economic system, the american system of governance is in a position to defend itself instantly, and to learn from the problems of others. and we believe that a bill that addresses the issue that provides legality for companies to do that, within appropriate limits, is very, very important so that we can work together to avoid the really difficult things that you have seen. and you can multiply those out as being far more. on the issue of financial regulation, i mean i think the first thing to understand, in fact i want to say three things. the absolute frustration of running a bank or a financial
institution and having a half a dozen regulators in your building telling you what you're supposed to do everyday, and then being an absolute conflict with one another is not a good way to do business. and there has to be some strengthening of that process including some oversight by the congress. the second thing is all this time since dodd-frank, we still of the third of the regulation that have not been completed. and only, you know we can only begin to imagine what that's going to do when added to what's already here. and last thing i think is very, very important is that the regulators are going far beyond where an overkill law already went. and if it doesn't exactly fit with the want to do, they decide, they will decide what the law is.
you have noticed we've been in the course of some of those issues quite successfully. and our issue we were lucky that we dealt with the derivative issue not for people that were outside users, you know, a cup race not the financial institutions but we are going to more of that. you're going to see places. and why would you not? i mean, you write this thing. it's still two or three years in getting completed. it was written in anger and it was written in a hurry. and if you think you'll need technical corrections or discussion and explanation, then we are never going to get anywhere. you guys know a lot about the an hope you will write on it extensively because it's a real problem. >> i will just add to quick comments that we continue to be concerned about the cfpb, okay? this is an agency that just as one person running it doesn't have anybody surrounding it basically an unlimited budget,
isn't under congressional oversight. if you look at the fsoc issue and take that life example this is an example what time is mentioned in his speech about the need for government reform and regulation. so here you have a group of regulators who couldn't identify let alone define what the systemic risk behavior was in the interests. they couldn't decide over here but was a systemic risk activity. and then they name for companies as systemic risk outside of banking. and one of them is obviously a guy correctly challenge that because definitionally if you can't identify the behavior how do i become a systemic risk institution? so if something is awry in the slow process of how we are racing to regulate. >> hi. ashley with seeming. could you talk all a bit more about the 2016, i see the presidential race shaping up?
and also could you specifically address the fact that mitt romney is thinking about getting in the race? >> well, i'll be glad to make a couple of comments but i have to first have all my disclaimers. we don't actively participate in the presidential election. we have caused comment during the process on the policy issues involved, and we are interested of course on who all the candidates are. just think about it. every morning in america, about 25 or 30 people it up and look in the mirror and say the morning, mr. president good morning, madam president. it's a great thing about the american system. it's a great thing. and it's going to have you name the time, six months from now? we thought it would be but now all of a sudden a lot of front pew but it's going to have an effect on what we're trying to do on the other very important
policy regulatory legislative issues that need to be addressed. and by the way on the global issues we are dealing with. on romney, not talking about him as a presidential candidate he's a skilled businessman. he's certainly got some experience on being in the presidential business. and i think he is a talented guy, but i could say the same thing about a lot of people men and women. i think it's going to be fascinating. but here's my deal. i think the american people in the elections in the house, elections in the senate, elections for governor and therefore, election for president of the united states are going to look very, very carefully for people that share their values, but bring confidence and experience to the process. if you went to look at all the
polls that was of great concern in the last election, would people go to washington and govern come into the of the conference and the expense to do so? >> good morning, tom. good morning bruce. if i can just get you to go further on 2016 and maybe throw a slab of red meat and ask you to talk about elizabeth warren. >> i think there are lot of economic populist running around in the congress, and out of the congress. elizabeth warren is a person who has some views we don't share. now, she's a member of the senate. that's what i'm talking about right now. the idea that people should not be confirmed to serve in the government because you have experience in the subject for
which he would be a sign is a very unique idea, isn't it? it may work in the senate but it sure doesn't work when you're doing complicated financial issues, for example. second the idea that enterprise and american companies should be more vigorously regulated by the government and in fact controlled by the government is a view that we don't share. very pleasant woman if you you know, sit down and have a cup of tea with her, or a drink. but we don't share her views on the economy and on where the american economic system ought to be headed. and i don't think if she runs for president, i don't think the american people will share her views either.
>> rachael harris with inside health policy. you mentioned it briefly in in his speech but i was wondering if you could expand on your health care approach this year, and if it's impacted at all or shape at all by the pending litigation and if that's kind of is that they signed towards review and replace strategies or kind of the smaller tweaks like the 40 hour workweek and things like that? >> bruce is going to enlighten you on that. i would sit beside that health care is 17% or 18% of our economy. and so legislation of high significance in terms of many changes in the system, it's very difficult to implement. and very difficult to rationalize it and the president and the white house have been
basically rewriting it as we go along, which is sort of a unique perspective for us. but there are going to be changes, because it is so omnipresent in everything we do that we've got to find out what works and what doesn't, and we will be a part of that. >> a couple points. first come on health care legislation, as tom pointed out it is about the overall economy. there is no magic wand in this space at all. we think there are some serious structural issues with the law. that's been enacted. our members have to deal with them, so our objective and our role and responsibility on behalf of our members, so that runs the gamut from the 30-40 hour deal. interest in medical liability which wasn't mentioned.
we are interested in a whole host of things that make this a little easy. we have objections to the employer mandate. we are not involved at all with the litigation. but i think the litigation depending upon what the court does decide could have a huge impact on the law. going forward because of subsidies and who gets them and how to get them and all of that. medicaid isn't really a business organization issue per se. tom mentioned, i think there is a bipartisan support for repealing the medical device attacks. i think we have expressed concern and interest would health insurance tax. they do nothing that makes this whole process more expensive for everybody to get into the system. but look there are 60 votes in the senate to pass the repeal bill. president obama is the president. he's not going to sign a law if it ever got to his desk that repeals his signature
achievement, quote-unquote. so we are not working for repeal, even though we are actively working to defeat this him ever becoming a law. but now the objective is it is a lot were four or five years into this thing and we've got to continue to try to improve it at every turn. that's what we're going to do. >> i would just add one other thing that it's a very interesting to watch our friends and neighbors and family try and deal first with the existing system, and now with a changing system which causes them to lose, reapply for their health insurance, find out their co-pays have changed. and i'm not making a value judgment about the content. i making a value judgment about how difficult it is for everyday americans. and i'm not talking about that guy that worked on the suggested they weren't very smart. i'm suggesting they are smart
but they are uninformed because he tried to pick up that stuff in the explanations and try and inform yourself you are lucky if you work for a company that takes care of arranging your health insurance. if you have to do it herself it is one of the scariest things you can ever imagine. >> hi. i'm susan cornwell with reuters. and the obama administration says they're going to unveil new rules today that aim to slash methane and missions from oil and gas production. i think by up to 45% by the year 2025. so i know you sort of touched on this in your speech, but i wonder what you specifically thought about this proposal to regulate methane gas? thank you. >> bruce?
>> we just talked about it. >> first off first, just so you know where we were so we haven't had a chance to review it, but from what i've stand, you're right, it's a 45% reduction by 2025. i'm told it doesn't define how we would ever achieve that through regulation. yet over you on the other side of that is another reality that says about the last five years u.s. industry has reduced methane emissions by about 11%. by the way fracking by greater than 70%. all of what epa had previously forecast as undershot many the private sector has exceeded emission reductions voluntarily far beyond what they had hoped to achieve. so you're kind of stopping right away wondering wait a second term we are moving forward with pretty significant reductions massive on the fracking site. and that the ministrations comes up with another kind of one size fits all regulation that's going to have an impact on one of the
most innovative industries in the country without any definition of how you achieve. so we are concerned. [inaudible] >> hi. i am from japanese tv network. on cuba can you tell us what kind of benefits u.s. business community can get from possible u.s.-cuba commercial exchange? and are you planning to visit havana begin this year? thank you. >> i think the benefits should be measured sequentially. the first benefit comes to the united states of america. cuba is 91 miles off the coast of florida. there are people from all over the world down there. they have built one of the most modern ports to handle all those ships coming through, the new ships through the panama canal,
a for by the brazilians, the dredging paid for by the germans, the cranes and the computer technology provided either chinese. there's a major oil drilling and refining operation, gas and oil which is a joint partnership with the canadians and we are not there except on food. the second, and very, very important thing that's critical to the united states is national security and geopolitical reality. we don't want to go back to a point where others who don't wish us well, or who are competitive not an economic sense but in the geopolitical sense set up shop 91 miles from one of our major cities. and we've been on top of all that there are extraordinary
opportunities for american companies there. you have all seen the pictures. now, it's not the biggest population in the world but there's a chance to do two things. want to sell a bunch of cars and two going to the car business of antique cars. and, and by the way, there is an unbelievable demand by the people living in cuba for consumer products, technology, and other things that someone is going to sell the. it's not going to be all of us because look at all these countries that other companies in their already. but the bottom line is it is now time for us to do something here. and by the way, you all notice that the dissidents were released yesterday. >> hi. i mark from investment news. going back to financial regulation. how exactly do you see it
unfolding? for instance, the technical corrections bill that's going to come out of the house today do you think the senate is going to embrace it in a form that comes out of the house or take a different approach and want to go to regular order and do those things one by one? how do you see that unfolding? second in the majors real quick what are you going to do to try to stop the deal off the fiduciary build? >> the senate might be motivated to take the bill estimate if it passes and gets better. mitch mcconnell has said he wants to do everything through regular order as you all well know although he has pointed out the xl pipeline issue, it's not an open in regular order mean he's not going to let perpetual and then it's in the hundreds go on forever. i do have a clue what the senate is going to do on this, and it's hard to predict. i would assume pass it or come close to passing it. it seems to me that the concern and effort in both chambers
right now is to try from the leadership of stage to build as much for parsing support to move these things as quickly as they can, but the president decided what he's going to do. >> remember, the end of the week, leaders and the members of the house and the senate will be together for their meeting. and we are hoping that when you put together the regular order in the senate and and a cooperative relationship between the leaders in both houses, that we would get to some of these issues. in terms of the fiduciary issue out of labor, we are deeply concerned about a lot of things coming out of labor. remember, labor sets the rules for how you hire people, how you pay benefits, how you pay them, what you have to do in the regulations on the workplaces and all of that and there are lots and lots of things cooking
over there that we're going to have to deal with. and we hope to deal with them with logical arguments. we hope to deal with them with compelling facts. and when we finally get through with it and a lot of those we will have to do with them in a court of law, and gene we are really good at it. >> dana milbank from the "washington post." if you look at the current rates of growth, it seems to be hard to make the case that obamacare and dodd-frank and the other policies of this administration distorted the free enterprise system. do you think those warnings of your some a few years ago were overwrought or do you think things would be fundamentally and significantly better now? >> destruction of the free enterprise? your crazy. >> you find one place that we projected the destruction of the free enterprise system and i will buy you lunch. >> where are we going?
>> your call. you are paying. guaranteed. >> we worry about people going after the enterprise system, but we don't project its destruction. and i think it's a very interesting to look at how the government and the united states has gotten its deficit down to where it has with the 98 billion out of the fed with hundreds of billions all the time out of extorted settlements out of companies and other issues, but when you look at where this stuff is going in just the next years, and the governments own projection of how huge that deficit is going to be most of it by the way huge amount of it tied into entitlement i think you've got to be really careful -- oh ma by the way they want to do more tax increases.
certainly the cost of these regulatory changes are extraordinary, but the bottom line is very simple. we need to be alert. we need to understand the challenges and the predictable crisis that we face and we need to do something about or we will pay a price for it. >> hi. came from a political. i had a few questions about the gas tax. first of all are you guys attached to the gas tax as sort of the funding source for the highway bill, or do you think texas or something like that? secondly in your speech you said, i'm not sure if you are using rhetoric or something you were posing one or two times the savings would come from falling gas prices. 20 cents seems to be a little bit higher than what most of the people have proposed for a gas tax increase, so is that actually -- >> there was an or between the first and second time or and. listen, this is a very simple
issue. we have gone three years since we've increased -- 23 years since we increased the federal fuel tax. during that time everybody in this room has gone from having a car that goes x. miles a gallon to having a car that gets many more miles per gallon, which means you, which means you are driving come and same thing in the trucking business which i know a lot about and the bottom line is we are driving as many miles or more miles on the road and we're collecting half of the funds that we work to repair the roads and the extent of the road where it needs to go. and the bridges and to take care of transit your and everybody thought about all the ideas where they could hide the quote gas tax. we could put in something else inand make believe it didn't happen. we can have and infrastructure
bank. yeah, you can but you can't have an infrastructure bank if you have a poor system that allows you to pay for it. we've watched four to six states the year increased their own gas tax, and it's a two-day story. what's needed here is the realization that there are a lot of holes in the road, a lot of bridges in this country that don't work, and pretty soon we will have a crisis. and we need a way to pay for this because we're going to do it. my recommendation to the leadership is that this is a hell of a lot simpler than a lot of other things you are talking about. >> if you think about this issue, so you had a recession which reduced consumption to get have a vehicle mile increase that tom mentioned, which has been rather dramatic. you've got another thing of molly meals not necessary driving cars the way, say my generation did so there's a lot of factors and forces that have done what?
they have driven down the receipts of trust fund close to 30% since about 2007. it's clear the direction it is going to repair and renovation cost, by the way land labor materials et cetera are going up rather dramatically this isn't free to be paid for. the people that complain about it being a quote tax increase, let's not forget that congress a year ago did on the other side of the coin entirely raise the inland water fee tax okay? 9 cents. so at some point reality begins to hit. i think it's encouraging more today, from the vehicle mile tax which has been discussed to this, but you have more members of the house and senate right now saying maybe we ought to take a look at this. mable got to take a look at the tax, made a look at indexing. you didn't have those conversations even a year ago. so that's a big improvement to this isn't going to be done for free.
>> david woods inside epa. i have questions on the regulatory reform issue. first, you talked about a bill for crafting and regulations. are you looking at a particular legislation for the other prongs of that agenda? and on the side of reforming enforcement of existing rules you talked about some practices you want to see stop. can you go into more detail on what agencies are using those i guess you call them underhanded enforcement tricks? >> to you want to go on the first -- >> the bills that tom mentioned was regulatory accountable to act which finally is designed to reform the administrative procedure act which is the single statute on the books from 1942 or 46 that guides the rulemaking and regulators in a regulating process. considering it's 2015, we think taking a good look at how you modernize that in today's world
is probably appropriate. bipartisan group of the house and senate members agree with is based upon cosponsorship. the permit streamlining come it shouldn't take 12 15 or 20 20 years to get a permit for anything in this country in which is kind of what it's been taking. we've kind of modeled off of what they've done on the highway side. so all comments should be heard everybody should be considered but there's a timeline where you make a decision to this just can't go on and on forever. the third piece of that is the suit and subtle gang and this is one where we think some organizations have taken unfair advantage of a legitimate legal process which is called sue the epa. the courts are deferential to epa in this case. they always settle. treasury writes a check, okay and then reimburses. this is almost a self-funding mechanism for some of those groups. >> and the worst part of that is you can't challenge it the same way you could a regulation.
so the person or the group that initiates the suit makes a deal with the epa, they get what they want in the decision from the epa. then they did paid for it, and then she can't challenge it. the same way but if it were a regulation. >> we think that kind of gang needs to stop. now, the general counsel of epa kind of agreed with us and i started to release some of the information which by the way for years they wouldn't release. part of the repertory reform concerns we have had on some of the standard setting were epa says our analyses in science tells us come and we say can we see the sights? and again is no university did a. we don't own a. you go to the university of basic we did it for epa we are not permitted to give it to you. we are like a ping pong ball going back and forth. we are saying in those instances, epa should forthrightly bring forward those
analyses and studies. we would like to see in them real cost-benefit analyses over all in terms of the entire impact on the economy. i think you guys and gals know we did a study over several years on this sue and subtle game and permitting and identified more than 350 prizes. by the way interestingly over half of which were for alternative and renewable energy infrastructure projects that stopped because of this sue and settle game. so there's a lot going on in this space that the enemy and needs to be peeled back a little bit, and dba needs to be a lot more transparent. >> andrew with the "national law journal" and corporate counsel. over here. 2015, reforming the false claims act a priority for the chamber? >> yes.
>> could you talk all a bit more about what you're hoping to a copper? >> let me hook you up with matt webb who i think is here. >> and not we will get it spent we'll get him because i know the other people in the legal reform institute are not here today but matt is here. we think there are some concerns with the practices in terms of how the foreign corrupt practices act is being used to go after companies. >> talking about the false claim space the false claims act definitely going to put you to matt, okay? somebody get that down here. we will give him to you. >> financial advisor magazine. to question. tom, are you threatening a lawsuit -- [inaudible] >> no. i think we will be working on lots of the other options debate. if we go to normal order in the
senate. there will be opportunities to have hearings and look at the issue. if it comes down finally do something that was dealt with before and if we have to go to court, we will but we don't threaten people with lawsuits. we just sue them. >> what parts of dodd-frank do you think you can repeal in this session of congress? >> we are not out to repeal all sorts of parts of dodd-frank. what we are interested in doing is making the technical changes finding some rational center between the conflicting interpretations that we are getting from the regulatory agencies, and dealing with those things that were written without understanding of how it affects what's happening in the rest of the economy, what happens in our
business around the world. look dodd-frank is here. it's not going the way, but it is so big it is so perverse as that we've got to make those technical challenges. and by the way you go pick every piece of met major legislation have ever seen in this country, and that's exactly what has to happen. look at what's going on in health care. it makes what's going on in dodd-frank look like not very significant. but we're going to be there. we will work on those changes, work on interpretation and we will work very, very hard to make sure that there is some we or drink without it is regulated by whom by one by two, by 10, but it doesn't agencies all and conflict. that's got to stop. let me just say one thing because we cannot take any more questions. we have a lot of our staff here that deal with the issues you are interested in and you know many of them and they are standing over there and over there and they will be very
[inaudible conversations] chamber of commerce president and ceo tom donohue delivering his state of american business address before this news conference which just wrapped up. you can see his address, state american business address later on our program schedule. also both a speech in the news conference will be available on our website c-span.org sometime this afternoon. president obama travels to cedar
falls today, iowa to speak on broadband access. is expected to outline steps to increase across the country. cedar falls is the first city in iowa where gigabit internet service is available. live coverage begins at 3:40 p.m. eastern. on that topic the hill today has this. senator bill nelson who is the ranking member on the senate commerce committee will soon introduce a data breach notification bill that closely resembles a proposal the president called for during a speech on monday. the bill would require for each company to notify consumers that their information has been exposed within 30 days. companies would also have to report to the government on security breaches of a certain magnitude. also coming, apple live there today at seven eastern terry mcauliffe will deliver his state of the, will address from richmond virginia. that is right here on c-span2. >> here are some of our featured
>> now a sub from today's "washington journal" and we will show you as much of this as we can to bring you live coverage of wyoming governor matt mead state of the state address set for about half an hour from now at noon eastern. >> joining us now, scott perry of pennsylvania serves on homeland security committee and also is a member of the foreign affairs committee. good morning. where do you stand on today's vote on homeland security funding bill? >> guest: i was a yes. nothing is perfect but in the greater context i think it's a move in the right direction. certainly we want to fund homeland security. there's a fair amount of increase is because we understand we're we are in a troubled world.
at the same time we must get you and the people demand that we get to the constitution, the extraconstitutional foray by the president as many americans and myself see. this does that. it's going to be touted to be about immigration, it's going to be touted to be about hope i security as much as it is that it's about the instruction book for our country and to either accept this or you don't accept it. you don't pick up the part you like that's what the part you don't like and that so many of us and myself see us what has happened. we need to remedy that. this is the opportunity post back you started by saying it's not perfect. what did you mean? >> guest: there will be some republicans to vote against the because the be something center they find unpalatable and imagine some democrats who will vote against it for the same reason that everyone understands we must find our agencies and understanding it is waste, excesses and abuses. that's what i mean when it's not perfect. you try and get to everything in due course and to do time at the
same time to keep moving forward because the world keeps moving forward. we work within the context and the timeframe we can but everything is not exactly what you would do it if you had everything under your purview. >> host: is it because the amendment and seven attached specific on the efforts of deportation efforts? >> guest: for some absolutely. we have to do something special with young people that came your without any they didn't have any choice in the matter. they are here illegally. the bigger issue is the constitution. and to me that is the issue the constitution. if we don't uphold the senate, we each took an oath week a half ago to uphold and defend the constitution. there are a lot of issues. the president, to me this issue was chosen to be selected by the president but it could've been any issue. taxes, a whole is issues to get an extra constitutional forward. this one was chosen and this is one went to do with. that doesn't mean it's because this issue that we shouldn't do
with it. it is to me about by the constitution more than anything else. >> host: amendments to deal with the dreamers and everything else that you said you had sympathy with the ones that are to put those things together? >> guest: these are difficult decisions. we are paid and elected to make difficult decisions. if it were easy everyone would be doing it. it's in perfect but you have to look at the total sum and say is it better than its worst? for me if we just disregard the constitution come it doesn't matter at some point what the issue is. the constitution is where it really comes down from the. >> host: you probably have a sense of where this will go should have the senate specially some republicans are expecting criticism about this effort. your thoughts? >> guest: they have their job to do as well but i think as a member of the house and house and particular needs to get it work and not be so concerned with what the senate might do or what they might say. we need to do the best we can and send it to them. if they can approve it, make it
better that's great. god bless in. >> host: if it ends back on the speakers desk and has to be cement the same without the amendments, where would you stand? >> guest: i don't think it would be okay because it doesn't have certain deal with what many people see in myself see as the president extra constitutional action to we must deal with that some of. i don't expect it to come back exactly the same and we will just have to wait and see what they do. they might add some things that i liked. >> host: what would you like? >> guest: i would like to see homeland tightened up more. there are some excesses and abuses. i've just become the subcommittee chairman on oversight. i would really like us to get into some of that stuff. we really need to make sure that every dollar it spent most efficiently. i'm not sure we're doing that in these cases. >> host: the words the thoughts of our guests, scott perry it doesn't on homeland security committee.
is a chairman of a subcommittee. may have thoughts on this. if you want to make your thoughts on twitter known it's that cspanwj. your party and others will take place in retreat this weekend. immigration is expected to be a big topic. do you expect a consensus to come forward as far as a plan forward when it comes to immigration? >> guest: there could be. i think it's going be different with us and. i have gone to these forums before and it's just the house and it's hard to get consensus just out of house members. you add the senate which has a different view it was a different dynamic. the biggest thing is opportunity for all voices to be heard. we represent 700 some odd thousand constituents in each of our different ideas based on our
constituencies. sometimes it feels like leadership doesn't necessarily hear all those things. this is the opportunity not only for leadership but for your colleagues, and for me as a colleague of other members to do with issues are in the district and why they think the way they do so that when a comprehensive package is put together or a series of bills that deal with an issue, you might not agree but at least you can understand and articulate to your constituents why your yes, no and the other issues that surround. those times none of these issues are monolithic. >> host: on those complicated even by today's vote? >> guest: out to be. because of the narrative, there's going to be people who say this is about homeland. people will say this is about immigration and there are people who will say this is about the constitution. i think it's about the constitution, many people and some of the media will drive the narrative regardless of what we think we are voting for and then that colors everything that follows down the line.
while i think this is about the constitution and to a certain extent, a great extent dealing with homeland funding, we have vowed everyone to get to the other parts of immigration that need our attention and we plan to do that but what happened here and how it is seen might change that process host to which the top priority when it comes to immigration? >> guest: a top priority for immigration is border security quickly followed by the visa program. it doesn't work for working families. it doesn't work for businesses. it just doesn't work for our country. hasn't really been modified to really change with the times as times changed for 20 25 years. to me that has come we need to get to the. >> host: our guest is here for your calls. port saint lucia florida bob you are up first. go ahead. >> caller: all right. i'm so these people keep going in and saying obama is breaking the law and he's doing
everything wrong. we have laws here and we have judges here and we have a police department. why don't they call up have him arrested if he's breaking the law, or shut up traffic bob i appreciate your point. the issue is that because addition is the supreme law of the land but it's unfortunately in some cases kind of up for conjecture or review or opinion. that has to go through the courts. while i think the president has breached his constitutional authority, i believe that it sounds like you believe that but we also have due process in this country and this is the due process. we are going to try and make our claim and then imagine it will go through the courts portion of this. but this is a process by which we have to determine whether there has been kind of a law broken, if you want to say or gone outside the constitutional authority and then seek to remedy at that point and one
robert, louisiana, democrat's line. hi. >> caller: yes sir. drama robert, go ahead. you are on. >> caller: yes sir i'd like to make a comment and ask a question and a comment please try to robert i'm listening to you. >> caller: what i don't understand is why the republicans try to block everything the president tries to do. he's like a bull in a corner every time he tries to get something done they want to step in and try to try to do something to block him. and as far as the homeland security i'm glad they're voting on that. i hope it goes through. but as far as the deal about the immigrants, the illegal immigrants that they call the mexicans i think that's wrong. >> host: thanks, robert.
go ahead. >> guest: some people see as blocking, some people say the republicans because i'm a republican the president is a democrat, they say it is standing for you must stand for something and if you believe in the constitution and that the president has breached his constitutional authority, that you were duty-bound. you've taken an oath and have a duty to stand for something. it's not necessary thing against the president by t. spencer one thing on this occasion and we stand for something else or at least i do. i better not speak for the whole party but i do on this occasion and so i have a duty to my constituents, the people who elected me and said you are a representative and this is what we believe and we wish that you would stand for something in this regard. so it's not necessarily opposing everything he does that stand for something and it just happens to be different, a difference of opinion and then that must be worked out. >> host: spring hill florida. krist up next. good morning. >> caller: hi. i agree with you, congressman
terry. and as far as blocking the present of whatever not voting along with him, gridlock is only a bad thing if it's legislation that you like. if it's legislation you don't like, you are praying for gridlock. that's nonsense. but anyway, it goes to the heart of what i really wanted to say. people have to understand that you as a congressman and 434 other congressmen like you are representing us as our proxy because we can't veto. >> and you are also legislature rights law. not the president. don't people kind of wonder why the president can just override 435 members of congress and another 100 in the senate just by his been? it's a vague as for the executive order and how far he
can go and what his powers are but it's always been an unwritten understanding that this is not what executive order is for. you don't override the legislature. bush tried a long time to get the legislature to pass immigration reform. but he allowed he kept it with the legislature. he allowed them, he didn't take the legislature's power and override all those people who are represented by all the people across the country. >> guest: you are absent a right. this is a frustrating process for americans and for members of congress to imagine it's frustrating for the president. you are elected to solve problems, to find solutions, and there is this grinding against one another and this give-and-take that oftentimes, too many times takes too long. but at the same time if you take an oath and you agree with the constitution you must understand the framers set it up this way. it was supposed to be a deliberative process that is oftentimes slow and inefficient
but we don't want to make knee-jerk decisions because they have unintended consequences down the line that oftentimes can't be seen. so while it's frustrating and aggravating an irritating that you can't provide a solution that looks so pretty in your mind, we have a collaborative process where all americans through this process have their voices heard and the most perfect thing comes out. i'm not saying the perfect thing, but the most perfect thing at that moment based on the constituency and the ideas and thoughts and desires of the constituency in the context of the constitution. that's what comes out if we follow the process. if we don't then we have this issue which is what we have now, the president decided one way and quite literally the congress sang hold on a second. it says right here in the operator's manual that's our job. we are duty-bound to do something about it than what our guest also serves on the foreign affairs committee. no response to store this point
about al-qaeda and the arabian peninsula taken responsibility for the terrorist attacks tragedy i don't think that's any surprise. we heard the shouts from the terrorists that they were affiliated with al-qaeda in yemen. and one of the targets that was hit over there. i don't think that's necessarily any surprise. i think the american people really need to wrap their minds around what this enemy is all about and the fact that we don't deal with an enemy that has a linear border, state-sponsored enemy. this is an ideology that transcends borders and age and culture. this is going to be a different type of warfare unfortunately that while we would like to disengage from, we desperately want to disengage from unfortunately they are bringing this to our doorstep. we either deal with it or we suffer these consequences over and over and over. >> host: to the ring also into the united states eventually do you think? >> guest: if left to their devices they will. no doubt about it. i'm surprised they haven't been
more successful in the united states but that is a credit to law enforcement and the other law enforcement affiliated agencies that monitor and keep track and deter. >> host: including dhs? >> guest: absolutely. you have of course border protection and ice. they are looking at the info folks coming in the secret service that protects the president and elected officials. these are all collaborative agencies that work together. we saw after 9/11 that everybody was kind of stove piped different agencies working in the own realm but not talking to one another. dhs was designed specifically to collaborate or to foster collaboration and cross talks so that the information was crossing agencies. and so the coast guard, they are getting the information on somebody on the no fly list which no fly generally speaking means maybe he is not like but we don't want to come in on a cruise ship either.
they are checking lists and so on and so forth so it's that collaborative nature working together that helps keep all of us safe. i think it works on some of the bigger pots, so to speak where you have multiple people or agencies, groups, whatever you want to call them, al-qaeda affiliated or boko haram or whatever that are collaborating. it works to stop them. it's the lone wolf the individual that's difficult because if they're not communicating with anyone, in these agencies can it's difficult for the processes to work. >> host: what would you like to see for action items to counteract and keep the doorsteps your words? >> guest: visa waiver program in particular i think needs to be reviewed. while we have a very strong program i think in the united states of which i think could be tightened up a bit, but i think some of our partner nations don't have such a tight program. when you look at in france this one suspect they were looking for who was on the no fly list, as a matter fact that two
individuals who conducted the massacre, the two brothers were on the no fly list yet they traveled to yemen and the wife or the compatriot, the companion of the one gentlemen, maybe i better not call him a gentleman. the individual who shot of the market, his female partner traveled just days before through turkey and allegedly into syria. she's on the no fly list. how is that happening? those are the things i think we need to work on with our western civilization partners. >> host: we go next to bernadette in new mexico. democrat's line. good morning call nick good morning. -- you talk about the quote-unquote process. so how much is this process going to cost? what i see is that there's an old saying that says united we stand, divided we fall. the republicans have done
everything in their power to try to divide us. when the world sees our leaders, the president of the united states, whether you like him or not, when they see us divided they see us as weak. how much is this process going to cost? >> guest: picture talk about the homeland security bill i think the appropriations 49 points $7 billion but they're talking in a larger context. with all due respect there's a lot of folks that believe that the president decides with a one that is been the most divisive. i just it is a matter of opinion to all of us want to be united special is a lookup to the rest of the world and want to have a united front. but at the same time we must make decisions together on how to move forward together. there are always disagreements. but for the sake of moving together forward, we just don't throughout the paper with the bathwater and accept things that are unacceptable to your constituents.
asked . .. with national security. guest: that's a fair question but if it is for republicans, how come it's fair for democrats and for the president? he has played politics with national security many would say with his policies and with what is essentially in many people's views an open border. so while i would agree to a certain extent you could say but it's fair on the other side. we are in the same boat t host: you agree with his statement? guest: i agree it's could be perceived as such. if you perceive that as such you can't, i think if it's 50%, there is 50% on the other side as well. host: alana, >> host: brooklyn, new york, go ahead you are on with scott perry. >> caller: how are you,? yesterday i got cut off but they were talking about who would run
for geo b. i personally think alan west loved america whether he is a democrat or republican. he always seems to know what he's talking about, and i think in the near future we should look at what he knows, how smart he is and getting to the job. >> guest: i appreciate that. allen is a good friend and american patriot. he served his nation in combat, but that at the end of the day is alan's decision to run and people will determine whether they agree with his philosophy and leaders of style and vision for america. kind of strange to say we should look into his -- and a strong opinion of alan west i am with you. >> host: should be serve the presidency -- >> guest: it adds to the
conversation which is a great thing. it adds to the conversation and enhances our process. i am not planning to run for president any time soon but i imagine the others will say come on in, the water is warm. >> host: after the primary. andrew, from iowa. brett is next on the independent line. >> caller: how are you doing today? i pretty much agree with just about everything you bring to the table. i would like to bring up a point about immigration. ultimately we have a legal system those that decide to break that are breaking the law. anyone who sympathizes with someone breaking the law whether to make it better for themselves or to make the gains, i don't have sympathy for those people because there are people suffering all over the world and if they are not stealing or
robbing or killing people to make life better for themselves is that acceptable? doesn't make sense to me. these illegal immigrants coming in here and people say it is okay because they're making life better for themselves that is wrong. >> guest: appreciate your input. it is against the law which is the problem but laws are a matter of degree. you don't put killing on the same scale as shoplifting especially if you are starving and that is where most americans are. most americans would agree immigration process, the system is broken and has been for some time and desperately needs review and reform and updating. just because you don't like and acknowledge that it is broken does not give you pause with your congress or the president for unilateral action. we have a system by which laws are changed and if we disregard that on this occasion why not disregard it on every single location and that is the concern. congress has ceded much of its
authority over time to the executive branch in my opinion both republican and democrat and on both occasions should have dug their heels in and said this is our authority by the constitution, it is not yours, mr. executive and we need to retain it. at the same time let's the responsible and deal with stuff. we have been pushed into a corner to a certain extent that that is what it takes to get things done and move forward that is what it takes. >> host: on twitter, why doesn't congress deliberate on immigration? give us the quick and dirty. >> guest: we just got sworn in and this is the first step. we have until the twenty-seventh of february to get to the department of homeland security appropriation taken care of and this process takes time. even the legislative process takes time. once we get this done we heard from leadership and members that we want to get in to immigration and produced a legislation to get to the president's desk and the american people can expect that very shortly but i don't
think they will be able to expect one comprehensive bill on visa reform or border security. different components coming very rapidly but it is a time taking process, information and collaboration's so the american people can see transparently what we're doing and why we're doing and say i agree or disagree and that produces the best product over time. >> host: what is the likelihood that funding won't happen? >> guest: and don't know what will happen in the process. i don't know if it will pass quickly or easily or the president will sign it or if there is going to be some stops along the way but sooner or later it is going to happen and the disdain even if it is there's a partial shutdown. above vast majority will occur, if you say there's a shut down understand the coast guard won't be part of that. is just going to be a small portion which deals with what many people consider the illegal
immigrants coming across and that component of it. that is the only component that is not working. the rest would be fully funded and operational. the small part would be stopped. >> host: you don't see the shutdown as part of a process. >> guest: understand what parts of the shutdown are there. the vast majority will continue to operate because it is what we call autopilot. it has to be funded, has to remain open. that doesn't mean the political narrative and demagogueing won't see the department of homeland security is shut down because of 1% or 0.1% of it is stymied then there are some people who will make political hay out of that saying evolving is and we have about us 7 second attention span in america today and that is what people will year-end think even though it is not true. >> host: scott perry, a member of a foreign affairs committee here to talk to you until 8:30. in from texas on the republican
line, good morning. >> caller: good morning. i feel you guys do a good job in the republican party so far. any time to get all this done. i have one thing to say. these democrats that are calling, they're not informed about the homeland security bills the way it will be not funded. you remember what happened with obamacare, 6 or 7 times on video, people who supported at act, obamacare, is coming again. as far as immigration reform, these people calling and saying it is okay don't have an idea. i live in the south texas area, fraud to the security system for disability benefits to everything that is going on with benefits as far as federal.
and to have this kind of atmosphere and area so they can understand immigration reform they are trying to support obama. i think obama 22 times mentioned he didn't have the power to go unilateral. you know what it was? it was all about latino. someone said earlier it was about the latino vote and that is what it was. i am not a supporter of obama and would never be a democrat. i am a republican by heart, served in the military with honor and i will tell you you guys keep the good work of. >> guest: thank you for your service. members of congress, we represent democrats and republicans and i do wonder about the 27 times the president said he could not. and then he decided to do it anywhere and wondered about the
timing as well. maybe some of these issues at the end of the day this to me is about the constitution. if you take the oath to uphold the constitution and the constitution is stating clearly whose job it is to legislate especially on immigration, you have a duty to do something about that. we represent all use the best we can and it is in perfect but we are going to get somewhere. >> host: what do you think about -- what does your daughter think of these efforts of immigration? >> guest: my mother speaks spanish fluently but she said to my brother and i. you will speak english you are in america you speak english and she didn't teach us spanish. she believes in being an american is what she believes. she has her heritage but she is an american friend for went expected her sons and daughters to the americans as well and expect all americans to do the
same. >> host: the independent line, high. >> caller: good morning, how are you doing? >> . >> guest: doing well. >> caller: i have to say a tremendous job to do. my problem is we have a divided government and when the democrats have the senate and congress, they didn't have thing is done but for that, in a sense the republicans had the right to block all these bills. the bills that get a chance to come up. here is my question to you very simple question as a congressman. as somebody with military in my family i would like to know what
part of the constitution did the president bring the we are now, the security into question with this bill. explain to was. what part of the homeland security bill is connected to this president breaking the law? >> guest: very specifically article i section viii and article ii. those two the congress the legislature deals with immigration law, very specifically. article ii, the president's good faith to uphold and defend the constitution and the law those two things in tandem more individually are what most americans that disagree with his actions are buttressing their claim on. they hold of the constitution and it right says hear it in black-and-white this is the purview of the congress and the
president will faithfully execute the laws. so the two items. that is where the foundation of the argument exists. >> host: congressional leaders at the white house yesterday and part of his opening statement talked-about areas possibly where you work with republicans on a variety of areas a little bit of what he says where you might find agreement. >> i think there is going to the opportunity to work together on trade, there will be opportunities for us to work together on simplifying the tax system making sure everyone is paying their fair share, there will be opportunities for us to streamline government so it is more responsive and done each of these issues i am going to be listening to everybody around this table and i am hopeful that with a spirit of cooperation we can be in a position where the individual will be able to affect that much better off than we were when we started the
year. >> host: any areas of agreement? >> guest: trade and trade promotion authority is something the president is discussing in particular and something he is working across from his party so that is interesting that there might be opportunities -- we have a tax system that makes us uncompetitive with the rest of the world. when he says he's willing to work with us democrats and republicans in the last congress, senate and house really wanted to get tax reform but it was my understanding the president wanted $1 trillion in new revenue to the federal government to agree to something. if that spills fences will be difficult but everybody acknowledges our tax system is broken. i am concerned when he says everyone needs to pay their fair share. i hear that as code for somebody doing well, that has been successful and work hard must pay more because they have been successful. it needs to be fair, period.
that is in the eye of the be holder. all of us can agree and there are excesses in government and we can work together to fix this thing. >> host: on the head of the committee that looks of those issues in homeland security what would you target or what you planning to target. >> guest: we want to make sure every dollar spent is spent efficiently. we understand the government needs money to do the things they need to do and we agree with and homeland security provides for the security and protection of the homeland but when we see the excesses of spending contractual agreement with agreements with the construction of a place called st. elizabeth's which is a new headquarters for homeland security, the amount of money being spent, billions of dollars and some of the things that have been done and are being done, problems with contract thing, taxpayers don't appreciate those
things. the contractors willing to do whatever they are told to do and take the money, doesn't need to be so opulent or doesn't need to cost and that is what most americans would say we need a headquarters appropriate for this agency that fosters collaboration in the efficiency but that is not what we are seeing. we are seeing a pile of money, a few folks and taxpayers being fleeced over long time but that needs to be fixed. that is one thing we will be taking something that happened over the last two years prior chairman mr. duncan looked at that and we will continue down that path. there are gains to be made. >> host: the first hearing will take place on what the topic will be. >> guest: the first hearing under my purview will take place next month and will be reorganizations and right now we are looking at a list of topics we might get into so we are focused on fraud, waste and abuse in that agency and go from there.
>> host: charleston, south carolina car robert you are up next with representative scott perry. >> caller: here is my first one. i see all this all the time. they are wrong, they are wrong, this is wrong. what i don't see is this is what i would do. they can come out and say this is what i would do. it is easy to point fingers and say this person is wrong this person is wrong but have enough nacho to say this is what i would to. this is how i would do it. not just that. here is my second point. this is one that really bugs me. about immigration. because nobody up there in washington wants to admit that we give away 50,000 citizenships a year under a lottery.
>> guest: again i tend to agree we can't just be against everything. you got to see what you are for. if you want to discuss immigration, that is a big topic so i am not sure exactly what question you have for me to answer on that but for me citizenship is very important. should be valuable land it should be earned and i am concerned when we hand away, i am concerned when people work towards it like my grandmother and great-grandmother who came with shirts on their back and turned their citizenship and learned english from spanish and became proud americans. when we put people that come across the border and stay or come in the gully and overstay their visas and just stay, meanwhile other people are going through the process which i would say it takes too long, is too expensive and burdensome but they go through the process legally and we put these people
who have coming illegally in front of them. that is a simple -- that is the simplest -- as simple as putting in wine and you know that is incorrect from elementary school. you don't need to be a grown-up and it doesn't need to be as complicated as immigration reform to understand that is not right. those are things most americans myself included want to solve. >> host: virginia republican line judy. >> caller: how are you? >> guest: i am well. >> caller: my question isn't about immigration but sequestration. the gutting of our military. and benefits that are -- our active-duty members currently receive. try care i am a military mom of four, a military wife and i am concerned about our retirement,
that is my question. >> guest: thank you for your service. when a member of your family serves, as the wife, you serve along with him. probably serve my nation as well. my concern is the same as yours the only thing it seems this administration is willing to say their access is in and willing to cut is the military and as a long-term member of the military started out as a listed member and became an author i have seen accesses as well. it is a big organization and there are accesses and it is appropriate to be scrutinizing of those and make changes. at the same time you got to wonder what is too much too fast for such a large organization, wanting in the constitution where it says we are duty bound to defend the nation. there should be others things that are look that as well. i am not saying the military is not do but there should be other
things that are looked at as well. many of the commanders and top leadership in the military has been put in difficult circumstances because they and to to the president and this is what you are going to get and you have to make it work. they are in a position of trying to protect the nation and the nation's and has diminishing assets and an initial resources when they have to decide where those things will be cut and on many occasions they have come to the congress and said we don't want to cut this operational stuff. we only have so much money so it must come from here. if that is the only thing the president will accept congress is in the corner as well. we need to understand and recognize this is our constitutional duty. is a dangerous world, our military protect us and people make a commitment to serve and give up their lives if necessary and there's another side of the deal of that agreement, that side of the agreement is we will take care of them and pay for the manned once you make an agreement you can't change it. you might change it for once in
the future but not for the ones that made the agreement can you sign on to your end of the board and so i appreciate your position. >> host: representative scott perry of pennsylvania, number of homeland security committee and foreign affairs committee joining us to talk about today's vote. thanks for your time. >> guest: thank you very much. >> more from this morning's washington journal as we wait for miami governor matt mead's 8 of the state address. >> i want to introduce you to a democrat from arizona. a member of the armed services committee who serves as lower lip of the congressional hispanic caucus. good morning. a freshman member, former marine from congress. >> guest: we are always marines. i end up in congress returning from the military, and got really involved in veterans' issues because we were being left behind. you have seen out here now they
used to be even worse back in the day. a lot of us came back, more politically active and dovetail off of the problems we are having in arizona. acts in congress increased and then a run for office and i took it and i ran for state representative for four years and loved the job i did and eventually raised enough for congress and of the opportunity to run. a good opportunity for me to serve a grander scheme. >> host: and you are a number of the armed services committee. >> guest: i am lucky and excited. i have four bases in arizona and the importance to the economy of arizona and happy to be on that. >> host: one of those posts is homeland security today and the larger immigration. give me a sense of the republican bill being debated and voted on today. >> guest: this is really a bill that entirely based and aimed at
placating the tea party base of the republican party. there is no indication this bill will go anywhere beyond congress'. any votes in the senate to pass with the amendments they want which will strip the lot of funding away from any type of action program, or the new program the president has recommended. for us we are frustrated because this is a fun we should be serious about homeland security funding and we have a small element of the right who are taking hostage the homeland security bill for political purposes. we're not going to go anywhere and at the end of the day i think it slows down the wheels of government and it is unfortunate that will happen especially in the first few days of congress with the talk about working in a bipartisan manner. >> host: the house speaker says these are the reactions to the president's overreach and these
issues. you don't see that? >> guest: there are temper tantrums. because the reaction doesn't necessarily mean you have to listen to them and at the same time a lot of people have to realize the reaction the president's actions, entirely because the republican congress never move don comprehensive immigration bill that was passed, that bipartisan group of senators and i do have a lot of friends that are under deferred action, could be received, their paperwork they obtained jobs and paying taxes and a going to school. >> we will leave this washington journal segment as matt mead is about to have his state of the state address in cheyenne. >> thank you, good morning, thank you very much. thank you. thank you. thank you.
thank you. thank you very much. very nice. thank you. thank you. good morning. thank you. a warm welcome. it doesn't get better than that. thank you, very kind. mr. president, mr. speakers members of the 63 wyoming legislature, secretary mary, auditor cloud, treasurer gordon, superintendent bailey, a federal circuit judge phyllis, chief justice burke, all members of the judiciary, all members of the military, fellow citizens, good morning. thank you for being here and thank you for those who are participating by internet or other media we welcome all of you and we are pleased the technology has many benefits including the freedom to be wherever you want to be in wyoming or anywhere else to take
part in these proceedings. i want to say good morning to my family, for those of you that have been here for four years. you have seen some growth and mention the inauguration, one place on the governor's residents wall make sure we get painted before we leave we have marked the height of our children over the years and it is remarkable, and we think they have grown not only in height but in other ways and in many ways they have grown up with this body have seen them grow up but it causes us all to reflect upon one of the main reasons we are here for our kids and grandkids come and i can't imagine being here without the love and support of carol and mary and pete. i thank all of you for helping me get here and helping me do
this job. [applause] >> i think it was my first state of the state before i gave it, people wrote me a nose, and his handwriting, you have to decipher a little bit. he said good luck, dad you will do great, he signed it peach wrote best son ever. i am lucky to have the confidence of my family and confident family. these are exciting times. a new year new legislature, we have new faces in the legislature and leadership in statewide offices. and i look forward to working with all of the. as i told this body in the past we are so fortunate in wyoming to have a citizen legislature. every one of you has made sacrifices to be here, leave your home, your family, your
work, and before we start this session i just want to say to the president, the speaker to all of you, how much i appreciate and how much it means to the entire state at your service and i thank you for that. i am excited about the stage and where we are. as i have done in the past so i can recognize them. we recognize as the state is strong is because individual citizens do so much and have committed so much to our state. the first time want to start with next maxfield who served two terms as state auditor followed by two terms as secretary of state. last year he decided to retire from state service. max serve wyoming with energy, optimism, intelligence, and honesty and civility. max, we are sad to say, farewell but we wish you all the best.
sovereigns of these men and women early in the morning are hugging their spouse good bye. the grandparents are hugging them good bye. sometimes you see a young mother or young dad kissing a young infant good bye. it is a remarkable thing. each one of them stand, raise their hand, and agreeing with everything it takes including their life to serve and defend this country. we have 2800 members and god. men and women are ready for duty
at home and went to the calls to a distant land. the dog fight fires and much more including fighting the war on terror. wyoming's soldiers have been busy, deployed overseas, serving gravely, missing home and family as we miss them and anticipate their return. service and sacrifice, service and sacrifice whether for a single 4 or over the course of a long military career are no small thing to give. and deeply grateful, and wyoming's adjutant general is here and i would say we appreciate what our guard and military members and vets have given for wyoming and america. we want you to stand be recognized. [applause]
>> today this morning it is appropriate we remember john schieffer who served as wyoming senator for 20 years from 1993 until his death last june. his long public service career john served in numerous leadership positions including senate president. he is an advocate for national resources and wildlife trust and among other things was a supporter of education and mental health programs. he brought great intellect and a rancher's common sense to the legislature and had those big strong hands that were representative of his big heart and care for wyoming. he made a positive difference for each of us and made a positive difference for all of
wyoming and i ask you now to join me for a moment of silence in john's memory. i am thinking today also of all of those in the cold and the dark who battled the blaze in doo-wop--and do voice --dubois. the town will rebuild as unique and wonderful as ever. please note that you also are in our thoughts and prayers. i have broken my speech into two parts, two big parts. i want to talk about the last four years and where we should go from here. last four years, we did what we