tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN September 18, 2014 10:00am-2:01pm EDT
the speaker: the joint meeting will come to order. the chair appoints as members of the committee on the part of the house to escort president petro poroshenko into the chamber. the gentleman from california, mr. mccarthy, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise, the gentlewoman from washington state, mrs. mcmorris rodgers, the gentleman from oregon, mr. walden, the gentlewoman from kansas, ms. jenkins, the gentleman from california, mr. mckeeon, the gentleman from california, mr. -- mckeon, the gentleman from california, mr. royce, the gentleman from new
jersey, mr. frelinghuysen, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. granger, the gentleman from michigan, mr. rogers, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. gerlach, the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, the gentlewoman from california, ms. pelosi, the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. clyburn, the gentleman from new york, mr. israel, the gentlewoman from -- the gentleman from california, mr. becerra, the gentlewoman from new york, ms. slaughter, the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley, the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kaptur, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pascrell, the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, the gentlewoman from florida, ms. corrine brown, the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro. vice president biden: members of the committee on the part of the senate to escort his excellency, petro poroshenko,
president of ukraine into the house chamber. enator nevada, mr. reid, mr. durbin, the senator from michigan, ms. stab know, the senator from new jersey, mr. menendez, the senator from connecticut, mr. murphy, the senator from kentucky, the senator from missouri, mr. blount, the senator from missouri, mr. barrasso, and senator corker. the speaker: members of the escort committee will exit through the lobby doors. >> mr. speaker, the acting dean
members of the house, members of the senate, ladies and gentlemen , it's impossible to imagine what i'm feeling right now. of ymbolic is the unity united states congress and solidarity with ukraine. this is exactly which ukraine now needs the most, unity and solidarity. not only with the united states congress, to the only with the united states, but with the
whole world. t me thank you for your warm -- warmth and hospitality. addressing both houses of congress is one of the highest political privileges. standing here i'm grateful and fully aware that this honor goes not to me but to the people of ukraine, those brave men and women who are today on the forefront of the global fight for democracy. of ukrainian people now
watching this speech and this session of the congress and seeing absolutely sure about our solidarity and our joint and common strength. and please, allow me, to speak on their behalf. i are focus on the one thing that this -- at the core of ukraine existence today -- freedom. there are moments in history when the freedom is more than just a political concept. as those moments, freedom becomes ultimate choice which defines who you are. as a person or as a nation. ukraine says leave this moment over the last 10 months and became a story over the last decade. a synonym for sacrifice, dedication, and unbreakable will
to be free. the people of ukraine stood up to the corrupt regime. they stood their ground during this winter. more of you were together with us during the last winter. and i thank you for this very important gesture of solidarity. the defendants of freedom were willing to sacrifice their life for the sake of better future. at is even more amazing they and we want -- won, armed with only sticks and shells, they were attacked by the special police and chased them away. the victory gained on independence square in kiev known now to the whole world as the very international word the
victory against police brutality, harassment by the state-controlled media, violence, intimidation. there is nothing more impressive than seeing hundreds of thousands of peaceful people forcing out a violent dictator and changing the course of history. he second time in our history. day after day, week after week, month after month thousands upon thousands streamed into the streets of kiev simply because their dignity didn't allow them to remain passive and silent while their liberty were at stake. the standoff lasted long three months. it culminated on february 20 and 21 when over 100 protestors in ne day were shot by snipers.
we call them heavenly hundred. they are true national hero and e applaud their heroism. dear ladies and gentlemen, in february when the world saw that no one could take away ukraine's freedom, an external aggressive decided to take away part of ukraine territory. the annexation of crimea became e of the most cynical act of treachery in modern history. i just want to direct your attention, ukraine, which gave up the third largest nuclear potential in exchange for the security assurance was stabbed
in the back by one of the countries who gave her those ssurances. allow me to remind you, 20 years ago, exactly 20 years, the buddha pest memorandum, russia, along with the united states, united kingdom, france, and china vowed to provide for the viability of ukraine state border and territorial sovereignty. in reality, what we got from russia was annexation and a war that brought ukraine to the brink of its survival. the soviet union has collapsed too quickly, creating the illusion that this chapter in history was closed and that these stories have come to the end. but unfortunately in my mind of the people it has not end. the imperialialistic mind set is
still there. nostalgia for the soviet union and the settlement that ended cold war have been cultivated in revisionist interests. in the year 2008, russian troops occupied two cities. they now have invaded ukraine. the right to protect ethnic russians and even russian speakers can and already has become a reason to fan the flames of war. besides ukraine, russian peakers reside now if moldova, georgia, kazakhstan, baltic states, poe lapd, even germany. this is a very big majority. bulgaria, moldavia, georgia, ukraine, who is next? many things, including the effectiveness of the global nonproliferation system, will be put on the severe test depending
on the response of america. of the whole world. to this very simple question. even nato lies at risk and as if to underline this point, two days after president obama's estonian tonia, the intelligence officer was abducted and accused of espionage. the security assurance that were extended to ukraine and then have failed to work, providing to agreement three days, containment can secure world order. so what can bring the peace and hat can maintain it? cooperation, interdependence, leadership, and responsibility. this is the things we can depend the global security. so i urge you not to let ukraine
thankalone in the face -- you. and this is very important that the whole world will see this gesture of solidarity. ukraine are not alone. we are together. we are united. and we win because our fighting is fighting for freedom, is fighting for democracy. and i'm absolutely no doubt that our victory will be very close. i'm absolutely sure that united states made a commitment that it would stand behind ukraine's
territorial integrity, and we hope that it will lead us to that promise. democracy -- because it is very simple, democracies must support each other. they must show solidarity in the face of aggression and adversity. otherwise they will be eliminated one by one. the aggression against ukraine has become one of the worst setbacks for the cause of democracy in the world in the years. with just one move, the world has been thrown back in time to the reality of the territorial claims, criminal aggression, and
annexation. can you imagine that in two weeks crimea was invaded. why? because ukraine were not prepared to this aggression. we were not prepared to face it. that was at the time of the revolution of dignity and use of this opportunity, without any doubt. international system of checks and balances was effectively ruined. the world was plunged into the worst security crisis since u.s. standoff 1962. today we are witnessing another attempt dividing the world -- ukraine stands in the center of this attempt. the outcome of today's war whether we will be forced to accept the reality of the dark turn and be to europe as part of the new world order.
this ukrainian army, imagine hese young boys, underequipped and often under appreciated by the world are the only thing that now stands between reality of the peaceful coexistence and the nightmare of the full lapse into the previous century, into the new cold war. ukrainian soldiers, ukrainian people, ukrainian boys even girls now on the front for freedom and democracy. hey need your support. thank you. the war this young men are fighting today is not only ukrainian war. everybody should understand
that. it is europe's and it is american's war, too. it is a war for the free world. or the free world. today, aggression against ukraine is a threat to the global security everywhere. proxy war, terrorism, national radical movement, the erosion of the national and international agreement, the blurring and raising of the national identities. all these threats now challenge. if they are not stopped now, they will cross european border, a threat absolutely throughout the world. to prevent this, thousands of ukrainian soldiers are in the line of fire exactly right now when we have a so-called cease-fire. . from the day it started the cease-fire, ukraine lost 17 lives of the ukrainian soldiers.
67 are wounded. this is a cease-fire, this is the price ukraine paid for the peace. in the united states congress from this high beacon of freedom, i want to thank them for their sacrifice. thank you for the united states congress, and i urge the world to recognize and endorse their fight. they need more political support throughout the world. they need more military equipment, both lethal and nonlethal. urgently need.
lease understand me correctly. blankets, night vision goggles are also important, but one annot win the war with blankets. even more, we cannot keep the peace with a blanket and this most important of our values, of our aid, not to win the war but keeping the peace. for keeping the peace, we should be strong enough and there is no any doubt that we will be strong because of you, because of our solidarity and because of the very strong spirit of ukrainian soldiers. i thank all of those in america who realize and appreciate the historic importance of this fight. just like israel, ukraine has the right to defend her
territory, and it will do so all her heart and dedication and soul. i urge america to help us and to rise and to be equal. urge america to lead the way. ukraine has a special bond with the united states. today, ukraine has taken shape as united states as a partnership in the region. this is not circumstancal. it is not because we find ourselves in the same boat. it came about because in the moment of the crisis, ukraine's choice was the same as america.
very simple. freedom, democracy and the rule f law. in a time of skepticism and russia's unprovoked hostility, ukrainian citizens have been raided to give their lives to see ukraine democratic and free. circumstancal boats can change. nature of the people cannot. it is the nature of the ukrainian people to tolerate no dictators and to strive for their freedom no matter what. given today's situation, ukraine's democracy will have to rely on their own strong army. in the upcoming years, building a strong military will be another test for ukrainian democracy. to give n my ability
ukraine a strong modern army that we can be proud of. with this in mind, i strongly encourage the united states to give ukraine a special security and defense status which reflects the highest level of others.ion with and i ask that the united states be forceful and stand by its principles with respect to further sanctions against the aggressor. economic sanctions are important for many reasons. they help to distinguish
between good and bad. they help us to defend and stem the moral high ground and not to sink into the indifference, disgust and pragmatism. i understand that the wars of the last decade have been taken a heavy toll on the economy of the west. and i understand. believe me. american citizens, american taxes want peace, not war. -- taxpayers want peace, not war. so do ukrainian citizens and taxpayers. however, there are moments in history those importance cannot be measured solely on the percentage of the g.d.p. growth. ukraine war is not only the war of the last decade, but it is purely about the values. ukraine war is the war, again, for the freedom, democracy, european values and the best
evidence of that is the number of members of ukrainian parliament which ratified our association agreement with the european union. our nation decided to be free and democratic. another nation decides to punish ukraine for this. the world simply cannot allow this kind of behavior. values come first. this is the truth the world and the west would remind ukraine over the last year. now it is ukraine's turn to remind the west this truth. allow me to also say this. there is no way, no price and under no condition that we will er put with the cry --
crimian occupation. and annexation is not only an integral condition to a full normalization between the relation of ukraine and russia, it is also the integral condition for the crimeas only prosperity. until this condition is fulfilled, i urge america and the world to stand united in sending the signal to the aagreesors of today and to the future that the practice of annexation will never be tolerated. and clearly i am not talking about the military solution of the crimean problem. this will be a dilemma for many years, a choice between two ways of life, two political,
economic and social system. but i have no doubt that in the long run the system that offers the greater freedom will prevail. t always does. dear, ladies and gentlemen, the last half year has been a time of ultimate challenge for millions of ukrainians. it was a time for heroism and sacrifice. too many has been their ultimate sacrifice. let me share you three human stories that illustrates my point. on march 3 when the occupation of crimea just started, there cree myan city did the unthinkable. where millions stood paralyzed and stunned what was unfolding before their eyes. a 39-year-old father of three decided not to be silent.
his brave son of the crimean tartar people went on a one-man protest in front of the occupied city. he did nothing more than hold a to t of paper that said, no occupation. a group of unknown people arrested him, transported him away in the plain sight of the dozens of witnesses in front of the tv cameras. two weeks later he was found tortured and executed. just the thought of this man's final minutes sent chills down my spine. i ask myself, what made this hero do what he did? and i can't find no other answer than he did it for the freedom. so his children would not face
stalin like the dictatorship. and i am convinced in a year from now where the crimean occupation will be the past, the people will think about what he did and salute his braveness, just as i do now. and i assure you that ukraine will always stand together with the crimean tartar people. those languages, rights, culture are being trampleled right now as they -- trampled right now as they were many years ago under soviet rule. i urge america and the world not to be silent. is ukrainians and crimean tartars that is being occupied d it is time people of
goodwill to remember john kennedy's words over 50 years ago. i am crimean tartar and there is nothing that would make me ive up my freedom. and let me also commemorate another crimean hero. 42 years old and part of the parliament of east ukraine. on april 15, he confronted with the separatists and officers over the separatist flag that they were trying to hoist atop the local administration building. exactly just like the other, he was abducted and tortured. his last hours must have been unthinkable. his body was badly mutilated. and the stand here
courage and sacrifice of this man and the courage and sacrifice of millions of ukrainians, from the bottom of my heart, i believe there will be a time and i'm sure very -- when he will be named and when schoolchildren will bring flowers to his monument. dear, ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake, europe and the world's choice right now is not the choice between unipolar or multipolar order. or a different kind of civilization. the choice is very simple, between the civilization and barbarism. and while standing at this juncture before the great cannot e democratic hesitate. we can't see all the democratic
accomplishments in the last decade to be erased and have been for nothing. the free world must stand its ground with america's help, it will. yes, we live in a world that is mutually reliant and interconnected. in this world the aggression on one democratic nation is aggression against all of us. we fully understand that. if anyone has a doubt about this, if anyone was hoping to sit it out while ukraine and russia continue to kill each other, this ended on july 18 when russia missile launched and shot down civilian boeing
777 of the malaysian flight on may 17. 298 innocent, peace people, many of whom were flying on their vacation in the south, met their ultimate demise on the steps of ukraine. their cold-blooded killing, just like the barbarian treatment on their remains terwards show that whoever did this put millions of lives at risk for years, for decades. therefore a additional brutal act of terror, unfortunately it was this tradge at this that gave a wake-up call to many in the world about the situation in ukraine. long after war's end, the fear and hate linger on. how many more deaths will be caused by the hand downs handed
out with absolutely no control or accountability in those regions? how many innocent children will step on land mines so much utilized by the separatists? how many lives will be ruined and poisoned by the propaganda machine? the act of bombing the region of uncontrolled arms, represent the authority of the state sponsored terror and it needs to stop now. the downing of the palashian boeing illuminated one more important thing we are now at the forefront of the fight against the terrorists. and we need to join our efforts to effectively respond to this challenge. with this people throughout the world are asking the same question, are we on the eve of the new cold war? is the possibility of the new
terrible, unimaginable european war there? is what until recently seemed unthinkable now becoming a reality? today, the answer to all of these questions, is yes. however, we cannot and must not accept this as inevitablity. as recently as in 2008, the president of russia campaigned under the slogan, freedom is better than nonfreedom. and it was in russia. in the year 2008. and i'm sure that despite the crimea annexation and ongoing aggression, millions of russians still remember the slogan and take it seriously. let's remind them, let's show them that the freedom is not the looks of it as some try to convince them but necessity. and the precondition for the
true success of the nation. i am convinced that the people of ukraine and people of russia have good will to give at least one last chance and prevail against the spirit of hate between our countries. that's why my presidency began with a peace plan and one-sided cease-fire which will last long 10 days. paying the very high price of killing ukrainian soldiers, hitting ukrainian planes, and hundreds wounded. we keep this cease-fire long 10 days. unfortunately this was not accepted by russian authorities. that's why we are holding our fire now. that's why two armies stand before each other without massively shedding each other blood. and if we think work outright,
they will not have to. i'm daily contact with the leaders of the world, including the leader of russia. the dialect is not easy, believe me. over these last few months too much good will was destroyed. too much hate was generated. naturally and artificially. too many people have died. based on this, there is growing recognition that enough is enough and the blood shed must stop. the pandemic of hate must be localized and contained. as a president looking in the eyes of the mothers and wives of the dead soldiers and civilians, believe me, it is my hardest duty. no one can take it slightly, today it's my burden and the burden of the president putin. as he lit a cannel in moscow
church to remember those who perished war this past week. i did so in kiev. and i deeply profoundly wish that the church candles would be the owning thing to burn in ukraine from now. over the last month, ukranians have shown that they have a crutch to stand up to the most powerful enemy. we will never bend to the aggressor. we are ready to fight. but we are people of peace and we extend the hand of peace to russia and to the russian inspired except pra 'tises. i am red -- separatists. i am ready to do my utmost to avoy void further casualties. even at this point where the war has started feeding on itself. sooner or later i'm absolutely sure peace will return to the ukrainian homes. and despite the insanity of this war, i'm convinced that the
peace can be achieved sooner rather than later. and i'm ready to offer the separatist more rights than any part of ukraine had ever had in the history of nation. and i'm ready to discuss anything except one thing, krainian independence, ukrainian territorial sovereignty. and i'm confident if this war is about the rights and not about the geopolitical ambition, the solution must and i'm sure will be found. ladies and gentlemen, in 1991, ndependence came to ukraine. yet the moral of this independence become, the higher its costs. today the cost is as high as it
gets. while fighting this war, we learn the value of independence and to recognize true freppeds. at no point we ever forget why we need independence. we need it to have a country worthy of the dreams of our ancients. we need a state to give its citizen a light of dignity, fairness, and equal opportunity. to reach this goal we will have to root out what drains ukraine's potential for such a long time and make a true case for independence and times for lost opportunities. we are painfully aware of the sins largely inherited from the soviet union. corruption, and the self-preserving cynicism of political elites. there is a saying that each people deserve the government it gets. ukraine within the single decade
showed that ukraine is a people is better, much better, than ukraine as a government. they showed that ukraine needs and serve deep and profound organization in absolutely all sphere. of the kind that brought economic success to poland. given the current situation in and around ukraine, the implementation of the comprehensive reform is not a matter he of ukraine succeeding but ukraine surviving. deeply aware of this, i give my most to pledge i will speak of t. with the ukraine organization agreement signed and ratified simultaneously in the ukrainian and european parliament, we have a clear path of reform before us. never in the history of the european union was there a document that was obtained so
dearly, as such incredible human cost and sacrifice. and this sacrifice, the memory of the hundreds dead and wounded, will be one more reason and incentive to hold this unique chance to make ukraine live up to its potential. ukraine needs more than governance and noncorrupt public administration, ukraine needs to delegate more power to the local communities. ukraine needs to rely more on its strong vibrant and dynamic civil society. ukraine is building managing its estates and economic affairs where hard work are rewarded. ukraine need know how and technology and use that to become better intergrated to the global economy. ,nd for all of that we need you merica's help. in particular, i ask the
congress to pay the special fund to support investment of american companies in ukraine and help us with our economy and ustice system. and i assure you that all aid received from the west will be utilized by noncorrupt institutions and that the new generation of officials will make sure that the funds are distributed effectively. ladies and gentlemen, with our revolution, a revolution of dignity, human dignity was the driving force that put people to the -- lured people to the street. this revolution must result in the education of dignity, economy of dignity, society of dignity. human dignity, which makes ukraine heartbeat and ukraine
mind look toward new and better version of itself. human dignity is one thing we have to oppose to the barberism. it is one thing that we can't set against the sea of life in which highly sophisticated and well funded marine propaganda is trying to throw the truth about ukraine and democracy. in the coming years, too many things will depend on ukrainian success. too many things. this success will be set by ukraine's new leadership, new political generation, and new mobilized society of ukraine. ukraine truly makes a difference. by supporting ukraine, you support new future of europe and the entire free world. by supporting ukraine, you support a nation that has chosen freedom in the most cynical of
the times. in ukraine, you don't build a democracy. it's already there. ou just depend it. -- defend it. exactly this what makes ukraine unique, it struggled deeply and profoundly different from any other conflict on the world. this is what makes ukraine the ultimate test for adherence to their ideals of freedom. live free or die. was one of the mottoes of the american revolutionary war. live free or die was the spirit of the revolutionary on the miton during the dramatic winter onths of 2014.
le with a significant presence of the member of the united states congress. we thank you for that. live free or die are words of ukrainian soldiers standing on line of freedom. live free must be the answer with which ukraine comes out of this war. live free must be the message ukraine and america send to the world while standing together in this time of enormous challenge. thank you.
the speaker: the power play of the -- the purpose of the joint meeting having been concluded, the chair declares the >> president poroshenko will make his way down pennsylvania avenue today where president obama will welcome him to the white house. during his acresse you heard him call for assistance in repelling russian backed rebels that have moved into eastern ukraine. the house passed yesterday by a
croat of 273 to 156, a resolution authorizing the obama administration to train and quip syrian opposition forces fighting the islamic group, isis. that organization was part of a -- authorization was part of a spending package to fund the federal government until december 11. senate will take up the house pass bill today with vote on final passage possible this afternoon. back in the house, lawmakers are expected to return at noon eastern with work today on a package dealing with energy development. we spoke earlier with a capitol hill reporters. >> this is a package of 13 energy bills. why is that? why is it showing up now as the house is about to end its session? >> thanks for having me. right now the house wants to vote on these 13 energy bills because in a way it's somewhat of a showboat. they are trying to appease
appetites of voters and trying to show voters if you give the g.o.p. the majority in the senate and they control both chambers, then these are the types of things that you're going to see them push out. you're going to see keystone x.l. approved, you're going to see liquefies natural gas exports, and you're going to see them really push hard against the obama administration's climate policies. >> you mentioned the building of the keystone x.l. pipeline. is the administration any closer to approving it? what are republicans doing to try to change this process? >> right now the process for keystone x.l. is completely frozen. the state department put its national interests, determination tests on hold because of litigation issues that are going on in nebraska. and so right now the route of the pipeline is in question there. that case isn't supposed to wrap up until about november. so that puts any type of decision until after the midterm elections.
and likely into 2015. republicans aren't happy about that. as well as democrats aren't happy about that. right now this week is actually the sixth anniversary of the keystone's first permit application. and -- so republicans are ramping up different types of engagement around it. the u.s. chamber of commerce is visiting the pipeline route. and a few senators will have a press conference today to try and just put more pressure on the white house. >> there's also a provision in the bill that would block the e.p.a.'s new proposed carbon pollution role for existing power plants. who have been some of the key members involved in that effort? tell us more about the proposed rule itself. >> yes. right now the bill, which is proposed by congressman ed whitfield and another representative, phil johnson, those two bills for this entire package are trying to push back against the environmental protection agency's proposed rule which is on -- tries to
mandate carbon pollution from existing power plants. that rule hopes to reduce carbon pollution from those power plants by 30% by 2030. and the republicans aren't happy about it. they are saying it's going to kill coal jobs. it's going to shutter plants across the country. and also make energy prices go up. what those two bills would do is essentially block that regulation. >> you tweeted yesterday that the white house issued a veto threat on the house energy package. says it purports to promote energy security but would undermine it and the environment. can you dig into some of the specifics in their opposition to the bill? >> yes. the bill essentially is trying to push these very standard republican had stances and there are things the administration is very much against. they don't want anything in between or meddling in the process with keystone x.l. they feel that that is something
that should be handled by the state department. on top of that, attacks president obama's second term legacy of his climate change agenda, which is is a huge part of his legacy. it's something that is very important to the white house. it's the whole reason they brought in his advisor, john podesta, during the start of the second term. to really make sure these policies are finished on time before the president leaves office. a majority of these bills go against a lot of what the democrats and the president stand for. on top of it they also seek to expand offshore and on shore oil and gas drilling. and so that's something that the administration is trying to tackle right now as well. they just don't want republicans getting ahead of that process. >> over to the senate, do you know if the senate plans to take up any of the package energy bills during the lame duck session after the elections? most likely not going to happen.
it would be very out of character. if the majority leader, harry reid, would take up any of these bills because the majority of democrats are adamantly opposed to them. there's some the administration is opposed to. this is also a way for republicans, perhaps republicans to say, hey, to the american voters, if this is what you want or these are the types of energy bills to keep the american energy boom going, then you should give us control of the senate come november. >> laura lopez writes on energy and environment for "the hill." can you tweet her at lbaronlopez or reach her at "the hill" website. the house returns at noon eastern today. can you see live coverage here on c-span. off the floor defense secretary chuck hagel is back on capitol hill testifying this morning before the house armed services committee to discuss president's strategy in combating isis.
the full house yesterday voted to give president obama the authority to arm and train syrian rebel forces fighting the militant group. that hearing scheduled for 11:15 eastern. we'll have it live for you on our companion network, c-span3. scotland citizens are heading to the polls today to cast votes on whether their country should breakway from the united king done and end their 305-year-old political union. we'll bring you live nonstop coverage of the results courtesy of the bbc, leading up to the final announcement which is expected late tonight. about 1:30 a.m. eastern. the head of the world's largest banks and the nation's top mortgage lender says he's optimistic about the economy, but struggling in the housing market is due to in part to rising student debt and people waiting longer to get married. wells fargo c.e.o. john stumpf spoke about that in the financial services and banking industry. this is the national press club, about an hour.
>> good afternoon, and welcome. my name is myron belkine. adjunct professor at the george washington university school of media and public affairs. and the 107th president of the national press club. the national press club is the world's leading professional organization for journalists, committed to our profession's future through our programming with events such as this, while fostering a free press worldwide. for more information about the national press club, please visit our website at press.org. on behalf of our members worldwide, i would like to welcome our speaker and those of you attending today's event. our head table includes guests of our speaker as well as working journalists who are club members. so if you hear applause in our audience, i note that members of the general public are attending and so it's not necessarily evidence of a lack of
journalistic objectivity. i'd also like to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences. you can follow the action on twitter using the #npclunch. after our guest speech concludes, we'll have a question and answer period. will i ask as many questions as time permits. now it's time to introduce our head table guests. i would like each of you to stand briefly as your name is announced. from your right, ed barks, president of barks communications and a member of the national press club board of governors. michael justin lee, university of maryland department of finance. tommy burr, washington correspondent for the salt lake city tribute and a treasurer of the national press club on the board of governors. tommy, we thought it would be good if you come today and listen to some advice from our guest speaker. oscar siris, director of the ells fargo corporate
communications. mare little geewax senior business editor of n.p.r. and member of the n.p.c. board of governors. mike golden, president wells fargo greater washington, d.c. region. jerry, buffalo news bureau chief in washington, chairman of the n.p.c. speaker's committee and past n.p.c. president. skipping eefer our speaker for a moment, bloomberg news and speaker committee member who helped organize, not helped, who organized today's event. thank you so much. anita elof, director of the wells fargo federal government relations. emily stevenson, thompson reuters reporter who covers bank regulation. anthony shot, co-founder and chief strategy officer of social driver and member of our board of governors.
keith hill, editor writer with bloomberg b.n.a. and former n.p.c. vice president. thank you-all. >> as the chairman and chief executive officer san francisco bay's wells fargo, john stumpf runs the world's largest bank by market value. it's also the biggest u.s. mortgage lender. it took about 250 deals to arrive at that point and stumpf as been involved in more than 100 of them. among them is the $12.7 billion purchase of wachovia corporation in 2008. during the firts quarter earnings conference call with investors, he raised the possibility of further acquisitions to expand in the wealth management, brokerage, or retirement businesses. his challenges include dealing with an increasing number of laws, regulations, and regulators created after the
financial crisis. as well as navigating through the rough waters of slow economic expansion and record low interest rates. due to its large mortgages portfolio, wells fargo is particularly vulnerable to changes in the jobs and housing markets. mr. stumpf needs to make sure that the bank observes sanctions against countries such as russia and iran and anti-money laundering rules to avoid fines such as the record $8.97 billion slapped on bnp earlier this year. his responsibilities also include ensuring that credit card data reaches such as those reported by home depot and target do not happen under his watch. and he also has to satisfy his clients and investors, including the largest one, warren buffett's birkshir hathaway. ladies and gentlemen, please join me until welcoming to the
national press club, john stumpf, the c.e.o. of wells fargo. i would like to use the president's prerogative and ask if you could please share your unique personal story of growing up in rural minnesota on a dairy farm as one of 11 children. ladies and gentlemen, mr. john stumpf. >> what a great introduction. in fact, that might be the second best one i ever heard. i was in texas last week, the guy didn't show up, so i did it myself. other than that -- one of 11 kids on a family farm. what i ought to tell you those 11 children came in 13 years and no twins. so -- yeah, catholic and rhythm. we'll get that off the table right now. so people in california just can't get over this. in minnesota where i grew up, that was a fairly average size
family. but in california, so they asked me, were you part of a commune? i said no, no. just one dad, one mother. but then they get back down to two questions and they are good questions. how many bathrooms did you have in this farmhouse? answer was, we had one. we actually had one 1/2 as opposed -- we had an outhouse. we used it after thanksgiving and mother's day. had you to be careful about that. but the second question is always my favorite. how many bedrooms did you have in this house? and the answer was, for our children, we had two. we had a north room where my four sisters slept. and the south room i slept with my six other brothers, seven of us. and back in those days you could not divide three beds we had evenly into seven, or seven into three. one bed had two. the second bed had two.
and the third bed had three. sometimes the oldest boy, i was in the middle. my brother phillip was on my left, brother steve was on my right. in fact, i never got a chance to sleep alone until i got married. you guys are going to be difficult here. boy, when you tell me all the things i'm responsible for, i don't have time to give a speech. i have to check all those things. since now you know me, let me tell you in a few minutes about our company. i'm going to talk a little bit about the economy. i want to talk a little bit about our industry. then my favorite time will be when i get to answer your questions. our company is now in its 163rd year of business. our birthday was on july 13, and we started in 1852. in fact, there was a wells, henry wells. there was a fargo, william fargo. a few years earlier they started
another iconic american company, they called american express. in the early year -- months of 1852 they decided to start a business west of the mississippi and they were the internet of those days. they were going to move people in a stage coach at five miles an hour from st. louis every 10 miles you change six horses and find yourself in san francisco a couple days or weeks later. and from those humble beginnings, starting out, our stage coach, which you probably know today as our logo, was only in existence for a few decades because by the late 1860's, the railroads came through. so we had to reinvent ourselves. i'll tell you one particular story, in 1918, at that time we had 10,000 offices across the country. we connected the country. we were u.p.s. and we were fedex
before we ever heard of them. somebody sitting in my office, got a call from the secretary of the treasury, march of the year 1918, and the government announced the power of eminent domain they would take all our offices but one, to help support the world war i effort. that's a lousy day with the government. soed dodd-frank stuff, i can't get all that excited compared to those times. the company has gone -- survived, not only survived, thrived through three big wars, civil war, two world wars, others, the great depression, the great recession, almost every economic environment you could imagine, all kinds of technology and changes. and today i want to give you a quick tale of the tape. we have 2855,000 team members. -- 255,000 team members.
97% of the business is in the u.s. 97% of our people are in the u.s. we serve one in three americans, one way or another. we are a real economy bank. we don't know really anything about corninge the aluminum market, but we know a whole lot about helping small business, consumers, corporate customers, others planning for retirement. in fact, we make more auto loans than anybody else on the planet. we make more home loans. we do business with one in 10 of all small business in america. next closest competitor does half that share. we make more energy loans, ag loans. commercial real estate, you travel around the country today, you think there's a crane convention going on. there's cranes everywhere. we doll more of that than anyone. so that's what we do. but it's not the only part of our culture. if i wlan throw pi also plays an
enormously important role. the company's size is measured in different ways. we have never been impressed with size. we are the 27th largest revenue producer in the country. last year we were the third largest earner. weert the ninth or 12th largest private employer. but on the philanthropy side, in 2012 no company in america invested more in their communities through philanthropy than wells fargo. last year we were number 2. our team members through their own willingness, again part ever our culture, has been the number one united way campaign corporately for the last five years. [applause] > thank you. and people ask me, why that's such an important part of your culture, and the answer is very simple. we live, we work, we recreate, we go to church, we are part of local communities. we have never seen our bank do
well over time where the community does poorly. they are linked in a very special way. and finally, we have stockholders. as the introduction, you heard that, you heard about our largest owner, warren buffett, who owns almost -- over 9% of our company. it's his single largest investment. institutionst five we are not even the top 20. we are number 21 or 22. we are not the largest in the u.s., although we have more locations here, we have more people here than any other bank, but we are not the largest in asset size. but if you take our market -- number of shares times our stock price, we are far and wide the most valuable bank in the world. so you hire great people, treat them as family, take care of customers. most of our customers have been with us for decades. and we do lots of stuff with them. they are our friends. if you give back and invest in your communities, your
stockholder can get rewarded and will. and by the way, we have been one of the largest taxpayers in the u.s. for years. in fact, last year i think our cash tax rate was 32%. so let me now move on to the ndustry. economy thinl we'll talk about the industry. recoveries are not pleasant things to watch if you like steady continual progress. they are kind of messy. ' fact, we are now six years anniversary since the lehman bankruptcy, september 15, and we are five years since the recovery started. and it doesn't feel leak a full-blown recovery, even though the unemployment rate is now down in the low sixes, we have had steady g.d.p. growth, and we have had some unusual things happen this year.
in fact, in the first quarter we saw a big drop in g.d.p. growth and had a very strong second quarter and it would not surprise me if third and fourth quarters both started with a three handle. we have been growing jobs, 220,000 to 230,000 jobs per month. and august comes around we have 145,000. so there's lots of different mixed messages. i'll tell you right off the bat the economy feels a bit stronger to me than some of the recent numbers would show. and we are optimistic about what's happening in america and optimistic about our future. in fact, i'm actually bullish about the long-term future. let's take a look at the economy from 2000 to 2007, the so-called the great years. and then compare the economy today to that. and let's for just a minute
exclude residential real estate outs of both economies. the economy today is better than it was in 2000 and 2007. energy is booming. energy's the best it's ever been. energy, we might be self-sufficient in energy in just a few years. and we are also making great strides in renewables. the number of autos sold in august, if you annualize august, it will be the best auto month since 2006. it was just a month or two there. it's really almost the best since 2000. we are going to sell 16 million, 17 million new vehicles this year. by the way the average fleet, if you look the united states fleet, it's about 11 years old. it's going to be good news in the industry for some time. agriculture, doing very well. not all parts of agriculture because of the drought. some of the cattle feeders are
having a more difficult time, but generally speaking, good. technology booming. commercial real estate doing very very, very well. if you look at -- start to separate the elements of it, i think we are doing quite well. and manufacturing starting to come back. no, sir as much as we need. d i'm hugely bullish on -- i understand the importance of manufacturing. but let's take housing. typically in a recovery, been this way for every one since the end of world war ii, every recovery is led by housing. residential real estate. and not this time. in fact, housing is better. it's better everywhere. it's not better for everyone. it's not as good as it can be. so why is housing not leading? in fact, there's lots of discussions here in washington, lots of discussion around the
country, but what are the elements? it's no one thing. but it's four or five things, an aggregate create a big thing. first of all, households are forming later today than they have in the past. i got married when i was 21, my wife was 20. we bought a house the next year. now my children are getting married in their 30's. and that's happening where children are living with parents, that's a big change from what it used to be. secondly, student debt is an influence. 40 million americans have a student loan. in fact, student lending has almost doubled in the last six years. and that has an influence. in fact, there's more student debt. the biggest debt category for americans is housing. there's 50 million homes in america with a mortgage on it. the average mortgage is 200,000.
it surprises some people, the next group is student debt. there's more student debt than there is auto debt or home equity debt or credit card debt. so it's -- it is, and people are paying both payments not able to buy housing. it's part of it. not all of it. another area is that in some markets houses are not available. inventory is not available. i happen to live in san francisco. in the bay area you bid on a house. you come with 27 of your closest friends. you keep running the price up because there is simply no inventory. that's not true across the country, but it's true in many of the hot markets. surely the coastal markets. and you can do something about, and that's credit not available for every borrower who wants to
buy a house who can afford a house and wants to make that decision and commitment. and this is going to get just a bit technical but it's really important. in the united states since the housing market is so huge, $10 trillion, we need a secondary market to help finance that debt. there's $10 trillion worth of deposits in the contry, and deposits are used to make loans for businesses and to the federal government and for consumers and a whole bunch of other things. it's like $28 trillion worth of debt. so the way that the united states finances homes is fannie or freddie, known as g.s.e.'s, or f.h.a., guarantee mortgages against loss, and with that guarantee, originators like us and others originate those loans and sell them off to investors.
it makes credit available at the prices we have and so forth. what's happened over time is that the mortgage companies, the insurance companies, if you will, put loans back to the originators and say, this doesn't qualify for your insurance. sometimes they put them back even if they paid for 10 years or eight years or seven years. and they are put back for technicalities. on the first page it said john g. stumpf and second page it said john gerard stumpf, it's a technical default and comes back. what banks have done, and originators, there are a whole lot of originators who aren't banks. that's always been the case. what they are doing is saying, even though the insurance companies, the f.h.a.'s, say we
will insure a loan that has this requirement, by wait from a credit perspective a fico score down to 580 or 600, we are saying, we are only going to do it down to 650 or 670. we put a credit overlay on it. so there's a certain part of the arket that can't get a conforming mortgage. because we know this this group there's going to be more default and we know what happens that they are going to put it back to us. soy we are trying to find a way to work with the government agencies, to find a time when does credit and when does risk transfer? if a company -- if an originator originates a loan, they do a lousy job, and they don't verify, it should absolutely come back. if they issue a loan and they do the best job they can and there's a default later, and the
defect is unrelated to income or the customer paying it, it should not come back. here we have a situation where we have the unintended consequences of well intended legislators or regulators who are actually hurting the marketplace. in fact, we are now joining -- people are joining with us saying how do we open the credit box more? let me now segue, and i think we are down to how many more minutes? eight more minutes. great. we'll talk about the industry. i could talk for 80 minutes about too big to fail, i'll try to do that in just a couple minutes. there is wide agreement in america, and i would be the first to say it, there should be no company too big to fail in any industry. surely not financial services. failure is an important part of the free enterprise system.
now, whether it's a disagreement is has enough been done to deal with this issue? through dodd-frank and other things. and sometimes one forgets how much has been done. , we i look back to 2008 now have almost 14,000 pages of new rules written. we have the volcker amendment. it was never a big proprietary -- do business with yourself was never a big deal but some companies it was. the term stress test is in the common vernacular. probably most of you know it doesn't happen twice a year. it happens once a year with a capital distribution element to it. there's something called living
wills or your funeral arrangements. there's heightened expectations. there's new regulators. i think cfpb. all of those i would say would qualify more in the qualitative side, although there are quantitative parts to that. but in the qualitative side has also been significant change. look at capital requirements. wells fargo went through the most difficult economic environment any of us would have seen in -- unless you're my parents' age who went through a great depression. and today our capital -- we made profit every quarter. we ought a big company using our own money. and today our capital went from $99 billion then to $181 billion today. almost double. but you say, most these banks
didn't fail because of capital they failed because of liquidity. you would be right. today 24% of our balance sheet is in liquid assets. most on deposit with the fed. we have run our companies for years, $1 deposit, $1 did loan. $11 deposit, $8 -- $8 worth of loans. so we have a huge amount there. there's been discussion about acronym foris fancy global systemically important financial institution. the leverage ratios have changed. any one of these things i just talked about, whether it be enhanced requirements, different regulators, living also. capital liquidity. all makes sense in the singular.
but in the aggregate it's a large load. and my answer to critics would be, give this stuff a chance to work. and by the way, there is an economic price, the economy does y if you are going to have overregulation and too much capital and too much liquidity on the sidelines. in fact, today what's happening, the regulated box, what happens within the regulated side of the industry is shrinking, and what's happening on the outside of the regulating strirks the nonbanks, are growing. the risk isn't going away, it's just changing to different places. so -- i would be hopeful, also, that our regulators look at just something other than size and look at the complexity, the interconnectedness of
organizations. and just like in the housing area, less credit available at higher prices to fewer people. so from an industry perspective, that's something we are always thinking about. let me end by talking a little bit about how i think our industry generally and how wells fargo will be successful in the future. we are a long sale cycle business. investments that we made five and 10, 20 years ago are being harvested today and we need to make investments today that will have the company continue in the future. first of all, exceptional customer experiences. people ask me many times, which bank are you most impressed with? when you go to bed at night, who do you dream about? i said i dream about checking accounts. i'm actually impressed with companies like apple and google and cost could he -- costco and
amazon. those aren't banks. here's how they influence us. they are teaching consumers what retailing is all about. so we are making lots of ahead nts to help stay of the curve and make sure that we are relevant to customers in the future. one of the big debates is, are banking branches, we call them stores, are they still relevant? we think they are highly relevant. in fact n. this market we have three new prototype spores, all about 1,000 square feet compared to 5,000 square feet of the traditional. they happen to be paper free and they -- one of them happens to fold in at night, the walls, and becomes a a.t.m. vestibule. highly valuable to us and responsive to a community. we are finding that most of our loyal customers, even millennials, come into a bank branch once every six months. they don't believe they do.
they would tell you they don't. but they are using all of our channels. our stores, our a.t.m.'s, our phones, our online, and mobile. as a distribution community, as an -- some of the great retailers you see like apple, they wouldn't need to have stores, but they do. it's part of the magic of the end. so lots of work going on there. and how to be relevant to our customers. how to know them. i have never seen a prospect customer come to me and say you are so large, you're so impersonal, i'm going to join you so i can be 162,723. i never heard that. they say know me. help me understand me, and reward me. make it very personal about me. another big issue we are working on is all things risk. when i joined the industry, if you got your loan book right, the rest of it was
insignificant. in fact, that was probably the case even as recently as 10 years ago. incidentally, during the most difficult time of the down turn we were losing over 2% of our loans to losses. which actually was not that high compared to a lot of competitors. in the second quarter of last year -- this year, we lost around a third of a%. almost eight times better. credit has never been better. but today you have things like cyberrisk and you have interest rate risk and reputation risk, litigation risk, foreign exchange risk. knowing your customer. so lots of other things. near thing that we are working on is digitizing the enterprize. our industry has been in a second day batch process using paper process and how do our children communicate with each other? instant messaging. so digitizing enterprising using
data is another huge opportunity for our industry. and i think i just have time where i have to wrap this up. let me just finally, one final comment, our customer base is changing. our advocacy for inclusiveness starts at the top. we have 14 outside directors of our company. five are persons of color. five are women. pp there's only four others -- there's only four others. if i look at my 11 direct reports who report to me, the average tenure that team has with our company is 28 years. and four are women. so we see a disproportionate part of our new households, new small businesses, new corporations who come to us and bank with us, being either women owned, women led, or from
communities of difference. we have a strong passion to make sure we have a team that reflects that diversity. so thank you very much for your attention. i will take questions. [applause] >> we could go on for a couple hours, but we are -- we go go on for a few hours, the way we do it i'll try to politely rapid fire, ask questions, and your answers. wells fargo's big home mortgage business makes it highly dependent on interest rates and the broader economy. when do you think the economy will be forming well enough to allow the fed to increase interest rates and how will the housing market and wells fargo be affected when that happens? >> thank you. i should have mentioned that i
appreciate all you being here today because this isn't the big how in town. first of all, wells fargo has about an 18% share in the mortgage business. but about six or seven of those points are aggregate business. we help small originators, give them money so they can complete or liquefy their mortgage. our direct business is only about 11% or 12%. we have about 10% of the deposits in the country. there arep 7,000 banks in the deposits. few hundred in the mortgage business. i don't think we are oversized there. secondly, unless you're over 40 years old, you think these rates are normal. when i got my first mortgage in 1976 it was 8 1/2% and i got my second one in 1980 at 11%, and i was darn lucky to get the money. so i think rates -- the affordability index is still very attractive. if you look at -- there's three
important things when you buy a house. the cost of the house, what you make, and what the interest rate is on your mortgage. two of those still are in very good shape, especially interest rates. my suspicion is we are positioned for higher rates, and i'm in favor of having rates reflect the strength of the economy. so -- i don't know when that's going to happen. i thought it would have happened by now, but i have been wrong all along. i do think that whatever it is over time shows a bias. >> lenders survey released today by fannie mae found that large lenders expect mortgage credit standards to ease over the next three months as demand for mortgages drops. does wells fargo plan to ease its standards? >> this is again that discussion we talked about where we have credit overlays. we have already done some of that early in the year as kind
of a first step to see if we can't help out. i don't have any plans. if we would we would surely announce it ahead of time. i don't have plans today. >> as you mentioned, in urban markets such as washington, young people are finding themselves priced out of the homeowners market. what is happening to the american dream of homeownership? and how do we make sure that young people are able to achieve it just as previous generations did? >> that is a terrific question. in fact, in the last two years wells fargo has given to cities almost $200 million, no strings attached, to help with homeownership. we wanted to test this idea. has america, has americans lost their interest in owning a home? we did a recent study how america thinks about homeownership. no, there's still a very strong
desire. in fact, those moneys were used very quickly as down payment dollars or help to fix up a home so people could get into homeownership. no, it remains for 2/3 of americans still a high priority. it's probably the biggest to do financially. and inventory and affordable inventory in markets like the district and other places, is a real issue. >> you spoke about the fact that many young people are saddled with student loan debt. do you have any suggestions for how we can make sure that future generations don't face such a heavy loan burden? >> maybe i should do first make sure everybody's on the same wavelength. there's about 1.2 trillion to 1.3 trillion of student debt. 92% of that is through the federal government. only 8% is private student debt. that debt has almost doubled in
the last six years. and so this is -- this is really an issue between the federal government and schools and so forth. incidentally, school tuition has risen 2 1/2 times the rate of inflation over the last 10 years. so -- and the performance in the private area, our student loan portfolio, which is very small, it's important to families, is less than 2% delinquent. if you take the delinquentcy on the federal side it's eight or nine times that number. so this is a big issue. i know there's a lot of discussion here in washington. i'll let washington deal with that. but it clearly is an issue. >> as you noted, the current outlook for the u.s. economy is relatively strong. yet there is growing concern about income inequity and chronic unemployment or under employment, especially among the young. how concerned are you about these issues and how do you believe they should be best be
tackled? >> i should mention as i'm optimistic about the u.s. economy, there are some geopolitical, more dangerous world today, and as you probably saw, china is slowing a bit and the eurozone is treading water, especially the large he economies there. so that does have an influence on the u.s. learly jobs have not kept up with -- in many sectors, many situations with the economic growth that we are seeing. it's been quite uneven. i do worry about the inequities and the differences. there's different ways to solve for that, but i think the more we can get business engaged in hiring, people want to work. it's more about -- it's partly paycheck, but also being part of the solution, the dignity that comes with the job.
and like i tell people, i don't need to go to a focus group to find out what's happening in america. i go to a family reunion. i've got family members on every rung of the economic ladder and it's a real issue. >> you touched on some of this, but what in your opinion could stand in the way of economic growth in america? >> i think first of all i'm in favor of good regulation. i want good, honorable, competitors doing the right thing. that helps us. but i want to make sure we don't go overboard. that's not only true for our industry, for any industry. secondly, when washington behaves badly, and can you define it any way you want to, it has an impact on the real economy. we saw in the past where debt ceilings were breached and physical can cliffs were coming and going. that's hard on the economy.
but the third thing, i think, not doing things that hurt, it's doing things that help. anything that helps jobs here i'm in favor of. and one of the things that surely is on the table is do we have the proper tax policy to promote jobs in america? especially manufacturing jobs. >> bit of a segue. the justice department said today that it is investigating potential illegal conduct by individuals at major financial institutions that undercut the integrity of the markets. the department of justice said it hopes criminal charges will be filed in these cases in the coming months. do you have any comment on the department's increasing focus of wrongdoing at major banks and also the announcement today that bigger rewards will be given to wall street whistle blowers?
, i have not seen that report with you as a fundamental view, i -- but as a fundamental view, i want to live in a law-abidinging country, if there are wrongdoers they ought to be held accountable. that's the way we run our company. culture is extremely important in that. i think that will be better as a people when things are done in an appropriate manner. again, i have not seen that report and i don't know exactly what's happening there. i'm in favor of holding people accountable. america online turning abroad for a moment, is wells fargo considering expanding abroad through acquisitions? why or why not? >> 97% of our revenues and people are here in america. i don't play a game called texas hold em. but apparently there's a time in the game you believe you have a great hand you go all in.
our 3% international business, which we love, is mostly an extension of helping our u.s.-based customers. consumers and businesses do business internationally. in fact, i think if you look at the regulatory regimes around the world, there is interests to what they are doing to bring their banks back home, if you will. so i don't see us -- i see us doing most of our work here in the u.s. you never say never, but we are largely based here and what we do internationally is pretty much in support of our customers. >> even though most of your business is in america, you might have a comment on the following as you know tomorrow the scottish referendum takes place. if scotland votes yes for independence, could it affect global financial markets? >> that's out of my pay grade.
much as i know about scotland comes in a bottle of scotch. i don't mean that in a negative sense at all. do i that once a year. i don't have a position on that. >> we'llcome back domestically. if you had spoken at this podium six years ago today in the midst of the financial crisis, there's no doubt you would have delivered a very different speech. looking back on the crisis, how well do you think the united states government responded? and how bad could things have gotten if the government had not responded as it did? >> you know, i think about that from time to time. i don't dwell on that because there are such hardened views bout the need at the time. it's easy to go back and monday morning quarterback. for those policymakers on the controls who had the levers and
buttons at the time, it was a difficult period. g.s.e., ut first the and then lehman apparently broke the back. with aovera. so there -- wachovia. so there was a lot going on. at our time we didn't ask for the money. we didn't believe we needed it. we paid it back in a year with lots of interest. so i tend to want to if he cuss forward. i'll let historians in the future look back on this period of time. it was clearly a difficult time. let's see if we can make the est of it going forward. >> what would be your prescription for washington, d.c., lenders so that the wells fargo culture can help fix our government to work better?
excuse me, let me rephrase that. what would your prescription for washington, d.c., leaders be so that wells fargo culture can help fix our government to work better? >> i'm lucky compared to the government. i have a team who love working at wells. the average tenure has been 20 years in my direct reports. every two years they don't have an option to get rid of each other. it's a bit different. i would say this, we play us ball at wells fargo. part of our culture. not that me is not important. the possessive pronoun. never at the cost of the plural pronoun. so -- i don't know how to be successful other than that. when we have people, we interview people, we care about -- we care more about what they care about than what they know. i think if we put country first
and maybe party second, which i know it's hard to do, that's at least in our business, we don't put our business first. we put our customer and company first. [applause] >> we have more questions focusing on how wells fargo did on the financial crisis. and wells fargo weathered the financial crisis in far better shape than the other megabanks, largely because it did not take the same kind of risks. it was as if wells fargo was not part of the wall street culture at the time. why was that? we irst of all, not that -- do some sophisticated things for top end clients, but we are very much in the real economy. and what you do during boom times is much more important than what you do during the down
times. so i'll just give you a quick story. back in in 2003 or so, wells fargo was the largest mortgage company in america. not that we want to be the largest. it's just that we thought we were doing a good job for our customers. then we started to hear about negative advertising loans. what those are is you buy a house and let's say you borrow $500,000. and the interest rate is 8%. so you owe $40,000 a year interest, which is about $3,500 bucks a month. the bank says to you, no. only pay us $1,000 a month. we take the other $2,500 add it to your principal. you owe more late than what you started with. we said, really? how is this customer friendly? how can this help customers succeed financially? that's a part -- that's what we
can do every morning. i tell our people, when you get up in the morning and go to work, your most important job is not to make money. buffet knows that. all our investors. your most important thing is to serve customers. the result you is make money. never put the stage coach in front of the horses. at we did is we got market share. we became number two then number three. others were doing this stuff. and layered risk on tell me what you make loans. this sort of thing. like that. and when it all blew up, that's when we got big in the business because you make your best loans after -- not going into one. so it's a focus on customer. i tell you, i didn't see this bubble coming. i didn't see 2008 coming. i had been in the industry since 1975, because i didn't have an appreciation for all that was going on.
we didn't do everything perfectly. we didn't make every right decision. when put customer first and really honor that, particularly your customers, good things generally happen. >> thank you, mr. stumpf. you mentioned mr. buffet. what influence does mr. buffet have on operating decisions? >> he could have as much as he wanted, but he has none because he doesn't ask for it. first of all, warren is just a terrific human being. i'll tell you a quick story -- coy tell stories all day on warren buffett. i got to know warren just a little bit before i became c.e.o. because i play online bridge. any time i meet a good shellacing i play whim, he's a very accomplished player. in fact, one of our former team members, is his partner and they are tough at the table. but once i became c.e.o. we
started doing a home at home dinner or lunch. so my first time to omaha to have dinner with him we went to -- i can't remember. warren eats a full meal. lets me tell you. he has a t-bone steak medium rare, five chicken parmesan, mashed potatoes. cherry coke. and when the food comes, warren grabs a saltshaker in his left hand and right hand and it's a snowstorm. i know a snowstorm when i see one because i'm from minnesota. i said, warren, what does your doctor say about all this sodium? looked to me like, doctor? really? no doctor, no direction. i said, warren, seriously, this is not good. i said it's health. strength in your family. what's your genealogy like? he said really, he said, his father passed away early, i
can't remember the time, but we start talking about colon issues and colon cancer. he said -- i said, warren, that's really important. you got to get a colonoscopy. that's a requirement. he said i did a few years ago, 10 years ago. he said actually took a foot out. aim great now. i went in the hospital with a colon. i came out with a semicolon. he laughed at that. warren had me -- how much of this is true, but he had me going the whole time. here's about warren. i remember another story we were at an event last fall where we had 500 of our bankers together. he was kind enough to come, which was a rare occasion. we were sitting next to one another on the stage. we were doing an - we were doing a side-by-side thing. >> we'll leave this event here, you can see the rest of it at c-span.org, go to the c-span
video library. now to the floor of the house where they're working on a package of bills dealing with energy regulation. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. sessions: good afternoon, mr. speaker. by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 727 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 141. house resolution 727, resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 2, to remove federal government obstacles to the production of more domestic energy, to ensure transport of that energy reliableably to businesses, consumers and other end users, to lower the cost of energy to consumers, to enable manufacturers and other businesses to access domestically produced energy
affordably and reliably in order to create and sustain more secure and well-paying american jobs, and for other purposes. . all points of order against consideration of the bill are waive. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except, one, two hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on natural resources or their respective designees, and two, one motion to recommit. section 2. upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 4, to make revisions to federal law to improve the conditions necessary for economic growth and job creation and for other purposes. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the bill shall be considered as
read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one, two hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means or their respective designees, and two, one motion to recommit. section 3, on any legislative day during the period from september 22, 2014, through november 11, 2014, a, the journal of the proceeds of the previous day shall be considered as adopted. and b, the chair may at any time declare the house adjourned to meet at a date and time within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article 1 of the constitution to be announced by the chair in declaring the adjournment. section 4. the speaker may appoint members to perform the duties of the chair for the duration of the period addressed by section 3 of
this resolution as though under clause 8-a of rule 1. section 5. each day during the period addressed by section 3 of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 7 of the war powers resolution, 50 united states code, 1546. section 6. each day during the period addressed by section 3 of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for purposes f clause 7 of rule 13. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one hour. >> mr. speaker, thank you very much. mr. sessions: for the purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sessions: during consideration of this legislation, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only.
i ask that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sessions: today the house is considering a rule for the consideration of two bills, a package to boost america's energy production, and a package to jump start our american economy. combined, these bills will help get america back to work with an america that we can afford. first, the rule provides for consideration of h.r. 2, the american energy solutions for lower costs and more american jobs act. this bill would accomplish three important goals for the american family. first, it would create up to 1.2 million good-paying jobs for americans who are out of work or who are underemployed. second, it would lower, it would lower energy prices in america. third, it would draw our country
closer to an important goal that we should all share and that is, american energy independence. let's start by identifying the problem. the facts of the case are that the federal government is standing in the way of an american energy boom. that means they are standing in the way of american progress and progress for americans to have jobs and a better life. for over six years, the american people have waited for this administration to approve construction of the keystone pipeline. unfortunately, the approval process has been marred by indecision and unnecessary delays. first, opponents of the pipeline argue that it would be an environmental disaster. since then, virtually all the major environmental concerns surrounding the project have been not only addressed, but debunked.
second, opponents of the pipeline argue that -- argued that it was unsafe. yet study after study after study have shown the pipeline to be safe anden effective means to transport much-needed energies for america's resources. the opponents of the keystone pipeline have run out of excuses. but, they continue to delay a decision. then there's the department of energy, which has been far too slow in approving applications o export lick fied natural gas -- liquefied natural gas. the department has decided on only nine applications submitted to it for the last four years. 26 applications still await action, many of which have been delayed by this administration for purely political reasons. another reason to say they are
getting in the way of americans having jobs today. they are getting in the way of americans -- of american independence for energy. as a result of these delays, america is squandering an energy boom that could make america, which is the largest producer of natural gas, even better and add to the american economy. the department's broken application process destroys good-paying jobs and hampers our economic growth. the energy revolution already supports 1.7 million high-paying, great jobs in america. d we could add an additional 1.3 million new american high-paying jobs by 2020. but only if the federal
government will get out of the way. -- out of the way of its development. it also allows our international competitors such as russia and iran not to be dominant in a marketplace and not to use those domination -- that domination for political power and economic power over other countries in europe. the federal government has ruled 87% of our offshore acreage currently offlimits to energy production. even worse, the administration doesn't have a plan to develop these resources. in fact, the administration's offshore leasing plan for the next three years offers no new areas for lease and includes the lowest number of lease sales in history. this administration's no new drilling policies have cost americans jobs. with forfeited revenue that would help us pay down our national debt and denied access
to american oil and natural gas that would lessen dependence on foreign sources. more importantly, the american consumer continues to pay higher prices at the pump. nearly double from the time this administration took office a scant five plus years ago. my friends in the minority might rightly point out that the u.s. and oil and natural gas production is growing. however, the growth is entirely due to increased output on state and private lands. not on federal lands. our growth in energy production is in spite of the federal government, not because of it. combined, these policies hurt the american people. they hurt men and women and families who need to be able to
have a stable price at the pump. with energy that is available and a constant supply throughout the seasons. high energy costs drive up prices, they limit what american families can do with their individual resources, and it is a problem in our economy. that means that the american people have less money in their pockets to buy groceries, to pay their mortgage, or to purchase school supplies for their kids. so, what are the solutions to these problems? first, the energy package considered under this rule would speed up approval of the keystone pipeline. when completed, the keystone pipeline will transport over 800,000 barrels of oil every single day, adding to the supply that means that we can wean ourselves off middle east oil.
the equivalent of half of our daily imports that come from the middle east. second, the bill would force the department of energy to issue final decisions on applications to export liquefied natural gas when 30 days of completing the environmental review process, an important step in increasing our exports of l.n.g. and adding to the 1.3 million jobs that are awaiting filling as a result of this delay by this administration. third, h.r. 2 would expand oil and natural gas production in the united states by rolling back the administration's over zealous environmental policies that have slowed our economic progress and made energy too expensive. at a time when so many americans are unemployed and underemployed, this job creating legislation would unleash our vast energy resources to create
these 1.2 million jobs. we need them now. we need america to have stable energy prices. in short, the bill will finally pave a way forward for energy policies that would lower energy prices, strengthen our economy, create jobs, lessen our dependence on foreign energy sources, and give the american family and worker an opportunity to have gasoline at the pump at a less price. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. polis: i thank the jelled for yielding -- the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and yield myself such time as i may coon soum. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: i rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying ills this eso-called bills for better jobs in america, don't
let the titles of the bills fool you. h.r. 2 and h.r. 4 won't create any new jobs but would continue to degree de-grade the quality of life and health of the american people. these bills put more money in the pocket of big industry, corporate welfare, undermine the efficiency of our regulatory activities and continue to fail to provide opportunity the middle class while they continue to enrich international conglomerates and corporations. not only are these bills bad, but i should add, mr. speaker, the house has voted on all these bills that are already included in h.r. 2 and h.r. 4 this session. just another waste of taxpayer time and money here debating and voting on bill that was already been passed just as the republicans have chosen to repeal the affordable care act 53 times system of too we are passing many of these bills for the second time here today, if that's the decision the house chooses to make. i think it's clear all of us
here know that these bills will not become law. they decide -- the senate did not take them up after the house passed them. there's no indication or reason to believe that in this new configuration, being lumped together in new and more sinister ways that the senate will react any more positively. sadly, it's quite clear that the majority here in the house are either unable or unwilling to bring forward fresh ideas to jump start the middle class. are bills instead have -- bound to political pandering, rewarding campaign donors and large corporations in advance of elections, instead of taking advantage of our precious few remaining days of session to address the real problems facing our nation. i'm also dismayed that these bills are being debated under a closed rule here today. we celebrated the diamond jubilee of closed rules, 75 closed rules from the
republican party. h.r. 2 and 4 are the 76th and 77th closed rules this congress, just before this chamber breaks for a six-week-long recess, the majority has shut down the process of regular order and not allowed republicans or democrats to offer our amendments to improve these bills. even though they're not bringing new legislation before us today, we should at least allow, at least allow democrats and republicans to offer their ideas to make these bills better. what's the point in passing the exact same bills without even giving members of this body the ability to make them better? i was offered two amendments to this bill, which i'll speak about later, but unfortunate they were not made in order. others offered great ideas to improve this legislation but none were allowed. instead, we have a restricted rule which has shut out debate from members on both sides of the aisle. if we can defeat this rule we can move forward with an open process, encouraging and
allowing amendments from both sides of the aisle. we don't have the precious time left for political posturing. i just -- while we were talking here now i got a text on my phone that votes are in fact canceled for tomorrow. i'm not sure if my colleague is yet aware of that or the speaker is yet aware of that, but this in fact may be the last day we are in session before the election. and yet instead of dealing with immigration reform, there's a bill that passed more than 2/3, instead of protecting lgbt americans from being fired from their job just because who they love or who they are, here we are today bringing forward bills that have already passed in different configurations, that would hurt the quality of life for american families, that would hurt the environment and hurt the health of the american people. this compilation of bills in .r. 2 is really an oil and gas industry wish list. of course, we support development on federal lands
and private lands, make sure we balance production with our quality of life and our health. this bill, however, would prioritize development over all other uses of land and all other values that we hold as a country. this bill would also reduce important protections that we have in favor of speculative energy exploration and development. now is not the time to pass a massive corporate giveaway bill to the oil and gas industry, an industry that's already very profitable. they don't need more taxpayer subsidies just to add to mayor bottom line. especially -- add to their bottom line, especially not at the health of our environment, enjoyment of our public lands and our quality of life. while there are many problematic areas in the bill, one is very concerning. we one provision in the bill would streamline plipe aprolvets and -- pipeline approvals without any impact studies or opportunities for public comment.
this bill would also discourage environmental analysis, undermine agency decisions like cushing carbon pollution and is yet another provision would prevent the federal government from overseeing fracking activities on federal lands, an issue near and dear to the hearts of my constituents in the state of colorado. it's particular egregious since this bill has a wish list from the oil and gas industry, mehow for those that love an all-of the above energy approach, they left out wind production. so why would we be doubling down with taxpayer subsidies for the oil and gas industry at the same time we're not even renewing the one important subsidy that the wind energy has? now, i offered two different solutions to this and i was hoping either one would be a constructive way to approach this on the floor of the house. i, along with mr. perlmutter,
would encourage private investment in the wind energy and allow wind energy to compete on a level playingfield with the heavily subsidized oil and gas industry. i offered another solution, and i'm certainly willing to support either, and that solution would be to eliminate the over $40 billion in taxpayer subsidies to the oil and gas industry. if we had gone that route at least wind and solar energy would be able to compete on a level playing field because we would stop doling out our precious taxpayer dollars as subsidies to the legacy interests in the oil and gas industry. that, too, was not allowed to even be debated, not for 10 minutes, not for one minute. instead of having friday off was more important than having allowing republican and democratic members of this body to present their ideas on how to make a bad bill better. h.r. 4, the jobs for america act, is a group of 15 bills that have also been previously passed by the house. many of them served to attack our processies we have in place to keep our american consumers in place.
it bogs down agencies that are charged with protecting the public health. none of them have become law, having already been passed, and i think all my colleagues here know that none of them will become law in this new and more sinister configuration. now, i'd love to see a balanced tax extender package that lowers our deficit, strengthen our economy, could be passed by the senate and signed into law. that is not the bill before us today. h.r. 4 would actually add to the deficit by making tax cuts for many special interests permanent. $574 billion deficit-busting bill on our last day of session. what a great lead-in to the general election for the republicans to present a massive big government spending $574 billion subsidy bill for our consideration. i think the american people understand the contrast and the different approaches that are in play this year.
now, an amendment i offered with mr. blumenauer, which i mentioned earlier, would have offset some of that cost by eliminating the oil and gas industry subsidies to the tune of $40 billion. now, the bill would have cost $534 billion, but it would have cost $40 billion less if we had eliminated the oil and gas subsidies. but, again, apparently having a friday off is more important to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle than having a full and open debate of the merits or lack of merits of the proposal i advanced with mr. blumenauer. in summary, i oppose the closed rule in addition to the underlying bills. we could have shown the american people that congress could end on a positive note, that we could come together and address our broken immigration system, that we could come together to address our deficit. but instead we're providing yet another example of why congress continues to have record low approval ratings, rehashed, repackaged, partisan bills
costing taxpayers $574 billion, enritching the special interests and corporations and then going on vacation. people wonder why the american people aren't thrilled with the united states congress. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. at this time i'd like to yield to the gentleman from the energy and commerce committee, the gentleman from hood river, oregon, mr. walden, five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. walden: i thank the speaker, thank the gentleman from texas, the chairman of the rules committee, who's actually read the bills that are in this package and knows they are much more than my colleague and friend from colorado just described because actually the forestry legislation is something that passed this house 363 days ago in a big bipartisan vote, big portion of which was written by my democratic friend, peter defazio and kurt schrader. that's in this package.
we have another bill coming up later that is twice passed this house unanimously. those are partisan -- aren't partisan bills that you said, mr. polis, to reward donors. this is about creating jobs in america. they need jobs, certainty of jobs. i don't know about colorado but oregon, california, a lot of places are going up in smoke, choked with smoke because of forest fires. the legislation in this package that we're going to send back over to the senate one more time, thanks to this rule, thanks to the leadership of this chairman, would allow us to get people back to work in the woods, address the problems of these fires, produce revenues for school teachers, for this was and this was' deputies, for search and rescue, for all the basic fundamental services that matter in rural communities and i think matter across the west. so if you -- if you don't believe in taking care of your forest then vote no on this rule. 363 days ago the house passed h.r. 1526, the restoring healthy forests for healthy
communities act. few days short of a year, senate's done nothing. nothing. they failed to pass a single active forestry bill. nothing. our forests are going up in smoke, we're spending taxpayer dollars to fight the fires. we're devastating watersheds. this has to change. the federal government controls over 50% of the land in oregon. in 10 of the 20 counties i represent they control over half of the land. over the last 30 years, timber harvests on these lands, these federal lands has been decreased by 90%. 9-0. forests aren't static. they keep growing. they keep dying. we get beetles infestation, we get drought. we get fire. nothing happens after the fire. other than the trees sit there and burn and then they die, they rot, then they fall over. there's no productive use. all that needs to change. 90% reduction in harvest of our federal lands. do you know what that means out in the rural areas where the
federal government is supposed to be the steward? it means we lost 300 mills and 30,000 american jobs. 30,000 american jobs. these are jobs bills we're talking about here. these same rural areas that i represent have poverty rates at 20%, 25%, 30%, even as high as 33.9% in joe is he a phone county right down -- josephine county right down in here. you want to do about poverty, pass these bills. get the senate to pass these bills. we'll create jobs. we'll generate revenue. we'll have positive cash flow in this country for once. doesn't have to be this way. we can put people back to work. so our chairman hastings and chairman bishop, myself and others worked on this bipartisan forestry legislation. we've run this bill through an independent evaluation process to say what's this mean for the people of oregon, because there's a portion that relates to the o.n.c. lands that is only in oregon? the democratic governor took a
look at our bipartisan bills and would save or create 3,000 american oregon jobs. these are real families that have been suffering. 3,000 oregon jobs. it would generate $300 million in revenue or thereabouts. that would pay, pay for basic services, pay for basic services. 500 more feet of timber would be harvested. you would have a private sector involvement here. 29 counties, all 20 in my district, 29 oregon counties passed resolutions supporting this bipartisan legislation. we passed it 363 days ago. the senate, i don't know what they do over there. not much productive. we are going to give them another chance. yes, we're repackaging these bills. yes, the house has passed these bills before. yes, they passed them in a bipartisan manner. we are at the end of our legislative session. it's time one more time to take another attempt to pass this
into law, to wake up the senate, to get them to do the right thing. so support the rule, let's move forward. we don't need more partisan rhetoric here. we need to help america get on its feet. we need to take better care of our forests. we need to take better care of our watersheds. we need to put people back to work in america and that's what these bills do and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. polis: i'd like to yield four minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, my colleague on the rules committee, mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this rule and for the benefit of my colleagues, i want to be very clear about one of the implications of the language in this rule that is before us. a vote for this rule is a vote to shut off the mechanisms of the war powers resolution for the next two months. if any member of this house has any concerns about the ongoing military operations in iraq,
the potential of u.s. military air strikes in syria or the possible introduction of u.s. combat ground forces into either country, then this rule will tie their hands for the next two months. if any member introduces a privileged resolution under the terms of the war powers resolution, this rule freezes that resolution in place and stops the clock that would normally advance under the war powers resolution. it is perfectly clear that the house will not debate and vote on an authorization on iraq at this time. unfortunately, it is not clear if any vote will ever happen at any time in this house, even after we come back in november, even though there's a growing bipartisan consensus that such an authorization is needed. this rule freezes out each and every member of this house from taking action on the possibility of a vote on iraq and syria
under the terms put in place by the war powers resolution. on august 8, the u.s. began daily bombing in iraq, at first to protect those trapped on mount sinjal -- sinjar, but almost immediately it grew to inclune -- to include infrastructure, and then to support ground operations to retake territory, and then to protect more major infrastructure, and this week to dislodge isil from the environment -- environs of baghdad. for six weeks, i have been waiting patiently for the leadership of this house to recognize what we all know is true. the united states is engaged in hostility -- hostilities and carrying out sustained operations in iraq and it is time for the house to debate and vote on an authorization. yesterday this house voted to authorize training and equiping syrian opposition forces but we have yet to debate and vote on an authorization for the combat
operations we are already carrying out in iraq. over 150 air strikes, bombs falling nearly every day in iraq. if that doesn't count as sustained combat, i don't know what the health does. i hear the senate is drafting an authorization, but no such leadership is happening here in the house. the speaker says he's waiting for the white house to send a request for an authorization to the house. but as i've said before, the president has stated that he think he is has all the authority in the world that he needs or wants. it is congress that is failing to carry -- it is congress that is failing to carry out its constitutional responsibilities. it is congress that is shirking its duties. it is congress that is sniping from the sidelines while avoiding any responsibility for the service men and women that we are placing in harm's way. in july this house overwhelmingly passed a resolution that i offer aid long with walter jones and barbara
lee, requiring the house to vote on an authorization. and i have been waiting, patiently and respectfully, for the speaker to schedule such a vote. instead, this rule goes in the opposite direction. shutting down the ability of any member to introduce a privileged resolution and allowing it to mature as we set forth in the war powers resolution. now, i understand that this restriction is often included when congress is in recess for a prolonged period of time. but this time is different, mr. speaker. every member of this chamber knows it's different. not only are we engaged in sustained combat operations in iraq -- mr. polis: i yield the gentleman one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: not only are we engaged in sustained combat operations but the president announced he intends to escalate and extend those operations and quite likely extend them into syria. this is a moment in history when the house should not and must
not remain silent. let alone shrink out of town. -- slink out oftown. we have a responsibility to act. until we get an ironclad commitment from the leadership of this house that we'll debate and vote on an authorization, i urge my colleagues to vote down this rule. we have a constitutional responsibility when it comes to war. now, i don't believe we should go into another war, but whether you agree with me or you think we should launch into another war, we have an obligation, a constitutional responsibility, to debate and to vote on that authorization. we are not doing that. i urge the speaker to give us that commitment. with that, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. speaker, thank you very much. the gentleman from -- mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. the gentleman from massachusetts understands we handled a privileged resolution on the floor a little more than a month ago before the last break. what the gentleman wants to do
is bring congress back to come and grandstand on the floor for a privileged resolution during the break. the gentleman well understands the rules of the house, the privileges that he is given as a member, and he knows that he has approached me numerous times as well as the speaker of the house who has offered the gentleman every opportunity under the rules of the house that any member would have. what this very clearly says is, we will not start that clock while we're on recess. and that is a normal and regular thing for the house to do. for the rules of this house to protect all the members. i see no reason to, the gentleman just had time and spoke his words. i thank the gentleman very much. at this time, i'd like to yield five minutes to the gentlewoman, the vice chairman of the rules committee from grandfather community, north carolina, ms. foxx. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes.
ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the chairman for yielding. i rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill. each year, washington imposes thousands of pages of rules and regulations on america's private sector employers as well as state and local governments. buried in those pages are costly federal mandates that make it harder for businesses to hire and cash strapped state -- cash-strapped states, county, -- counties, and cities to serve their residents. some may not understand why a bill about the regulatory process is also a bill about jobs. as a former small business owner, i understand the concerns job creators have about how lengthy, confusing rules affect their ability to conduct business and provide jobs and opportunities to their employees. that's why i introduced h.r. 899, the unfunded mandates information and transparency
act, which we call umita. i'm glad to see it included in h.r. 4, the jobs for america act. the bill builds upon the bipartisan 1995 unfunded mandates reform act, also known as umra, and will ensure awareness and public disclosure of the cost in dollars and jobs that federal dictates pose to the economy and local governments. h.r. 899, as included in h.r. 4, does not seek to prevent the federal government from regulating. rather, it seeks to ensure that its regulations are deliberative and economically defensible. asking regulators to thoroughly consider and understand the cost of a rule in addition to its benefits should not be controversial. it's just plain common sense. regulators and legislators
should know exactly what they are asking the american people to pay and whether the cost of compliance might make it harder for family businesses to meet payroll and stay afloat. and no government body, on purpose or accidentally, should skirt public scrutiny when jobs and scarce resources are at stake. in the nearly 20 years since um rah's passage, weaknesses in the law -- since umra's passage, weaknesses in the law have been revealed. weaknesses that some government agencies and independent regulatory bodies have exploited. unita makes them subject to umra's requirements, ending a two-tiered system that allowed regulations to be implemented without the required legislation, scrutiny or public input. the 99 extend way beyond
oreach and the taxes it collects. regulations can advance government initiatives without using tax dollars. rather than count expenses for new programs, the government can require the private sector, as well as state and local governments, to pay for federal initiatives through compliance costs. this bill shines much-needed light on the murky regulatory process and ensures the public has transparent access to proposed rules and regulations. both democrats and republicans recognize that appropriate regulations don't need to be issued in the dead of night or negotiated behind closed doors. that is why the house passed h.r. 899 with bipartisan support earlier this year. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and the underlying bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise?
mr. polis: i'd like to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from massachusetts, my colleague on the rules committee, mr. mcgovern. mr. mcgovern: i won't need a -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i want to be clear to members. the privileges afforded to members of this house to vote on the war, those privileges are taken away by this rule. i want to assure the gentleman from texas, my colleague, and my friend, that i am not interested in grandstanding in any such -- and any such suggestion i find offensive, quite frankly. what i'm interested in is us doing our job. and i want to remind my colleagues that war is a big deal. it is a big deal. and it is long pastime that this house treated it as such. we have a constitutional responsibility that we're not living up to. and we voted in july overwhelmingly to say that if we -- if there are sustained combat
operations in iraq, we're going to have a vote on that. there are sustained combat operations in iraq. we are much more deeply involved today than we were in july. i predict by the time we come back in november, we'll be even more deeply involved. when are we going to do our job? when are we going to vote? that's what my complaint is about, i would say to the gentleman from texas. my complaint is that we are not living up to our constitutional responsibilities. i thank the gentleman from colorado for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. who seeks time? the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you very much. with great respect to the gentleman from massachusetts, i appreciate his insistence on the floor. respect that very much. i think that this house is respectfully doing its obligations and duties and that's what we're doing here today, trying to work with the american people so that we can once again move a jobs package forward.
mr. speaker, at this time, i'd like to yield five minutes to the gentlewoman from georgia -- the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. collins: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the chairman for yielding. i rise and especially appreciate the opportunity to speak on this rule and the underlying legislation, which i support, because including in the underlie -- included in the underlying regulation is the sunshine for regulatory decrees hat i offered. these -- this legislation will make a difference in the lives of families across the united states and in georgia. the republican solutions offered in these bills being brought to the floor today are solutions for moms and dads who can't find full-time employment. who can't afford to buy a full tank of gas. who can't -- who sit down at the kitchen table with a heavy heart because they can't afford the basics that they just heard their child talk about that they wanted. mr. speaker, america is
searching for the things that matter. they're wanting their government to work and they're wanting their government to put ideas to paper. it is not the ideas of simply spoken on the floor, this is the ideas and dreams and hopes of every family as they come together wanting a better life, and they want the government not to impede those areas and actually encourage them. these bills don't represent just the hard work of my colleagues, they represent the hopes and dreams of americans who have given up on our government. house republicans stand united with one goal, to restore what's been lost, restore the job the ahorde -- affordable house, the ability to start a business in your home and to see it flourish. i support these bills to expand domestic energy production because each job it creates equals a family that can put food on the table, buy school uniforms, do the things that they want to do. not what government dictates. i'm a republican because i believe that government exists to help, not hinder, its
citizens. i support these solutions because i firmly believe every family in this nation should be able to afford life and everything that it entails. remember, our founders said it is that pursuit of happiness, not a guarantee of happiness. too many times, coming from washington, we want to say we'll guarantee your happiness. that's not what the founders said. what the founders said is that government will provide the basis for you to pursue your own happiness. to provide lifelong tools to those who have fallen on hard times. to help moms who are struggling to provide for their kids and have no one to help them. this is the type of government that i believe in. this is the type of government republicans in the house are committed to fighting for. unfortunately, many times, what happens is when we look at republicans, it is believed that the republicans are the ones that have the ability and track record to create a federal government who keeps our nation's -- our nation safe from terrorism who gives parents more control over their children's education and encourages
startups and businesses to grow and hire measure and more people. unfortunately, many times in our debates over priorities and jobs, we come and we paint with broad strokes. we paint with broad strokes saying that if you want to get government out of the business of hindering businesses through regulation after regulation after regulation, not to destroy quality of life, but to improve business and maintain both that you're destroying the things that built america, those are broad strokes that the american people, mr. speaker are no longer buying. they're no longer buying a government that simply gets in the way and does not encourage. i support these solutions on the floor today because i support a government that works. not a government that works against its people. the republicans are putting forward on this floor today not just simply partisan bills that have been attacked but bipartisan bills that have been put forward. this is another angle and i agree with many on the floor
today but it is time that the system work and it is time for the united states senate to work. . send it back over instead of hindering a debate that simply winds up in this floom with friends on both sides of the aisle sides of the aisle frustrated with process. efore i came to congress iored in the united states military. the greatest thing i see, unfortunately, is people have lost trust. they broke a breach of faith with us. i believe that congress should be about the people and for the people, then we're doing exactly what we're supposed to be doing and that is to encourage, our founders said, the pursuit of happiness and not the guarantee of happiness. when we do that, mr. speaker, that is republican principles
in play, that is republican solutions and that's what these bills offer today. don't buy the other arguments. buy the republican principles and that is the american people and that's the government i want to see work and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? colorado i'd like to inquire of -- mr. polis: i'd like to inquire of the gentleman if he has more speakers. mr. sessions: i'd respond back i don't have additional speakers. mr. polis: then i'd be prepared to close. i'd like to unanimous consent to bring up 15, the comprehensive immigration reform bill. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from texas yield for the purpose of this unanimous consent request? mr. sessions: do i not. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas does not yield, therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. mr. polis: well, you know, mr. speaker, i thought it was worth a try here to reduce the
deficit by over $200 billion, create several hundred thousand jobs for americans, secure our border and restore the rule of law. but apparently going on vacation on friday is more important. these are likely the last votes of this chamber we'll fake before the election -- take before the election. unfortunately, rather than move forward on protecting our borders, rather than move forward on reducing our deficit, rather than move forward on so many of the important national priorities we have, we're simply taking up bills that have already passed, reconsidering them under new and more sinister forms and sending them nowhere at no time. these bills are not going to become law. they didn't become law last time. it's even harder for them to become law when they're packaged together in new and different ways. there's a word for this kind of legislative activity and it isn't governing. it's called pandering. rather than spinning our wheels we should have taken up the
bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill. i was hoping i could have gotten the permission under unanimous consent to bring that up. i'm confident we have the strong support from democrats and republicans in this body that passed that bill and send it on into law. unfortunately, more than a year since the snaft passed immigration reform, the house still refuses to allow even a vote on our bipartisan immigration reform bill that secures our borders and restores the rule of law. reduces our deficit, creates jobs for americans. instead, the only votes the house has taken this year on the entire topic of immigration have been to subject dreamers who grew up here and know no other countries and deport them where they can face possible persecution and death. rather than continuing to waste the american people's time and taxpayer money debating recycled measures over and over again, i wanted to give this body through my unanimous consent request one more opportunity to tackle an issue
that will get larger and harder to deal with it the longer we wait and that's immigration. if there's 10 million people here illegally here today, mr. speaker, if this body continues to object to every motion we make to bring up a law that would secure our borders and restore the rule of law, there's likely to be 15 million people here illegally in 10 years. you can count on it. this nation deserves to have secure borders. we deserve to restore the rule of law and we deserve to reflect our values as a nation in our immigration system. i know we have the votes for this bill. i urge my colleagues to change their plans for tomorrow and instead allow us to come back and pass immigration reform so that we can finally solve this issue, reduce our budget deficit, create jobs for americans, secure our border and end this congress on a positive note, a positive note of moving forward on solving an
issue that the american people are screaming out for a solution on rather than rehashing and repackaging special interest bills into new and more sinister forms. mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question we'll offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the house to consider six separate pieces of legislation that are true priorities for jump-starting the middle class. the paycheck fairness act, the fair minimum wage act, the bank on student loan refinancing act, the healthy families act, the strong start for american children's act, and the bring jobs home act. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no, defeat the previous question. i urge a no vote on the rule. i encourage us to stay here and address immigration reform so that we can solve this issue for our country, reduce our deficit and secure our borders, and i encourage my colleagues to vote no on this closed rule.
number 76 and 77 of this congress, closed rule, no allowed amendments from either side, including the very reasonable all-of-the-above energy amendments that i offered with my colleagues mr. perlmutter and mr. blumenauer, that would have either eliminated oil and gas subsidies or provide a corresponding subsidy for the production tax credit in wind energy so at least it can compete on a level playing field with the oil and gas industry. i urge a no vote on the rule and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i intend to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today we've heard a number of speakers, not only on the republican side but also the democrat side talk about the issues that need to be addressed today. the republican party, the republican majority under the leadership of our great speakers, john boehner, have
gathered together today a group of bills that have passed the house of representatives with many of them overwhelming majorities. we heard the gentleman from oregon, greg walden, talking about how the plight of the west, not just in oregon, but the plight of the west where men and women who live in rural communities have found themselves losing their jobs as a result of the administration's policies of how they would treat their own natural resources. mr. walden, as an eagle scout, just as myself as an eagle scout, took the forestry merit badge where we understood healthy forests and how forests could provide a product, a service and an enjoyment to the american people if well-managed. instead, this administration, because of their unwise management techniques, have
allowed the west to burn down over the last five years. at record levels, forests resources up in smoke and then not allowing those communities the opportunity to properly replant and take care of their own resources. what i'd like to highlight, if i can now, is the tax code of america and how america is increasingly becoming less competitive with the world as a result of president obama's and democrats' insistence to continually raise taxes and stand in the way of allowing to be competitive with the world. so i'd like to highlight, if i can, a chart here that comes from the tax foundation, and they say currently america major 2nd among 34 international nations in
international tax competitiveness. this competitiveness, as you see here, starting at the very 32nd out find america of 34th. what does this mean? this means that at a time when economies around the world are growing, we're finding that our country is stuck at an average rate of 2.2%. at a time when america finds that we have other countries, for instance, india, 5% growth, russia has surpassed ours over the last four years. and china, who finds their g.d.p. growth at 7.7% over the last two years, we're finding that america quarter after quarter is even or below, only , quote, go back to a 2%
level. mr. speaker, members of the house, what the package on the floor about today is to talk about our ability, america, to be competitive with the world so that america's businesses, america's employers find work, not only in america but compete on a global basis. what republicans are talking about today is a chance to have america gain back its footing, not with supremacy, but with competitiveness on a world stage in a world market to where american products made by americans, not just manufacturing, but other important intellectual properties and to sell to the world. when america is at its very best, we are leaders in not just freedom but also in economic opportunity, and it spurs competitors around the
globe. mr. speaker, what we're about today is our close, the republican party, our great speaker, john boehner, is sending a strong message to the american people that we in the united states house of representatives recognize that for america to be competitive, for america's greatest days to be in our future, that we must have a comprehensive view of not just the world and our competitiveness but an opportunity for its citizens as congressman collins has said today, its citizens to find work, to be entrepreneurial and to move our country and the world forward. i believe that what we're talking about today makes a difference. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this resolution, yes on the underlying legislation and i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous uestion on the resolution.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time has expired. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. polis: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. polis: on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the chair lays before the house a bill. the clerk: senate 2154, an act to amend the public health service act to re-authorize the emergency medical services for
children program. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, on september 17, 2014, pursuant to section 3307 of title 40, united states code, the committee on transportation and infrastructure met in open session to consider resolutions perspeces e 12 per ich include two construction projects, in leases in the general services administrations f.y. 2014 and f.y. 2015 capital investment and leasing programs. six of the per expect ises were included in the department of veterans affairs construction, long-range capital plans. at the request of the department of veterans affairs, the committee authorized the leases to be executed pursuant to g.s.a.'s leasing authority in accordance with the provisions of the public
buildings act. our committee continues to work to cut waste and the cost of federal property and leases. the resolutions include space reductions, consolidations into government-owned space and reduction and project scopes, saving $225 million in avoided lease costs. have enclosed copies of the resolutions adopted on september 17, 2014. signed sincerely, bill shuster, chairman. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on appropriations. . pursuant to clause
of things you're going to see them push out. you're going to see keystone x.l. approved. liquefies natural gas exports. and you're going to see them really push hard against the you mentioned the building of the keystone x.l. pipeline. is the administration any closer to reporting it and what are republicans trying to do to change this process? >> right. well, right now the process for keystone x.l. is completely frozen. the state department put its national interest determination test on hold because of litigation issues that are going on in nebraska. and so right now the route of the pipeline is in question there and that case isn't supposed to wrap up until november. so that puts any type of decision until after the mid term elections and likely into
2015. so the republicans aren't happy about that as well as pro-fossil fuel democrats aren't happy about that. so right now this week is actually the sixth anniversary of the keystone's first permit application. and so republicans are ramping up, you know, different types of engagement around it. the u.s. chamber of commerce is visiting the pipeline route and a few senators will have a press conference today to try to put more pressure on the white house. >> there's also a provision in the bill that would block the e.p.a.'s new proposed carbon pollution rule for existing power plants. who have been some of the key members involved in that effort, and tell us hor about the proposed rule itself? >> so right now the bill, which is proposed by congressman ed whitfield, and another representative, bill johnson, those two bills within this entire package are trying to push back against the environmental protection agency's proposed rule, which
is on -- which tries to mandate carbon pollution from existing power plants. so that rule hopes to reduce carbon pollution from those power plants by 30% by 2030, and the republicans aren't happy about it. they say it's going to kill coal jobs, that is going to shut plants across the country and make energy prices go up. what those two bills would do is essentially block that regulation. >> you tweeted yesterday that the white house issued a veto threat on the house energy package. says it purports to promote energy security but would undermine it and the environment. can you dig into some of the specifics in their opposition to the bill? >> yes, so i mean, the bill essentially is trying to push these very standard republican, you know, stances and there are things that the administration is very much against. they don't want anything in between or meddling in the process with keystone x.l. they feel that that is
something that should be handled by the state department. top of that, it's attacking president obama's second-term legacy of climate -- of his climate change agenda which is a huge part of his legacy. it's something that, you know, is very important to the white house. it's the whole reason they brought in his advisor, john pedesta, during the start of his second term to really make sure these policies are finished on time before the president leaves office. a majority of these bills go a lot against what democrats and the president stands for on top of it. they also seek to expand offshore and onshore oil and gas drilling. and so that's something that the administration is trying to tackle right now as well. and they just don't want, you know, republicans getting ahead of that process. >> now, over to the senate. do you know if the senate plans to take up any of the packaged energy bills in the lame-duck session after the elections? >> that's most likely not going
to happen. it would be very out of character if senate majority leader harry reid would take up any of these bills because of the fact that the majority of democrats are adamantly opposed to them. there's something that the administration is opposed to. so really this is also a way for republicans, you know, for house republicans to say, hey, you know, if -- to the american voters -- this is what you want or these are the types of energy bills and to keep the energy going, then you should guys give us control over the senate come november. >> laura writes on energy and oil on "the hill." reach her "at the hill's" rep site "thehill.com. >> thank you so much. >> again, the house is in recess subject to the call of the chair. when members return, we expect votes on the rule for debate on energy legislation. these bills have already been passed by the house but now being considered in packages. final passage is expected today. live coverage of the house when
members return shortly here on c-span. and while we wait for the house to come back, we'll go live now to today's white house briefing with spokesman josh earnest. this got under way a short time ago. >> they can dedicate to this broader international effort. the president did, however, yesterday in his remarks talk about some of the commitments that we've received and have already been carried out. there are more than 40 countries so far that offered assistance to the broad campaign against isil. the united kingdom and france have been flying over iraq with us for sometime. france, in particular, have some sophisticated intelligence and surveillance capability. there's already been put to good news in iraq and the french president today announced that the -- that france was prepared to take the next step of actually carrying out air strikes in iraq.
they'll send military troops to iraq. german paramilitary troopers have been doing the -- saudi arabia announced in the next couple of weeks to host at least some of the training operations that would be -- that would ramp up the capacity of the syrian opposition fighters. so what starts to emerge there is a pretty good picture of the kind of broad international support that exists for this strategy. to degrade and ultimately efeat -- destroy isil. >> and what is the concern about the scoths? >> i think what the president was trying to make clear in the form of that tweet, as he did in his previous comments on this topic is to make clear that this vote is one that should rightly be decided by the people of scotland.
and they should cast a ballot in support of what they think is best for their country. the president, speaking as the president of the united states, that about his belief the united kingdom is a robust, strong united partner and we want to keep them that way. ok. michelle. >> i'm confused about the lethal versus nonlethal aides in the ukraine. the u.s. is working this kind of proxy war against russia. is that still the concern? or what really is the point of helping the ukrainians militarily but only up to the point of lethal aid. >> we want to make sure that the ukrainian military is not overrun by the separatists. they have access to rather sophisticated military equipment because, as we have said on numerous occasions, the
russian military is actively supporting their efforts. there's, you know, nato has produced photographic evidence of this, despite the denials, the hard-to-believe denials of richan military and political -- russian military and political leaders. they're obtaining smust indicated -- the separatists are obtaining russian sophisticated intelligence from the russians and we want to make sure that the ukrainian military can't -- doesn't get overrun. but at the same time this is a conflict that will not be satisfactory orly resolved on the -- satisfactoryially resolved around the battlefield. the ukrainian government will have support of the international community as they try to engage these russian-backed separatists in conversations. what we'll do and continue to do is call on the russians to
use their conversations with the separatists. russia's failure to do that will put them at risk of sustaining even more economic costs that could be imposed by the international community. it's time for russia to play a constructive role in this process, and the failure to do so has already led to significant economic costs being imposed on the russian people and the economy. ave you seen any -- to use their influence -- [inaudible] >> well, there have been some indications that the that the russians have taken some steps that are consistent with supporting the cease-fire agreement that was -- that was reached a couple of weeks ago.
we have had mixed signals from russia on this in the past. so while there are some signs to be optimistic about the direction that this is headed, there's still a lot more work to be done, to implement the cease-fire agreement, to convene the kind of negotiations that will ultimately result in the differences between the ukrainian central government and the sprittists in the east. >> [inaudible question] >> i'd refer you to the department of defense and other places about what sort of -- what the latest assessment is of the situation at the border and what the latest assessment of russian military involvement in this conflict. what we have seen is a pattern of russia continuing to allow weapons and materiel to be transported across the border from russia into ukraine and into the hands of russian-backed separatists. >> that's still happening? >> for the latest assessment, i'd refer you to the department of defense. what we have consistently seen is -- since the cease-fire agreement, we have seen the
conflict escalate. cease-fire being hold but there are sporadic firings indicating there are things to be done to implement the cease-fire agreement and the cease-fire agreement would not be the end, that would be the beginning. that would hopefully, once the cease-fire was in place, open the door to the kinds of negotiations that would actually resolve the broader differences between the government and the separatists. >> you don't see this as an invasion? if not, why not? >> because what we have seen for, you know, several months now is the kind of activity in raine by the russians that blatantly violate the integrity of that go cun. there is an international norm taking place. russia has acted in a you way inconsistent of that international norm. and as a result the international community has spoken with one voice and taken
steps to impose economic conses sanctions r the -- on russia. we see it violates the territory of the sovereign nation of ukraine. and the international community has taken action to impose costs on russia for that flagrant violation. ok. >> first one is on isis. it seems to be a bit of messaging cleanup this week coming out of the white house, whether it was secretary kerry whether or not we are at war with them, secretary kerry whether or not we're communicating with the assad regime, general dempsey if not are ground troops or or [inaudible] . we've heard statements that you've been asked to clarify or however you want to
characterize it. i'm wondering, if all these represent sort of differences of opinion within the president's team [inaudible] or if there are instances of not being on the same talking points? if it's the latter, whether u're worried at all that's [inaudible] on this last week what the president's plan to address isis? >> well, i'll say two things about that, justin. one is what i said before. i'm confident that the senior members of the president's national security team are on the same page as the commander in chief. i feel so confident in saying that that if you doubt that, that i would encourage you or your colleagues to check specifically with the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or the secretary of state. i'm confident they would confirm for you they are exactly on the same page as the commander in chief. as it relates to some of the instances that you're referring
to, the thing that we have said for quite sometime is that these are complicated, complex issues. and that the president feels a strong commitment to ensuring that we're communicating clearly with the american public, with our -- and with our allies about what our policy is and about what our policy isn't. and it is appropriate for you and your colleagues to closely scrutinize the comments of me and other -- and the senior members of the president's national security team when they're doing interviews or testifying before congress and we welcome that scrutiny. i think what sometimes that scrutiny lends itself to is a disection of words to sort of probe the deeper meaning. when we're talking about complicated issues, it's marshal for people to raise additional -- when it's for people to raise additional comments, the comments of
chairman dempsey in the hearing and secretary kerry in other settings is completely consistent with the policy that has been laid out by the commander in chief. that continues to be true today. debbie ted to ask about wasserman schultz. >> i read it. >> harry reid said today the future of the chairwoman is kind of up to the president. what i'm wondering from you, since the article seemed to express some disenchantment at the white house with the chairwoman is whether you guys remain confident in her and whether you expect her to serve chairwoman? >> from my colleague, mr. schultz here, expressed full support of debbie wasserman schultz as chair of the d.n.c. and frarningly for all of the staff at the d.n.c. they have a very difficult work and that is work they do
outside of the lime light but produces important results for the democratic party and the president is invested in their success and the broader success of the democratic party. chairwoman wasserman schultz has a pretty strong record of performance to indicate the benefits of the tireless work she's been engaged in over the last four years or so that she's been chair of the party. over the last 20 months she's traveled to 37 states and 99 different cities. just one more and she will be in the triple digits. under her leadership the d.n.c. has expanded their digital and technology staff who are providing campaigns of all sizes, cutting edge tools that the obama campaign used to great success in 2012. under her leadership the d.n.c. launched the voter expansion project earlier this year. they have voter expansion directors in dozens of key states in places like georgia, texas, iowa, new hampshire and
others. she also has been hard at work working closely with the finance staff at the d.n.c. to pay off debt that the d.n.c. incurred in the context of the 2012 elections. the d.n.c. incurred that debt to assist democratic candidates up and down the ballot in all 50 states. president obama benefited from those efforts as well. so he certainly has been pleased to see the d.n.c. succeed in paying off their debt, and i now understand they're operating at a $6 million or $7 million surplus. that doesn't happens by circumstance. it happens because of the drmation of chairwoman wasserman schultz and the rest of the staff at the d.n.c. that does really good work outside of the spotlight. they don't get the credit they often deserve. >> in the story she says she plans to stay in position until january, 2017. she has expressed that desire to you guys to expect to be the chairwoman of the party until then? >> well, her term does run through 2017. she was elected by the membership of the d.n.c.
i would -- i don't anticipate at this point any reason to change that. ok. jared. >> you were responding to some in the administration and current members' reaction about isis. i wonder if you can respond to retired general madison's testimony yesterday about specifically not taking things off the table and saying this is a forecast. the president talked a lot about hammers and nails. are you concerned at all about putting away the hammer and letting the nails do what they will? >> well, jared, i have answered a version of this question before but let me take another shot at it. let me start by saying i did not see general madison's testimony. i am not in position to react to him directly. i can react to the contention that you raised about sort of the wisdom of taking things off the table when it comes to our military strategy. the one thing that the president has taken off the table is deploying american military personnel on the ground in iraq and syria to
serve in a combat role. the president does not believe, as he mentioned in his remarks to the men and women at the air force base yesterday, he does not believe it is in the national security interest of the united states for us to get dragged back into a ground war in iraq and syria. that means you will not see colems of american tanks rolling through iraq with the goal of taking and holding territory in iraq. if there's anything we have learned over the course of the last decade is that providing for the security of the nation of iraq is not something that the united states can do alone. for all of the tremendous capacity and bravery of our men and women in uniform, they should not be in position where they are providing security in iraq for large segments of iraqi territory for the iraqi people. this is work that the iraqis must do for themselves. that's why the lynch pen of the strategy was the -- linchpin of the strategy was to divide the
nation of iraq to confront the isil threat. so we are gratified that iraq's political leaders have taken the important step of forming this inclusive government. we hope that they will continue to live up to their promise to govern in an inclusive wake and may sure every iraqi citizen across that country feels like the central government in baghdad is looking out for their best interests. we believe that will have a corresponding impact, a positive impact on the capacity of iraq's security forces to fight for and defend that entire country. and we are confident that that is the right strategy. and the reason the president has been clear about that is, first, he believes that it's important to be transparent with the american public as transparent as possible about what our strategy is and what our strategy isn't. it's also important for the iraqis to understand that the american military is not going to swoop in and save them. the americans -- the american military and the american people are ready to support the
iraqi people as they take the fight to isil on the ground in their country. they can count on being backed up as they have been for the last couple of months by american military air strikes. they can count on the support of the broader international coalition that the president is building. as i mentioned, the president has indicated a willingness to order the french military to carry out air strikes in iraq. that will be done in close coordination with the broader international coalition and in support of the effort by iraqi security forces on the ground in iraq. so it's important for the american people to understand what our strategy is and what our strategy isn't. it's also important for the iraqi people and iraq's political leaders to understand what our strategy is and what our strategy isn't. that will make it clear to them that they need to step up and take responsibility for the security situation in their own country. >> on a separate topic -- and you got a version of this earlier -- but is there anything -- where are the discussions in the administration at this point
about the possibility of recognizing scotland? >> i understand that the vote is going on right now so we'll let that vote concluded before we start delving into the implications of a yes vote. >> [inaudible] are you waiting until after the vote? >> i'll -- if necessary, i'll have more to say after the vote. but we'll see. john. >> just a couple of follow-ups. first, on the debbie wasserman schultz. does the president have complete confidence in debbie wasserman schultz as the d.n.c. chair? >> i ran through her track record. >> i understand. >> let me -- >> does he have confidence in her? >> based on the strong track record of leadership that she's already demonstrated at the d.n.c., the president has strong confidence in her ability to lead that organization. >> ok. back to the campaign operation,
whatever you want to call it, against isis. why does the president not use the word war when describing this? we had back and forth. you said it. we haven't heard him say this is a war. does he consider it a war? >> yes. based on the position i have clearly articulated that the united states in the same way that we are at war with al qaeda and their affiliates all around the globe we're at war with isil. when i say we, it's important for people to understand that i'm talking about the broader international communte coalition and the international community that's being led by the united states is at war with isil. what the president, when he's describing what we're doing there, is trying to do a couple of things. the first, obviously, is to be very clear about what our intentions are and what our intentions aren't. the second is the president has gone to great lengths to try to describe to you and to the american public that the counterterrorism strategy that we are pursuing in iraq and in syria is consistent with the
counterterrorism strategy that we've used successfully in other places. the strategy that's predicated on building up governments, building up the capacity of local forces, backing them up with american military, if necessary, to take the fight to extremist organizations on the ground and deny them a safe haven. now, what's also clear is that this strategy is significantly different than the war that was fought in iraq earlier in the previous administration principally. and the president believes that's important for people to understand too, that, again, we do not envision a scenario where there is a long column of american tanks rolling across the iraqi border with the goal of taking and occupying significant swaths of iraqi territory. so i think the effort that you are picking up on is an effort to try to differentiate the strategy that the president is employing in this situation from the strategy that was employed earlier this decade in iraq. >> so when the president says there will be no ground troops,
there will be no combat troops in iraq, is that what he means, we won't see columns of american tanks going through iraq to occupy territory? because i don't hear anybody actually proposing that. is that his definition, is that where -- is that where the line is drawn? so we won't have columns of american tanks and troops trying to take over swaths of territory in iraq? >> again -- >> is that what he's ruling out? >> i think the president has been very clear what he's ruling. i ask you to check his remarks on this topic. what the president said is he's t going to put u.s. military personnel on the ground in iraq in a combat role. that means -- that means a variety of things. but that is the guideline that the president has laid out. it certainly means there won't be long columns of american tanks rolling across the iraqi desert trying to take and occupy iraqi territory. it also means -- let me finish. it also means that we're not
going to put american military personnel in a situation where they are responsible for personally and directly engaging the enemy in combat. the president has been clear there will be there in an advise-and-assist role and there are a variety of ways they can do that. serve in the joint operation center in coordinating the iraqi and kurdish security forces and integrating them with the broader coalition forces. there might also be a scenario where american military personnel, again, in an advisory capacity, to be forward deployed with iraqi security forces. they will be forward deployed to call on air strikes. again, they won't be in position where their specific responsibility was to personally or directly engage the enemy in combat. >> that's what i'm getting at. the president is not ruling out having u.s. troops based with iraqi forces on the front lines
, based with iraqi forces that are engaged in combat, he does not rule out having americans serving side by side with iraqis in that position? forward deployed, as you said. >> you're trying to describe what i said but you're using different words in doing that. in terms of trying to understand what our position is, i'd refer to you to what i said. i say that not because i'm trying to be argument tiff because you and your colleagues are rightly holding us to a high standard. in terms of trying to understand what i said, i just tried to lay thute. >> these would be heavily armed american troops -- >> they certainly would be. >> they would be on the front lines, they would be in the line of fire, but their purpose would be to advise the iraqis in calling air strikes but they would be in the thick of it and the president is not ruling that out? >> let me take this in a couple different forms. there has been -- the president has ordered them in iraq over the course of the summer.
there have been war powers notifications filed as it relates to those notifications saying they are combat ready, they are armed for combat because they need to protect themselves. iraq is a dangerous place right now. second, there are already american military personnel hat are in the line of fire. their pilots -- they're piloting air strirkse against isis. each of these missions carries with them a risk. and no one should minimize the risk that our men and women in uniform are taking on in support of this mission. the president certainly doesn't minimize that risk. >> the last thing on this high semantic standard. it would be troops serving on the ground, troops wearing boots, i assume, they would be combat ready and they would be in the line of fire -- >> we'll leave the white house briefing here as the u.s. house is gaveling in to begin their first series of roll call votes
of the day. now live coverage of the house. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] sene 2651. that the senate passed senate 21 1. a that the senate passed without amendment h.r. 4751. that the senate passed without amendment h.r. 4809. with best wishes i am signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order. ordering the previous question on house resolution 727, and adopting house resolution 727, if ordered. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes.
the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 727 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 141. house resolution 727. resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 2, to remove federal government obstacles to the production of more domestic energy, to ensure transport of that energy reliably to businesses, consumers, and other end users, to lower the cost of energy to consumers, to enable manufacturers and other businesses to access domestically produced energy affordably and reliably in order to create and sustain more secure and well paying american jobs, and for other purposes. providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 4, to make revisions to federal law to improve the conditions necessary for economic growth and job creation, and for other purposes. and providing for proceedings during the period from september
22, 2014, through november 11, 2014. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. bopbopbop -- those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. polis: on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]