tv Morning Hour CSPAN January 8, 2015 10:00am-12:01pm EST
who are basically barbarians. and that is why it works for them because it is a highly destructive religion. and they're trying to come to the west and enjoy the differences that the west offers. at the same time, they want to bring their religion and enforce it all on the west, who would __ you know, you have to give up something for something else. host: okay, randall. we'll have to leave it there. the house of representatives is about to gavel in. live coverage here on c_span. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., january 8, 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable david w. jolly to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2015, the
chair will now recognize mes omis smiedy the mori andinit leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other th the jotyndinit leaders d thmirity whip limited to five minutes but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez, for five minutes. mr. gutierrez: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. gutierrez: i look forward to seeing you in the coming weeks and my friends in north carolina and south carolina too. when i'm not here in my district in chicago i have half a dozen events lined up over the next few weeks and i will be going from town to town state to state talking about the president's immigration executive actions and what it means for them and their families. with local elected officials, i
will be doing outreach to educate the community of immigrants and get allies at the state and local level who will help our neighboring immigrants to come forward. next week i will be with the distinguished gentleman from rhode island mr. cicilline, and his governor to help those to get ready to sign up. from charlotte to houston to los angeles, my colleagues here in the house are putting together events to educate their own communities and i hope to attend as many as i can. evangelical congregations across the occur, the catholic church, and my own archdiocese in chicago, are helping to lay the groundwork for those who raise families in the u.s. to come forward and be spared from deportation. labor unions, small businesses that haunt want to help families come together are
helping to. mayor rahm emanuel of chicago has stepped forward to say he'll help facilitate individuals with the federal government, other mayors say me too and good for them. we can all help by playing a role in implementing the immigration executive actions taken by the president that will help millions of people. congress refuses to pass laws that channel people into legal immigration with visas and congress refuses to address millions of people who have lived and worked here for a decade or more and they refuse to address any system like everify or in borders or ports of ntry because they'd rather play politics but at the white house and our side of the aisle we are taking steps to address the anxieties of the talk radio audience and not just inflamed their frustration with the current mess. remember not doing anything the republican strategy, that's amnesty. we're going to make sure that millions of american citizens
can live with their family members and that we not place americans citizens in foster care by the thousands because we're deporting their parents. we're going to make sure that more of the employment and tax base of the country is on the books working legitimately for employers who have to follow the rules and that employers will not get to pick between a legal job market and an illegal one that is not protected by labor laws, wage protection, safety regulations and yes, tax compliance. we're getting accurate information out to people to tell them that what the president announced is not immigration reform. it's not a permanent but a small step in the right direction within the confines of current law. as i said during the last congress, and i'm repeating it again today, i'll work with anyone in either party that has a legitimate idea on how to make our immigration system more secure, more legal, more
orderly. most of my fellow lawmakers in this body support legal immigration and to make progress we must break with the group opposing legal immigration. we need a modern visa system that takes america beyond the current system crafted in the 1980's and 1990's. we need a modern enforcement within an electronic verification system that replaces a paper base system of documentation. we need modern border security that works had in hand with modern visas so we channel traffic through ports of entry where commodities, cargo and people are inspected efficiently. more militarization, more deportation and narrow legal immigration channels have not given us greater control over the immigration process that has led us to a number of problems. if you're serious about border security legalization enforcement, legal immigration, then my door's always open. tell me what you need to move forward. do you need more fences? more high-tech visas?
more immigration judges? tell me what it will take to get this congress out of the current rut. in the meantime i and a lot of my colleagues are going to be out there around the country protecting american families from destruction and protecting millions from deportation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, for five minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you very much. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, mr. speaker. the recent concessions by president obama to the castro regime mark a drastic departure from one of the most consistent ten enters of the united states' foreign policy and traditional american values and sets a dangerous precedent for other rogue regimes to emulate. the pardoning of convicted cuban spies follows an ill-advised exchange for the taliban in which the rhetoric emerging from the white house
to justify its actions has been unnervingly similar. as predicted, the course of policy by this administration on caving to terrorist demands makes the united states more vulnerable and we see those repercussions manifest themselves across the globe. just recently, venezuela's thug, nicholas maduro, jumped at the opportunity to request an exchange of a convicted criminal in the united states for the freedom of pro-democracy leader leopoldo lopez, who maduro jailed in venezuela. this is not the way to protect u.s. national security interests throughout the world. this is a way of putting them in jeopardy. when we equate unjustly imprisoned americans to battle hardened terrorists or convicted spies, we set a dangerous precedent for the world to follow. the cuban regime has already signaled strongly that it will not unclench its fist despite
recent developments. on december 30, just 13 days after president obama's announcement, the cuban regime arrested nearly 60 activists seeking to express themselves freely. this in addition to the arrests of more than 200 activists on human rights day. ha that's rich. just seven days before the announcement normalizing relations. yet, the administration proudly and openly touts the promise but yet unproven release of 53 dissidents as a major breakthrough when in reality the net result will mean hundreds more in castro's gulags. raul castro will free 53 and arrest 60 more in the next month. this shows the failure of the administration's argument and proves that there's no intention by the castros to move in the direction of reform or freedom. instead, president obama has created an atmosphere that
emboldens the regime to continue its violent tactics with no concern of consequences from this white house. we must not forget that cuba not only poses a threat to its people but also threatens us here at home. cuba must remain a state sponsor of terrorism because it has not changed its terrorist ways. for example, in the year 2013, cuba was caught helping another dangerous regime, north korea evade u.n. security council resolutions of sanctions by shipping arms and munitions to the regime. at a time when many in congress and even the white house are trying to punish the north korean regime for its cyberattacks against the u.s., we cannot forget that those rogue regimes help north korea, like the one in cuba. the castro regime continues to thumb its nose at u.s. by harboring fugitives such as new jersey state trooper killer jo
ann by harboring puerto rico terrorist and bank robber victor and many others who have fled u.s. justice for the shores of cuba. these are just a few of the reasons mr. speaker, why the administration must re-examine its relationship with castro and impose strict sanctions against the thugs not offer it concessions for all of these transgressions. just like a zebra cannot change its stripes the castro regime cannot and will not change its anti-freedom, terrorist ways. it is our duty to support democracy and be a voice for those 11 million cubans oppressed throughout the island. by appeasing dictators we have disappointed people all over the world who are struggling to achieve freedom, and the white house has betrayed core american values and principles, the respect for human rights and the right for people to choose their own destiny.
as the first cuban american-born member of congress who went from being a political refugee, fleeing the oppressive and brutal castro regime, to a senior member of this hallowed and cherished body, i will fight tooth and nail to ensure that the cause for freedom and democracy in cuba is not forgotten. until the oppressive yolk of tyranny installed by the castro brothers has been lifted and the regime has been replaced by a representative democracy like the one we have here in our cherished nation, i have a moral obligation to freedom-loving people everywhere and i will not ever forget that responsibility. thank you mr. speaker, for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from oregon mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. as we begin the new congress, america sees the two parties in both the house and the senate, along with the white house making statements that
establish positiones that distinguish one from another. but what if we started not by defining our differences but with efforts that would bring us together? we entereneded the last congress with the passage of the paul simon water for the world act something i'd worked with my friend and partner from texas, ted poe, for years here in the house. there was extraordinary bipartisan leadership demonstrated by congressman charlie dent, aaron schock, senator dick durbin. it did take six years but this bipartisan effort was for a humanitarian cause, especially benefiting women and girls around the globe, was worth the time and effort. the legislation focused and enhanced american efforts dealing with international water and sanitation. today, 152 million hours will be spent by women and girls traveling to get water, often dirty water, to meet the needs of their families.
in some of the poorest regions of the planet. this legislation created more focused american leadership and it was backed up by unprecedented increases in american aid for water and sanitation. it will pay benefits for generations to come for millions making friends for america while it allows children to live longer and makes the lives for women and girls more bearable. and we did it together. are there other such candidates for legislation that will bring us together? dr. phil roe and i have been working on the personalized your care act with medical groups experts, hospitals, the community of faith. this is an effort to make sure that at the end of life for our loved ones they actually get the treatment they want, not health care on autopilot. we've had tragic stories about how medical decisions by reflex and default have put people in
isolated i.c.u.'s and painful and foreign settings when actually most of them and in fact most of us would rather be comfortable at home surrounded by our loved ones. there's been a brilliant and exhaustive report by the institute of medicine that deals with the problems and concerns and how we can do better. one doctor, best selling book, "being mortal" makes sure there are crying needs and compassionate solutions. there's a revolution taking place in health care today. what if part of that revolution congress started the new year with our bipartisan legislation, personalize your care act, to make sure those families understand their choices, that their choices are known and most important their choices are respected? we had dozens of co-sponsors and broad support across the medical establishment and the community of faith. maybe we can pick up where we left off and have this
legislation bring us together to protect our families and start the year on a united front, giving families the protection they want for the care they need. there's no reason we in congress need to spin our wheels and shout at and past each other. you know, mr. speaker, i could have made this same presentation, not about the water and sanitation, but about how this congress came together in the final hours to help save the lives of afghan and iraqis who are now at risk from the tender mercies of the taliban and al qaeda because they helped americans when we need them. these are some of my examples of bipartisan cooperation that are important and that we have done in the past. i would invite my colleagues to share their agenda a bipartisan, low or no cost legislation that allows us to work together. it's not too late to start the
year and this congress right. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. benishek, for five minutes. mr. benishek: mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of h.r. 30 the save american workers act. to urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting yes on this important initiative. i have heard from many people across northern michigan, from working moms and dads, small business owners, to county government the president's health care law is stifling economic growth, job creation, and hours of work. one of the most burdensome and baffling regulations imposed by the president's health care law was the reclassification of what constitutes a full-time employee. the save american workers act will get rid of this rule, helping employees in michigan and around the country create more opportunities in our area.
this simple and commonsense fix will be a good first step toward restoring the true definition of full-time employment and increasing jobs in northern michigan. i have joined with the 147 of my colleagues, more than 1/3 of the entire house in being an original co-sponsor of this legislation. i'm happy this is one of the first bills that the house of representatives will pass. i urge all my colleagues to support this legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley, for five minutes. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, a new congress but the sites are familiar. the same rhetoric with no regard for the truth. ahead of another ill-advised vote to approve the keystone pipeline, the same myths are being spread. pitting environmental protection against job creation. winston churchill once said, the
truth is incontrovertible, mall last may attack it, ignorance may deride it, in the end there it is. let us separate myths from reality. it's time to decide truth or scare. approval of the keystone pipeline will have a very -- will have very little impact in the way of job creation, but a detrimental impact on the environment and hinder our promise of a clean energy future. that's the truth. my question is, why are we ignoring these facts and voting once again to approve the keystone pipeline which would carry one of the dirtiest energy sources on the planet? perhaps it has something to do with the many myths associated with this project. pipeline proponents are quick to point to the creation of jobs as the primary reason for the project's approval. however, facts don't match up. according to the only independent analysis by cornell university's global labor institute, these claims are not accurate.
transcan in a at that's job claims are complete fabrications. the cornell report concludes that keystone will not be a major source of jobs nor will it play any substantial role at all in putting americans back to work. the state department said keystone would only create 35 permanent jobs and 1,950 construction jobs for two years. most of those jobs created by this project will be nonlocal and temporary. in reality, we can and should be creating jobs by improving our existing infrastructure and investing in clean energy, education, and he -- and research. keystone would make it much harder for the united states to invest in clean energy jobs and address global climate change. our best bet at clean energy economy lies far, far away from tar sands. that's the truth. proponents of the pipeline claim that keystone will bring down gas prices for americans, but in reality prices at midwestern
pumps could increase. according to its own documents transcanada expects the pipeline to increase gas prices in the northwest up to 15 cents per gallon. currently a surplus of gas in the region means that our prices stay stable. if the pipeline is built, oil companies will be able to send their product to the gulf coast for export which will reduce the surplus and drive up costs for midwestern consumers. that's the truth. on top of all this let's not forget, transcan if a da is the same company that operates the tsh-transcanada is the same company that operates the existing keystone pipe lin which spilled a dozen times in the first year of operation. the 12th spill released 21,000 gallons of oil in north dakota, contaminating the oil and water. across the country, about 3.2 million gallons of oil spilled from pipelines every year. these spills pose a great threat to american drinking water especially when you consider the
proposed project route would cross 1,073 surface water bodies and effect 383 acres of wetland. most americans understand that oil spills in the past have had severe environmental impacts, but any keystone spill would be truly catastrophic. that's the truth. in the end, keystone brings a whole lot of environmental risk and very little reward. it's time we stop perpetuating the myths. it's time we heed the warnings. it's time we decide truth or scare. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from alabama, mr. burn, for five minutes. mr. byrne: thank you, mr. speaker. there stands a statute the french founder of mobile, a statue which is identical to another statue located in havana, cuba. this statue is just one example of the robust ties between the city of mobile, located in my
congressional district and cuba. these ties go all the way back to spanish colonization of the 18th century. mr. byrne: it's safe to say i represent a district that stands to benefit from improved relationships with cuba. in fact, the port of mobile is a straight shot to cuba and could be an important economic hub just as it was going back to the 18th century. under the right circumstances, i would gladly support lifting the trade embargo with cuba and improving diplomatic relations. unfortunately now is not that time. the economic benefits should not come at the cost of enabling a ruthless regime that is unwilling to change. once again, the president seems to be more interested in a publicity stunt than a substantive solution. the white house will tell you this action is no different than previous efforts to improve
relations with other communist countries like vietnam or china. here's the problem with that premise. in each of those cases the president engaged with congress in a serious conversation and debate about the best path forward, a plan was developed, serious concessions were agreed to and each nation mutually benefited from these meaningful actions. unfortunately, in the case of cuba president obama again has decided to cut congress out of the process and act alone with no real plan to accomplish his stated goal. this approach is the wrong way for our government to operate. and it has once again resulted in a bad deal. columnist charles krauthammer put it best when he said you know how to achieve a breakthrough in tough negotiations? give everything away. mr. speaker, i can't help but ask, what reforms cuba will make as a result of this deal.
let's not forget, this is the same cuba under the same regime who during the cold war had nuclear missiles on their soil aimed at the united states of america. this is the same cuba that refuses to let the church operate freely. this is the same cuba that worked with venezuela and north korea against the interests of the united states. this is the same cuba that has been accused gen and again of egregious human rights violations. nothing has changed in those areas at all. and the castro brothers are still in power. now there is a path forward for improved diplomatic relations and ending the trade embargo. the castro regime must go. political activity must be legalized. public commitments to free and fair elections must be made. an independent judiciary must be established. rights to free speech and freedom of the press must be guaranteed.
cuba must renounce the policy of being a staging area against the united states. political prisoners must be freed. the cuban citizens must be treated with respect and dignity and be provided with the basic freedoms we often take for granted here in the u.s. under those conditions and with the president willing to work with congress the embargo could be lifted and progress truly begin. so, mr. speaker, i find myself once again coming to this floor to implore president obama to abandon his ill-conceived independent executive action and instead come to the capitol, work with this congress, share ideas, collaborate, and together we can make a real positive impact on behalf of the american people. thank you mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, for five minutes.
mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to call the congress' attention to what i think is our most important issue we face as a congress, as a people. and that's preserving america's greatest asset which is the health and lives of our citizens. in doing so, i request, as i have done on many occasions, that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle join me in adequately funding our nation's other department of defense. co-equally important, the national institutes of health. yes the department of defense is important and we fund it more than adequately, more than they even ask for, and it protects us from isis and others that caused the great tragedy in paris caused terror and havoc in great britain and australia and canada and i'm sure will come to our shores sooner than expected. but the national institutes of health protect us from disease.
disease that threatens every american and every american's loved one. the sequestration has cut billions from the n.i.h. budget and that's our country's foremost medical research centers. it's helped millions of people across the country and world who suffer from heart disease, cancer, hiv-aids, diabetes, parkinson's alzheimer's, you name it. but we have inadequately funded the n.i.h. it has not kept up with the level of inflation over the last decade. and based on that level of inflation, the funding we have given n.i.h. has resulted in a 10% diminution of funding on the purchasing power of the national institutes of health. the likelihood of any one of us dying from a terrorist attack or some weapon fired from north korea or russia or iran is very slim. but the odds of us suffering from diseases which i mentioned previously likely, and our loved ones. we need to fight those diseases and we can do it and
successfully come up with treatments and cures if we fund the national institutes of health. it's important to be a bipartisan commitment, especially seeing as everyle toar invested results in about $2.2 in economic growth. and i hope that this new american congress will see that and that my republican colleagues will agree with me that we need to put a focus on our individual capital, personal capital of people, their health, and their well-being. i talked to representative marino recently, he's going to join me in founding an n.i.h. caucus. i think there's nothing more important than the past many times when i brought up funding for n.i.h. friends on the other side said we have to pay for it if we put more money in it. our children and grandchildren will be paying for the debt for years to come. that may be true, but nevertheless the children and grandchildren will be receiving the benefits of the treatments and cures. more likely than any of us will.
for research takes a long time. we also need to change our course in stem cell research. we have had problems with allowing scientists to use this opportunity to come through with great medical breakthroughs. federal funding is currently prohibited by the 1996 dickey amendment to the appropriations bill that funds the n.i.h. researchers around the world have dived headfirst into the field using stem cells, producing incredible findings and progress. in 2010, a gentleman named derrick a polish man, was stabbed multiple times in a knife attack and he was paralyzed from the chest down. but thanks to stem cell research in poland, collaboration with researchers and doctors there and the united kingdom, derek can now walk again with the help of a walker. the chair of neurological regeneration at the university of college lemons institute of
neurology, called this development i agree with him more impressive than a man walking on the moon. more impressive than a man walking on the moon. we allowed a man who couldn't walk, couldn't stand, to walk. and more will come from that research on stem cells and scientific research. derek other wise would have been paralyzed for life and now he's walking again to private investment in stem cell research. the government needs to participate. it's time for this congress to adequately fund the national institutes of health, recognize its importance to our constituents, who are important to us, and whose lives and health is the most important thing we can provoid for them. it's time this country no longer turns a blind eye to research and stem cell research in particular. i urge my colleagues to seize the opportunities offered by this new congress and join me in the efforts to fund the national institutes of health and to join the national institutes of health caucus. i yield back the balance of my time. .
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. costello, for five minutes. mr. costello: thank you mr. speaker. it's an exciting honor to address the people's house for the first time. the 114th congress carries with it a great opportunity to address the challenges our nation faces. one priority of the new american congress is fixing our broken health care system. we have all heard from small businesses and companies who have been forced to lay off workers due to the president's health care law. consequently slowing innovation that drives our nation and slowing the pace at which that innovation can improve public health outcomes for all americans. this week i am proud to co-sponsor h.r. 160 that will repeal the medical device tax. in southeastern pennsylvania, innovation, investment and jobs at companies such as nerunetics are at risk because of this nearly $30 billion tax hike. there are almost 600 medical
device companies that employ over 20,000 pennsylvanians in good, high-paying jobs. due to this excise tax, we have seen thousands of jobs lost nationwide. if we fail to act, we are on track to see thousands more lost. with my colleagues, i look forward to passing this legislation with bipartisan support. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee, for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, i ask to address the house and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. there are a number of issues that are confronting this congress as it has returned back to serve the american people here in the united states capital. what a wonderful place of democracy and freedom. it gives me a sense of ownership on these values on
behalf of my constituents in celebration that we live in a nation that admires and respects and finds a way to disagree without being disagreeable but more importantly that we have understood the violence against one another is not the solution. tragically, i stand to mourn with the people of france as they have experienced a heinous terrorist act. first, i believe, in a decade that follows the tragedies in canada and australia. so we have to define ourselves in somewhat of a different way. the commentary indicated, how would we know? as a senior member of the homeland security committee, i challenge all of us to say, we have to know. we must find a way to balance our civil liberties and the respect for our constitution with protecting the american
people and in a two-road process try to hinder those who would come to do this violent harm and we have to begin in the societal confrontation through diplomacy on stopping the radicalization of young people using sources such as the internet and it is real and we must address it. i look forward as a member of the homeland security committee to begin looking legislatively and pointedly on how we address this question to protect the american people. i want to step aside for a moment and just speak of who local issues. riverside hospital, quite different from my earlier comments, is a local hospital in my community founded by the family of a deceased world war i veteran. it has a special place in the hearts of african-americans because it was the only hospital where negros could go in the 1920's and the 20th
century. it has fallen upon difficult challenges, and so my question and my query is to the new incoming governor of the state of texas, governor abbott, to find value in this medical facility because of the historic relationship. it once housed the only outside posttraumatic stress disorder center in houston outside of the veterans hospital center, well attended by veterans who loved the idea of a center that was away from the massive hospital system. it serves people who are poor in the neighborhood and seniors. it has helped those who suffered from substance abuse, and i believe that it needs and deserves a new start. i'll be working with a variety of agencies to do that and will not be ashamed that unfortunately tragic -- or let me say misbehavior of some caused this unfortunate turn in this hospital, but its history is worth saving and i want to thank the family whose son died
in world war ii, provided the initial funds for us to be able to this negro hospital. then, i want to salute weekley high school and those who attended, named after phyllis wheatly, was an african-american high school in the great city of houston in the fifth ward and one of the many graduates was our late congressman micky leyland late congresswoman barbara jordan. obviously many other great americans who went to that high school and unfortunately the original wheatly high school, over the valiant after of wheatly graduates, because everything new seems to be the direction we want to go, was torn down. but i believe there is a way to find common ground and i'm going to encourage hisd to meet with these valiant former alumni to find a common path of preserving that history in the new school and bringing the community together, and we look forward to meetings
forthcoming, for hisd to lend a hand out to people who want to preserve history, to tell the story of a school that was built in 1927 out of a material that in fact actually lasted. and when african-americans could not go to any other school, when those who went off to world war ii and vietnam, couldn't go elsewhere they had the wheatly high school that sits proudly in fifth ward. there is a wheatly high school that was modernized but the original building, terre cota material, so beautiful if you had seen it, could have been restored and i would like to stand here and say couldn't condemn those who wanted to hold that piece of -- don't condemn those who wanted to hold that piece of history and give them the kind of technology needed, we can do this together and i want to salute those who fought hard but we can find a common path to work together. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired.
the chair now recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania mr. fitzpatrick, for five minutes. mr. fitzpatrick: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of our nation's law enforcement professionals, the first responders capitol police here in the nation's capital who keep us safe here and those who answer the call of duty to serve and to protect, families and friends throughout our great nation. just after 7:00 p.m. on sunday, december 14 baltimore police officer andrew growman and his partner made a routine traffic stop outside a west baltimore gas station. moments later three shots were fired from the backseat of the car. one striking officer growman in thed a doughmen just below his bulletproof chest. his partner rushed him to the hospital where he was forced into emergency surgery. his family was called in from pennsylvania to be by his side. you see mr. speaker, he is a
bucks county native. his family still lives in my congressional district. a former bucks county volunteer firefighter, he moved to maryland to continue his service. this time in law enforcement. while i'm happy to tell you he's recovering well it is terrible to think that he, just as easily, might have been killed in the line of duty. attacked while performing his duty, which was his passion to serve and protect. conjuring names from our name like daniel faulkner, brian greg and brad fox who also gave the ultimate sacrifice. while andrew's bucks county roots bring the story home to everyone in my district, the sad truth we know that the sacrifice of law enforcement officers is a dangerous and sometimes deadly job and one that sadly often goes underappreciated. our nation's blue line, the first responders local, state and federal police and law enforcement professionals often represent the height of both
heroism and humbleness. while i take every opportunity i can to meet with and to hear from those who protect the communities in which we live, i'm always left wishing that there is more to be said than a thank you. this week we are proud to participate in law enforcement appreciation day, the effort of a number of partnering organizations committed to raising awareness and showing appreciation for the more than 780,000 officers who serve and protect our neighborhoods, friends and families nationwide. this week on national law enforcement appreciation day there is opportunity for all of us to show our support for those who wear blue and to recommit ourselves to the ideals and laws of our nation that they are tasked to uphold. together we can address the challenges our nation faces head on without partisanship, division or hate. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule
what it would to is change the definition of a full-time workweek under the 2010 health care law. currently the definition is 30 hours. so employers have to provide health insurance for employees who work 30 hours or more. the bill would change that definition to 40 hours and republicans have really glow glued onto this. >> why is that 10 hours such a big difference? >> the big difference between the 10 hours is that republicans say this is incentive employers to cut hours to 28. whereas the 40-hour threshold employers were already offering coverage to their 40-hour workers so they're saying the 30-hour threshold hurts employees more than it would if it were the 40-hour threshold. >> the white house not happy about proposed changes to the
2010 health care law and now issuing a veto threat against this particular legislation with their statement of administration policy coming out. what in particular does the white house say they don't like about this measure? >> well, there's two things the white house has taken issue with. number one, they said it would add to the deficit. number two, they said it would actually hurt the 40-hour worker as well and it would cut their hours now to the 38 limit. democrats have supported this a little bit in the house side and on the senate side as well but they've labeled it as more of a strengthening the law as opposed to weaking it. which is what the white house stance has been. >> this issue has come up before in the 113th congress. you mentioned the democrat support going back to last april when the bill passed the house. so what can we expect this time around in terms of house democratic support? >> house democratic support, there seems to be some support for it. there's already six co-sponsors
when it passed last year i think there were 18 to 20 co-sponsors. but we expect it to pass with democratic support in the house. as well as in the senate there should be some democratic support as well. >> you covered the news conference with senators collins and donnelly tweeting about that saying they have reintroduced legislation to define the workweek as 40 hours under the health care law but likely faces a veto. tell us about the dynamics in the senate now with a republican majority there? >> well, in the senate they've introduced their version of the 40-hour workweek which is very similar to the house legislation. it would do the same kind of thing and i think there will be some democratic support but there could be some problems with the republican senators as well especially those running for election in 2016 and those who view any changes to the law as fixing something that's inherently flawed. so you could see some trouble in the senate from both sides of the aisle passing this. >> you talked about -- you
tweeted earlier about some -- actually underpinning of the house rules for the 114th talks about some changes they'd like to see in the health care law with the independent advisory board. what other sorts of changes might republicans propose on the 2010 law? >> well, it seems next up on the list might be eliminating the medical device tax. currently under the law there is an excise tax on medical devices which has drawn democratic support. but other things we could see are in addition to elimination of ipab, like you mentioned we could see legislation to eliminate the risk quarter program which was designed to limit the losses of financial insurers. we could also see them attempt to repeal the individual mandate or the employer mandate altogether in an effort to appease businesses who are against the mandates. >> friends colleagues, countrymen especially the people of ohio's eighth congressional district, thank you for sending me here and
let's today welcome all of the new members and all of their families to what we all know to be a truly historic day. >> today is an important day for our country. many senators took the oath this afternoon. 13 for the first time and a new republican majority accepted its new responsibility. we recognize the enormity of the task before us. we know a lot of hard work awaits. we know many important opportunities await as well. >> follow the g.o.p.-led congress and see the new members. the best access is on c-span television, c-span radio and c-span.org. new congress best access on c-span. >> back live to capitol hill. now here on c-span waiting to hear from democratic leader nancy pelosi and her briefing
with reporters. we also expect to hear from the house speaker john boehner. he, too, speaking to reporters sometime this morning. we hope to have it live before the house comes in. they will come in at noon eastern and will be taking up the rule that will cover a couple of bills, both of which are threatened by a veto by the white house. the first would approve the construction of the keystone pipeline. that bill, if the rules approve, would come up for debate on friday. the other measure would come up for debate today and probably get finished today as well. that would change the definition of a full-time worker. under the health care law from 30 hours to 40 hours. so expect the first thing out of the chute this afternoon for the house legislatively will be the rule covering that measure. the senator will gavel in this morning at 11:00 eastern and the senate is expected to move to debate on the terrorism risk insurance program. that's the federal program that helps insurance companies back
the risk -- backing the risk of terrorist attacks. it passed earlier this week in the u.s. house. the house coming back in, again, at noon eastern here on c-span. meanwhile, on c-span3 this morning on that keystone x.l. bill, the senate is reviewing it. the senate energy and natural resources committee. they're marking up the legislation and that's live over on our companion network, c-span3.
>> reporters gathered at the visitors center studio waiting to hear from democratic leader nancy pelosi and they'll also hear from the speaker john boehner following that. we hope to have both of you live on c-span. the house itself returning at noon eastern and they'll take up the rule for debate on two measures. the one covering the approval of the keystone x.l. pipeline and the other that would change the definition of full-time worker under the health care law from 30 hours to 40 hours. "the wall street journal" writes about that this morning saying the opponents of the health law have long argued that 30-hour rule would cause employers to limit hourly workers' schedules. they also write at the same time the 30-hour threshold has
not had a noticeable change to work patterns. the state of the union will be tuesday. the 20th of january. president obama ahead of that speech is traveling the country this week a bit. yesterday in detroit talking about the automotive industry. speaking at the ford plant. today he's in phoenix talking about affordable housing. look for coverage later on the c-span networks.
>> we should be hearing shortly from democratic leader nancy pelosi. we'll have live coverage here on c-span when that starts and also expect to bring you the briefing with the house speaker john boehner. yesterday in the house they failed to pass, they blocked a measure that would change some of the regulations, rolling back some of the regulations of the dodd-frank financial regulations bill. it failed to move forward because it was a suspension bill and failed to get enough votes. we talked this morning on "washington journal" about the obama administration's regulations in 2014. we'll show you some of that
conversation as we stay and wait to hear from democratic leader nancy pelosi. hope your group out with new cost of regulation, what did you find? mr. gingrey: we track on a daily -- mr. guest: we track on a daily basis regulations that need to get revised. agencies give you information. they take a stab how many hours they'll spend doing the paperwork to comply with the regulations. we do a lot of addition. we just add it up. for the final rules we're at about $18 billion of additional costs on the u.s. economy for 2014 and this comes on the heels of many years that look like that and some even bigger. so i like to think of it as a
fairly hidden tax increase of about that size. and you always have to ask the question, what's it going to do to the quhe and is it worth it? host: and do you have answers to this? guest: i don't think we'll ever resolve the question, is it worth it, because people disagree on e.p.a. regulations, the benefits for the country for example, low sulfur fuels in our cars which are costly to comply with. it's about $15 billion over the next 10 years in and of itself. so it's important, i think, to always demonstrate the cost so you can at least say, gee, that's how much it cost. is it worth it? if you don't know how much it costs, you don't have have a good way to think about it. host: what regulations are we talking about and which agency are we talking about? guest: name your agency that we're trying to cover the financial regulations in dodd-frank for example. >> good morning, everyone.
we're sort of shaking and the world was shocked by the terrorist attacked on the charlie hebdo newspaper offices in paris. this was a horrible assault on freedom of the press but also freedom of expression for everyone the attack on the principles of civil society. of course, our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the 12 people who were killed and with the people of france. this week we started a new congress, a new year, a new fresh opportunity to work together for the good of the american people. part of that working together is to make clear where we have common ground and where we do not. from day one the republicans put forth their same old-same old warm over stew trickled down tax breaks for the rich
and democratic distinction is a clear one. better paychecks, better infrastructure great jobs in our country. in fact, we had two pieces of legislation which, by the way has shared bipartisan support over time that a c.e.o. cannot make over $1 million and be tax deductible unless he enables his workers to get a wage increase and of course stop paying for it by stopping aversions, stopping those going overseas with our tax dollars and using that money to build infrastructure in our country. so very clear. better infrastructure, bigger paychecks versus tax cuts for the rich trickled down.
we've seen a manifestation this week again, with the 11th bill, wall street giveaway that was defeated yesterday. i'm sure they'll bring it back, but we'll have it -- we'll be able to sustain the president's veto on that bill. same thing with the keystone pipeline. whatever you think about the keystone pipeline, this isn't a bill that says, do you approve of it or not, it's a bill that puts forth a proposal that exempts -- does not address the fact that this keystone pipeline, transcanada does not have to contribute to the liability trust fund. so if there's any spill it's paid for by others. it is subsidized by others. and that's just not right. again, there will be another bill to dismantle a.c.a. and we'll sustain the president's veto on that to change the --
it will increase the ranks of uninsured up to half a million people. that's not right. so we see a blueprint for where we go forward. we want to build infrastructure significant infrastructure. that's always been bipartisan. in fact, nonpartisan. and that's why we have that as one of our priorities and we want to do so in a way that increases paychecks in our country, to address the growing disparity of income in our country and that's really important. i share with my colleagues a christmas greeting that i received from a friend that really just said that we have to recognize that in the christmas season, what puts merry into christmas is the consumer economy, that people have the opportunity to build,
to spend, to build demand, to create jobs. that again is a cycle of disposable income injected into the economy creating jobs and that's why we are focusing on its the paycheck that we want to -- so in any case already there is the distinction -- tax cuts for the rich, same old, same old warm over stew. dynamic scoring is one way to characterize it versus building infrastructure, bigger paychecks. . we had a vote yesterday as you know that will sustain the president's veto on yet again another wall street give away to undermine the volcker act, to postpone for two more years. the regulators have already given the financial institutions two years in order to address
the volcker act rules. the volcker act saying that financial institutions have to use their own money to make investments that are risky and not money that is covered by the taxpayer. with that -- hopefully, really, we can find some common ground and some other ways. paychecks, i don't know why that would be controversial or partisan. infrastructure it's never, until recently, but the history has always been of bipartisanship in that regard. begin -- again, it's a very sad day when you see the aftermath of what happened in paris. our prayers are with people of france and with the families of those affected. any questions? yes, ma'am. >> talk about coming together,
working together, getting things done. why won't the president sign my bill? why won't they pass bills the president will sign. you haven't heard anybody about talking together. do you get any indication there is going to be any type of actual negotiations? do you think actually can get done -- >> i certainly hope so. we have a responsibility to the american people to try to find common ground. but as i said in my remarks from the podium, that does not mean that all disagreement and all debate goes away. in fact, our democracy is strong because we have beliefs and principles and we debate them, but we are also have to have the humility to try to find a solution coming together to find a solution that may not be exactly what we would have written ourselves. we had a great deal of success with president bush, president george w. bush. we passed the biggest energy bills in the history of our
country. we passed a stimulus that was very positive for low-income people. we passed the tarp working with him, with his own party deserted him on the tarp, the democrats came through. there is a recent memory a time when the opposing party worked with the president of the united states to get some things done. that's what we would hope they would do with president obama. so far they have not. but let us hope that we can find -- and the biggest -- i think the biggest force for all of that are the american people. public sentiment is is everything. they want to see how we can work together. but if their first shot out of the box is tax cuts for the rich and that's how we create jobs in our country, we have a disagreement there. now, we'll see what happens on the homeland security bill. homeland security, we take an
oath protect and defend. this is really an important responsibility for members of congress to protect and defend. and the homeland security bill, some of the resources that are there are there to protect the american people. and if they want to play politics with it by contending that president obama overstepped in what he did on immigration, it isn't true, it isn't true. he was acting under the law. he is acting under the law and he is is acting in a manner that republican presidents have. president reagan, president george herbert walker bush, president george w. bush in recent memory. so that will, i think, be one of the tests. how do we honor our oath to protect and defend, passing a homeland security bill without getting involved in any issue of the president's authorityle to have an executive order to
protect immigrants in our country. >> you haven't actually seen any of those happening -- >> we have been here three days. no, two. first day they did the roll. we made our distinction. yesterday, they brought a bill -- really, we found out about it the night before for all of the openness and three-day rule and all that, we found out about it the night before. i would hope that at least from a standpoint of transparency and openness, which the american people expect us to have, that we could have a debate on these issues where you can find common ground and you know what it is so you can have a discussion with your own members about it. but in their rule of what they put forth in terms of the number of days it takes before you can bring a motion to instruct, inside baseball stuff, they have not only shut down debate for
democrats, they have shut down debate for republicans. so it's hard to have a discussion if you're shutting down the debate. nonetheless, we, again have the know how, knowledge of the issues, parliamentary skills, and the humility to try to find a path to yes on something that we can work together on. but that is a two-way street. our leverage in the discussions based on the fact we have a democrat in the white house president obama signing or not signing a bill, and our upholding his veto strengthens the hand of the minority in the debate. >> mentioned the veto, do you anticipate chances of republicans putting out this so-called red meat democrats
who vote i'll work with you guys, and democrats for the keystone there would be vetoes coming from the white house and filibuster in the senate, be portrayed as the party of no. the republicans are now in control and they can't get things done and the president vetoes. >> the republicans are the party of no because they said right from the start to prevent the president from being a success was the most important thing they could do and that's their path. we have a path -- on a path to yes. how do we have a path to yes? to get something done in a positive way? the president has always extended the hand of friendship. some think too much. he's the president of the united states and there's an opportunity -- i think there's plenty of opportunity to get things done. but that doesn't mean that we are going to say yes--just say
you have a blueprint road map where we go from here. this is the conversation in our caucus. we want to have an approach that has integrity, that is integral, that everything people see the relationship of one thing to another in the bill. you give a tax cut to the wealthiest people in our country, it could be several hundred billion dollars, it could be a trillion dollars that increase is a deficit, it's an opportunity lost and cost in terms of investments in education and the rest, and in order not to reduce -- increase the deficit, the middle class is going to have to pay for it. so everybody has to see the relationship of one thing to the other. and we totally debunked the theory that trickle down reduces the deficit. if you want to reduce the deficit, the most important thing you can do is to invest in the education of the american
people. they will say it's a cost. but nothing brings more to the treasury than the education of the american people. so looking at a budget as a statement of values as a oneness that says we cannot give tax breaks to the high end on the theory it's going to trickle down and as the speaker said, when they did this before he said if it creates jobs, that would be good. if it doesn't, so be it. we had buttons made, so be it. this is not a secret comment that he made. if it doesn't, so be it. we have a moral imperative to create good paying jobs in our country. that sense of community is something that even adam smith recognized. wealth of nations, he talked about the economy driving everything, the invisible hand, but he also, that laisez faire
he also wrote the book of low principles in which he said we have a responsibility to other people. i don't know if you read that book. i should have brought it down here so you could see t i wish had he written one book, both of them together. this sense of community, this sense just even to take it to an economic side again, the fact that people have disposable income, that they can consume, and because the consumer economy has not come back because paychecks are not big enough is one of the reasons we have not had the recovery that we could have had, we had 57 straight months of private sector job growth. it's been going on for a long time. i guess leader mcconnell just realized, but it has been going
on for a long time. >> do you share the view of some of your democratic colleagues at this hour that promote authority, which we believe the president will be seeking without the republicans is -- >> i think we have to put -- you said one of the criteria. one of a judgment, whatever it is we are doing. is a bigger paycheck for the american worker. obviously negotiation is on the trade. you know how complicated that issue is. i do think the burden of proof is on those who want us to sign up for something like that that it really will increase the paychecks of the american people. but again, see what they are proposing and i'm not at that press conference, don't know what is being said. i don't know what information they have. but i do know that i h
what -- talking about europe? asia? both? >> madam leader, on that point are you worried that debate though, could divide your caucus similar to what we saw during the cromnibus? there are a lot of progressives that do not like the fact that the administration is going to be dabbling in this. and they expect it to be mentioned quite loudly in the state of the union as something that could be a compromise to the republican congress. >> i don't accept notion that we were divided on the cromnibus. we had 71% of the house democrats voted against that bill. we didn't lobby it. we didn't lobby. we didn't advocate. we said to people vote the way you vote. many people, appropriators, had worked hard -- the appropriations part of the bill was a good effort. it was the dark of night provision that is were
objectionable to us. but i would say you're not going to see unanimity all the time on the part of democrats, we'll have our disagreements. yesterday, 80% of the democrats voted against a bill that -- when we saw what it said, but, still, it's hard to reach everyone. i think we would have gotten more votes if we had more time. but we wouldn't expect everyone to vote. this is a democratic caucus. but we do expect uphold the president's vetoes on these issues. this is the reverse. the president's proposing something and i said to president bush a long time ago, president george w. bush, do you have the votes on your side? do you have a large number of votes on your side? because all we are asking for is consultation, transparency, when we are talking about trade agreements. and that's what people want to see. i don't know that most people in
our caucus have -- many have yeah, but they have made up their minds they want to see transparency, they want to see consultation, they want to see fairness, they want to see what this means to the american paycheck. we are not opposed to trade. john f. kennedy proclaimed us a party of trade. raised in a city of trade, clipper ships in baltimore, maryland, san francisco, a big trade city. we all know that we live in a global economy. we also have to know about whatever we are doing we have to make a judgment as to how it affects the american worker. and that's -- i think the administration has been engaged in some good discussion with our members on that score. one more because the speaker's coming. >> there is an ecosystem, everything is connected. here's a connection. there are some very prominent republicans who are ready to
raise the gas tax. they want it connected to a decrease in income tax. maybe middle class people, not sure. how about that tradeoff? >> you don't even know what they said. how do i know what it is? they say you're going to raise the gas tax and we are going to lower taxes for the wealthy? >> no -- >> i can't respond to their proposal because i don't know what it is. but i do think that if there's ever going to be an opportunity to raise the gas tax, a time when gas prices are so low, oil prices are so low, is the time to do it. i can tell in my experience over the years our friends from oil states would say, when the price is low how could you do this to us? now the price of oil is so low. when the price of oil is high, how can you do this to us how because the price of gas is so
high? but i'm glad to see they might be willing -- one half of that equation to actually the decrease in the gas tax is a tax decrease -- decrease in the price of gasoline is a tax break for the middle class. people are so excited about the travel they could do over the holiday and the rest. >> trade off of marginal increase in the gas tax for decrease in income tax is that -- >> what i would be interested in seeing is something serious which would be how do you relate the gas tax to the highway trust fund? that's the relationship that is real. because we have until may, something like may for the highway trust fund to be
flowing. and that's where we need to have -- if there is to be an increase in the gas tax that's where those resources should be used. and we'd love to talk to them about we have many proposals from middle income tax cuts. you'll be hearing from our ranking member on budget mr. van hollen, on that subject. very important speech to make on monday in that regard. stay tuned for that. but in any case it is -- the financial stability of america's families that is what is important to our country. the economy, the family economy t how families survive sending their kids to school, are able to pay their bills, and be part of the consumer society -- economy.
which again really lifts all votes. -- boats. that's why we are saying better infrastructure creates a lot of good-paying jobs, improves the quality of life, and bigger paychecks. that's where families are directly affected. again the price of oil, the price of gas tax relate to the highway trust fund which is really important for building that infrastructure. again everything comes around. it's all very connected. again you indicated there are even republicans who might be interested in one part of this or the other, and we have to try to find as much common ground. after the minnesota bill -- bridge caved in, you remember that tragedy? a democrat and republican went to the floor calling for five cent increase?
mr. young and mr. oberstar, and that was the end of that. it lasted as long as the discussion that they had on the floor. so we shall see. a new year, new congress, a new opportunity, a responsibility to find common ground where we can, again, to stand our ground where we can't. we are here to get something done. these issues are bigger than democrats and republicans. they are about the american people and our character of our country in terms of a sense of community. that it's not just about the rich getting richer and the middle class getting squeezed. it's about how we relate to each other and how that benefits our entire society. we are very excited about the prospect of how we have this -- this integrity, this connection, this system of where the budget is. the statement of values that it
is. and look forward to continuing that conversation on that score. thank you-all very much. >> she called me, said you want to talk to me personally. i thought maybe wanted to have dinner tonight or something. her decision. it's an important one for her and her family. it's all personal and individual. senator boxer has been such a champion for the people of california and indeed for our entire country. she has -- i have always said congresswoman boxer, senator boxer, i came to congress congresswoman, senator boxer that she is -- this will sound like an oxymoron to you, she is one of the most unselfish politicians i have ever known
of. she has always shared her ideas. she has always shared the credit. she's always tried to help people succeed with their ideas. she's reached across the aisle. she's reached across our state, which is a glorious state. and her leaving will be a great loss to the congress of the united states. people of california. and to our country. as she goes, i assume she's not running but will be here the next two years, and in the course of that time there will be real recognition of the difference that she has made for fairness in our economy, protection of our environment respect for our men and women in uniform. she's really a great leader for our country. small in size but a giant in terms of her contribution to the
country. all i said i had was a call from her. it's a real loss i think. it's her decision and i wish her and stuart and their family well. thank you. my goddaughter just took her grandson out for their sixth birthday. they were born a couple months apart. we are very close from a family standpoint. senator boxer had a shower for my daughter, christine, four days ago -- five days ago, that would be in six years, and the next day her daughter nicole, had the baby. so they are just very close in age. and our family celebrations have
been together over time whether it's weddings or babies or whatever. close personal friendship. of course i wish the best for her in that regard personally. officially i didn't get the big boss for the country. but she knows her timetable. thank you very much. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> house democratic leader nancy pelosi learning from reporters that senator barbara boxer will not run for re-election in 2016. she tweeted moments ago, senator boxer did, i will never retire from fighting for the issues that matter, but i will not be running for the senate in 2016. the tweet of barbara boxer. not running for re-election. we can tell you that house speaker john boehner will also be speaking to reporters shortly. we expect that at about 11:30 eastern. we'll have that live for you as
well here on c-span. the house comes back in at noon to get under way with legislative work. first up today a rule allowing consideration of two bills, both of which have been threatened with veto by the white house. one would approve the keystone x.l. pipeline. and that would be debated tomorrow. the other changing the definition of full-time employment from 30 hours to 40 hours under the health care law. it's expected to be completed today. we get some background on that employment measure from c.q. roll call health care policy reporters, melanie zanona >> currently the definition is 30 hours, so employers have to provide health insurance for employees who work 30 hours or more. the bill would change that definition to 40 hours and
republicans have really gone down to this as a priority issue. it's no surprise they are taking it up this early in the new congress. >> why is that 10 hours such a big difference? >> the big difference between the 10 hours is is that republicans say this will incentivize employers to cut hours to 28, where the 40-hour threshold, employers were offering coverage to the 40-hour workers. they are saying the 30-hours hurts employees more than it would be a 40 - hour. >> the white house not happy about the proposed changes to the health care law. issuing a veto threat against this particular legislation with their statement of administration policy coming out. one in particular the white house said they don't like about this measure? >> there are two things. number one, they cited the deficit. it would hurt the 40-hour worker as well in that it would cut their hours down to a 38 limit.
democrats have supported this a little bit in the house side and on the senate side as well, but they have labeled it more a strengthening the law as opposed to weakening it. which is what the white house stance has been. >> this issue has come up before in the 113th congress. you mentioned the democrats support going back to last april when they -- the bill passed the house. what can we expect this time around? terms of house democratic support? >> house democratic support, there seems to be some support for it. there's already six co-sponsors when it passed last year i think there was 18 to 20 co-sponsors. but we expect it to pass with democratic support in the house. as well as in the senate there should be some democratic support as well. >> you covered the news conference with senators collins and donnelly tweeting about that saying they have reintroduced legislation to define the workweek as 40 hours under the health care law, butlike face as
veto. tell us about the dynamics in the senate with a republican majority there? >> well, in the senate they have introduced their version of the 40-hour workweek which is very similar to the house legislation that would do the same kind of thing. i think there will be some democratic support but there could be some problems with republican senators as well, especially those running for election in 2016. and those who view any changes to the law as fixing something that's inherently flawed. you could see some trouble in the senate from both sides of the aisle. >> you tweeted earlier about some -- actually underpinning of the house rules for the 114th talks about changes they'd like to see is in the health care law with the independent advisory board. what other sorts of changes might republicans propose on the 2010 law? >> next up on the list might be eliminating the medical device tax. currently under the law there is an excise tax on medical twices
which has drown draun a lot of democratic support. other things we could see in addition to elimb nation to the things you mentioned, we could see legislation to eliminate the program designed to limit some of the financial losses of insurers. we could also see them to try to attempt to repeal the individual mandate or the employer mandate all together. in an effort to appease businesses who are against the mandate. >> melanie zanona on c.q. roll call. back live on capitol hill waiting to hear the briefing on house speaker john boehner. that measure she was speaking about, the one changing full-time employment under health care law, that will come up -- one of two bills being considered in a rule today that the house will debate. the other bill included in that rule would approve the keystone x.l. pipeline. and that measure should the rule pass will come up for debate on friday. news just within the last few minutes that california senator barbara boxer has announced her
intended retirement. she does not plan to run for re-election in 2016. that news was announced there at the end of the briefing with nancy pelosi, which wrapped up about five minutes ago or so. house speaker john boehner expected here momentarily. the house coming in at noon eastern today. the senate is in and they are taking up or likely to take up today the terrorism risk insurance program that the house passed earlier this week.
short while ago, the democratic leader. during that briefing she was told the news that senator barbara boxer of california is planning to call it quits at the end of this term. barbara boxer sending out a tweet, will i retire from fighting for the issues that matter, but i will not be running for the senate in 2016. you can find out more tweets from members of congress and reporters covering capitol hill at twitter.com/c-span and look for those lists. john boehner's briefing coming up shortly. we do want to tell you as well, another briefing under way, can you follow online at c-span.org, this is about the trade authority, so-called fast track trade authority. a number of democratic lawmakers, union democrats and consumer officials are speaking to reporters about their opposition to what's known as fast track authority. that briefing's under way. can you follow that at c-span.org.
>> while we wait for the briefing from the house spiker, a quick look what's ahead this weekend on the c-span networks. >> here's some of our few tured programs for this weekend for the c-span networks. object c-span2, saturday night at 10:00 on book tv's afterwards cass sunstein. and sunday afternoon at 1:00, part of book tv college series, we talk with professors at johns hopkins university on the influence of hip-hop on politics and the u.s. government's efforts to cure malaria during world war 2. american history tv on c-span3, saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on
lectures and history anderson university professor brian dirk uses abraham lincoln's life to understand the views of white americans on race and slavery, both before and during the civil war. and sunday afternoon at 4:30, a discussion on birth control advocate, margaret sanger, the impact race, social class had on the birth control movement. let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. email us at comments at c-span.org or send us a tweet at c-span #comments. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> the house comes in in about 25 minutes. ahead of that we expect a briefing here shortly from speaker john boehner. democratic leader nancy pelosi wrapped up her briefing just a few minutes ago. and at the end of that briefing reporters told her that senator barbara boxer is retiring.
won't run for re-election in 2016. chad of fox tweets that, pa lows y phoned boxer right after the prers. missed her call just before when boxer apparently called to tell pelosi she was retiring. so the news, senator barbara boxer, planning to retire at the end of the term. not running for re-election in 2016. the house coming in at noon eastern today. the senate is is in. and a number of issues at play in the senate, including possibly later today they could move to the bill that passed the house, the terrorism risk insurance program, which lapsed at the end of 2014 and the renewal passed by the house would extend the program through 2020. the president is on the road. he continues his travels. yesterday in detroit at the ford motor company laying out his themes ahead of the january 20 state of the union speech which we'll have live here on c-span. the president today is in phoenix talking about affordable
housing. then later in the week, tomorrow the president and vice president will be reportedly in tennessee to talk about college related issues. >> good morning. so nice to see you here. welcome to the new american congress. this week is -- the house is passing commonsense jobs bills that provide an obvious bipartisan starting point i think for both parties. these measures would also provide president obama a chance to begin the final years of his presidency by taking some steps to build a stronger economy. unfortunately, the president's been taking steps toward more confrontation. rather than bipartisan cooperation on jobs. earlier in the week, literally, as we were taking our oath of office for this new congress, the white house threatened to veto two of these bipartisan bills. given the chance to start with a burst of bipartisan
productivity, the president turned his back on the american people's priorities. today the president is in phoenix talking about the economy that we all know could be doing better. it won't be far from the phoenix v.a. facility the epy certainty of the v.a. scandal where dozens of veterans died while waiting for basic care. last year the house and senate took positive steps in the right direction, but the system is still broken and needs to be fundamentally transformed in a way that puts the needs of veterans before the needs of the bureaucracy. call on the president to offer a long-term vision for reforming the systemic problems at the v.a., we have yet to see it. we have also yet to see an authorization for the use of military force to defeat our terrorist enemies from this white house. i continueded to remind the president that historically the
commander in chief, has identified the need for the use of military force written a new authorization for that force, sent it to the hill, and typically also worked to build bipartisan support for such resolution. once again, i would urge him to do so. if he does, republicans will be ready to work with him to get it approved. finally, the house will soon take action aimed at stopping the president's unilateral action when it comes to immigration. republicans are in agreement this is a gravely serious matter. the president's unilateral actions were an affront to the rule of law and our system of government. the american people don't support it. as their representatives cannot let it stand. i said we'd fight it tooth and nail when we had new majorities in the house and senate, and i meant it. >> mr. speaker. >> yes. >> gas taxes are historically
low and the highway trust fund is almost insolvent. is this the right time to consider increasing the gas tax? >> i never voted to raise the gas tax. funding a highway bill is critically important. it's a priority for this year. how we'll fund it, we'll have to work our way through this. >> what's your timeline on the aumf? how long are you going to wait before getting something to the president before you and senator mcconnell do it yourself? >> i made it pretty clear, last fall and again today that the white house typically will ask for the use of military force and write the resolution. i would hope that the white house will move quickly. >> what if they don't? >> we'll see. >> you said you never voted for an increase in the gas tax, but it doesn't sound like you're ruling out the possibility of including it in a tax reform deal. >> i'll just say this.
when the democrats had total control of the congress, they couldn't find the votes to raise the gas tax. it's doubtful that these -- >> decrease in the income tax like senator corker's -- >> a lot of people with a lot of ideas. we've got to find a way to deal with america's crumbling infrastructure, and we need to do it in a long-term program that is funded. >> you said immigration is a priority. it's a gravely serious matter. but is this a wise time to put the budget of the homeland security department at risk, the head of the departments that have pose add real risk to have a continuing resolution without knit certainty -- without any certainty, does he have any validity to this argument? >> i don't believe the funding of the department is at risk. what is at risk is the rule of law and the sanctity of america's constitution. the president has taken actions that are beyond the scope of his
ability, and the congress cannot just sit here and look the other way. we have to take action. we will. >> can you imagine something like this happening after 9/11, though? given the attacks yesterday in paris, can you imagine the homeland security budget being up for debate a month after or a day after something like that happened here? >> the issues isn't about funding the department of homeland security. members of congress support funding the department. but you cannot continue to allow the president to go around the congress and go around the law and take unilateral action like he has. >> mr. speaker, you talked about the need for the press here. is that really obstruction of the democrats? you have known for a long time where they are on those two issues. those are near and dear to them. some democrats will vote yes. is that truly --
>> the president as a minimum he could have wait add few hours. maybe could have wait add few days. we weren't even -- we were taking our oath of office when they were issuing veto threats. come on. >> smoker boehner, 25 members of your own conference voted against you. there's a lot of opposition. why is there such opposition to your speakership? >> listen, i have given some thought to this as you might imagine. the american people are very frustrated. they are frustrated in a struggling economy. they are frustrated they don't think washington's listening. they want action. i talk to americans every day. talk to my constituents every day. and this frustration that's out there, they need to take it out on somebody. take it out on the president. take it out on me. it comes with the territory.
>> the conservative members of the last 20 years that frustrate you -- >> during my years here when i voted, i had the most conservative voting record in the congress. it does pain me to be described as spineless or a squish and i tell you what pains me the most is when they describe me as the establishment. now, i'm the most anti-establishment speaker we have ever had. who was the guy believes in regular order? me. who believes in allowing more members to participate in the process from both sides of the aisle? me. i'm pretty comfortable in my own skin. i'm going to do my best to show all of our members, democrats and republicans, and those members who voted against me, that i'm up to the job i was given. >> on immigration and d.h.s., if
this does not get 60 votes in the senate doesn't seem like it will turn back obama's executive action will you never pass -- >> the house is going to work its will. the way the process works is once the house works its will the senate will work its will. then we have options. we can go to conference. we can take the senate bill. a lot of options available to us when we pass our bill, we'll see what the senate can do. then we'll act. >> mr. speaker will you allow a rule -- >> i don't know what the rules committee will decide. i've got my doubts. it will be a truly open rule. i do suspect there will be amendments allowed.
>> you said yesterday you know this man you defended him publicly, what do you say about his votes in the past against the creation of a martin luther king holiday with the holiday right around the corner? >> i'm not familiar with his votes in the past in any way, shape, or form. yes, ma'am. >> veto threats that came down while you were taking the oath of office, has there ever any discussion between you and the white house to reach an agreement? >> as you know the leaders of both parties, both houses will be down at the white house next week to meet with the president. i would imagine there would be some discussion about it. >> mr. speaker right after the speaker's vote--yesterday talked about having a family discussion. some of your allies and members
want action taken, some don't. have you made a decision on what you're going to do about this and unify the congress going forward? >> i have not. my focus is on the american people's priorities. we've got an economy that's improving a bit. but most americans aren't seeing it. so we are going to stay focused on the american people's priorities. this family conversation will continue. and we'll come to some resolution in the days and weeks ahead. thanks. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> house speaker, john boehner. earlier, nancy pelosi, the democratic leader held her briefing. at the end of that briefing it was announced democratic senator barbara boxer of california saying she will not seek re-election in 2026 to a fifth term of office. and a number of members have tweeted about that, reaction to
barbara boxer's announced resignation. scow lofgren, senator boxer will be replaceable in the senate. champion for the environment, state of california, and women everywhere. the house will be in in under 15 minutes at noon eastern today. and will take up the rule that will allow consideration of two bills. one would approve the construction permit for the keystone pipeline, that will be debated tomorrow. the other would change the definition of full-time worker under the health care law from 30 hours to 40 hours. and get some background on that measure. expected to be debated today. c.q. roll call health care policy reporter, melanie zanona. >> this bill is sponsored by todd young of indiana. a republican. with the support of the democrats. and what it would do is change the definition of a full-time workweek under the 2010 health care law. currently the definition is 30 hours. so employers have to provide health insurance for employees who work 30 hours or more.
the bill would change that definition to 40 hours and republican have really gone down to this as a priority issue. it's no surprise they are taking it up this early in the new congress. >> why is that 10 hours such a big difference? >> the big difference between the 10 hours is that republicans say this incentivize employers to cut hours to 28. whereas the 40-hour threshold, employers were already offering coverage to most of their 40-hour workers. so they are saying the 30-hour threshold actually hurt employees more than it would if it was a 40-hour threshold. >> the white house not happy about proposed changes to the 2010 health care law obviously. issuing a veto threat against this particular legislation. with their statement of administration policy coming out. what in particular does the white house say they don't like? >> two things the white house took issue is. number one it adds to the
deficit. and number two, it hurts the 40-hour worker as well in that it would cut their hours down to 38 limit. democrats have supported this a little bit in the house side and on the senate side as well, but they have labeled it as more of strengthening the law as opposed to weakening it. which is what the white house stance has been. >> this issue has come up before in the 113th congress. you mentioned the democrats support going back to last april when they -- bill passed the house. what can we expect this time around in terms of house democratic support? >> house democratic support there seems to be some support for it. there's already six co-sponsors when it passed last year. i think there was 18 to 20 co-sponsors. but we expect it to pass with democratic support in the house. as well as in the senate there should be democratic support as well. >> you covered the news conference with senators collins and donnelly tweeting about that saying that they have
reintroduced legislation to define the workweek as 40 hours under the health care law, but likely faces a veto. tell us about the dynamics in the senate now with a republican majority there? >> well, in the senate they have introduced their version of the 40-hour workweek, which is very similar to the house legislation. it would do the same kind of thing. i think there will be some democratic support, there could be problems with republican senators as well, especially those running for election in 2016. and those who view any changes to the law as fixing something that's inherently flawed. you could see some trouble in the senate from both sides of the aisle passing this. >> you talked about -- tweeted earlier about some -- actually underpinning of the house rules for the 114th talks about some changes they'd like to see in the health care law with the independent advisory board. what other sorts of changes might republicans propose on the 2010 law? >> next up on the list would be
eliminating the medical device tax. currently under the law there is an excise tax under medical devices which has drawn a lot of democratic support. other things we could see are in addition to elimination of -- we could see legislation to eliminate the risk quarter program, which was designed to limit some of the financial losses of insurers. we could also see them try to attempt to repeal the individual mandate. or the employer mandate all together. in an effort to appease businesses who are against the mandate. >> again, that 40-hour workweek bill, part of the a.c.a., will be one of two measures considered under the rule that will get debate when the house comes in at noon eastern. that other bill to be part of the rule is the keystone bill. the house comes in at noon eastern. while by wait for that a look at the democrats' agenda for the 114th congress from today's "washington journal." "washington journal" continues. host: congressman jim himes is
at our table to take your questions democrat from connecticut, vice chair of the new coalition and he also serves on financial services and intelligence over in the house. let's begin with action on the house floor yesterday. this is the "washington times" this morning. four months after they vowed to tweak the law they voted on it yesterday. how did you vote? guest: it was the second day of the congress was very strong republican control. you had the failure of the bill on the floor, which was odd to my procedurally. this was a bill that basically took 10 or 11 -- i think tweaks is probably the right word. they had things that had been debated and actually passed him as the article points out come in the last congress. minor adjustments to dodd frank.
dodd frank, for example, it is derivatives regulations that anyone who uses a derivative not just banks, but oil companies, farmers, will recall the end-users, these are the people that use derivatives to protect themselves against let's take a month movements in the price of grain or oil, they would have to do something called post margin. that is, put up money to make sure that if there derivatives -- if they're derivative becomes less valuable, it would be ok. for a long time we have talked about not making the end-users post margin. that was one thing that did not receive a lot of bipartisan support -- that did receive a lot of bipartisan support but yesterday interestingly, did not. i cannot extend why the republicans let it fail on the floor, but the atmosphere is very different. there is a strong movement out there that any adjustment to dodd frank of any variety is "gutting dodd frank" and it's a bad idea. that prevent us from looking at this very large legislation
which i helped write and and in support of and say, look, we got a couple of things wrong here and we should think about tweaking it. we are not in the congress in the frame of mind where we can get that done these days. host: you voted yes. guest: i voted yes on the legislation. host: you were one of just a few democrats to do so. guest: one of 35 but in the last congress, that number was something like 75. yes, there were some oaks that look at this and thought differently about it. host: here is a tweet from elizabeth warren. she said, great work nancy pelosi and maxine waters and house democrats to block the gop from delaying the vocal role for the biggest wall street banks. guest: that is a bit of a mischaracterization. i was here yesterday how this is repealing the book role, and ending the volcker rule. and it gets boring quickly but in reality what this did -- and it's important that we focus on
what this actually did rather than ron brushed slogans. in the loan, -- in the rule, there is a collateralized loan process, a pool of loans that banks or others have made two companies, just all businesses and other companies -- too small businesses and other companies, they have to get rid of them because they can no longer own them. this legislation just gave them another two years in which to get rid of these clo's. they are a very small number of the number of securities out there. you got two more years to get rid of them. i'm a very big fan of the vocal role and i think this is a good idea. this fell into the cap -- of the volcker rule and i think this is a good idea. this fell into the category of a tweak rather than a big change host:. -- a big change. host: those that are rallying
against wall street and anything that might benefit them, and then those like yourself, maybe those that see a need for wall street and our economy? guest: there are always tensions within the democratic party. it is the strength of the democratic party. come look at the democratic party on the floor. you will see lots of women latinos, african-americans straight people, gay people. we are immensely diverse and that is our strength. yes, there is different is of opinion about financial regulation. my own view is anybody of regulation, whether we are talking by how clean our air and water is can how fast we can drive on the roads, we find our balance. we need financial services. a lot of people are still angry at them. we need then to never do what
they did in 2008 when the financial industry to down the economy, but we also need them out there making mortgages and lending to small businesses and providing people opportunities to save for college. my point of view is that we should seek that balance. there are people out there who say -- you know, many hundreds of pages of dodd frank should not in any way, shape, or form be touched. and if it is touched, it is probably to the advantage of the banks. that is a fair point of view. dodd frank is still rolling out and we are still looking to see how it will affect the industry. but with every form of regulation, we think that balance, rather than continuing what is understandably still an emotional debate for severity people who feel the banks got bailed out and are doing just fine today, -- an emotional debate. there are many people who feel the banks got bailed out and are doing just fine today. countrywide mortgages, no
prosecutions, there are many people who feel the banks got away with it. that creates emotion and it's difficult to seek the balanced regulation of that industry. host: is the democratic party alienating wall street? and does the party need wall street in order to win elections? guest: what the party needs is the support of the american people in order to win elections. i've spent some time talking to our political leadership and we look at what happened last november, and there is no conclusion other than the fact that we did not get quite enough people on board as far as taking a majority. in fact, much the opposite. that tends to be the discussion. job one is to figure out how to make sure this industry, which love it >> follow that conversation all of today's "washington journal" available on c-span.org. the programs live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. we'll be live at the house momentarily. they are gaveling in and beginning work this afternoon on a rule that would allow them to debate two bills.
one, approving the construction permit for the keystone x.l. pipeline. and that would be debated tomorrow. the other measure would change the definition after full-time worker. full-time employment from 30 hours to 40 hours under the 2010 health care law. debate getting under way soon now. live to the house floor here on c-span. the speaker: the house will be in order. prayer will be offered today by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. eternal god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we pause now in your presence and acknowledge our dependence