was that the credits would be available in all exchanges whether state or federally facilitated. >> okay. during the briefing, you mentioned the three different briefings and request for documents. it came up there's about 50 e-mails treasury considers privileged e-mails related to this topic. would there be a day at some point we can see those things even in camera to evaluate the 50 e-mails, or do you know why they are considered privileged information? >> well, mr. chairman, the letter that we sent this morning explains our concerns with the release of the additional documents. that being said, i mean, we are still in ongoing discussions with your staff about providing you with any additional

information that you need and happy to continue the conversations. >> i know i dealt with council before, and attorneys, they have taken copious notes as the staff behind you is currently taking copious notes as well, rightfully so. it's the rights thing to do. that's the challenge of this. we know the notes would have occurred because it's important dealing with issues this large, and, obviously, $600 billion-plus decision is going to have some sort of note-taking through the conversation how it occurred and a track with it, and we'd like to have the opportunity to know how that functioned in the days ahead. with that, i recognize the ranking member. >> mr. chairman, i'm going to forego asking additional questions, but reserve my right depending on how the rest of the questioning goes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the -- i think the that's right,

for everybody working in the executive branch, you deserve an apology. you deserve an apology from democrats who refuse to do good oversight and republicans who fail to do good oversight. that issue that is cited is spot-on. it's outrageous that the congress passed a statute that said exclusively, and we've been operating under an irs regulation that says primarily absolutely no one's doing anything about it. for the whrief of me, i don't understand how we advantage you in public service when we pass statutes and refuse to follow up and make sure those statutes are implemented. i want to ask my question again because i think you're proud of your team, and i think you're proud of the work your team has done, and i think only one of two things are true of all the discussions involved in on the issue. either folks have talked about how important this is to the president's agenda, and that we need to come down on that side

of the issue in order to make that domestic social policy a reality, or those conversations have never occurred at all. it would be shocking to me that folks, we all like to work on a teamment i've sat on the same road your staffers sat on behind you, and we all want to see our ideas succeed, and we want to see the american people served. do you recall, in all of these extensive conversations, all of these aggressive reviews of this 600 to 700 billion dollar question, do you recall any conversation about how important it was to get to this interpretation because without this interpretation, the president's chief domestic policy agenda would crumble? >> congressman, i do not recall

the conversation of this specific type that you describe. we have a thorough analysis of the statute, and we recognize the interpretation put forward, that credit would not be available on federal exchanges, what been a very different approach than was contemplated by the affordable care act. we appreciated it would have been a very significant difference; however, we analyzed the question applying long standing principles of statutory construction. >> i appreciated the answer earlier where you said "no reasonableness," this was not a reasonable interpretation, but a proper interpretationment we don't want folks to get to the reasonable interpretation.

we want them to get to the proper interpretation, and i appreciation your emphasis on that. back to what was talked about earlier, and talk about tax codes treats states differently. i remember passing the sales tax deduction, and up until then, we had a deduction to state taxes to those who had state income taxes. if you didn't, you didn't benefit from the proposal. in the statute that we're talking about today we said if you do what we want you to do, you'll get the full medicaid allotment of dollars, but if you don't to what we want you to do, you don't get the medicaid dollars at all, contrary to the larger purpose of providing care to everything in america, not only will you not get care tomorrow, we'll take the dollars you use to get care today, and the supreme court said that was an outrageous use of federal power. seems like there's lots of examples in the history, and in

our present of using the tax code to treat some people in some states differently than we do people in other state, and to use the affordable care act as a hammer, not an approach, but the stick. did you consider those things -- do you agree with my analysis of those two circumstances as they exist today, and did you consider those in the analysis that you performed? congressman, yes, we are aware of the provisions that you -- >> the stick approach opposed to the cater approach. >> as i said in the review of the legislative history, the floor debates, there's no evidence that there was any discussion of the carrot stick approach in connection with the premium tax credits.

>> okay. but it is consistent with past irs practice to treat folks in some states differently than we treat folks in other states based on statute? only those with income taxes get to deduct income taxes, only those folks with state exchanges get to deduct insurance premiums? that's consistent with past practice. >> i -- congressman, you are correct that taxpayers in states that have no income tax are entitled to deduct their sales tacks. that is not an irs practice. it is a provision of the internal revenue code. >> because the statute chose to treat people in some states differently than it chose to treat people in other states. again, i thank you very much for being here. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman. >> i'm going to thank ms. mcmahon for being here.

you do the work under taxing circumstances, and we thank you for your service to our country. >> thank you, congressman. >> i thank the gentle lady. i thought for a second i saw a smile. [laughter] warms a dentist's heart. i'll ask a few more questions, and you're holding up well. continue that smile. prior to release of the proposed rule in august of 2011, treasury produced a proposed legislation clearance package august of 2011. in the clearance package, the issue of whether subsidies were available in federal exchanges was not mentioned. why not? >> congressman, i do not know the memo you're referring to or why the issue was not included in the memo; however, i do know that the issue was discussed and considered agtively before the

issue of the proposed regulations. >> who at treasury produced the clearance package? >> i don't have it in front of me, but it was urinally -- usually the staff attorney who is the principle liaison to the irs treasury working group that works on the regulations. i think the memo that you're referring to was produced by david who was that attorney at the time. >> can we make sure we have that access, please? that answer -- make sure it's specific. i know you gave us the answer, but you were kind of unsure. >> yeah, i can certainly -- >> thank you. you were part of a team that briefed the committee staff in april on irs expansion of tax credits and federal exchanges. do you recall rebecca or your staff telling committee staff that in the early stages there were no real discussions of whether tax credits would be

available in federal exchanges, and a conclusion was made that tax credits were available in all states? >> congressman, to the best of my recollection, what our staff said at that briefing was that originally the working group had assumed that the please , premx credits were available in both states and federally facilitated exchanges because that was consistent with their understanding of the affordable care act; however, when we identifieded this question after reading a press dealt article at that point there was discussion the of the question and analysis performed. >> as a follow-up, if 1311 and 1321 exchanges are equivalent as the administration argues, why

was it necessary to mention both sections 1311 and 1321 in the reporting requirement added by reconciliation? >> congressman, i really don't know why there was a difference in the language usedded in the reporting provision that you site and other portions of section 36b as i said. we did look at not only 36b, but other provisions of the aca, and we were not able to find a clear pattern for when references to exchange or exchange established by a state or federal and state exchanges were used. >> i guess my point is, if they were the same, wouldn't mentions 1311 be sufficient? i mean, i'm also one of those

clear path of least resistance, two points of reference. they are all the same. 11 # 1 #, that's all you'd have to do. it shows us a mon cor. >> there's other provisions that refer simply to an exchange including provisions relating to advanced payments of the tax credit in determinations of elogy jibility for the premium tax credit and the term "exchange" is defined broadly to include both state and federal exchanges. >> but the senate bill was about state exchanges, not about federal exchanges. did they reference exchanges because they intended exchanges to be treated differently?

>> congressman, i, our interpretation of the sections 1311 and 1321 was that, in fact, congress intended them to be functional equivalent, of -- >> so i guess mypoint -- not to interrupt you here, but i have to -- the senate bill talks only about state exchanges for the subsidies so it's very pertinent. this is a sticking point. see, we have this balance, judicial branch, executive branch, and legislative branch, and what we have to do is when we write poor legislation, we have to acknowledge we have poor legislation, and we can't have the judicial branch or executive branch stepping in messing into that. it has to go back and be redefinedded. there's consequences for writing bad language. do you understand that? we can't go in here with the judicial branch going and

intercepting the legislative branch. it doesn't work. that's where we are in a sticking point right here. do you understand that? it seems like we're missing -- there's a bunch of eggs here, mixing them right and left, lemons, oranges, everything in the basket. we looked at details on house legislation prior to december 24th, 2009, and, yet, the house passed the exact same version of the senate bill. that's what -- this is where the problem is. this is kind of the sticking point on this one. prior to your april 2013 briefing with committee staff, did you raise a point that the law referenced exchanges established by the senate under section 13 #11 only when congress made requests for state for actions? >> i'm sorry, congressman, i'm not sure what you're asking.

did i raise this question when? >> did you, in april of 20 # 13, this year in april, did you raise the point that the law referenced exchanges established by the state under section 1311 only when congress was making requests for states for action? >> congressman, we considered the language of 1311 and 1321 in conjunction with our development of the proposed regulations which occurred in 2010 and 20 # -- 2011. can you do follow-up for evidence you may be able to provide along those lines? >> congressman, i'll take the request for additional information back, and we will see if we can provide you with additional information. >> i would hope so.

before it was ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court that the pac withdrew all funds to states that did not extend medicaid, withdrawing all medicaid funds in noncompliant states is inconsistent with the purpose to make health insurance affordable for all americans who can want otherwise afford it. fuls the decision to withdraw medicaid funds consistent with the purpose to expand health insurance? >> congressman, i'm not an expert on medicaid, but i believe that the particular provisions relating to medicaid and the situation you describe were well known at the time of the enactment of the affordable care act, and the consequences to the states expanding or not expanding medicaid were discussed at the time.

>> so did you -- do you see any parallels? did you personally see any parallels how we restricted or looked at the medicaid funds to states for parallels to exchanges in the states? >> congressman -- >> is that part of the analysis of it? >> as i said, we did not find any eve in the legislative history that congress intended a carrot and stick approach with respect to the premium tax credit. in contrast to that, the provisions you describe relating to medicaid were discussed and debated at the time of the passage of the affordable care act. >> so you recognize that looking at this law that there are applications that wouldn't actually expand insurance under this law, health insurance under this law? do you recognize that?

>> congressman, the purpose of the affordable care act overall -- >> i don't -- with that purpose, i want your personal evaluation. there's inadequacies here that stymy health insurance for individuals. do you agree with that? >> congressman, we are concerned, obviously, that states that choose not to expand medicaid -- >> well, even those states that take it, there's a problem here. do you not see that there's a conflict in the application of the law how we apply this there's inadequacy about how we actually get insurance to individuals. isn't there individuals that are going to be hurt by this law in gets health insurance? >> congressman, unfortunately, i'm not an expert in medicaid, and the medicaid program is not

wherein the jurisdiction of the treasury department. >> okay. let me go to this. was the wrawm of medicaid funding discussed by the irs or treasury in the analysis? >> i'm afraid i don't recall whether that question was specially discussed. >> if we can ask staff to follow up on that. i have two more, okay? prior to your april 2013 briefing with committee staff, anyone at irs or treasury bring up that the reconciliation bill explicitly created e qif lance between territory your exchanges and exchanges established by the senate and state? >> congressman, i'm frayed i don't know the answer to that question either off the top of my head. >> will you supply the answer to that? >> i can take the question. >> yes. last but not least, a smile time, anyone at irs or treasury consider congress as they did

with u.s. territories could offer tax credits in federal exchanges through reconciliation >> congressman, as i've said, we believe our interpretation was consistent with the provisions of the statute as a as it was finally enacted. i don't know, personally, whether the working group considered the language of the antesee -- antecedent bills in their analysis. >> thank you, i'm going to yield back to the chairman of the full committee. >> you're nearly done. this is almost administrative, but i'd like to go through a couple of things with you. you used the term, just now, perhaps you could repeat it, you tried to work consistent with the final enactment of the bill.

repeat what you said or i can have it read back. >> i believe what i was trying to say was that in our rule making process, we analyzed the affordable care act in the final form in the manner in which it was timely enacted. >> okay, well, let's take that because you're a political appointee, your job is to do the bidding of the president, the people who did the analysis, i assume, are political appointees who did the bidding of the president. the president wanted the affordable care act, and, clearly, wanted it to be as broad as could be even when states pushed back and said, no. is that a fair statement at least from this side of the dee ya? >> with all do respect, i do not believe -- >> are you a political appointee? were the others primarily political appointees?

>> no, in fact, they were not. the working group of tax lawyers that did most of the work on development of these regulations included career irs staff attorneys, and the office of chief council, and nonpolitical staff attorneys in treasury's office. >> great. where the hell's the paper on that? quite frankly, you claim to have sent me 500 pages. we got 384 pages, and 145 of them is the proposed rule itself. where's the analysis? congress doesn't agree with you. at least the house of representatives, that your rule is consistent with the law. we asked for the analysis. you stone walled us. where's the analysis? >> uh -- >> are we going to get into deliberative process? are we getting into how you decide to make a decision not supported in the law, and you

will not give us papers to tell us where effectively that is? are you prairpedded to tell us you have full discovery when you say there's career lawyers working on this? where are the notes, recommendations, analysis that we asked for? >> mr. chairman, the chairman of the treasury department sent a letter to you and others this morning that explains our concerns of relating to confidentiality and sensitivities related to the ongoing investigation, and concerns relating to your requests for additional documentation. that being said, his letter did describe the documents, additional documents to the ones you have seen discovered in our

internal search, and -- >> well, let's go through your search. $600 billion the bill costs, and there's 50 e-mails responsive to that. is that really what you're saying? did you know use e-mail for the treasury? >> mr. chairman, i have not personally reviewed all of the documents discovered. >> okay. it's very possible there's more documents? >> mr. chairman, i simply don't know. i did not perform the internal search. that was not done -- >> okay. let's go through it. the deliberative process behind in this letter that arrived in anticipation of your being here, i suspect, your letter also requests informations concerning dlibtsive process -- deliberative process behind 36b regulations. in addition, you describe a telephone conversation with treasury staff from march 2013

regarding such information. we disagree with your description, but we've given us no information. i'm going to send you back with a couple of things here today. one of them is this body has every right to the most sensitive information, period. now, we, every day we have state department deliver us classified information related to benghazi. people cleared for classified information go through that. if treasuriments 20 make -- if treasury wants to make sure that information known to be such that you do not want it subject to release because of ongoing litigation, tag it. bring it in here. let us look at it. if i do not get either in camera all discovery or hauling it back and forth as appropriate and

full disclosure, not only will i issue a subpoena, but i'm going to have to do a lot more. the american people are about to spend more money on this program, perhaps more than any other program launched in its infancy. this is very expensive. you mentioned medicaid. obama care is effectively simply a federal pays both sides large medical program. that's really what it's becoming. the federal taxpayers will be on the hook for huge amounts of money. all we're asking for is that you obey the law as written, and you provide us information when we believe that you created a rule that the last panel couldn't find language to allow you to have that interpretation. you said here said under oath, that, in fact, you had a significant number of people, career professionals, who did analysis.

you've begin this committee no such analysis. i'm sending you back very simply. you were pretty close to a useless witness who came saying "i don't know," and if history is of any indication, the things you said you'll take back for the record, you won't come back with any answers. you didn't send 500 pages. you didn't send 386 responsive pages. you acceptability almost nothing. the american people, if they are going to spend trillions of dollars, and if they're going to have mandates that are not within the language of the legislation, they deserve that analysis. they deserve it to be nonpolitical. they deserve it to, in fact, have come out of something other than political appointees figuring out how to circumvent a change in the house of the representatives. it's that simple. thank you for being here. do you have anything in closing?

>> no, mr. chairman. >> thank you. we're adjourned. >> acting irs commissioner testifies before the house ways and means committee thursday about the implementation of the new health care law. he'll be joined by the deputy administrator for the centers of medicare and medicaid. watch live coverage starting at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span3. coming up in a moment on c-span2. senate debate on cutting off u.s. aid to egypt. we'll hear from the first lady's chief of staff. >> there should just be a flow of communication available to everybody in the country so it's like electricity. we turn on lights. we don't even think about it. it's an input to everything we do as a country. communication should be the same thing. ..

>> you can't even get going without having that reasonably priced connection and now there is no option for it. >> el america's economic future is being impacted by companies controlling access to the internet. susan crawford son and added nine on afterwards, part of book tv this weekend on c-span2.

>> republican senator rand paul offered an amendment to the 2014 transportation spending bill to cut off aid to egypt unless it goes democratic elections. the measure which was blocked by the senate would have redirected the one-and-a-half billion dollars in aid and used instead for bridge construction and repair in the u.s. after senator paul outlined his amendment, a bipartisan group of senators spoke in opposition to the measure. >> a once great city, detroit, lies in ruins. 50,000-barrel dogs from the city , abandoned houses ledger the landscape. it is a bleak and for large future that awaits detroit. creditors clamor for nearly $20 billion in debt. city employees wonder if there will be paid. there is not enough money to

even replace the street lights and the trick. god forbid a major fire break out. at some level i think the president does care about detroit, but today all i can see is the billions of dollars, the billions of american tax dollars that he chooses to send overseas i see that shiny new technology, america's best going to harm people who are indifferent to us and at worst take us. the president sends billions of dollars to egypt in the form of advanced fighter planes and tanks. meanwhile, detroit's crumbles. chicago is a war zone. more people die in chicago this year than in afghanistan. if the president insists on building a $34 million board in afghanistan, hillary clinton insists on spending $80 million

on a consulate in afghanistan that will never be used. as detroit decays, chicago is a maelstrom of violence and yet no one questions sending billions of your dollars to egypt, to despots, dictators in foreign countries. our nation's bridges are crumbling. few politicians from other party will question the billions of dollars that are being sent overseas while our nation's infrastructure is crumbling. the law is very clear. everyone here in congress can read. they recognize -- they recognize that the law says when there's a military coup the aid must end. today we will vote on whether or not there will obey the law or whether there will openly flout the law and disobey.

what a military coup overturns a democratically elected government, all military aid must end. that is the lob. there is no presidential waiver. the law states unequivocally that the aid must and. so when the military coup occurred in egypt, how did the president respond? how did congress respond? the president and his cohorts in congress responded by shoveling good money after bad into the failed state of egypt. the president is intent on building nations abroad and not taking care of our nation here at home. i propose that we take the billion dollars that is now being illegally given to egypt and spend it at home. we have bridges crumbling at home. can we fix some of our problems at home? we had a bridge collapsed this

year in washington state. we had one collapse in minnesota a few years ago. a bridge in northern kentucky is being increasingly unsafe and yet there is not enough money to repair our bridges because your politicians are sending the money overseas. it is unwise. right now it is illegal. countries like egypt are getting billions of dollars in aid. meanwhile, they recently met -- led a mob advance on our industry, climb atop an embassy in berne our flag. i say not 1 penny more to these countries that allow mobs to burn our flag. in between cashing our checks egypt finds time to convict 16 americans on trumped up political charges. fortunately the americans were able to escape.

they left the country. sixteen americans in prison by egypt. luckily these americans are able to get of the country. now, how did these establishment politicians respond? how will the other side respond? what will they say about detroit? will they say about chicago? will will they say about the bridges in northern kentucky that won't be built because we are sending the money to countries that are burning a flag. i think it is unwise to send arms, particularly advanced arms into the chaos of egypt. i fear one day that someone may arise in agent to says let's attack is row with these plans. let's attack israel with these tanks. i feared these weapons that we are giving to egypt may someday be used against america. even the egyptians don't want our aid. there is a gallup poll last year

that showed the 70 percent of egyptians don't even want the money we're sending them. to understand why you have to understand that american aid does not go to the egyptian people. it goes to the despot's and the dictators of run the place. you have to realize that when protesters gathered in cairo by the hundreds of thousands and even millions, they gather, why did they -- are they unhappy with america? they're unhappy because there being sprayed with tear gas by with american tax dollars manufactured in pennsylvania and given to the mubarak family or the military. why are they unhappy? foreign aid does not cut of foreign people. it goes to foreign despots and dictators. foreign aid is more likely to of by a lattice ship -- lavish chateau in paris than egypt.

if you some money to egypt it buys private jets with a bark family. the mubarak family is said to have stolen billions of dollars. ever the past 30 years americans have been forced to finance the lagard family living large. when you see pictures of depression and detroit, when you see abandoned housing in detroit , when you see boarded up housing, when you see 50,000 cheryl barnes when you see a once great country, once great nation, once great city lying in the case he think about your politicians who chose to send that money to egypt and not keeping your home. as detroit to case, as the money is stolen has wandered around the world, but as detroit decays, as chicago is overrun with violence, as americans girl to put food on the table,

mubarak and his family dined on caviar and champagne. as mubarak fleets to europe for weekends on his jet and live the life of a king, his people rotted in jail indefinitely without charge, without trial. they have been living under martial law for 30 years. you wonder why they aren't happy with us? we have been financing the guy that has been giving them martial law and indefinite detention without trial for 30 years. to add insult to injury when they protest against their government they are doused with tear-gas made in our country. foreign-aid does not go to a foreign people. it goes to despots and dictators . the president claims he feels your pain. the president says he can feel the pain and the ones to help the middle class. it seems like he intends to help

foreign people, foreign countries more than he wants to help america. the president promised open change, but the more he claims that things change i think the more they stay the same. of wanted to believe that the president would be different. i wanted to believe that he would bring change. i wanted to believe that he would stand up to the arms race, to the military-industrial complex. he was stop the flow of arms to despots and dictators across the planet. but hope and change turned out to be a slogan. in detroit and chicago and in the once great cities never change came. hope and change was just a slogan. the poverty, the murders, the abysmal schools continued. where are you win in our hour of need in our country you're

sending our money to people who hate this. why would we do that? the president maintains he will end the war in afghanistan, and i support in pretty insists on fighting the wars secretly without congressional approval in libya and syria. detroit decays and descends into bankruptcy the president like so many republicans love for him continues to send american tax dollars overseas to countries that persecute and kill christians. hope and change. i guess it was just a slogan. the law clearly says that when you have a military coup overturning elected government and military aid must end, even the president does not dispute the law. it is not even dispute that it is a coup.

jesus said, not going to say it's not a coup. it is ridiculous. any intelligent person in our country -- and no wonder. boots of a government that is not a coup. only a fool or dow got would attempt to argue that the military junta in egypt is not a coup. the military takeover that actually installed the lead general and deputy prime minister is somehow not a coup. >> yield. >> not yet. in a remarkable bit of sophistry the president admits that the law is not mandating an end to military aid when maker takes place. he says he does, but it cannot make him decide. he can make him decide whether they're is a coup or not. what it is is brazen and open.

a third grader at recess. a third grader says he won't call it a coup. that is absurd. we passed along. a lot of the land says if a military coup happens in the military takes over or participates in a substantial weight in removing elected governments that the military aid in the spirit is so we are either nation of laws are we aren't. so when the president refuses to a knowledge that it is a coup, it is not yet acknowledged. he just said the aid will go on indefinitely. americans should be outraged and insulted by such blatant shirking of the law. either we are a nation of laws or not. will we obey the law or not? we have the presumption to tell the world of the wave, criticize

these are for not obeying the rule of law, all legitimate concerns, and yet the president ignores armagh. if we choose to ignore our own laws, can we with the save -- straight face priests of the world above are all one? an openly flouting our own lost we take away from our ability to leave, our moral authority to show the right way. we always have been, america has always been the leader by example. but when we -- how the lead by example when we are not going to obey our own laws? there really is a question, are we all monarchies horror public? are we to be ruled by -- if we pick and choose which lost to obey what message is that send? i say to all americans, democrats, independents, republicans, enough is enough.

we're going to take it anymore. collier representatives and tell them enough already. tell them to take care of our country. tell them not 1 penny more to countries that are burning of five. mr. president, i suggest that today we do something historic and listen to the american people. the american people don't want good money after bad shovel and sent overseas. they want the text of the problems we have a home, do some nation building here at home. my amendment that i will introduce surely will give your representatives the chance to vote for this. chair going to say yes we will obey the law. we are not sending any more weapons to egypt and we're going to take the money and build some bridges and our country. dry to repair some roads. the president has not come out. you want some grand bargain to take some new money and actually

work on infrastructure. i'm offering today. i have another amendment build new bridges. it won't even let me vote on a one. the grand bargain to increase in infrastructure spending has got it. it's here on the floor. mr. president, call the leaders of the senate. tell them it's on the floor. you want infrastructure spending. i have a bill that would do precisely that. this amendment will do a little bit in that direction, take the billion dollars we spend in egypt and spend it in america. so when you see the pictures on the news of what is going on in detroit, if you live in detroit and you are suffering through the bankruptcy of your city, if you see around you the chaos and poverty of detroit, you call the

president and say, mr. president , why are you sending that money to egypt? why are you sending money overseas when our nation is crumbling, our cities are crumbling, our infrastructure is crumbling. bridges are crumbling. the president says, i'm just going to send that to egypt. i'm going to send that oversees. this amendment will give everyone a chance to put their money where their mouth is and say it, do you care about american? do you care about repairing american infrastructure? to you care more about sending money to a dictatorship in egypt? at think the choice is clear. i mean, the american people, 3/4 or more of them, may be nearly went under percent of the american people are with me to be spend that money at home. let's dawson that oversees to people who vegas, people who barfly. keep it at home. there is a finite amount of money. we can't do everything. we can't fix everything if we have to fix everybody else's pro

was first. let's address some of the knees we have your home. mr. president, i encourage a yes-wrote to vote to keep the money at home and not to send that oversees and i reserve the balance of my time. >> mr. president. >> the senator from oklahoma. >> mr. president, regretfully i am going to oppose this. i am going to have to cover some point to that my good friend from kentucky made that i think are totally wrong. first of all, i don't agree that we need to be using federal dollars to bailout cities that having problems. of course that is a decision that will be made, i suppose, by a lot of people. i also, when the senator from kentucky talks about sending billions of dollars overseas, you know, there are some of the foreign aid that i would agree, i would join him. certainly not on this, but before i tell you why let me just clarify something because

there are people, members of this body and members outside who are conservatives believing this is some kind of a conservative program to defund the military in egypt. let me assure you, it is not. this is coming from a person who is probably the -- in fact i am certain i have been ranked as the most conservative member of this body more than any other single person has every so this is coming from a conservative, not from a liberal, not from a democrat. we have a unique situation, and i would like to respond to a couple of things that my friend from kentucky said. first of all, it is probably fitting the description of a coup. i know what the law is to read you can send money for foreign aid. i have a bill drawn up right now. this is determined to be a coup, it could pass the house and senate and be signed by the president and one day. the best intentions of obeying the law to letter. now as far as the situation,

morrissey is gone. a lot of things we don't like about this. i would say this, if you have any feelings of all for our good friends, our best friends in the middle east, as zero, and you cannot consider this amendment, israel has the -- all of the interest as stake. it goes back to 1979. i remember that very well. between israel and egypt. keep in mind the egyptian military. since 1979 if we turn our backs on the military now there are others who would love to fill that vacuum. should they have f-16s? on glad. they ought to have more.

some have been purchased and not delivered yet. they should be delivered. but if we should pass an amendment like this, you're going to find ourselves of the bunch of mig-29s. if this were ten years ago, have this for 15 years ago i might agree with my friend from kentucky. but that was before we realize the press the we have in the middle east. we have some friends in the middle east, israel, jordan, kuwait, uae, a saudi arabia. if that coalition of friends in the middle east breaks up, what can happen to us here in america? our intelligence has said and it is unclassified since 2007 iran will have the capability of of weapon and its delivery system by 2015. if we don't have our friends in the middle east to keep that from happening we could pass an amendment like this cannot turn our backs on israel. it is exactly the thing that

could happen. a lot more articulate than i am. i could say from my conservative , we cannot do this to our friends from israel and other allies in the least. >> the senator from tennessee. >> i want to go an appropriate order. the chairman of the committee. at five -- five minutes as some point. >> of parliamentary procedure. >> the senator is correct. >> the senator from obama as used five minutes of the time an opposition. >> the balance of the time. >> without objection, so ordered.

>> the senator from new jersey is recognized. >> mr. president, i. >> it is my intention to the consumer about eight minutes approximately, yield to senator mccain six minutes, senator gramm six minutes in senator corker five minutes. that should take the balance of my time this amendment may be good politics, but it is bad policy. he and others in this chamber have plenty of time to vote for america's cities. we have not seen as both be there.

suggest that cutting all aid to egypt ultimately means putting that money into the cities of america such as detroit. so let's not be mistaken about that. i share many of the concerns that have been raised by my colleagues. i believe however halting all military assistance to egypt at this time is misguided and is shortsighted. it would drastically reduced u.s. influence with both the interim government of egypt and the military at an incredibly delicate time for egypt and its people. and in so doing it may, in fact among undermine our shared goals and desire to see elections and a democratically elected government reestablished is has been just a little more than two years since the onset of the arabs bring and a revolution in egypt during these tumultuous

two years egypt kestrel as a society with a transition to democracy that is people clearly one. with efforts to create the economic opportunity that is people clearly need. the struggle is real and ongoing. the demonstrations that ousted mubarak in a clear military coup were unprecedented and tell they were eclipsed by demonstrations this summer which drew as much as one-third of egypt's population of 83 million people on to its streets. that is more than 30 million people who have been emboldened by the revolution, who are united in their call for reform and democracy, and to have embraced their ability and right to a peaceful protest and to demand change. if you think about it, a comparable protest in the united states involving one-third of our nation would mean that 100 million americans would be in the streets of the cities of

america. that is the equivalent of what has been happening in egypt. mr. president, my point is that egypt is changing, but perhaps not as quickly as we would like and what the process that has not been surprisingly pretty chaotic. abandoning our diplomacy and engagement in egypt, a country that sits at the heart of the middle east because the road that leads to change is not straight or certain would be 90's. might make us feel good, at least for a moment, but in the long run it would threaten to undermine vital national security interests and set back our values. such a significant change to u.s. foreign policy with all the potential implications for u.s. national-security and for our ally israel should not be done in haste. should not be done carelessly or thoughtlessly. all the ramifications of such a

change, and it certainly should not be tacked on to the transportation, housing, and urban development appropriations bill. it is far to inform -- important decision. and in my view and it is ill-advised to make foreign policy on the fly without due consideration of all of the consequences. a bill that has been referred to the foreign relations committee. last year the committee held its first extensive hearing. the committee will continue to work on this issue and to look at the appropriate policy options through a deliberative process. we need time to determine whether the process under way in egypt will meet the demands of the egyptian people and lead back to democracy or of the military leaders will dig in

further and therefore in vote restrictions in u.s. law with respect to assistance. our patients is not unlimited, and our assistance is not without levitations. the administration is already actively reviewing u.s. assistance. halted by the demonstration. and at the end of the day we should allow for flexibility to deal with this delicate situation as events dictate, not precipitated an unwanted response to the knee-jerk reaction rather than deliberate reflection. the administration has of process to make the decision. now, i would say that this is about far more as i listen to the gentleman in kentucky, far more than egypt. basically oppose all foreign assistance abroad. the reality is that foreign assistance abroad has worked for the national interest and security of the united states, save millions of lives in a news and hiv.

it has helped strengthen democracy, helped create democracy, helped create an open markets for american products and services. as a matter of fact, are large and from the manufacturers to create jobs here at home and then ultimately use. when need a more nuanced approach, one that speaks about their values and our interests and one which provides the president with the flexibility needed to conduct a delicate and discriminating policy in a challenging and chaotic environment. a meat cleaver approach when a scalpel is needed is simply ill-advised. last week ambassador dennis ross his reputation and experience as a diplomat on the middle east has made one of the nation's most respected foreign policy minds on both sides of the aisle .

it is imperative america stay in the game. we cannot and should not pull out. only cause egyptians to shut out the united states of discussions in this regard our advice. ambassador ross also said that such an action could be the only thing to unite all egyptians across the entire political spectrum against the united states. in fact, that opinion was shared by the majority panelists who fear our inability to influence events in egypt. as we further assess the situation our response and policy must be carefully calibrated to prep for the democratic reforms of the egyptian people. simultaneously supports u.s. national security interests in the region. u.s. assistance has, for decades , i'll support the camp david accord. also supports our security interest in countering trafficking a weapon and the

cyanide and an anti terrorism's. in recent weeks the egyptian military has launched a major crackdown on terraced nativity in extremists in the sinai peninsula carrying out an attempt to seal smuggling tunnels. you wish corporation and it is essential. so let me conclude by saying at the end of the day egyptian leaders in the egyptian military must show that they are committed to an inclusive political process. democratic governors to protect the rights of allegis to religious minorities. that includes from my perspective vacating the chin for for excess of 43 individuals convicted in the politically motivated trial of non-governmental organization workers including 16 americans and so society organizations to reopen their offices. also clearly means an immediate cessation of arrests.

steps that exacerbate the deprive in egyptian society, the muslim brotherhood leaders serve only to deepen the chasm and forestall reconciliation. a stable democracy lies in the inclusion of all political parties as long as they're committed to a democratic process and to peaceful change. the united states has to move cautiously, not precipitously in this delicate situation. the amendment is not our answer when it comes to our future relationship with egypt. the future of the relationship will be determined by our absence in the coming weeks. support of the middle east. we can stand aside and hope for

the best. i think abandoning egypt is a particularly poor choice and that is why i oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. >> first of what like the remarks from the senator from florida. now is the time to be creative with our assistance to egypt to try to change things are all there is still hoped of things changing. i certainly understand. the ministers as put on hold. i want to have that come to our training bases. one egyptian officers to come to our military training academies. one relationship with the egyptian military that can be beneficial to our national

security interest. want the people to get the business from agent to give some of our money back. if they buy mega summarizes will lose that. it's a question of food it will buy them from. we have every right to withhold sales and put them on hold temporarily. just severed his relationship now i think would be a huge mistake. if -- the senator says that he would resume aid once they get their act together. i think that is something worth noting. that is an understanding on his part that he is looking for an outcome that we can be more supportive of. the difference i have is if we cut off aid now then i cannot tell you the consequences of what that would mean in terms of moving in that direction that we would all like. unintended consequences that this decision jumps out pretty

clearly in my mind, and most of them are bad. is it a coup? it certainly looks like one, sounds like one. at the end of the day if we are moving toward democracy in the military steps back and democratically elected leaders takeover, i think that is the goal for all of us. i wish we did live in a war like we do. worse things are easier. i wish that the arab spring had been more successful, but the one thing is i -- the one thing i can tell you is what happens in egypt really does matter to us. if the largest country in the arab world, the heart of the arab world, egypt, becomes a failed state, i promise you, it will affect our national security interest for decades to come. it would be a nightmare for israel, and it would take the whole region down a path that it would be at best chaotic. can we prevent a failed state in egypt? i think we can. i don't know for sure what is

going to happen, but i do know this, if america does not try, if we don't stay engaged in shape history rather than observe it we will pay a heavy price as a nation. so part of this amendment takes money that would be going to the egyptian military and puts it on projects in the united states. i think one is a bridge in kentucky. i have no doubt their is a need for bridges and kentucky and south carolina. but to the people of kentucky and the people of south carolina , if we stop 01 percent of our budget, $50 billion, that's no small sum. if you cancel it all out and just left 3 billion for israel, it seems everyone likes that idea, if you said 3 billion yen spent on affecting the world, is that a really smart? how much of the debt would be retired if you cancel all foreign-aid and brought it back? not a lot. here is what i believe would happen. if america withdrew foreign

assistance a lot of bad things will happen to us. having a say, having influence in a world of increasingly dangers in to be good idea. and i am tired of having to resort to the military as the only solution. the people in egypt, the government particularly wants a relationship with us. they have to i heard it as senator arubia says. but willing to cut off our relationship with egypt at this critical time would be extremely ill-advised. the consequences to the people of kentucky and south carolina and every other state in the union would be significant. so to my colleague, when you cast your vote today about pausing, not terminating eight, trying to reconstruct a, i don't know how that fits in of 30-2 sound bite.

it is probably easier to explain a no-growth and it is a yes-wrote. i do know that your country will be well served if you decided today to pause and wait to find out what the right answer in egypt is. i do know that if egypt goes, the entire region blows of. and the biggest fear that i have , radical islamists are closer to getting a nuclear weapon and chemical weapons than at any time in my lifetime. and if he's it becomes a failed state, that is one more problem for us to have to deal with. marching toward a nuclear weapon so radical islam has not forgotten about us. and if you want to stop this march in the mideast of radical islam giving -- getting stronger and stronger and stronger, tried

to hang on to our relationship with egypt because if it becomes a failed state, the sinai becomes one of the great safe havens for terrorist groups in the egyptian army to their credit is involved. the cataclysmic effects of a failed state in egypt would be the biggest booster to radical islam i can think of and would be allowed -- do a lot of damage to our national security in the best friend in the region. i have a letter your. i asked him to comment on this. they're saying we are writing to express our concern. the military system. we do not support cutting off all assistance to egypt at this time as we believe it would increase the instability in egypt and undermine important u.s. interest to negatively impact our israeli ally. as you know, egypt is a large failed status display of role in advancing key u.s. interests.

and maintained the piece and have taken important steps to address the instability. events in egypt are rapidly evolving in for now the united states can avoid taking action such as cutting off all assistance. we look forward to continuing to work with you on these critical issues. one final thought. maybe one day i will be with senator paul saying we have to sever our ties with the egyptian military and the egyptian people. maybe one they'll come here and co-sponsor your amendment or maybe, but one of my own. all i can tell you, if that day ever comes of will be one of the saddest days of my life because that means egypt is gone. and if egypt is gone all hell is going to recluse. i yield. >> i yield to the senator from oregon for unanimous consent. >> the senator from oregon. >> thank you, madam president.

i ask that should be given the balance of the day. >> without objection. >> thank you. >> madam president, i yield to the distinguished senator from arizona, member of the committee. >> the senator from arizona. >> my situation. >> under the previous order the senator from arizona has a limited time. >> the senator from kentucky wish to respond. >> madame president, i think it is important in the context of this amendment on transportation and housing and urban development that we put into focus what this amendment is really affecting. it is affecting the most important nation in the arab

world, bar and soul of the arab world, egypt. all countries in the middle east are important. egypt is the most important. in egypt today there are demonstrations, there are scores of people being killed, hundreds being wounded, and this friday, just two days from now, after prayer's there is prediction that there could be even more carnage. it will take place, the people taking the place of cairo and other cities throughout egypt. so i think we ought to consider this amendment in the context of what is happening. arguably the most important nation in the arab world. and should we ask ourselves at this point, without adequate

hearings, without adequate discussion, with that input from the administration as well as the oversight responsibilities, for relations committee, the appropriations committee, the armed services committee, all of whom chairman and ranking members opposed to this amendment, so first of all, i caution against a rush to judgment on this issue. because frankly more than an hour equally divided. i would also like to point out that this is a larger debate that has been going on in the republican party well over a century, prior to world war one there was the isolationist wing of the party. after world war one in the 30's.

after world war ii there was the eisenhower way of our party and the taft wing. and the conflict and debate -- not the conflict, but the debate is going on for the heart and soul of the republican party. this debate and amendment that is posed by my friend from kentucky is part of that overall debate as to what the american -- what the united states and america's role should be. should we take our money from egypt and give it to build a bridge in kentucky? should we take our foreign aid where we no longer have influence and spend it on a much-needed projects that aren't the result of a very ailing and still serious recession that we remain in. i think that the vote today on this amendment has even larger implications than whether we

should cut off all assistance to egypt. i don't think it's an accident that our friends to represent the interest of the state of israel has opposed this amendment because if there is further upheaval in the sinai and if they're is a collapse of the rule of law in egypt, i don't think there is a a dramatic threat to it agent. i made it clear and so as my friend from south carolina that it was a coup. it was a coup in our law. but that is the and implementation of a law that is to be done in a way he that is a consultation of the foreign relations committee, the preparations committee and all members of his state senate. and i think it is important for us to send a message to egypt and we are not abandoning them, but what we are doing is trying

to caution them to try to modify their behavior to tell the general that he has got to have an increase he helmet and allow the muslim brotherhood to partake in the upcoming elections. the muslim brotherhood has to be told they have to renounce violence. by now he egypt is spiraling down which the promise like alex g. to our vital national security interest, the most important nation in the arab world. i urge my colleagues and i urge my friend from kentucky to realize that this amendment would send the wrong message that the wrong time. may be coincidental, but this

friday is going to be an important day in egypt. should my -- should we be sending a message said the egyptians, your honor around. other countries in the region are contributing enormously with tough conditions. the support our condemnation of the united states of america, the best and freest. of vital importance, and at this time i think it will be a terrific mistake. the united states to send the message to egypt, you're wrong around. so i hope that we understand that it is not about u.s. foreign assistance. it's not about what serves our interests. it is about what serves our interests and our values, and this my friends that we need to

have over the weeks and months and years ahead and probably one of the best places to have that debate. but today i urge my colleagues no matter how they feel about assistance to egypt, we are committed -- i urge them to appreciate that we are committed to a long debate on this issue. i have confidence in the chairman of the foreign relations committee that we will be addressing this issue seriously of what's the senator from kentucky is a member and would certainly take part. i urge my colleagues to understand that an amendment on housing, transportation, housing , and urban development led appropriations bill is not the venue, and we need to have this debate at only about egypt but america's role in the world. i look forward to joining it. today is not the day to take a step that could help -- have

repercussions that over time could damage the united states by national-security interest. i urge my colleagues to of and up the rand paul amendment. >> madame president. >> the senator from kentucky. >> this is actually precisely the time it should come up because on the infrastructure build a we're looking at this gives americans a chance to a show that a great contrast to do nation-building overseas or nation-building at home. the want to spend billions of dollars in a zipper would rather build some rooms at home? so we provide the perfect contrast. in fact, there could not be a better place to have a discussion on this. we always hear a lot of empty pots and then to promises. we will do this in committee. they don't want this debate. i've been fighting tooth and nail the members of my own party to get this to they then bring it to the floor, bring it to the american people.

but let's be very clear about what the amendment does. it holds military aid until you have an election. it is just obeying the law. so let's be very clear. maybe we should do a summary of what the arguments are. this is a summary of the argument. they love sending american money overseas so much that they don't mind breaking the law. i did not hear one of them here explain how they're going to adhere to the law. the losses military aid in is when they're is a coup. the president says you can't make him sit there is a coupe. there probably is, but he will never say it. who is going to adjudicate? this is about temporarily halting aid. some people rise up and say, oh, we will be closed out. they don't have any money. we give them the money to buy weapons. some have said we want to promote democracy, well, there

is an exemption in this. you can spend as much money as you want. not now. the thing is, we have to understand what this is about. we have to understand that this is about a temporary halting a buying weapons. people say, if we don't give them planes, we don't pay them to buy airplanes that will think we don't like them and go to war with israel. everything will be so much worse. they have hundreds of f-16s. they have thousands of tanks. i am precisely worried about them using them against israel. when there is chaos and blood running in the streets, when there are millions of people protesting. think it's a good time to send more weapons. he think it's a good time to send more weapons when millions of people in the streets? what happens of these weapons are used against israel? the canard of bringing the letter. someone brings a letter in. a spoken to many people who

love, respect, and have a great deal of admiration for is front. i am very proud of the fact that we stand together and so many issues. so to bring it up and say the people who are against this don't care about israel is just a canard. i think that this precisely continues to arm and unstable government in egypt could well be to israel's army command that is precisely why i bring this amendment forward. also, in these to be clear for the record that everyone who has come forward together to some more of your money overseas to send good money after bad, everyone of them was rescinding it to the muslim brotherhood. you hear them talking about islamic jihad this and now they're worried. no, they aren't. there were for funding just months ago. i have had this before. have voted to cut off aid to the muslim brotherhood also. have produced an amendment. they all voted against it then

because we have to do this in a more rational and reasonable pace. no, we aren't. they want the money to continue. doesn't go to the egyptian people. it doesn't buy goodwill. buys ill will. do you know what the money is spent on? tanks. tanks roll over people and protests. no love lost for the muslim brotherhood, but they disappeared them. we will be giving money to the military that is disappearing people. no one heard from president morrissey. those people think he was actually elected. i don't agree with radical islam i don't think you would be a good president for any country. i would not give him any money, but we will give money to people who make others disappear. does anyone remember the soviet union? these and people stand up and say how bad it is that the soviet union made someone disappear. i am with them. i support that. it's terrible. that is what the military is

doing, making people disappear. most of the members of the government have not been seen in days, weeks. we have no idea where they are. no sympathy for them. but all of these people who want to fund the military all want to fund the muslim brotherhood. the only thing consistent about the argument is sending your money to other people. they're is a finite amount of money. detroit liz in ruins. chicago is will violence. their bridges everywhere there is no earmark, and a special money. this is going into the transportation bill. there's nothing in this special for chicago or detroit, but i pointed out that we have problems of home. we should do some nation building here at home. the other side will falsely say you want isolationism. i have for trade, international and global interaction and

diplomacy and all those things. but you think you are gaining making the world a better place by sending a few more f-16s and tanks and tear gas? the thing that is somehow making the world a safer place? no. the bark and his family fly on private jets, dine on caviar and champagne. your money is more likely to bite a chateau in paris for the mubarak family than it is to buy bread for the people of egypt. and they say the egyptian people won't like this anymore if we don't give the money. 70 percent of the egyptian people don't want our money. doesn't go to them. the millions are writing. the hundreds of thousands and terrier square are not writing for american and. fall yen the martial law.

did disappear also. what about human rights? they just recently, the muslim brotherhood tried 16 americans in absentia. that put them in jail. in in all of these same people are afraid to take money away. how do you think leverage with best work? how would we have leverage? maybe if we withheld some made we would have leverage. but if you just give them everything they want all the time any time, the you think it will do something differently? the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again. we have given the age for 30 some odd years. we give a dictator in the condo age for years. she would take a of louis vuitton bag full of other million dollars in cash to paris , spend it on the weekend. your money, our money.

spend on lavish homes. seven palaces. i think mubarak has sixers seven. they steal money. it does not buy goodwill of the people. it buys ill will. it does completely the opposite of everything they say it does. does completely the opposite. so there is a disagreement on this, but the one thing there is not a disagreement on, it's against the law. the republican party maintains the rule of law, and we proudly say that democrats, you don't want the rule of law. the president is a bit is a rule of law. this time many democrats and republicans will fought the rule of law because it says that military aid into the havoc to. does not say you can wait around until it's convenient and that may be can parse out the aid. this is the military aid, very clear about this. and so what the argument is about here is do you believe in

the rule of law? if you do there is no question, you have to vote for this amendment because it simply restates the law. not even creating a lot. restating the law that the a gains in reasons and they're is a collection. so that's not what this amendment does. just amendment enforces the law that every one of these guys, men and women voted for. they voted for this fall. it's been on the books for 30 some odd years and this is a dance and have a military coup. they're all going to vote to bypass the law. they're all supported. every one of the support of this law this is not some extreme position of no aid. this is a position of temporary halting. it is their plan. it is not convenient not to obey the law that the past. this is an important debate. it is not about doing things to harm israel. it's about doing things that actually will be beneficial. it is not about ending all aid.

it's about obeying the law. relief is not even about whether aid is getting a bad. there are a lot of bad things and unintended consequences, but it is not really about that. it's about whether you're going to obey a law or not. so what i would say is think long and hard about this. some said they will do something that is more important and what the people of home want and that there very proud and will stand against the rule of the people. three force of republicans and democrats and they think it's a bad idea to send good money after bad. we do have problems of home, and this could go toward fixing it. well, foreign aid is only 1%. guess what, if you cut 1 percent of the budget each year the budget balances within about five years. many on my side of actually endorse this plan. 1 percent is not an insignificant amount of money. and it is not working. it is doing the wrong things.

i urge a yes vote on that and retain them in their lifetime. >> mr. president. >> the senator from new jersey. >> two minutes. >> without objection. >> there has been a robust debate, but listening to my friend and colleague from kentucky, i appreciate his views. i strongly disagree with them, but above all let's say what it is and what is not about. this is not about mubarak and chateaus. mubarak is gone. the egyptian people decided that. he's gone. and it is not about anybody else. you can complete everything you want to throw it up against the wall. it's a question about whether or not we will continue to pursue our own national interest and national security in egypt in the middle east. ..

>> we ultimately do not have to engage in a world with our military in pursuit of our security. when terrorists cannot organize in egypt, we have to be at home here in the united states and the fate. let us not cut off all aid to egypt in a transportation and housing and development bill when in fact our vital national interests are at stake. no one wants to help american cities more. this is not the way to achieve

it. >> the senator from arizona. >> had in ages given them $13 billion? >> yes. >> the question isn't whether the senator from kentucky knows what is better and the fact is that the israelis are talking about this minute. >> i would assume that israel would talk about security interests amongst themselves. >> yes, the senator's time has expired.

we really have this and other comments printed in the record. >> thank you, sir. >> what is the status right now? in other words, i think we ought to bring this to a close. >> should we engage with egypt? >> yes, we should. they don't see that the engagement is at the end of the junction. when the engagement doesn't quite understand. so buying arms, american tanks and american teargas can be used and it isn't exactly what the

egyptian people had in mind as far as this is concerned. there is no nation saying that they are okay with this. i can tell that they are not too excited about sending morons to use it. there are probably 20 different groups in our country who support this nation of israel and support the allies. i speak with him all the time and i speak with them daily. what i can tell you is if you talk to the grassroots and not to the so-called leadership, you will find a much different story. let me speak to their entire crowd whether they like sending

more weapons to the muslim brotherhood. i think you will find a resounding and 10 resounding no. they are flouting the law and they are actually voting against the law that they all have voted or not. >> the senator from tennessee. >> mr. president, i don't think that most understand that this is how we are addressing foreign policy. in september, the plan of this body is to deal with legal issues regarding egypt and the senator from kentucky's amendment. >> between network emergency, we are leaving our current program.

>> of next come a talk from 2009 from abigail adams. >> i'm immensely grateful to be able to do that. as i show you any acknowledgment of my book, we have uncommon generosity that is a controversy and i'm immensely grateful to the staff.

in particular, the research director and especially in particular maggie hogan, without her there is no way that i could possibly have done this. we are talking about how she and other women affect this revolution. abigail adams, many know that john adams was strong for most of that decade over the last decade of 1774 through 1784. during that decade he put abigail in charge.

especially when working on my previous book, we ran over the adams family finances and abigail knew it much better than her husband. you've heard the saying nothing ventured, nothing gained. john was conservative politically and also in his temperament and finances as well. she scared him with what she did but in the process she made him a rich man. you know that his successors as president, thomas jefferson was at this stage of monticello and when they die, they died so deep in debt. but those two beautiful plantations had to be sold to pay the debt.

not for john adams. of course he had a lot to do with his career, but that ended 50 years before 50 years before his death. he made some money as a lawyer, but i think his financial records survive as well. then we would see pretty good evidence that abigail had at least as much to do with the family's wealth as he did. i had a pet very early on in the project that maybe her success as a financial manager would leave a visible trace in the written record. like many of you interested in the statements he made you all know we have have an excerpt from it there. but she wrote and she talked about women's education, advocating not. a lot of other men besides her husband. so the theory was that maybe if

we take this early and compare it to what she wrote at the end of the war, we see her more fired up. so i want to tell you the pet theory that i have heard of for someone to tell you some of the details. how did they do so well financially? anytime someone is overseas, whether in the united states, it is traditional to send not home. john was over in france of an american diplomat. and abigail said, that would be okay, you can do that if you

want. but i have a better idea. and that is there is a war going on. european goods have very high prices. it is like buying a test of goods and shipping it over. she said the shift over. she said the ship to which mentor to we've known known about that for a long time if you go to the adams family correspondents, there is an inventory of the shipping list. it is 87% being spent on pork items that are being distributed for resale. but it's one is one of the best reason i have to admit that i have not solved. whether it is not respectful for

the life of a diplomat, that is possible. there were lots of women in boston. and abigail adams was definitely one of the ladies that was at the forefront. many thought it was a respectable, and this is a the area where within the book, when a ship was captured by the enemy, it was traditional to let the crew and passengers keep the passengers keep their personal items. so maybe the reason john referred to these as for family use is that maybe if they were captured, they would not be seized. i'm not sure. but the reality is that one of the early shipments that he sent abigail was theirs. and he wrote his wife saying that i don't want to meddle in this anymore. but abigail wrote him back and said, look, it is true, this is a dangerous business.

but the few ships that can run the blockade and get her to boston, the people can name their own price. she said if 13 arrives, i will gain. which is the 18th century version of you just don't get it, do you. [laughter] but he did get it and he continued in these shipments continued and they have some fascinating influences on the relationship between husband and wife. they have been debating for sometime and maybe there were some couples have had this debate whether to buy a new vehicle. so okay, some of you have. one of the way, he was a good and frugal new englander. and she said we have to get more shares in the prices are up for these things, even though they are made in massachusetts.

and he sent her a shipment in 1780 of barcelona handkerchiefs. they were a women's item at that time mostly. they happened to hit right in the middle of a terrible shortage of that particular item. she sold them for enough money to buy this and what could jones said. she bought with her own money. so in that same year, john adams had an idea. he said to abigail that having some of our shipments seized, instead of putting them in these big chests and shipping them across the atlantic, i will disperse them and ask everyone who goes to take a little thing for you and even though the

great individual of this war, and those that stick around here, when he came home in the spring of 1780, he brought some stuff for abigail to sell. and once again abigail wrote her husband saying that if that is the way you want to do it, that is what we will do. but if you want to disperse your shipments like that, you're going to have to be sending these and you have to buy wholesale. and she convinced him. and the remaining shipments came and then john was involved in the process. she wrote straight to the amsterdam merchants and they sent it directly to her. and she did quite well. and another source of income

occurs and i hate to use that phrase car because it was a long-term investment that did not pay off from the war. by the time the indians have been driven out of vermont. but it had not been thickly settled by europeans coming up from other colonies. so it was the wild frontier and a great place to speculate. because everyone knew that it was eventually going to be settled. also a risky place to do that because they claimed most of vermont as part of new york's territory. so the people like ethan allen and his famed mountain boys were also fighting new york and new hampshire so some of these representatives came to abigail adams and said, wouldn't you like to buy early some of this land in vermont on behalf of your husband. and she did.

and there was a limit to how many acres you could buy, but she bought one of these acres. she bought one on behalf of her husband in each of her four children. the only person on whose behalf she did not buy one of these plots was for herself. because she was a married woman and married women could not control properties. but even her little daughter, this was 1878. she has not yet reached her 20th birthday. and she got one, as did her brothers. so abigail with a local worried about what john would think about this idea. and she said, i think he will think i am mad. and he did actually think that. he wrote her saying that you shouldn't meddle anymore with

vermont. and initially i thought the story ended there, but it did not. because although she didn't buy any more tracts of land, she did keep pushing john to try to buy more land in vermont. i told you that the married women cannot control property back then. she inherits land, she can prevent her husband from selling it. she has a veto on him selling their land and abigail had a little wind from her mom and said i know you don't want this land in northboro. who cares about that. but if you will buy more land in vermont, i will let you sell this land in north dakota. it's an example of her negotiating constantly with him. not unfamiliar to those of us that are married but not exactly what we expect from the revolutionary era family. the third way that she made money was one that i stumbled

across here by working at the massachusetts historical society. i was reading the adams family correspondence. maggie hogan is the editor of edge and she kept talking about notes. i want vice more notes. i wasn't sure what she meant by notes. but it eventually became clear that what she was doing was speculating in government securities. and i think the best thing to call her would be a junk bond dealer. and as you know, nearly everyone, including the two that were involved, it puts the country in debt. and that was especially true of the first war. the continental army was not able to pay his men money. he basically paid them in promises. so i think the soldiers got

something called final settlement certificates to settle out. this was often in large denominations and the soldiers got these bonds while they were still in the army camp and they had to get home. so some of these guys had no money. you have to buy food and they would go out with these bonds to get real money and no one would give them face value for the bonds. they got sometimes less than 10 cents on the dollar. if you are selling one of these, you got 10% of the face value. there is one soldier from near west point and the hudson river, not a very fun trip. he says that he took all of the bonds that he was paid fighting in the revolutionary war.

and he had been in the army for six years. he took his bonds and he sold them and didn't get face value but just enough money to pay for a new set of clothes. a new set of clothing in his travel expenses home and that was his day for his six years in the continental army. then the soldiers get home and they face incredibly high taxes. one of the main promoters of shays rebellion. because the state government was levying taxes no longer in the hands of soldiers, but in the hands of speculators. so this was a real rip off from the soldiers standpoint. from a speculators standpoint, this is a very profitable investment. one of the early security securities that she bought, a

100-dollar bond for $25 -- it's easy, $24. the interest was the 6% a year and not 6% to 100, getting $6 per year, her initial investment was $24. so then she's making 25% annual return on her investment. and john didn't like the idea when she first reported it to him. he did not like speculators may have both the means and the motivation to manipulate the government in their favor. and he also had an alternative way to invest money, and that was land.

he said linda is the only thing that matters. scarlett o'hara's father. because land, that was the only safe investment. and it is safer for the public and the person. it was one of those senators whose political independence and he always had the option of returning to his land. so that was part of his incorruptibility. abigail said that is all well and good, but you're making about 1% annual return and i am making 25%. eventually she saw the wisdom

and not even as he was denouncing bond speculation. he allowed her to make her a large-scale von speculator and she said to join him after the war in the summer of 1784 and there was a wonderful letter that he wrote after abigail had not joined him. >> we apologize again for having to interrupt our programming. here now is in and. >> you talking about what took place in the auditorium this was probably one of my same

point. that same session of the senate was also the day that in quick succession, our staff is working on this and we are gathered together working on this. at the time, we were talking about the director of governmental affairs. so the ball as it had been working on immigration reforms, we had been working on this and we were on this together and in quick succession we went from immediate elation to really crushing defeat. when the dream act went down. and i remember the president and i had just talked about this on friday. i mean, he came upstairs and he we were all there. he knew how hard it would be for half of the teams. those who really in tears.

just remembering how hard it had been and how hard everyone had struggled on this issue and how hard everyone is working right now as they try to get close get close to the end. >> gets them where they actually deal with real people. >> yes, real people that were of esoteric nature. not just meeting with groups, but real people. we had service members and those who are afraid of losing their jobs. their spouses and partners within their loved ones off to be deployed. never knowing if they could tell their workers if they had a deployed loved ones and what would would happen to that level and if that loved one had an injury. and how would they find out. and then there were these tweet kids. we sat to meet with the dream act kids on campus. we still have to go somewhere else. they couldn't come in the white

house because they would be flagged as they do not admit. and they could potentially get picked up. so we had to kind of sort of go outside to meet with them. >> the council of women and girls. are you still in charge of that? what have they done tonight because it's not something that you hear much about. we think is the biggest challenge they face? >> some of this was coming in rather than creating a separate office of policy, which many remember there is a wonderful one and there's another one that is separate that quickly went away. it wasn't easy office to just eliminate. what we decided to do was create a new council counsel and that is really every federal agency. so instead of a separate office

to think about the issue of women and girls and in everything they do. this is an effort to mainstream that's including the dna and what they always think about. whether it is transportation and i talk about them a lot. but they have done great stuff on promoting engineering and what has been going on at the dod. obviously hhs and justice. so i think that we see this and what i think has been very constant as far as a drumbeat of issues. we have pushed hard for things like the tax credit that helps low income women and it is embedded deeply into all of the tax policy work we have done. and we have international issues and i am really into the u.n.

general assembly and every single multilateral economic forum that the president has attended. the issues of promoting the political empowerment of women and girls is front and center. it is not a side issue that is off to the side. all of these multilateral conversations. so that is some the work that we did. we have tried to embed that with every single one of our allies in our bilateral relationships. let's talk about the speaking of being in a female environment and let's talk a little bit about your transition. your transition to to the staff

as the first lady. you've been working in proximity to the president and the political people, that is just a few steps away. then there is the east wing, which is a universe in some residencies away from the west wing and it is a physical distance as well. so how was that adjustment for you to move out of the policy world's and policy matters. how is a transition in and let me add a second question to that first question. and every single administration without exception, the first lady's office complains that the men in the west wing don't take you seriously, it's kind of annoying, oh, here she comes, so

talk about the transition for you, which is on unusual going boy from the west wing tv screen. and talk about what it was like to try to make the first lady's issues as much of a priority as clearly you would like them to be when the west wing thinks it has other priorities. >> that's interesting. okay, to the first question, and i really never talked about this. >> we love that. >> okay, so we say that i told you that i never expected to be here. i don't think the way folks think. there was a moment when i was considering this where was exactly what he said. west wing to east wing. and i caught myself and said, well, like a never used to care about stuff like that. what happened to you in two years. and now it's like a thing.

okay so there was that moment. but the flipside is that, you know, sitting down with the first lady to talk about this and the possibility of this. someone that is a friend, someone that i know of. but someone that i have had to watch making a transition. especially when she is done with the platform. the idea of coming over. and we have not launched joining forces yet. so one of my first tasks was to pull this out, which was a very exciting prospect to do. it was still an idea and an incubation and we launched it in april of that year. about four months later. so the transition after that moment was not that hard. it was made easier. just with some structural things right at that very moment.

and so he made the decision, which helped enormously with your second question. he made the decision to add me to the president's senior advisor team that meets in the chief of staff office formally at 730 am. that helps a lot. because that sort of -- not knowing that, you know, the president is giving a big economic speech this afternoon, that's one way. it feels from my perspective and from the first lady's as well, a very seamless set of information and flow and priority setting between the west wing and the swing right now. dennis has continued this as well. i think that what the boys in the west wing care about and the girls in the east wing think,

that we have the most popular person in the white house, but i think that the power of this when she decides to step out and take something on like military families, everyone would really appreciate the power of this. she has been able to bring this light that she is able to shine on a set of issues. you know in that way as well. a lot of the issues are right in this part of the administration. they have concern for veterans and military families and we are right or not. so we really have all these amplified priorities. >> was there a learning curve for you? i can imagine because it was such a different position.

>> i had never been on foreign travel with the president. so about we took a latin america trip and that was sort of an astonishing learning curve. just the numbers of people it takes to move he and the first lady around especially overseas. there was a moment when the deputy chief of staff when we arrived in brazil, was kind of following along to go to the red carpet into the presidential path where they are being received. there is a moment that we have to follow, doing my job, following her down. and we're running on the site here. [laughter] >> so yes, there was a learning curve.

>> so is she a tough boss? [laughter] >> as i said before, we are very similar, she and i have gone through lawyer training, we are sharp critical thinkers. so really we think a lot of like the same things, pretty similar way. in that way that is why when we roll out and she speaks about something, she will not go out and talk about something, she really understands it and she knows what the message is and it's authentic or sell. if it's not what she doesn't understand it was like how do you communicate that issue, if the policy people don't break it down she will challenge them. i don't think it's tough but it's just smart. otherwise she is incredibly

accessible and warm even to the most junior staff. it's a great place to work. >> you talked about the military families what they have done in the first lady's office. this is an interesting issue. you've been involved since 2008 and you have been very involved and i'd like for you to talk about what you've done. much of this happens below the radar. but i also wonder why you think it is that the country doesn't seem to care as much as you would expect about what is going on with these families who have been off fighting wars and they are fighting these wars that are continuing redeployments interact and afghanistan. what have you been able to do and how that is it for these families? >> the objective has really been

two to raise awareness and and that is one thing to of the things we hope to try to do. the other is there are several specific areas in education and wellness to mobilize the goodwill of the country in that regard. you know, the president made a challenge two years ago to higher hundred 50,000 over the course of the next four years. we have actually surpass that. so we have 290,000 plus and growing of companies that have stepped up and those are actually hires. for that is one area in which it is a huge problem. if you have looked at what we had been, we were down 70%. the most recent report shows that unemployment is about on par with the general unemployment rate, which is

really good news. alan krueger has worn me that we shouldn't rest on those laurels. those kinds of challenges continue into other areas where you have military families and those who have kids and this man, when his child graduated from high school, his child has been to 10 different schools. that's from kindergarten to the end of high school. that's not an unusual circumstance for a military trial. so how do we make schools accept credit. and how do we make communities welcome these kids. then the issue on wellness and what we need to confront with mental health and illness issues and making sure we have resources for the families and we have a wonderful initiative where medical schools and nursing schools and schools have all agreed to institute extra

curriculum and their schools that will change these issues confronting military families. it is tough. it is really tough for this family. i did not have a lot of exposure before i came to military in washington. what's interesting is to meet and become friends with some money. their courage and dedication to our country, the sacrifices, there is nothing harder and we talk about it every year at the mother's day tea. >> doesn't seem like it's something that breaks through in the public discussion. what he think that is? >> well, i think it is because these wars, when you tell some

people that we have been at war for a decade, most have not experienced this for a decade. we have experienced everything else. but this is all volunteer and all military and most of us, in chicago there is no military base. there's the great lakes. we don't see or experience military families like you can in other places. >> we are day-to-day confronted but not directly with the sacrifice. so most of us along our usual lives. and that is one of the things we've tried to do. we have tried to do an event early on joining forces in los angeles with directors and writers and actors. as well as producers and we have tried to encourage them, which you see trying to get to incorporate more of these stories. so you have stories that are coming out to try to bring a more to the forefront. like major league baseball has

done a great job. people magazine has demonstrates we have had a lot step up in the popular press to do that. but i believe that we need more. here's the challenge that we now confront. we are going to separate over the course of the next 45 years, 1 million members will come out of the service because we have end of the wars and because we are down in the military. we will have 100 service members coming back. that is a huge challenge. and i feel quite strongly that we have a sacred obligation to these people for the rest of their lives to make sure that they have careers and that their kids are taken care of well. make sure that it is something that we collectively really need to take on. and let's talk lets talk about let's move, which is the initiative of the first lady that many are familiar with. she has raised consciousness

with this initiative. healthy eating to fight obesity in children. we have seen the call to more exercise. but what hasn't really accomplished, the first lady's initiative? >> i get this question a lot. it's like they think that if this really is the issue. so i want you all to dial back for years. four years ago was anyone talking about putting good food back in schools and were we really talking about the sugary sodas. actually we were not. we were challenged to think back and childhood obesity was something that health experts thought about. some child advocates thought

about. we have the severe epidemic happening. and people who were the average were so overwhelmed that there was no way to break through. she is the one who changed that. the fact that it now looks like an easy issue, right? the fact that every other day you have another company that is touting a healthy choices and there's more fruits and vegetables and that is a daily conversation. there is always a huge section because there is an article about this issue every day. i really didn't happen for years ago. and i really believe that the first lady is the change that made that happen. that brought the things together and broke it down to say that this is a solvable issue and this is about getting information out there and it went to people like disney and wal-mart, to get them to change what they are doing.

i realize there are a lot of specific things we can go through. the nature of the conversation, i really do think that's what she did. >> so she has done a very good job of not antagonizing the president's opponents further. she has done a good job of staying out of the political fray. but now we are in the crunch time of the president's most important to his legacy and clearly most controversial initiative, which is the affordable care act, which is about to go live in several weeks. will we hear her speaking out on not and will she take a public role? >> well, i don't know. the short answer is i don't know. obviously, she has always talked about healthy families. which is we have always talked about the affordable care act backs when we tried to pass the act. we did a couple of events where

she talked about women's health trying to get affordable care costs. and she spoke about it on her campaign. and she has said that it's one of the major achievements and accomplishments. she and the president are most proud of it. we talked about this in our conversations. as you pointed out, this is honestly one of our biggest priorities and i think that everyone in the administration is all for this. >> okay, so let's talk about you and your interesting career. [laughter] >> before open us this up, let's talk about your personal background. so u.n. into litigation in a very tough law firm. i'm guessing they're probably not a lot of women in the position he wound up. >> definitely not a lot of asian women. [laughter] >> that's interesting. all right. so what do you do that in the first place.

and what was a white to share personal stories and to be part of a small minority of women and smaller minority of asian women. >> i haven't thought about that. well, i guess that i'm not really a shy or quiet person. but i did love the vigor of the legal arguments and i liked to be briefed. every aspect of doing this is something that i really loved and enjoyed. i did like the kind of rigor which was very high and tough cases. so that was pretty challenging.

the intellectual stimulation i loved. i was fortunate enough to have this high-end stuff mixed in with what we mentioned, a very public law practice that had just happened like circumstance where i get a lot of cross-section work in illinois in the public housing system and the medicaid system. just sort of fed the public interest. and it kind of has a great prevailing tradition. by the time i left chicago i had to resign for 10 not-for-profit boys and 10 boards and you know, being a woman is difficult. the top level of can be

challenging. i was the only woman in a roomful of men. the only one on a defense team. but it was great training and it teaches you a lot about speaking up and speaking your mind and persevering. >> as he navigated that is a woman, what were you saying to yourself as you try to be successful and not? >> well, a couple of things. it is hard to self promote. i believe that women have a much harder time self-promoting. that is a hard thing to learn to do. i learned through painful experience they need to do more self-promotion and two throws some sharp elbows.

but i have done that with my opponents. but it is hard to learn within your own office or firm that you have to throw some sharp elbows as well. that is the part that i think women tend to talk about. and you know, that kind of self-promotion, you know, it is something that is part of the work world that is very hard for young people to learn of both genders. how to take care of her own career and believe in yourself and promote yourself. because it's not like school. where there is a teacher that will help usher you along. and the work world it is just you. you're the only person who is in charge of your career at that point. it's a hard lesson for young people to learn. >> that is good advice.

okay so on top of everything else, in case you haven't figured this out, this is a complete and total workaholic who, by the way, do not try this at home, is legendary for sleeping four hours a night and people get e-mails from her in the middle of the night and wonder what the heck she's doing. on top of that personality and the work you are doing. you are a single mom and decided to adopt a second child. >> yes. >> why did you do that? >> all right, well, i had a son when i was married. by the time i decided to adopt but not my daughter, patrick was a six or seven year old. a wonderful child. but the only child of divorced parents come as you can imagine. i mean, he was wonderful, but

quite the prince of the family. and also i'm sitting at my kitchen table and you have these dreams. there's no longer a baby in the house. there was a front-page article at the time and this is before chinese adoptions were really known. and the suburban family adopted a little girl from chicago. and it struck a chord. had this story been about el salvador and baby boys, maybe i wouldn't have thought about it. but my parents came from shanghai. and in many ways it was a glimpse of what my life could've been could have been like. and here are these little girls. it just seemed like it was the right thing to do.

it took about two years ago through the process. patrick, i will never forget when he was interviewed by the social worker. and he said you know, i'm coming out of this and that sort of profound to do in this direction. >> so you must've had work and life balance challenges. >> well, i did. that is one of the things i'm proud of what we did. we held the first conference on workplace issues and i felt so strongly about that. but i also knew that i had the ability to have great help. i had someone works for me and another person who moved out here with me who is working with

me for 13 years and i was just really lucky that i can afford to do it. this is the thing that i know and i feel very strongly about it is that i was just very lucky that i had the resources to do it and have my children cared for by someone i completely trusted. to be able to go to work without worrying about them. it's a little hard. you know, it's hard without anxiety can do and what it can be like. it can be impossible to imagine the low income mom struggling to jobs with the kids at home, you know, trying to get home. i'm very passionate what we need to figure out how to make our workplaces more accommodating to not just women but women and men who work together and that is the key to succeeding as a country. we have to accommodate our home

life and do that at all levels whether your hourly low-wage or executive. it is interesting. because this is the issue that everyone cares about. both parents want to get their kids at the end of the day. there are some companies that have done a great job. campbell's soup, best buy, this is not an impossible thing to do or did i firmly believe this is one that enhances the bottom line and we just need to figure out a way. >> final question before we open this up to the group. do you have any advice? we have aspiring to be successful women here. what kind of advice based on all of the hard knocks to get where you are in the private and public sector would you most want to share?

>> it is interesting because i have seen it play out fairly recently and sometimes you have to speak up. i often told the story that you have to get over the first five minutes. that was my first tagline. so i remember my situation as a litigator, i have done a lot of deals. and so the business was like this and we talk about the deals gone bad. and we had one have one of those were my white male corporate partner is taking me into the room with a client who has a big problem. so for the first 15 to 20 minutes while he is explaining

the problem. so all of this is going to my partner and it's right here. and he doesn't need to know any of this information. and you just have to let it go. and then because of the moment, you have to trust that the moment will come and this guy doesn't have the answer. that is why i am there. so i start to lay out what it is we are going to do and how we are going to do it. and we became great friends by the end of the case. i walked out and i said, did you see what happened in there and he was oblivious. he had no idea that that was the dynamic. but i think a lot of folks get intimidated. i see a lot of women. you are in the room, you are at the table, you got there. you are in a briefing with the

president of the united states. use it because you are there for a reason. you have a point of view, so speak up. i probably sound like cheryl stemberg. but it is a little bit of that point. but it is more specific to the point that i have seen it happen. i was in a briefing. she had the answer, but she didn't speak up. i can feel myself in some moments. you just have to swallow hard and speak up of and the worst thing is that people will say they disagree. and that's not so terrible. you should really speak up and advance yourselves democrats very good advice. >> you know, we need the answer in life. >> okay, with that, we would

like to open it up for questions. we have about seven or eight minutes here for questions. and please identify yourself. >> okay. >> someone is running over to you with a microphone. >> hello, my name is judy. there have been councils on women and girls since eleanor roosevelt convinced john kennedy to be her supporter on the campaign. having served on the council of women and girls in the way it was led, i think that we realized several things. the most important was that government can do this much. and i think that the reason that question was relevant, it isn't because a lot hasn't been done in transportation. but it is because the private sector can multiply this by a factor of thousands.

if you could reach out for the council had a whole unit and not a small group of private sector, and i think long ago you were planning and trying to do this. but you are also overwhelmed. and we tried to talk to them and we are the place that should have childcare centers and we need to do gender measurements and so on and so on. ..

the. >> end the recovery pay for violations but your point the way things are going in congress to space get there right now. but i actually think that the climate in the private sector will change because it realizes that they have

done that study of the talent pool and they have got to change the way they organize if they want to proceed in the coming years. so what we need to do is to guarantee momentum going. we are thinking about it. >> what a great set up. we actually struggle with 50 percent of the population is reflected by less than 25% in the industry but what is unique is your present economic empowerment which is a huge issue we make a lot of great things in this country and we traditionally have benefits which is

important we're striving to do better with flexibility in the workplace but as a female executive in manufacturing had read better leverage the council to get the word out? people don't know the great opportunities by how weak talk about the opportunities for women and girls so we could leverage you are doing too well be due to close the gap. >> but talking about but it is the of bully pulpit is where we will be rehab exhausted ourselves with the first two legs of this tool that is what keeps me up at night but it is now four

years will we can do on this issue. i have heard a law similar to what you are saying that we don't know how to do but i think there is a lot we don't know how to do. but we want to do the right thing as well but there are things there equal pay issues were there not paid equally but if you bring it back at company will address that a fair level right away. but they actually have a process of wealth and transparency to look at it and what is there job and then to openly take a look at that but rather they and

seen that as a secretive issue that it will be more beneficial. so one thing that we've seen through is the way that some things are happening various places in the economy to make it more mainstream to make it the norm that there is some good practice and that will work. this doesn't tell us right now where you got it but what about 10 years from now we move up in the ranking? [laughter] >> i was reminded you are

talking about four years ago we sat in your office in the dominican republic in you riccio to the real people to know what is happening but in terms of u.s. policy in some of the struggles they were having it has been remarkable of what has been accomplished policy liza's women and girls to have the initiative so what do you see as these last the legacy? and also how do we make that

last? >> thank you. one of the things that is a little the answer is with the future initiative when called upon to lew challengers else to promote economics. and then to solidify that the thin with the general assembly with the commission of women we will do it again in september they sit around

a and a challenge each other. but the broader question is i feel through the secretary clinton leadership we're at a moment to the business place is why you promote the little girl. talk about the rogue bank bank, it is demonstrable he been in our own country. so we hear there's a know it is a question with that understanding of actual on the ground benefits whether it is our japan your ship with the large cap business level. to really change the political empowerment across the country but we're at a moment where that is why

what we talk about with international with the economic side of it because of the prosperity across the board so that has solidified as a strategy around the globe that is what i would ask and then all of a sudden somebody asks in and it is put together an a minute. they will spend their entire life to promote women in a

and girls which is why it is translated which what i am proud of and how is pulled all together and also many ideas. [laughter] >> that will have to be the final word because we're out of time. that was terrific. we've learned a lot and we got some good device. i want to thank you very much for spending your time with us today. [applause] the. >> i also want to thank you for coming and we have the video if you want to relive it. [laughter] they're all so complimentary copies but and how old you

to be to have a job that is really interesting. thank you very much.

[inaudible] blue girl were tears late to green genuine reform in thisan is the mission of the reformefoe committee. we're starting to fret this morning said democraticsion. colleagues had a meeting with the president here on the hill so they will join11:00i us a and they have gone to raur testimony but they will tho miss the oral testimony at he the beginning.re but i believe the opening statement from the fourve the og witnesses will begin.

but we're grateful foreful for o everyone to be here. with kiev this of committeetatif compcated of obamacare well what we have talked about maybe dash bent the rules adopted to rewrite the law to make political objectivesers of democrats with the overwhelming majority passed a lot to extend this federal government's scope of american health care choices re subsidies.move mandated rules in taxes and subsidies.p and then have the state said enatheex state based exchange s then only those that operateub their own hall of the exchange. and then specifically withnonpr the governmental agency in section 40 no one in thedies pro subsidy is provided monthlyed hh

with a qualified health plan in rolled through the by exchange by the states under section 1311.yst is me clea and then to make clear theforwa. link wages straightforwardee but mr. cleary textural analysis would likely lead tha y tohe conclusion of the irsorit to issue the premium tax credit only to situations the esat the taxpayer is enrolled in the state exchange so the irs t interpretation of those in dicte the federal exchange would be contrary to congressional intent in likely be deemed invalid. at the d time congress passedupe it they predicted it would become more powerful and more that the states would make their own exchanges all of 34 states have refused to participate leaving the building to the governmented e so those that will extend the tax credit is substantial.

the cbo has said roughlyghly some charles willey% of the cost associated this newesng. federal spending and adding hundreds of billions of dollars that was not authorized by congress. second of the subsidies of the employer mandate so theyfacl face a large tax penalty ifng they get subsidies so then it harms many workers wereo and they choose not to create the exchange. e my state of oklahoma is one of those states. my leaders decided to protect workers and employers from the employeremple ll face inx penalties to protect future generationsith tr by not reading a stated stage that was thereofhin th should but now the irs ruletates has invalidated my state's in decision in now adding to the federal deficit. t year

focusing on the treasury process that has been considered and then it is consistent thethe irs iris was given an enormousre prt role to implement manydits obamacare provisions but those that are available the federal exchanges does not tiem to even consider or atten inve substantial time or oly has ason forn the ira's only had a single wave of the interpretation but they'lld choose not to operate theirstato own after several pointedveral out that what was inconsistent with thentators int statute rather than doing the unbiased review it appears this individual only sought the information for the predetermined conclusion the taxpayers would be informaoo available for federal irs and treasury iras and treasury officials could not remember details are provided evidence that they may have considered in

virtually no evidence tonce to support the assertion theyrtion carefully consider theuage of t language and the legislativexame history. lette for example, in a letter tosecrt noone chairman eisa it was stated there is no discernible pattern to how congress term -- use the the cof term and that then they didhe us they did not categorize the term e pathan of the exchanges to look for a pattern so we're looking for more clarification about irs said treasuries carefulirs and consideration of the statute for casillas for it toversatn. hearing from several witnesses on the panel fory all prospective and die withspei i mentio our o conversations as the rankingon member, as willncu come at the conclusion of our statement and all

members help will have additional seven days to put statements on the record and i now recognize our firstthe sth panel. future new general from -- and the chief executive officer from health advocates inc. in this is senior counsel thank you for being here. and a professor of law at case western withtaxati representation withoutto expand representation in publishedal o. in the journal of law and all f medicine and thank you for being here.testif it all witnesses need to be sworn in before theyraise ight h testify. please rise and raise your right hand. do solemnly swear and affirmthee and the testimony you're about to give is the truth, so -- the whole truth

so help you god?l ask yodilemma the of record reflect the real answer and affirmative. i will give you receive you go beyond five and is the get bonus points if the bill less than five. now you are up to bat. we would be happy to receive your testimony. >> members of the lanord membommittee from reporting a thank you for inviting me r appear before you todayu fo to present concerns of the affordable care act and the and legal and economic implications and actions taken by the ira's the treasury department in the u.s. department of hhs this is a critical issue for oklahoma and every one of the 34 states that chose not to establish the stateo health care exchange provided to us by congress with the serious ramifications that this the subcommittee is given toving thes te concerns but i would fi like to be clear about myout myi intentions regarding health

care hepolicy for public comments will not focus on or the need for health carechoices reform or the policy choices but the responsibility ofresponi neralttorney general is toli preserve the rule of law to give meaning in the fact to to which you have passed. heen congress passed thea state health care lot it was toderal . give the states as a choice.choc it included a set ofbenefits consequences and benefits the states had to consider as a jim indicatedr poli policymakers did go through the process and deliver to fashion. ofhe among the outcomes of those estl not to establish a exchanges t the consequence of theof no subsidy but they have all benefits and no penaltiesndate e with the employer mandate.

other stakeholders thoroughlyd reviewed theed undee options under the affordableare care active thought they not would establish no healthexch care changed after the decision was made they main finalize the rules of the main benefit no large employer penalty.hoice congress provided thises in th choice now e their irs is tryine to take that away by rules caty.s acting as a super legislative body by enacting legislation that congress did not authorize it complex and when informed regulatorspu w ignored public warnings and the in fact, many months before it was early as made as early as 2011 with these respe o concerns.the irs do not h they do not have the acc authority to expand access other than what is written in the law and theppears regulation and peers with ared

policies with thef a law implementation of the law this passed by congress.s i had a loss in the eastern district of oklahoma his challenging therity o a affordability of the affordable care act so to lead the charge against the rogue agencies oklahomas position has been critical from the beginning of a er vies theployer penalties not only violates the law but cripples businesses with burdensome requirements andm-sio already struggling to meet the need of thousands of employees when one qualifies for this s subsidy but until now the obama demonstrationay te says the way that demonstrates and acknowledges the of large employeran mandate is abusinessa harmful midday in businesses and again it is a large

business under the statute in oklahoma. if the ada said some players be that exemption should be recognized a end in four states and we appreciate thecusn committees' focus on thathe gree these are of great okloma importance to oklahoma for the stability of growth in rule of law are fightues on balf continues on behalf of it seeksr citizens within its circumvent e authority to circumvent the of lot and we also welcomesight tingressional oversight a look foonr to answering for questions you may have. you. c thank you.stay mr. >> mr. chairman and members of the committee did morning am cha thank you of your service the forgotten taxpayer of the forgotten man nine and a 29 year in st. louis . my care of patients as the

leading them to long-term health it was accountable, the i for both the clinical and economic outcome of ourcare patients who in 1982 was prepaid one person at a time pad and being paid to keep our beneficiaries happy, we intervene early and often to to long-atever time and resource necessary to bring stem to long-term health with the medical cost ratio of 60% per this is happening on a scale of 40,000 membersed n that of the advantage plan in 2003.eing he ladi gs being healthy cost west bid being sick ands please understand the implication of all medicarethodu beneficiaries were cared for in this method you could cut

nothing and solve the greatest by michel crisis of overtime with a $70 trillion medicare obligation to the pairs of the medicare tax we achieve this by aligning the incentives of the physician with the long-term health is crucial it also liberates medicare lestructive regulation but now i have to said about to replicate thesee methods butunatelycare unfortunately it doesng a sicking but to create a newreman entitlement. they give more government with moren government it is thee

doubly important the health care plan and give economic responsibility for health decisions in the sure richer reward because i need them to model with our customers heaw petitions we have gradually been increasing the deductible while expanding folin said health savings account now they will limit the deductible but we would makemum it as high as the maximum contribution to help the employees fund it. this gives ownership with the necessary cost in thin cessary. is not necessary to also have a higher premium and co-payments or not thes policwith diabetes recommendations in these are good for the employees' savi health and the savings wel account as well nowpolicies

obamacare calls these discrimind policies discriminatory and governmes them. this is a clear example ofining government proponents -- promoting and maintainingll t prevent salt one dash preventive bill this it is not for anyone's fault but unacceptable but it is good c to be candid about unhealthytop. behavior because that will motivate them toto d stop otherwise it is enabling just like the parent of the alcoholic those to opposeior that behavior promotes toreasinh maintain be ill this evil is premature death in increasesw og cost of this is obamacare makes entitlements to codify obesity and cigaretteabuse le them tod other traces to

not be demonstrated against fere i cannot help might use to w theunder the employer include t the irs is dynoring the law of writingsi it for the subsidy to ouri or a penalty misery otectingt there for protecting my employs from and help the benefit design and higher cost in t protecting might company i i am not a criminal i don'tmployes need that for the future in the mandate discouragees earsonal responsibility this h is jerry for good health to enable self-inflicted illness the oregon medicaid expansion enables beneficiaries to resume a ese are since taking orders angarettes is no disincentive is this is why we joined kathleen sebelius to overturn youry by t congressional authority by the irs to right the law.

maetplace ated my career to reforming health care from t thehe marketplace so we could co continue thent plan for thefor i high quality low-cost for many people in our town. the patient care in understanding the economics cannot beud replaced bys fa faraway bureaucrats this isizinn america is demoralizing to lew bit -- to beg of that ofam r which i knaiow best in them mus well-trained please join metfulo to first do no harm. thankfully -- respectfully. >>. cmittee f >> orthank you very much

mr. chairman in the aluatetee for inviting me today trying to the eye if the affordable care actlable toe should be fully available to all individuals on the prescribe or by thed exchanges whether facilitated by state government or federal government. i believe that they should io.nt's intpretat i believe the treasury department interpretation is cos correct in the courts mustwill defer to it and they will not overturn it to a and co-pane anchael panelist have a contrary claim and do so i believe because they adopt what i would respectfully t call thehe quarantine approach to the statutory interpretation to 0an ont insert provisions of the act and one in particular opposed to that of context